Life In 19x19

HermanHiddema wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:

BigDoug wrote:Yes, you're right. I couldn't think of a suitable example which features volunteers and a free service. The best that I could think of was a soup kitchen (where the food is free and the people are volunteers), but that's not appropriate either.

Doug, your comparisons are self-serving and ridiculous. You have neither the altruism of soup-kitchen volunteers, nor the profit motive of hotels. No, a better comparison is the neighborhood drug dealer. He might be a dick, but you still need your fix so you make allowances, know what I mean? KGS has a semi-captive audience. Sure we could change drugs, but this is the one we like best. And I even like most of the dealers.

Really? Calling KGS admins dicks? Comparing admins to drug dealers, and players to addicts?

Feeling a bit self-righteous today, Herman?

I'm just trying to find a better metaphor. Are you saying you don't find go somewhat addictive? Are you not willing to overcome a little adversity to play? If you have a jerk at the local club, are you going to run away? I suspect you'd persevere because of your love of the game, which is the point I was making.

I am a big fan of KGS, despite its blemishes, and defend it here often. Just not a fan of BD's self-serving posts in this thread.

And did you even bother to read the last sentence of my post?

Have a nice day.

An interesting analogy, attractive because, yes, playing go is addictive. However, it's flawed in my opinion, because I don't think the admins are handing out the drug. The drug is freely available to pick up. If anything, they're more like the neighbourhood cops who decide that your drug usage has become intolerable (by their somewhat arbitrary standards), and prevent you from getting your fix.

"Dick" is considerably more pejorative than "jerk" (I think), and quite an offensive term (I think). Also, you could phrase your sentence is in a less absolute fashion, something like: "You might think he or she is a (jerk), but you still need your fix so you make allowances..."

quantumf wrote:An interesting analogy, attractive because, yes, playing go is addictive. However, it's flawed in my opinion, because I don't think the admins are handing out the drug. The drug is freely available to pick up. If anything, they're more like the neighbourhood cops who decide that your drug usage has become intolerable (by their somewhat arbitrary standards), and prevent you from getting your fix.

"Dick" is considerably more pejorative than "jerk" (I think), and quite an offensive term (I think). Also, you could phrase your sentence is in a less absolute fashion, something like: "You might think he or she is a (jerk), but you still need your fix so you make allowances..."

Sigh. One can't call a hypothetical drug dealer a dick? Really? Fine, my first post is edited to reflect this.

I still like my drug analogy for the reasons you stated. But comparing admins to cops, now there is an analogy worth exploring! Good one, quantumf.

wineandgolover wrote:Feeling a bit self-righteous today, Herman?

Well, the personal insults just keep on coming. don't they? Great job at making L19 a pleasant place

HermanHiddema wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:Feeling a bit self-righteous today, Herman?

Well, the personal insults just keep on coming. don't they? Great job at making L19 a pleasant place

Aren't you just so precious!

You intentionally altered the meaning my quote, and now you pretend to get offended at my rather tame response, not even dealing with the context. I suggest you and I call it a day. I suspect you have no time for me, and I assure you, that I have no need for your sanctimony.

wineandgolover wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:Feeling a bit self-righteous today, Herman?

Well, the personal insults just keep on coming. don't they? Great job at making L19 a pleasant place

Aren't you just so precious!

You intentionally altered the meaning my quote, and now you pretend to get offended at my rather tame response, not even dealing with the context. I suggest you and I call it a day. I suspect you have no time for me, and I assure you, that I have no need for your sanctimony.

Why the insults?

[admin]

Gentlemen,
Can you please be a little more polite?
Thanks,
JB

[/admin]

I think we need to be careful with using language on an international forum like this. In American English some expressions are considered ok and acceptable, things like "aren't we precious" and the like. A native speaker knows this but for us who are not native speakers such an expression becomes something ugly when translated in our minds into our mother tongue.

LuckyJim wrote:I think we need to be careful with using language on an international forum like this. In American English some expressions are considered ok and acceptable, things like "aren't we precious" and the like. A native speaker knows this but for us who are not native speakers such an expression becomes something ugly when translated in our minds into our mother tongue.

Indeed, dick is a very mild insult here in Ireland (it's almost not an insult and more of just a negative expression on a person's behaviour) and jerk isn't used as an insult generally. We'd be more likely to use prick than dick in that context and perhaps others, with prick being somewhat more offensive but still not a very provocative insult to most people. The insults that are actually truly insulting are probably banned words on here so I won't repeat them.

The best analogy I could think of was that of the school playground. I'm sure that will annoy somebody

Admins as drug dealers, and whether calling them 'dicks' is an insult or not? What a pretty place this conversation has arrived at.

It starts with a (relayed) transmission of the moves of one of the premier matches of the year - the sort of thing where various servers have different rules about rebroadcast rights, and where there was real uncertainty about which sources were legitimate and which were unauthorized. The sort of things which may or may not cross legal bounds but can at least lead to uncomfortable relations between different sponsoring organizations and servers. Operating in this novel circumstance, in the first game of the match, plus dealing with a thousand or so users who may have other (game) issues, the admins may well have been busy, leery about users advertising links to other sources, and abrupt in answering. Particularly when, as it appears from the OP, one user engages several admins simultaneously and repeatedly with the same question.

Now xDragon may be an attorney specializing in international intellectual property agreements and thus qualified to speak authoritatively (and professionally) about the ownership, rights, and restrictions to simultaneous rebroadcast of sponsored live events. Or he may just be someone who spends vast amounts of time watching games on KGS and relishing baiting admins into arguments about server functions, carping about other observers in games, and - after he has made himself insufferable - then going into protracted, defensive arguments about unjust treatment, proving others wrong, and ultimately that he doesn't care about rules he disagrees with. From his 15 (count 'em) posts in this thread so far, the readers can make their own judgments.

Yikes. I have not posted in this thread because I tend to avoid playground fights over petty issues--especially when the dispute is exacerbated by strongly held beliefs (beliefs that, at least in some respect, are completely detached from reality). So why do I post now? I don't know exactly. But I have a vague notion that a handful of people share my views, but haven't contributed because, like me, they don't want to get involved in a squabble.

In any event, here are some points I think most relatively objective observers would take from this discussion:

• Be respectful and civil (e.g. not rude) to others, even if you feel they don't deserve it.
• When you disagree with someone, if you go into "attack mode" expect the other person to go into "defense and counter-attack mode."
• Your position and compensation (or lack thereof) doesn't excuse improper and rude behavior.
• Your feelings of past mistreatment or prejudice don't excuse improper and rude behavior.
• Don't be hasty in committing to a view. But if you do, be willing to reexamine your view (see also cognitive dissonance).
• It's okay to say "I'm sorry."
• Take a deep breath and get some perspective.
• If you dismiss all of the above because you don't think it applies to you, then you are precisely the person to whom it is directed.
• If you feel as though this post is attacking you, then you've missed the point entirely.

BigDoug wrote:

Bonobo wrote:I have also disliked quite some of the examples of admin behaviour that have been posted in this forum, some were really childish … i.e. they acted like a child would that feels hurt: bash all around w/o caring whether you hit a culprit or an innocent person, and not caring about whether the reaction is appropriate. BUT this is a free service, and I assume that most admins do their work on an honorary basis. Therefore I’d also not expect the kind of mature, “professional” behaviour I’d expect in a … hotel … or a restaurant … or … from a social worker or my therapist <shrug>.

It's an interesting comment. Let's look at the analogy in a bit more detail.

Suppose that you enter a hotel and join the queue to talk to the staff at the reception desk. They greet you politely. You ask about the check-out time and they reply that it's 10 a.m. So far, all good.

However, you believe that the check-out time should be noon. The reception staff reply that it's not the hotel's policy, so you begin to list the reasons why it should be noon. When they don't agree, you point out that they're not very good reception staff and really shouldn't be working there. The check-out time at other hotels is noon, etc. A queue forms behind you as you press your point with the reception staff. When a customer in the queue asks you to wrap it up, you then argue with the customer as well as continuing to argue with the staff. After a period of time, the reception staff tell you to leave, so that they can help other people check into the hotel.

Let's suppose that a similar episode happens on a weekly or fortnightly basis for years, as you point out the flaws in the hotel for them to fix (e.g., the curtains are the wrong colour or the free wi-fi isn't fast enough or there aren't enough free peanuts at the bar). The result is almost always the same (i.e., telling the staff how to do their jobs and rarely reaching an agreement). Note that you are never a paying customer at the hotel.

Now you've walked through the entrance and ask about the check-out time yet again. What are the expectations of the front-desk staff? Are they unprofessional if they expect another unsatisfactory encounter?

Let me fix that analogy for you so that it actually fits the events as described by xDragon.

• xDragon purchases some Coca Cola in the movie theater. xDragon's drink is served in a blue cup, but the establishment also uses yellow cups as well.
• The usher tells xDragon that only drinks purchased inside the theater can be taken into the screening room.
• xDragon tells the usher that he did purchase the drink inside the theater, but the usher says that the drinks sold inside are always served in yellow cups, which is factually incorrect.
• After an attempt at intelligent communication with the usher fails, xDragon goes back to the vendor and has his drink put in a yellow cup.
• The usher sees xDragon come back with a yellow cup and says that this is perfectly fine and lets him inside the screening room.
• After xDragon sits down to enjoy the movie some ushers come to kick him out of the theater for "not following the usher's direction".
• xDragon call the customer service number at the theater and asks for an explanation of the instructions he did not follow, given the very clear fact that he had indeed follow the usher's instructions, despite the fact that they were stupid instructions containing logical inconsistencies. The person on the line says, "Screw off, you troublemaker" ("troll").
• xDragon calls a senior manager at the theater and asks for an explanation. He never explains which of the usher's instructions were ignored by xDragon and simply says that xDragon should not have disagreed with an usher in the first place.
• When xDragon continues to press for an explanation, the manager says that he's already explained his position and hangs up. When xDragon calls again, the manager puts fingers in his ears, says "Not listening~" ("deleted") in a sing-song voice and hangs up.
• This repeats a couple times, and xDragon decides to share his experiences on a site that discusses local movie theaters among other movie-related topics.
• People who probably did not read the original post reply that the tiny print on the back of the movie ticket says that drinks can only be consumed in the lobby. A retro-active justification, which perhaps should have been the one given when xDragon called customer service the first time.
• The usher's instructions that were ignored by xDragon remain shrouded in mystery.
• The manager posts obviously nonsensical parable that obfuscates the key facts. It fools no one who actually read the original post.

I feel really sorry...not for xDragon, but for the theater staff, who just keep making themselves look worse and worse.

Of course, it's quite possible (maybe even probable) that xDragon has made trouble in the past and the theater staff were just tired of any interaction with him. That doesn't change the fact the theater staff are quite clearly in the wrong in this specific instance. Given the facts, which are not in dispute, it matters not whether xDragon had trolled in the past or not. Mature people would have admitted already that they made an error in judgment because of their past interactions with xDragon and let it be that (e.g., "He's always doing bad stuff, so we assumed that he was doing bad stuff again without actually thinking about it. My bad. He didn't actually ignore any of the usher's instructions"). Just seems like a classic case of some people being incapable of admitting when they're in the wrong. What reasonable person here would not forgive volunteer workers for making a mistake if they simply admitted it?

From what I see, nyan has already admitted error and apologized, which is very civilized. Javaness apologized for not paying more attention to xDragon's communication. Doug is the only one who dug a bigger hole for himself.

KGS Admins do a difficult job and they do it for free. However, it is not a contradiction for a person to simultaneously appreciate that fact and point out when the admins are in error.

Dear KGS-troll,

We didn't forget what you brought to us, now simply you had it back.

ahahaha, KGS...

i don't care if KGS admins are volunteers, insulting the users, especially ones that just got officially punished (banned), is simply not cool.

lemmata wrote:...xDragon purchases some Coca Cola in the movie theater...

"...purchases..."?

I think you just undermined your own analogy. XDragon didn't pay for anything.