Mods, can we please finally do something about the constant thread pollution by djhbrown? 90% of his posts are random youtube videos, barely coherent pseudo-intellectual word-salads and immature snipes at AlphaGo mingled with self-promotion of his own failed attempts at go AI.

There are users posting useful, interesting and valuable content, only to immediately have their thread hijacked with garbage (e.g. gennan's video series thread right now)

We've banned a user for thread-hijacking before, on much less egregious grounds, so lets get rid of this noise-generator already.

Given the complaints about off topic videos, I had already taken action to improve thread readability: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15422

What is the proposal here, specifically? A permanent ban? A ban for some period of time?

Often, there aren't explicit violations of the TOS as far as I'm aware, though, I sympathize with the desire to have useful content on the site.

_________________
be immersed

Just FYI you have already the ability to block all his posts in your profile settings. I use it occasionally to filter out users who post more noise than signal.

Rule n°3 "Meaningless Posts" seems to be relevant here.

This post seems also to fall under rules 1 and 2.


Sure, I can block him, but I wonder if a new user wouldn't be put off by this behavior, and it's not like we have that much active users at the moment...

Meaningless is somewhat subjective, but given the general consensus I see here, I'll go ahead and instate a ban.

_________________
be immersed

djhbrown has been banned.

_________________
be immersed

TBH, while I can understand some of the feelings here, I also think that there’s more behind his posts. They’re are NOT stupid or silly, even though he has a … well, how to say it … idiosyncratic way of saying things.

Overall I think he’s been treated a bit unfairly in this forum (and no, I am NOT a fan). People have discarded some of his content because of its form, and that’s a mistake. I’d hope that the ban is not permanent, and that somebody explained it to him instead of just kicking him without further comment.

Did anybody ever follow some of the links to his academic/work history? I did, and I found it quite impressive, although it went way over my head. This may be the case with others also who are quick to criticise him.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

The ban is in effect until explicitly lifted. The topic has been discussed for some time, though until now, I have been lenient among admins when it comes to banning.

Going forward, I'd like to do what's best for the community as a whole, which of course, isn't limited to my opinion.

Since I'm the one who initiated the ban, I will step out of the discussion here. I'm not the only admin on the forum, and if discussion in this thread warrants that the ban be lifted, I'd encourage another admin to do so.

_________________
be immersed

I'm against the flash mob mentality that leads to such bans. And calling it (an unproven) general consensus does not excuse it.

I can understand each point of the description made by Herman, and it's good that he raised the matter for discussion. But we got no discussion, just me-too-ism.

I'm not against TOCs and the principle of banning, but there needs to be a proper process. The fact that a sensible and rational person like Kirby was unsure whether TOCs had been breached showed a discussion was needed. The rather good patch of hiding youtube links developed by Kirby was not allowed time to work. The validity of the option of just not reading the posts in question - my own solution, though I do stick my nose in occasionally - has not been properly explored. No public warning seems to have been given.

In particular, the claim that Brown does not know what he is talking about does not appear to stand up, either, and in any case if that was the criterion many other people could be banned. Actually, although I haven't read many of his posts, those I've read recently seem to be him asking for help. And not getting it - I'd say the uncooperative lurking that goes on here is a far worse "crime" and must be responsible in part for the morbid state of this group.

Dog poo in the street is objectionable. The answer is to ban or bin dog poo - not dogs.

I think a chief problem djhbrown has is treating an internet forum about Go like a chat in a pub: such veering of on tangents into religion, philosophy, politics and obscure British humour are appropriate in a tipsy chat, but not when you are writing on a public forum dedicated to Go to a wide audience. He himself said he is new to internet communities, and I think he has improved and matured since he first joined: he does occasionally post Go content now, rather than just going on about Swim or whatever the latest name is for his AI attempts, but there's still far too much junk.


Yes, the tyranny of the majority is a problem and can damage the rights of unpopular minorities. However, this is a just a go forum so I don't worry much about his free speech rights or such being impinged. I note that he started a study journal thread which linked to a blog he started, which no one else replied to. He is free to keep publishing his ideas, and people can go there to read them if they wish. I expect the net enjoyment of all forum members will increase from his absence.


Yes, I did. His papers from the 70s are ok. His new ones are poor (in fact I wouldn't even call them papers: anyone can self-publish on SSRN without review).


He's breached the TOCs (rules 2 and 3) many times, I will document some (the worst may have been reported and deleted already) for clarity later. I think Kirby was being overly diplomatic or not wanting to rush to judgement.


Isn't that what we have been exploring these past few months? And it doesn't seem to work as it frustrates others users and turns them away:

I don't know the numbers, but let's imagine 80 users find his posts annoying (and 40 of them so much so it reduces their forum participation), 20 don't mind and just ignore it, 20 are annoyed by it but sometimes engage and get caught up in unfruitful conversations (I'm in this category), and 5 like his contributions. Then is it really better to allow him to stay and expect the majority to hide/ignore his posts when very few people actually want to read them?a


But what to do when you repeatedly tell your dog to stop pooing and he doesn't? IIrc djhbrown was banned some months ago and told to stop his off-topic waffling when he was allowed back. He hasn't.

Some examples of TOC breaches:


Turning talk of white and black stones into skin colour/race is baiting with controversy, and saying 5d and 5k are the same is also just asking for people to disagree and start arguments in my eyes:


Not relevant:


When asked to explain flaw in an argument, going off topic about avatar and racial stuff. Baiting, not relevant.


Sexual:


Religious:


Sexual and off-topic:


Meaningless (unless you count linking youtube music videos by people with similar name to the username of study journal owner):

I didn't talk about the tyranny of the majority. I was worried of the tyranny of the MOB. Slipping in a putative "majority" plus giving an example of spurious figures weighted to suggest a majority already exists is a poor way to make a case. It may turn out there is indeed a majority who feel that way, but the whole point is to get the facts first, surely?

I personally don't see freedom of speech coming into this. It's more a matter of due process, for me.

I can't really speak about his alleged breach of TOCs as I read so little of his posts, but from what you quote I don't see that he's necessarily in breach. It's true that the TOCs prohibit religious, political and sexual topics but I'm unsure that he's started any such topics. He has made such references within other topics, and they seem generally in poor taste - very clumsy attempts at humour at best - but to me that's just a reason not to read him, or to warn him, not to ban him instantly.

Don't get me wrong. If a case is properly made, and supported by a clear non-fictitious majority, I too would support a ban. But again: due process first. I'm sure those of the Anglo-Saxon law persuasion will know what I mean. I confess, though, I don't know what those of the European/Napoleonic persuasion expect in such a case, but if they expect something different they could perhaps explain what that is, but I'd be amazed if their legal systems are based on "rush to judgement."

Just disliking something is not a good basis for those who "social join and leagues combine." It is better to try do something about it first (e.g. provide dog poo bins). As happened with Malkovich games. I disliked intensely having to clear up their dog poo by having to click every one as read to get rid of page clutter (it used to be much worse). I was one of those who campaigned for a solution. The site owner installed a "Malkovich read" button and that worked a treat. Malkovich games were not banned.

I might also add that recent ageist and sexual remarks by another certain person within a go topic did not elicit calls for a ban, either. Is equal treatment to be denied to old farts?

This whole discussion seems pretty out of line to me. Calling publicly for a member to be banned in itself seems like a breach of the TOC, and such decisions should not be made on the basis of who is shouting the loudest.

To me, a ban is a last resort, before which other alternatives should be explored. Have they? Kirby just yesterday instituted an automated hide tag for you tube videos. Is no one willing to wait and see if this alleviates the problem? What is the problem exactly? Seems to me like a mob doesn't like the way that this member expresses himself. Is that really a good reason to silence somebody? As has been pointed out, if one doesn't want to read posts by a certain member, the forum has tools available to block them. Another option would be for a moderator to have a private discussion with the member and ask them to ... to what? To shut up? What exactly is the crime here? Are threads being hijacked? Are the posts off topic? Are there just too many posts? I understand that a person's loquaciousness can get on people's nerves, but that's not a good reason to treat someone unfairly.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

It seems you are reading the TOCs "Religious, political, and sexual topics" to say starting a new topic a.k.a thread on religious/sexual etc themes is not allowed, but replying to an existing thread (such as one about some go position or learning from AG or a study journal of user X) is ok. I do not interpret "topic" there to mean specifically the thread construct of this forum software, but to mean "theme" or "idea", the topic of conversation. It would be strange for the TOCs to allow a user to start talking about sexual themes in a thread just because the thread started abut go: in fact I think that's worse than starting a thread about sex because it's off-topic thread derailment as well as unsuitable content. If Solomon or adrian or whoever wrote the rules could clarify if my reading is correct that'd be appreciated.

As for do the majority dislike his posts, I could start a poll to gather real data in place of speculation, but at the risk of being accused of witch-hunting/mean. I expect daal wouldn't like this. Would wording like this be fair?

What do you think of djhbrown's contribution to this forum, and what to do?
- Strongly negative contribution to the forum, better off banned.
- Mostly negative, people can hide/ignore if they don't like it, don't mind if banned or not.
- Mostly negative, people can hide/ignore if they don't like it, ban is too harsh.
- It's okay
- Mostly positive contribution to the forum
- Strongly positive contribution to the forum
- Don't care

Indeed. This is not a matter where public opinion need be gathered, but rather for the mods to determine whether the spirit of the TOC is being violated. My impression is that most of the cited examples are not baiting, but rather just banter, and have not resulted in heated discussions. Whether their content is lacking or distasteful is a matter of a moderator's judgement. Even if it is so determined however, the TOC threatens first locking or deleting a thread, not banning, which the TOC reserves for "if worst comes to worst" after a) a warning, and b) repeated violation. If this has taken place, fine. If not, I think it would be more appropriate for a mod to delete this thread than to take part in it.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I don't see how anyone could have logged on yesterday and not thought that dhjb needed to be banned - meaningless posts strewn across about a dozen threads. I clicked on the "Report" button a few times, and if others did so too, then yes, process was followed, and there may have been more consensus than was visible.

On top of that, he's a repeat offender who clearly won't learn.

I don't advocate completely free speech. That's why this thread seems objectionable to me. I don't think a member should be allowed to say anything, that's why we have a TOC. If one objects to a post, it can be reported. Publicly calling for a ban however is like going up on stage at the tech conference and saying that it's time we told Joe Watercooler to skedaddle. That's just not the right way to go about doing things. It's humiliating and yes, it's a call for like minded people to shout "hear, hear!" As you said, if people don't like someone's contributions, they don't have to listen to them, or if they really object to what someone is saying, they can start a conversation about what is appropriate to be discussed and what isn't, but jumping in to say let's boot the guy is something entirely different.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

That becomes rather difficult when someone tries to make everything about themselves and derails every topic. At that point their behaviour becomes a legitimate point of discussion as far as I am concerned.

FWIW, I like djhbrown, and find his posts unique, but amusing. That being said, it's an admin's job to prioritize the best interests of the go community over personal preferences, free speech, or any one particular user.

The challenging aspect is that nobody, including myself, is objective. So to make a decision on these matters, I can only look to the indicators we have available to us on the forum.

In this case, the best sense I have from the go community is the number of reported posts from our users. djhbrown has consistently had his posts reported, now exceeding the frequency of reports we had for spam bots, since post approval for new users is still in effect. Combined with this thread, the message I am hearing from the L19 community *seems* clear.

More than most people, I am an advocate of free speech, and do not want to ban any real people (yes, let's ban the bots). But to stick with my personal opinions on banning would be to ignore the clear data we have from the number of user reports on posts.

I want L19 to be a place welcoming to go players, new and old. If there's data to support the idea that the ban is largely against what the community wants, the ban should be lifted.

As a general rule, we should aim to act in the best interests of the community over personal preferences. As I personally don't object to (most of) djhbrown's posts, that was the intent of the ban in the first place.

_________________
be immersed