Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:
I see the situation differently. To use your example - KGS is a small village, which is constantly being raided by a huge number of bandits, insiders or outsiders, beating men up, having their way with the women, and stealing the crops and burning the huts.

I can't say that your viewpoint is invalid, but it is different than mine. I cannot think of any users who I'd consider as "bandits" on KGS. Like I said, in other larger communities, cops or samurais might be necessary. But I don't see it on KGS.

Really? You never see people flooding like idiots, or being rude and vulgar on purpose? I see it on KGS, sometimes more often sometimes less, but it does happen. There are times when I myself am itching to go look for an admin to bad an idiot or two. Users like that can be irritating, and something sure has to be done. If talking to them worked, would be great, but it usually does not.

Kirby wrote:You gave the example of flooding. Is flooding really that bad? Is it worse than the fear I have of the samurai?

Well, then you need to do something about the fear.
I had a friend once who was afraid of the color red. But he did not try to repaint the world, he went to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms.

Kirby wrote:Or: Do people flood more because there are samurai? Perhaps in rebellion?

This is a valid point, and it certainly happens.
But I am not sure that the solution is to get rid of the samurai, since the problem is not the samurai but the immature bandits.

There are servers with minimum or no admin presence. Yahoo!Go, or PlayOK for example. You would not believe what goes on there at times. I rather take an occasional admin over-reaction over that any day! And anyways - admins were not created because we had an over-population of power-hungry individuals. They were created because there was a need - we got the samurai because there were bandits.

Bantari wrote:I rather take an occasional admin over-reaction over that any day!

I think you are just reiterating our difference in viewpoint here. I don't see the individuals you describe as bandits, and I don't see the samurai as having a superior sense of justice, either. You seem to have the opposite viewpoint.

Bantari wrote:Well, then you need to do something about the fear.
I had a friend once who was afraid of the color red. But he did not try to repaint the world, he went to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms.

This is a one-sided argument. I could just as easily say, "You need to get over your irritation with these so-called bandits. Don't try to punish them or make them change. Go to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms."

The reason that this can be used in both directions is that what constitutes a "problem" is not agreed upon between us. I think the problem is the samurais. You think the problem is in a group of users to whom you refer to as "bandits".

It might help to think of it this way: Let's say that there are two user-experience "packages" available for KGS.
Package A
* Occasional flooding and swearing
* Freedom to speak freely without fear of the admin

Package B
* Occasional unjust punishment
* Freedom from flooding and swearing

You prefer the "Package B" user-experience.

I find "Package A" more fun and enjoyable. The factors I've considered in deciding that I like Package A better are:
1.) What I know about the KGS users and community - I don't think there are all that many "bandits"
2.) Unjust bannings really irk me - Why do admins know better for the community than the community itself?

Likely, you prefer "Package B" because:
1.) These users you consider as bandits really irk you
2.) You find an environment with more punishment, but less flooding, swearing, etc., more enjoyable

You are a user just like I am, so it's not my right to dictate that "Package A" is superior. I happen to like this type of environment. You appear to like a different type of environment.

To be clear about where I stand on this:
I think admins could/should be more reasonable, and punishments could/should be more transparent. But, in general, admins are a good thing to have, and the rules of KGS are, in general, pretty decent. And admins on KGS, in general, enforce those rules in a decent way. Which is not to say there is no room for improvement, but I would never go so far as to not have any bans (some people deserve it) or even remove admins altogether (which it seems you are suggesting.)

Kirby wrote:This is a one-sided argument. I could just as easily say, "You need to get over your irritation with these so-called bandits. Don't try to punish them or make them change. Go to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms."

The reason that this can be used in both directions is that what constitutes a "problem" is not agreed upon between us. I think the problem is the samurais. You think the problem is in a group of users to whom you refer to as "bandits".

Hmm, I see, you are making a good point here.
Its what I say about escapers - instead of looking for ways to eliminate them, you need to find it within yourself to not be bothered too much.

Ok, I can certainly admit the validity of your viewpoint.

To me, there is one distinction though, and it lies the following:
Escapers issue is highly personal. They bother *you* but otherwise they have to consequence on anybody else.

Misbehavior, on the other side, affects the community. Take rudeness and vulgarity, for example. If it is only personal, in a chat, I would say - you are right, let it go, you can always block the bandit, its your personal issue that it bothers you. In a more public setting, things are different - you might have children whom you do not want exposed to vulgarity, for example. Its not something you can just shrug off and look the other way.

Same goes for flooding - it actually prevents the proper function of the chat or kibitz window since it becomes difficult or/and impossible to have any conversation. It is very annoying when you try to have a nice go-related conversation in a room, and an idiot starts flooding and laughing until the cows come home. I have seen it happen. What do you do then?

Having said the above, I admit that in some instances the KGS policies (or their enforcement) tend to be too strict. For example - restricting non-related chat, or restricting kibitz only to the game itself (I hear of cases people were punished discussing players rather tan games, which to me is a stupid thing to punish people for.)

In general, I would like some common sense on KGS. Punish people for the stuff that disturbs others/groups. And if something does not disturb others/groups, don't punish it. Of course, there will be always grey areas and judgement calls, and there will always people who disagree with admin actions, but that cannot be helped - in any setting.

Kirby wrote:

Boidhre wrote:There is no line you think crossing merits a ban? Or you wouldn't do it and leave another admin do it instead?

I don't know what the line is. Maybe there are actions that merit having a ban, but given the current situation, I am more afraid of admins than concerned about the everyday users.

Maybe it helps to think of an analogy. Let's say there's a small village where the community is pretty close and everyone knows one another. Now let's say that, to promote safety, we hire a bunch of cops to take care of our village. As a general rule in this small village, nobody really causes trouble, and people get along. But the cops are bored, so they start beating people up when they get the chance. Maybe someone leaves some gum on the sidewalk. Most people in the village don't care, but since the cops have nothing better to do, they cuff the guy and punch him in the stomach.

Maybe this example is extreme, but in the small community we have on KGS, I find this idea of punishing users worse than anything the users have actually done. Now, if the community gets larger or if things change, maybe I'll see things differently. But for the most part, I'm pretty much just afraid of saying the wrong thing to admins - they're the cops that might cuff me and beat me up if I use the wrong rhetoric.

We could have examples of rough villages that have murderers or actually need cops. But I don't see KGS this way.

You're dodging the question nicely. When we talk about whether we need admins or not, we ask, is it possible that someone can come along and do X. Now KGS is not a closed community, if I cared to troll on there I could have an account set up on an IP unrelated to my own ready in a few minutes. It'd be trivial. This is a good thing because it means any 15 year old kid curious about go can do the same thing. It's a double edged sword having an open community but a closed one isn't really what anyone wants (and they can be created within the server anyway with the rooms system).

It's entirely possible for someone to come along and start disguised links to porn in EGR pretending to help newbies. I don't think any of us think this should be allowed. You don't need admins for 99% of users, you need them for that fraction of a percent who are there just to ruin other people's fun.

Kirby wrote:It might help to think of it this way: Let's say that there are two user-experience "packages" available for KGS.
Package A
* Occasional flooding and swearing
* Freedom to speak freely without fear of the admin

Package B
* Occasional unjust punishment
* Freedom from flooding and swearing

You prefer the "Package B" user-experience.

I find "Package A" more fun and enjoyable. The factors I've considered in deciding that I like Package A better are:
1.) What I know about the KGS users and community - I don't think there are all that many "bandits"
2.) Unjust bannings really irk me - Why do admins know better for the community than the community itself?

Likely, you prefer "Package B" because:
1.) These users you consider as bandits really irk you
2.) You find an environment with more punishment, but less flooding, swearing, etc., more enjoyable

You are a user just like I am, so it's not my right to dictate that "Package A" is superior. I happen to like this type of environment. You appear to like a different type of environment.

I see you have edited your post after I responded.
But actually, what you say is very well though-out and I can agree with that. There are two packages and you and me we prefer a different package.
And if it was only about personal preference - I would say it is a matter of preference, and yours is as good as mine, possibly better.

However - as I indicated on my response in my previous post - there are more 'objective' reasons why occasional flooding and vulgarity are worse then occasional admin mistake. But this too can be seen as a matter of opinion... or not.

I think the best solution would be to have a room on KGS where the 'bandits' could misbehave as much as they like without repercussion of the admins. Just create a special room on KGS with 'no admins allowed' rule - maybe you can convince wms of an advantage of such room, and case solved. ECR came close... In this sense - KGS is really a tool which can give us both the experiences. Unless you suspect that the flooders and swearers will not want to sit in your room to flood and swear - but instead they enjoy doing it in everybody's face. Then there is the problem.

Other than this - the 'special room' solution should satisfy you. You will be able to have any kind of conversation, about anything you want, and flood, and swear, and be as rude as you want - no problem.

Nifty, eh?

Boidhre wrote:
You're dodging the question nicely.

It's not my intention to dodge any sort of question. What is the question?

Boidhre wrote:It's entirely possible for someone to come along and start disguised links to porn in EGR pretending to help newbies.

Yeah - I did not even think about that, great point.
I nothing convinces people that admins are necessary, and bans are needed - this example should. And if it still does not, I am not really sure what to say.

PS>
Just look what happened to Second Life - its half overrun with porn, and the other half is overrun with rampant consumerism. Or rgg. And even here we need to beat off an occasional spammer. This is the reality of internet, and KGS left to its own devices, as kirby suggests it should - it might become useless for the purposes we want to have.

Bantari wrote:...

I think the best solution would be to have a room on KGS where the 'bandits' could misbehave as much as they like without repercussion of the admins. Just create a special room on KGS with 'no admins allowed' rule - maybe you can convince wms of an advantage of such room, and case solved. ...

I think it's a great idea - not because I want to swear or flood, but because I want to be able to write in foreign languages freely, or chat about whatever I want in game kibitz. And I wouldn't have to worry about talking for too long about a topic I was interested in.

These types of things, I don't personally consider to be "bandit" behavior, but are things that I might be warned about or banned for in the current environment.

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:...

I think the best solution would be to have a room on KGS where the 'bandits' could misbehave as much as they like without repercussion of the admins. Just create a special room on KGS with 'no admins allowed' rule - maybe you can convince wms of an advantage of such room, and case solved. ...

I think it's a great idea - not because I want to swear or flood, but because I want to be able to write in foreign languages freely, or chat about whatever I want in game kibitz. And I wouldn't have to worry about talking for too long about a topic I was interested in.

These types of things, I don't personally consider to be "bandit" behavior, but are things that I might be warned about or banned for in the current environment.

Then there you go - there is your solution.
As a matter of fact - you can already do it in most rooms on KGS, admins are mostly in EGR, from what I see. Or at least - there are many many rooms where admins seldom go, if ever. So knock yourself out, dude. Find a room, and talk in as many languages as you wish. I will certainly not try to argue you out of it.

Still, a dedicated room would be great. I would say - make admins more strict in EGR, but forbid admin entry to ECR. Perfect solution, both packages present, whoever want one can have it.

I just might be a genius... I have always had suspicions, but modesty prevented me from exploring this avenue.

Bantari wrote:...

Then there you go - there is your solution.

Pretty much works, except maybe for kibitz in games. Since many high dan games are in the popular rooms, this would still be forbidden.

Kirby wrote:

Boidhre wrote:
You're dodging the question nicely.

It's not my intention to dodge any sort of question. What is the question?

Ok. Well, look, from reading your posts you are rather too trusting of other people not to act the idiot. If I could have a server consisting just of the people who are on here regularly, I'd happily do without admins. With access to the general public, no.

Boidhre wrote:Ok. Well, look, from reading your posts you are rather too trusting of other people not to act the idiot. If I could have a server consisting just of the people who are on here regularly, I'd happily do without admins. With access to the general public, no.

Fair enough. One thing to keep in mind is that KGS does have a censor feature. So even if you don't have admins, and there is someone that is spamming or bugging you personally, you can always censor them.

In this manner, you can act as your own admin. Does someone bother you? Censor them. This requires effort by users, sure. But it allows for flexibility in tolerance. Someone that appreciates what someone has to say can hear them, and someone that does not does not have to.

Kirby wrote:

Boidhre wrote:Ok. Well, look, from reading your posts you are rather too trusting of other people not to act the idiot. If I could have a server consisting just of the people who are on here regularly, I'd happily do without admins. With access to the general public, no.

Fair enough. One thing to keep in mind is that KGS does have a censor feature. So even if you don't have admins, and there is someone that is spamming or bugging you personally, you can always censor them.

In this manner, you can act as your own admin. Does someone bother you? Censor them. This requires effort by users, sure. But it allows for flexibility in tolerance. Someone that appreciates what someone has to say can hear them, and someone that does not does not have to.

Kirby, I've avoided using this example because, well, I don't like it but: I've had to remove child porn from public forums being posted by a demented user who had harrassed us for many years and who kept escalating things. Or at least, we thought it was him, we couldn't be sure and the police couldn't pin it down to any individual either. People do things which aren't "censorable." Someone flooding, fine, I can ignore them, no big deal. A very small minority on the other hand will post up images or links to images to things that cannot be unseen. This isn't censor territory. Really. You do not want people clicking that link, you want an admin in there asap to remove it, and nuke the account and IP as fast as possible. There is a line that almost everyone can agree one. Most people like to pretend that no one will cross it, I've seen people do it more than once though.

Boidhre wrote:Kirby, I've avoided using this example because, well, I don't like it but: I've had to remove child porn from public forums being posted by a demented user who had harrassed us for many years and who kept escalating things. Or at least, we thought it was him, we couldn't be sure and the police couldn't pin it down to any individual either. People do things which aren't "censorable." Someone flooding, fine, I can ignore them, no big deal. A very small minority on the other hand will post up images or links to images to things that cannot be unseen. This isn't censor territory. Really. You do not want people clicking that link, you want an admin in there asap to remove it, and nuke the account and IP as fast as possible. There is a line that almost everyone can agree one. Most people like to pretend that no one will cross it, I've seen people do it more than once though.

Sorry to hear about your experience. I guess such behavior is certainly possible. The current "ban bar" is much lower than that (eg. discussing something "off topic" for "too long" can constitute a warning, and then a ban), so it's hard to make the same judgement universally.

I can see your point, that in extreme cases, there may be things that cannot be unseen. Though, I would imagine that this is the exception rather than the norm.

If we come back to the analogy about cops, there may be serial killers out there for which cops are necessary. But we don't put everyone that's gotten a parking ticket up for the death penalty.

Kirby wrote:

Boidhre wrote:Kirby, I've avoided using this example because, well, I don't like it but: I've had to remove child porn from public forums being posted by a demented user who had harrassed us for many years and who kept escalating things. Or at least, we thought it was him, we couldn't be sure and the police couldn't pin it down to any individual either. People do things which aren't "censorable." Someone flooding, fine, I can ignore them, no big deal. A very small minority on the other hand will post up images or links to images to things that cannot be unseen. This isn't censor territory. Really. You do not want people clicking that link, you want an admin in there asap to remove it, and nuke the account and IP as fast as possible. There is a line that almost everyone can agree one. Most people like to pretend that no one will cross it, I've seen people do it more than once though.

Sorry to hear about your experience. I guess such behavior is certainly possible. The current "ban bar" is much lower than that (eg. discussing something "off topic" for "too long" can constitute a warning, and then a ban), so it's hard to make the same judgement universally.

I can see your point, that in extreme cases, there may be things that cannot be unseen. Though, I would imagine that this is the exception rather than the norm.

If we come back to the analogy about cops, there may be serial killers out there for which cops are necessary. But we don't put everyone that's gotten a parking ticket up for the death penalty.

This was my question earlier. I think we both agree that there is a line, where we disagree is where the line should be. So we don't need to argue about whether bans are good things or not, just what people should be banned over no? (I've a feeling you and I would draw the lines fairly close together actually)

It's not, whether or not we need admins, because we do on that server. It's what they should be "actioning."