I was in the room at the time, and after reading xDragon's first post, I was in complete agreement with him, but by now that I've read through the whole thread, and despite disagreeing with most of what tchan says and being extremely put off by the nature of the admin's responses, I'm starting to see things from their point of view.
First of all, at the time, I felt grateful to Pempu and xDragon for pointing out where the video could be viewed. I wanted to look at the video as well as watch the game on KGS, and passing along this information is more a friendly thing to do, and less a matter of promoting the competition. They were doing the KGS viewers a service. Thank you. Was the link allowed? I can't say, but after the issue of its legality was raised, xDragon found a link that was definitely legal and in agreement with the admin who was involved in the issue.
On the surface, it would seem that there is little to justify a ban, but thanks to xdragon's meticulously documented self defense, we get to see that what got him banned was his history of trying people's patience.
There is much to criticize in the actions of the KGS admins, and I hope that hearing it from a neutral source will give them pause. Their responses were rude (dear troll), incomprehensible (we didn't forget what you had brought us...) obnoxious (<delete>), unnecessary (banning after the situation had been resolved) evasive (not stating a reason for the ban) circumventive (pretending not to understand xDragon's complaint) irrelevant (saying that what xDragon did was unnecessary, which is not a reason for a ban) disingenuous (justifying the lack of explanation with the assertion that xDragon would not accept any explanation) and infuriating (why didn't you accept her judgement in the first place?)
That's a lot to criticize, so I asked myself: Where did all that come from? I started by re-reading
xDragon's first post. He writes:
there were about a dozen people who quickly spoke up saying that it was legal because the stream was coming from baduk tv itself which was a legal broadcaster.
Ok, this is an exaggeration. Maybe there were two or three others who defended the link. Then he writes:
nyan would continually say "youtube is not an authorized broadcaster" which makes zero sense because youtube is not a broadcaster but a broadcasting platform.
Hm. This sounds nitpicky and condescending.
Then:
i also talked to javaness about this, but he just kind of brushed me off when he found out i had a legit case.
This reminds me of a kid who asks his mom after his dad said no.
A bit later he writes:
it didnt make much sense to ban one but not the other but ok, ill take the small victory.
A small victory? Is that what this is about? About winning an argument? I'm starting to think so.
Then there's this exchange:
For the upcoming events, I suggest that you simply enjoy them and comment upon them. It's not necessary to be an ad hoc marketing agent on behalf of YouTube or other broadcasters. They have enough people doing that already.
Regards,
Doug"
so now i feel like doug is asking others to view other servers instead of kgs? thats strange.
Who's muddying the issue now?
Then:
but it was the last two sentences that struck me as most strange. how is telling nyanjilla that posting a link to a youtube link wasnt illegal being an advertiser for youtube?
He's right, it's not, but again, this sounds like nitpicking because his actions support the advertisement.
A bit later:
then i had to point out that i did not argue with nyan, i was trying to explain to her that it was incorrect (which is why i could not accept it
He
had to point out? He could not accept it? Exactly.
Then xDragon tries to find out what got him banned. I'd like to know too, but I suspect for a different reason. I think he wants to know so that he can say that it was wrong. He writes:
ok, so why was my behavior incorrect here? i did nothing wrong besides prove an admin wrong, which apparently is a bannable offense.
There is a difference in intent between setting the record straight and proving someone wrong. One sets the record straight to get correct information out to the public, one proves someone wrong to undermine their authority.
And all this was just in one post.
Appearances can deceive. The justification for the ban is that no one can be expected to have the time or patience to repeatedly submit to such tedious onslaughts in their free time. The admin's responses were ugly, but they don't appear to have come out of the blue. In my opinion, xDragon brewed the very storm that got tossed him out by displaying a know-it-all, nitpicking attitude, by publicly confronting an admin, by dragging in other admins, and by giving credence to their previously formed opinions of him. While the responses of the admins was sub-optimal, I find it hard to blame them.
Patience, grasshopper.
. 
.
.