Life In 19x19

Amelia wrote:...


Joaz warned that this thread is starting to go off course and I can see why. Think of it as threatening of personal attacks, to speak in go terms...

Disagree. The course of this thread has been relevant to the original topic. The OP is about a particular instance of KGS admin decisions.

This isn't going anywhere. No one is going to get anything out of this discussion. No excuses, no changes in KGS admin politics, no new understanding. I think everyone understood what's going on and has heard enough to make their own opinion on the case.

Agree!

Please take a deep breath, and consider how much of your time you want to keep discussing this topic instead of playing a game or reading a book.

I can't say that this discussion is not interesting to me. Otherwise, I wouldn't be responding. Not reading a thread about KGS admins is always an option.

Kirby wrote:Disagree. The course of this thread has been relevant to the original topic. The OP is about a particular instance of KGS admin decisions.

With "off course" I didn't mean it was getting off topic (sorry I'm not a native speaker).
I just meant that the tone of this discussion is getting increasingly agressive (that's my sentiment) even if the line hasn't been crossed yet. In this context, it's normal and reasonable for Joaz to put on his admin hat, and I don't see the point of quoting the TOU at him.

raptor wrote:

Bantari wrote:

palapiku wrote:KGS has a reputation for having rude admins. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, almost 10 years.
KGS also has a reputation for nothing ever changing. This has been the case for as long as I can remember, almost 10 years.

So, complaining will get you nowhere. If you are really bothered by this, why not help get Kaya or Nova off the ground by playing there instead. Personally, I find it easier to just self-censor myself more than I usually do.

Sweet...
And what is the guarantee that Kaya or Nova won't be in the same place KGS is now in next to no time? They will also need admins, and I assume they will be a ragtag group of volunteers as well, no? Or will they be paid as employees and thus held to different standards?

Which brings me to the question I already asked before, but it was simply brushed off then. Namely:
What is the actual business model of Kaya? From what I understand, two people (at least) left their jobs to work on Kaya - and they are doing an excellent (full time?) job - so it stands to reason they expect Kaya to support them at some point. How?

Same goes for Nova, although I know/care less about it.

Anybody has any idea about all that?!?

Well this is just a far-fetched theory but if wms puts up the same effort for picking admins as he does for fixing bugs, adding features and processing logical arguments brought up by people suggesting fixes and features then we could probably safely assume that Kaya admins will be pretty different from KGS admins.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great ,
any admin who picks a name like that, or maybe a name with "Great" or "Big" in it without it being an obvious pun (say his playing account is prefixed "Small") is kind of suspicious in the first place. For players such names are obviously funny, but admins, especially those who like to hand out bans, should maybe keep some self-moderation even if it is just a formality.

Well, this is just my theory, but:

1.
Admins don't grow on trees, and you - almost by definition - have to have a certain type of personality to volunteer to put your time into being an unpaid admin on a free server.

2.
There is always great dedication and enthusiasm towards a project during the initial development phase. Once the time comes to grind and do the thankless maintenance and deal with petty users demanding more free stuff year after year - this dedication and enthusiasm often diminishes.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.
But I think it is naive to try to judge how it will be 10 years to the future by how it is now.

Any theories about the intended business model?

Have we overlooked the possibility that Joaz misspoke/used an unfortunately ambiguous word? Criticism can mean "your proof has an error on line 4" or "your proof has an error on line 4, you pathetic excuse for a professor, also your face is ugly", and different people may have different associations.

Given Joaz's own demeanor on the boards, I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean to ban the first. So don't jump to silly conclusions.

@Hyperpape: That makes sense now that you say it I guess he recognized that there hasn't been verbal attacks and just wanted to use a word that's less severe (but unfortunately has too broad a meaning).

Amelia wrote:...
I just meant that the tone of this discussion is getting increasingly agressive (that's my sentiment) even if the line hasn't been crossed yet. ...

I suppose that you're right that this is a sensitive topic. It is for me at least, because of my personal philosophy on the matter.

But I feel the very nature of this thread to begin with has high probability of leading to such a discussion. To me, then, it comes down to asking whether this type of discussion is worth discussing... Because of my personal beliefs, I think that it is. You are correct, for example, that it's unlikely that any admin's actions will be changed. We've seen from past experience that this rarely occurs. But just because change is unlikely doesn't mean, in my view, that something is not worth discussing.

I've spent a lot of time on KGS, and I must admit, that I've been angry in the past at decisions by KGS admins. You could even say that I sometimes fundamentally disagree with them. Had I not had these experiences, I probably would not feel inclined to speak up when discussions of administration arise. In a way, I feel that this brings balance to a situation which would otherwise be tilted in the favor of the admins, who by definition have been given power.

I think that it's important to have such balance. When we always blindly accept decisions of admins, even when they make poor decisions, it's inevitable that poor decisions will continue to be made, and perhaps with greater frequency.

Balance is important. If we don't speak up in situations that matter to us, balance cannot be achieved.

Where is the "popcorn" emoticon? This is a fun thread.

wineandgolover wrote:Where is the "popcorn" emoticon? This is a fun thread.

Here:

Bantari wrote:

raptor wrote:

Bantari wrote:Sweet...
And what is the guarantee that Kaya or Nova won't be in the same place KGS is now in next to no time? They will also need admins, and I assume they will be a ragtag group of volunteers as well, no? Or will they be paid as employees and thus held to different standards?

Which brings me to the question I already asked before, but it was simply brushed off then. Namely:
What is the actual business model of Kaya? From what I understand, two people (at least) left their jobs to work on Kaya - and they are doing an excellent (full time?) job - so it stands to reason they expect Kaya to support them at some point. How?

Same goes for Nova, although I know/care less about it.

Anybody has any idea about all that?!?

Well this is just a far-fetched theory but if wms puts up the same effort for picking admins as he does for fixing bugs, adding features and processing logical arguments brought up by people suggesting fixes and features then we could probably safely assume that Kaya admins will be pretty different from KGS admins.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great ,
any admin who picks a name like that, or maybe a name with "Great" or "Big" in it without it being an obvious pun (say his playing account is prefixed "Small") is kind of suspicious in the first place. For players such names are obviously funny, but admins, especially those who like to hand out bans, should maybe keep some self-moderation even if it is just a formality.

Well, this is just my theory, but:

1.
Admins don't grow on trees, and you - almost by definition - have to have a certain type of personality to volunteer to put your time into being an unpaid admin on a free server.

This is a great point. The type of people who like to do this for free are also the type of people who relish in welding power over those who do not have it. I think this really shows through in how the admins on KGS who don't have the type of personality that enjoys punishing people don't really police the chat in the capacity available to them.

Its like mall cops. A lot of them don't really care and are just trying to get a paycheck, but some of them love to intrude into your shopping experience with gusto and authority.

Your #2 doesn't apply to these people, they gain energy from enforcing rules. This just makes the situation worse - the people with good intentions burn out and leave, letting the bad ones rise to top due to seniority.

I was asked if I was interested in becoming a KGS admin a few years ago. I said no without much thought as I don't really like the policy of clamping down on conversation and didn't want to enforce that, though perhaps that is not actually so much KGS policy as the personal policy of the admin themselves. When I found out a bit later that BigDoug was coming out of retirement to become an admin again due to a shortage of admins I wished I'd given it more thought...

badukJr wrote:Your #2 doesn't apply to these people, they gain energy from enforcing rules. This just makes the situation worse - the people with good intentions burn out and leave, letting the bad ones rise to top due to seniority.

My #2 was directed at the Kaya developers not at admins.

Uberdude wrote:I was asked if I was interested in becoming a KGS admin a few years ago. I said no without much thought as I don't really like the policy of clamping down on conversation and didn't want to enforce that, though perhaps that is not actually so much KGS policy as the personal policy of the admin themselves. When I found out a bit later that BigDoug was coming out of retirement to become an admin again due to a shortage of admins I wished I'd given it more thought...

The most draconian admins seems to be those who spent many hours on kgs and had became very jaded.

I see Herod on duty almost every day. Perhaps more admins and a policy of limiting the number of hours
each admin spends on the server will help to maintain enthusiasm.

duckweed wrote:...

The most draconian admins seems to be those who spent many hours on kgs and had became very jaded.

I see Herod on duty almost every day. Perhaps more admins and a policy of limiting the number of hours
each admin spends on the server will help to maintain enthusiasm.

I think this is a cool idea. If there is, indeed, a correlation between number of hours on KGS and how "draconian" an admin is, it's not clear if the cause is because of the number of hours, or rather, if being draconian leads to being on KGS more often

Still, the general idea of having more admins and limiting the amount of time that they're on seems likely to lead to less complaints about any particular admin (after time has passed, and people have gotten over any remnant anger).

duckweed wrote:...The most draconian admins seems to be those who spent many hours on kgs and had became very jaded.
..

'Jaded' is an evaluation that we cannot verify without reading minds. So even if we grant that there is indeed a correlation between 'draconian' and 'spent many hours on KGS', we have no clue why there might be such a correlation.

It would make just as much sense to say:

...
The most draconian admins seems to be those who spent many hours on kgs and had became very informed.
..

One might even say:

...
The most draconian admins seems to be those who spent many hours on kgs and had lost their niavete.
..

You guys who tangle with KGS admins really ought to consider why such a correlation might exist.

We make these sorts of correlations and "read minds" on a daily basis. It's one of those funny things about social behavior. Explicitly knowing others intentions and/or subjective states is not necessary for meaningful interaction, even virtual interaction. In fact, making these sorts of contextual inferences is an integral part of playing Go.

For example, I can understand reasonably well why this subject might be a little touchy for you, Joaz, and perhaps why you felt a need to respond in the way you have. I don't need to know anything specific about your intentional states because you demonstrate them through your behavior, as we all do. We make such inferences more or less successfully as a matter of course. If this so-called "mind reading" were impossible, we wouldn't be discussing this or any topic. Successful communication is predicated on this competency.

So it's no less reasonable to make judgments about an admin's intentions based on patterned behavior than it is for an admin to make similar judgments based on a member's patterned behavior. The difference of course is that admins have the power to shut down a member at will. Members don't have that prerogative when it comes to admin behavior. Our only recourse is to publically expressed our grievances.