Boidhre wrote: 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."
I don't know where the line is, and it doesn't matter if I do anyway - the admins will do what they want.
But to give a few examples, I don't think the items I mentioned (eg. "off-topic" kibitz, discussion in other languages, etc.) should be banned. I don't even think flooding needs to be banned. Anything that a user can censor without much pain does not need banning. When you ban for something that can easily be censored, you'll have a set of users that valued the content that was banned, and this is not worthwhile (whereas leaving to censor allows full flexibility in users seeing the content that they want).
Boidhre wrote: 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."
I don't know where the line is, and it doesn't matter if I do anyway - the admins will do what they want.
But to give a few examples, I don't think the items I mentioned (eg. "off-topic" kibitz, discussion in other languages, etc.) should be banned. I don't even think flooding needs to be banned. Anything that a user can censor without much pain does not need banning. When you ban for something that can easily be censored, you'll have a set of users that valued the content that was banned, and this is not worthwhile (whereas leaving to censor allows full flexibility in users seeing the content that they want).
Yeah, but I can also censor someone who verbally abuses me after a game (very rare) but we do want to discourage such behaviour with bans or some other form of sanction no?
Boidhre wrote: Yeah, but I can also censor someone who verbally abuses me after a game (very rare) but we do want to discourage such behaviour with bans or some other form of sanction no?
Personally, I do not wish to have some sort of ban or sanction for this type of behavior - who should decide what gets punished? When I disagree with you on the forum, does it mean I'm abusing you? Some sensitive people might say yes.
These sanctions assume some sort of model behavior, for which I don't think there is a definition that matches everyone's intuition. Supposedly this is what the TOS is for, but we know that bans are not correlated directly with the TOS (except under the blanket idea that you must listen to admins).
Anyway, for me, in the example you provided just now, censoring is sufficient. There is no reason to "punish" the user.
Boidhre wrote: Yeah, but I can also censor someone who verbally abuses me after a game (very rare) but we do want to discourage such behaviour with bans or some other form of sanction no?
Personally, I do not wish to have some sort of ban or sanction for this type of behavior - who should decide what gets punished? When I disagree with you on the forum, does it mean I'm abusing you? Some sensitive people might say yes.
These sanctions assume some sort of model behavior, for which I don't think there is a definition that matches everyone's intuition. Supposedly this is what the TOS is for, but we know that bans are not correlated directly with the TOS (except under the blanket idea that you must listen to admins).
Anyway, for me, in the example you provided just now, censoring is sufficient. There is no reason to "punish" the user.
There's rather a difference between me disagreeing with you and me telling you to "F*** off you stupid Yank c*** and go f***ing shove your opinions up your a***" no? One is rather more likely to offend and distress than the other and we might prefer more polite exchanges and want to encourage this?
One fix that I think users seem to forget about is the Censor feature. I've only used it a few times, but aside from a short annoyance the problem goes away until they change accounts.
"It has cost me much, but I have learned... Lemon need not squeeze lemon to survive..!"
Boidhre wrote: 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."
I don't know where the line is, and it doesn't matter if I do anyway - the admins will do what they want.
But to give a few examples, I don't think the items I mentioned (eg. "off-topic" kibitz, discussion in other languages, etc.) should be banned. I don't even think flooding needs to be banned. Anything that a user can censor without much pain does not need banning. When you ban for something that can easily be censored, you'll have a set of users that valued the content that was banned, and this is not worthwhile (whereas leaving to censor allows full flexibility in users seeing the content that they want).
There are definitely reasons for banning. If you were to go to a Chinese go forum and you start making political statements against the powers that be, you risk the shutdown of the server and criminal liabilities to the owner of the site. Would you still argue that such would not warrant a ban on such a server by those in charge? And that you would merely censor them? If you were the owner of the site, would you merely wait for admins to take their time to do their job of just censoring unwanted content because you refuse to ban people as a principle?
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.
Boidhre wrote: Yeah, but I can also censor someone who verbally abuses me after a game (very rare) but we do want to discourage such behaviour with bans or some other form of sanction no?
Personally, I do not wish to have some sort of ban or sanction for this type of behavior - who should decide what gets punished? When I disagree with you on the forum, does it mean I'm abusing you? Some sensitive people might say yes.
These sanctions assume some sort of model behavior, for which I don't think there is a definition that matches everyone's intuition. Supposedly this is what the TOS is for, but we know that bans are not correlated directly with the TOS (except under the blanket idea that you must listen to admins).
Anyway, for me, in the example you provided just now, censoring is sufficient. There is no reason to "punish" the user.
There's rather a difference between me disagreeing with you and me telling you to "F*** off you stupid Yank c*** and go f***ing shove your opinions up your a***" no? One is rather more likely to offend and distress than the other and we might prefer more polite exchanges and want to encourage this?
Sure, but we don't need to encourage by sanctions. I agree that such behavior could offend, but I'm not at user's mommy or daddy, so I don't see the need to punish them when the problem can be solved by a simple censor.
If we want to encourage good behavior, let's reward for being good instead of being heavy-handed when someone acts in a way we personally find to be disagreeable.
My latest example was not about the matter of items which the community dislikes and which should just be censored. It's about material whose very presence can threaten the existence of the community. Not exactly an reiteration, but rather showing that inaction or low level censoring of certain things could lead to criminal prosecution of the people who own and run the community. If the tolerance of the admins and owners of a community attracts a population of people who want to use the community for illegal underground purposes, then that would be a great loss for the community. As Boihdre points out with his example about angry people posting child porn, what happens if people who post such material finds the community tolerant to such postings and decide to flood the forum with such items. Would you still defend your position that they should not be banned while you are fleeing from the authorities who are after you for "promoting" such works because of your inaction?
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.
Disaster scenario #47: Admin Kirby! Lex Luthor has kidnapped Lois Lane and will blow up the world unless you BAN Superman from KGS, WILL YOU DO IT????
C'mon people, all the guy said was that he thinks admins should be more rather than less lenient when it comes to minor disturbances. It's his personal preference. Admins are volunteers who do a great job yada yada, yet sometimes their interpretation of the server rules causes more of a disturbance than the than the guy making a bad joke. He'd like them to be more lenient. You wouldn't. Basta.
daal wrote:Disaster scenario #47: Admin Kirby! Lex Luthor has kidnapped Lois Lane and will blow up the world unless you BAN Superman from KGS, WILL YOU DO IT????
Indeed, catching up on this thread I had high hopes that this thread might end amicably at this point:
Kirby wrote:
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.
Someone could mention that many communities prefer to use the "clone game" feature on high dan games so they have a real-time updating version of the game that they can discuss them however they see fit without having to worry about other people. What's more, they can even discuss variations in the game! I think that would end up as a pretty reasonable solution for everyone.
Instead, it continues on for another page and I see we've managed to turn this into "bombard Kirby with extreme situations" thread that I'm not sure what it's trying to achieve \=
Mef wrote:Instead, it continues on for another page and I see we've managed to turn this into "bombard Kirby with extreme situations" thread that I'm not sure what it's trying to achieve \=
It's not the common stuff that we need admins badly for (most admin work isn't really strictly needed usually) but the uncommon more nasty examples are why we need someone on almost all of the time that can delete, ban and so on. My argument was: There's a line we can all agree on, here's the worst example from my experience. Now we have a line we agree we need to police we're past "do we need admins?" and are onto "so what do we want them doing? which is where the real meat of the question is.
