An e-mail to admin concerning "Herod"

[BigDoug]

I am still waiting for my apology for when you incorrectly (as agreed by glue, your boss at the time) kicked then banned me.

My goodness. How many years ago was that? Four? Five?

Mate, sometimes you just have to let things go and move on with your life. Carrying a grudge about a disagreement which happened several years ago simply isn't good for you.

[Uberdude]

I am still waiting for my apology for when you incorrectly (as agreed by glue, your boss at the time) kicked then banned me.

My goodness. How many years ago was that? Four? Five?

Mate, sometimes you just have to let things go and move on with your life. Carrying a grudge about a disagreement which happened several years ago simply isn't good for you.

According to the date on the game at viewtopic.php?p=98129#p98129, almost four.

I don't actually care about you apologising, nor do I expect you to. I just bring it up when you do your condescending holier-than-thou spiel about apologising for your mistakes. It's quite alright for you to be a flawed human being, like the rest of us, with your pride and dislike for me preventing you from apologising, but be man enough to admit it instead of pretending you are a saint.

[mw42]

I agree with your stance, mostly, mw42, but I agree that it's misleading to say that you received a 24 hour ban when it was not actually 24 hours. I think your point still stands if you simply say what actually happened without exaggeration.

I didn't try to log on until the next day after the first ban. So I just assumed it was a 24 hour ban. This was a mistake, so I apologize, but it was not an intentional lie. The fact I was banned at all isn't even the issue I am trying to address so let's not get off-topic.

[Joaz Banbeck]

[admin]
Gentlemen,
Some of you seem to be getting a bit testy here. Please remember that the TOS forbids criticizing your fellow members.
Thank you,
JB
[/admin]

[BigDoug]

Some of you seem to be getting a bit testy here. Please remember that the TOS forbids criticizing your fellow members.

Yes, you are correct. My apologies.

[raptor]

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.

[raptor]

I am still waiting for my apology for when you incorrectly (as agreed by glue, your boss at the time) kicked then banned me.

My goodness. How many years ago was that? Four? Five?

Mate, sometimes you just have to let things go and move on with your life. Carrying a grudge about a disagreement which happened several years ago simply isn't good for you.

Being arrogant and refusing to accept mistakes made is also not exactly good by the way.

[illluck]

[admin]
Gentlemen,
Some of you seem to be getting a bit testy here. Please remember that the TOS forbids criticizing your fellow members.
Thank you,
JB
[/admin]

Forbids... criticizing...?

[Redundant]

Please remember that the TOS forbids criticizing your fellow members.

When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member.

The rule as stated limits that to talking about people's moves. The more relevant rule here is verbally attacking, which depends on what you mean by verbal attacks.

[ez4u]

Please remember that the TOS forbids criticizing your fellow members.

When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member.

The rule as stated limits that to talking about people's moves. The more relevant rule here is verbally attacking, which depends on what you mean by verbal attacks.

"1. Personal Attacks
Remember the Golden Rule: do to others what you would like to be done to you. Trolling, flaming, bashing, or otherwise verbally attacking anyone is not allowed. When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member. Also, please consider that not every member in the forums is a native English speaker as you write your post."

IMHO it takes a rather selective reading of this to say it applies only to people's moves. YMMV.

[Redundant]

Please remember that the TOS forbids criticizing your fellow members.

When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member.

The rule as stated limits that to talking about people's moves. The more relevant rule here is verbally attacking, which depends on what you mean by verbal attacks.

"1. Personal Attacks
Remember the Golden Rule: do to others what you would like to be done to you. Trolling, flaming, bashing, or otherwise verbally attacking anyone is not allowed. When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member. Also, please consider that not every member in the forums is a native English speaker as you write your post."

IMHO it takes a rather selective reading of this to say it applies only to people's moves. YMMV.

There's a difference between a personal attack and criticism. The only time criticism appears in the TOS is in the context of moves. Should this conversation have been stopped for personal attacks, yes. Criticism need not be a personal attack, though. For example, you just criticized me for my reading of this rule.

[Kirby]

Who is being personally attacked? I'd say the closest post to a personal attack was one of my own, where I suggested that BigDoug's decisions may not be as correct as he claims them to be, which is mostly semantic anyway since what is correct depends on perspective.

And my post was not meant to be a personal attack - it was more of a post I made because I felt inaccuracy in the post to which I was responding.

I am not for personally attacking anyone, but I think it's one sided to let KGS admins have whatever version of the truth they want to hold without any defense from the other side of the argument. Maybe that can happen on KGS, but this isn't KGS.

I feel the discussion to this point has not been about personal attacking, but about presenting viewpoints that differ from what the authority claims.

Uberdude's response is a great example.

[Uberdude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAy4zULKFDU

Now that's what I call a verbal attack.

[badukJr]

The TOU is wide open enough to intrepretation that the admins can use it to ban anyone they:d like, and lets not kid ourselves, its intentional.

To start, there are two TOU on this site and both are worded completely differently.

[Amelia]

The TOU is wide open enough to intrepretation that the admins can use it to ban anyone they:d like, and lets not kid ourselves, its intentional.

To start, there are two TOU on this site and both are worded completely differently.

I used to be a forum admin. So I'll say this:
What you want as an admin is keep the peace. You want the forum to stay an enjoyable place where people discuss interesting and/or fun things, as opposed to agressive non constructive discussions.
What you do not want to do is spend your time deciding who's right, who's wrong, who started and who finished, because it's not a particularly fun or interesting task.
A fight of some sort is bound to happen in any bigger community and the go community is a very civilized one compared to others but it's no exception. When that happens, your admin job is to explain to people that they should please go fight somewhere else, in private, and if that message is ignored, force them to do so.
The TOU isn't a law. It's a friendly warning.


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...

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. 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.