hyperpape wrote:More than that, there are surely some people who are nasty by nature, but would like to keep playing.
That's an argument for chat-banning, not against it, right? They still get to play but are not able to be nasty in chat, as opposed to the current situation, where they either evade the ban entirely (and be nasty in chat again) or don't get to play.
If you want to deter them, it's an argument for a complete ban. With a chat ban, you have players being as nasty as they like, secure in the knowledge that they can keep spectating and playing. That was my original point.
Huh? As far as I know, KGS is not in the business of behavior modification. Who cares if nasty people play and watch go as long as they're not bothering anybody?
daal wrote:Huh? As far as I know, KGS is not in the business of behavior modification. Who cares if nasty people play and watch go as long as they're not bothering anybody?
Daal, I believe his point is that people will log-on, say nasty things in the EGR or game rooms, get chat banned, but not particularly care since they can still play/watch games. Whereas in a moderation regime without chat banning they might be more hesitant since offensive speech would result in a total 48h (usually) ban.
shapenaji wrote:People want to chat in the room they play in, it's just more convenient, no one is going to stay in a room specifically for chatting if no games are taking place.
Because at the end of the day, people are chatting to pass the time between games, they're keeping their eye on the game list. You can't pass the time effectively if you can't see when an interesting game or challenge pops up...
Its too bad you cannot have more than one window open at at time, so you can watch the game list and chat in another room at the same time.
I suspect that the above is not really the motivation, or at least there is a substantial disconnect. People are in the EGR because they want to play go and watch the largest game list. People who want to chat with strangers, particularly ones who might be inclined to show off and say offensive things, seek the biggest audience.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle
HKA, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but, assuming you were not, you can have two windows open at the same time. There is a split window button next to the close window button that allows you to do precisely as you desire. However, I suspect people are too lazy for this to be a legitimate solution.
EDIT: Clearly sarcasm, but I will leave the comment for anyone who doesn't know about the split window button.
mw42 wrote:HKA, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, but, assuming you were not, you can have two windows open at the same time. There is a split window button next to the close window button that allows you to do precisely as you desire. However, I suspect people are too lazy for this to be a legitimate solution.
EDIT: Clearly sarcasm, but I will leave the comment for anyone who doesn't know about the split window button.
I am not sure you know me, so your conclusion is reasonable.
For those who are aware of my substantial talent for sarcasm and luddite abilities with computurs, I suspect it is more of a conundrum.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle
daal wrote:Huh? As far as I know, KGS is not in the business of behavior modification. Who cares if nasty people play and watch go as long as they're not bothering anybody?
Because we want to deter them from being nasty in the first place. If you just have a chat ban, they can swear at people, get a chat ban, and still have fun watching/playing. If you have a categorical ban, they have to choose between staying logged into KGS and swearing at people. At least some of them will choose not to swear at people so as to avoid the total ban. KGS doesn't have to keep nasty people out, but it wants to keep them quiet. Threatening to kick them out may make that easier.
daal wrote:Huh? As far as I know, KGS is not in the business of behavior modification. Who cares if nasty people play and watch go as long as they're not bothering anybody?
Because we want to deter them from being nasty in the first place. If you just have a chat ban, they can swear at people, get a chat ban, and still have fun watching/playing. If you have a categorical ban, they have to choose between staying logged into KGS and swearing at people. At least some of them will choose not to swear at people so as to avoid the total ban. KGS doesn't have to keep nasty people out, but it wants to keep them quiet. Threatening to kick them out may make that easier.
should we make a seperate topic to discuss or poll the possibility of a chatban (temporary or not)? maybe if we can get a lot of votes in favor wms will listen to the community and implement it.
hyperpape wrote:Redundant: I think that's actually more draconian. But perhaps that's the goal?
If you're on KGS mostly for the chat you're doing it wrong. However, I find their current policy of a contagious IP/username ban to be much worse, given that if I was at home I could get about 10 households banned as our IP doesn't give us unique IPs.
hyperpape wrote:Redundant: I think that's actually more draconian. But perhaps that's the goal?
If you're on KGS mostly for the chat you're doing it wrong. However, I find their current policy of a contagious IP/username ban to be much worse, given that if I was at home I could get about 10 households banned as our IP doesn't give us unique IPs.
Your policy would also require contagion, since otherwise, isuxdix could re-log on as isuxdixx and just start trolling again. Contagion is an implementation detail.
Nothing stresses out admins more than chronic troublemakers who use tricks to get around being blocked and who change their name so you don't know who they are. Stressed out admins, in turn, are a lot more trigger happy with the boot hammer than non-stressed admins. One thing that would be fantastic on KGS would be if I could somehow tell definitively when somebody logging in had been on KGS before. I don't need to know who they are, just "is isuxdixx the same person as <list of known troublemakers>?" Unfortunately, I don't know of any system that is both hard to get around, and non-intrusive for the KGS users. If I required a credit card, verified the number, then never used it, that would work pretty well; then the people who make the admins miserable could only change their identity once for each card they had. But I suspect that a lot of people would be unwilling to enter their credit card number on KGS. I know that I wouldn't do it for a "free" site. So KGS is stuck with these people who stress out the admins, which in turn makes the admins a lot less friendly than they would be otherwise.
wms wrote:Nothing stresses out admins more than chronic troublemakers who use tricks to get around being blocked and who change their name so you don't know who they are. Stressed out admins, in turn, are a lot more trigger happy with the boot hammer than non-stressed admins. One thing that would be fantastic on KGS would be if I could somehow tell definitively when somebody logging in had been on KGS before. I don't need to know who they are, just "is isuxdixx the same person as <list of known troublemakers>?" Unfortunately, I don't know of any system that is both hard to get around, and non-intrusive for the KGS users. If I required a credit card, verified the number, then never used it, that would work pretty well; then the people who make the admins miserable could only change their identity once for each card they had. But I suspect that a lot of people would be unwilling to enter their credit card number on KGS. I know that I wouldn't do it for a "free" site. So KGS is stuck with these people who stress out the admins, which in turn makes the admins a lot less friendly than they would be otherwise.
i do wish you could address the admins who do more harm than good, such as bigdoug and not continually list "reasons" that its not the admins fault. we have the admins to always convince you theyre always right, we dont need owners doing that either
xDragon wrote:i do wish you could address the admins who do more harm than good, such as bigdoug and not continually list "reasons" that its not the admins fault. we have the admins to always convince you theyre always right, we dont need owners doing that either
but there are just as many, if not more, who think bigdoug and others are actually doing more good than harm.
xDragon wrote:i do wish you could address the admins who do more harm than good, such as bigdoug and not continually list "reasons" that its not the admins fault. we have the admins to always convince you theyre always right, we dont need owners doing that either
but there are just as many, if not more, who think bigdoug and others are actually doing more good than harm.
a lot of people do play on KGS and not chat. people who do talk to him realize how rude and arrogant he is pretty quickly, then see him ban 10 people on whims
