Thread pollution

[daal]

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.

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.

[bernds]

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.

[daal]

Seems to me like a mob doesn't like the way that this member expresses himself.

When people are sufficiently annoyed to post about an issue, that doesn't make them a "mob". Negative words like "mob" are often thrown around to make others retreat from a discussion.

Participating in an online community is a bit like going to a tech conference. Various smaller discussions are taking place all over the hallway. Sometimes a person wanders around and joins a discussion but only says things that are tangential or jokes or generally out of tune with the overall discussion. Usually the group engages with this person and tries to find out what he has to contribute, but at some point they realize that this is fruitless; then they just slip into awkward silence until that person goes away or they themselves go somewhere else.

No one wants to take away that person's right to say whatever he wants, but it's the other people's choice whether to listen or to go somewhere else.

I think it would be more appropriate for a mod to delete this thread than to take part in it.

If you advocate completely free speech, that must include discussions about said freedom as well.

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.

[bernds]

As you said, if people don't like someone's contributions, they don't have to listen to them

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.

[Kirby]

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.

[Elom]

I am not in much place to comment here, but I would like to note:

I have not gone through most of his posts, but by analysing some of djhbrowns posts, I slightly suspected a possible illness along with loneliness. This may explain why it really was not quite random posting, but somewhat sensible writing in addition to a chaotic amalgamation of what might be djhbrown's other interests. It is for this reason I personally do not want to ban djhbrown, but it is also the same reason it may be the case that djhbrown just might have to be banned as it is probably impossible for us to significantly adjust the behavior of someone who is mentally ill for greater harmony. However this was just my speculation, so I assume(d) that anything that could have been done to avoid a ban was done: banning is the bad option when all other options are most horrid.

I always assumed that in order to instate a ban,
the administrators come together and conduct a technical analysis of the user alongside the TOC, with possible input of public opinion in the trickiest cases (I would not even imagine carrying out an action with the magnitude of a non-temporary ban without the maximum and complete application of due process— which was a bit silly as that is rather impractical) as it helps to generate trust between all the users. I do still hope, however, that administrators are well adept at hearing out and internalizing a large number of other's opinions without the iron fist (as, fortunately, has been so demonstrated) and that simultaneously the administrator's somewhat awkward position is respected and that discussion is civil (as has excellently been so far) and that anybody new who does join this thread does not throw rocks at others not matter how obviously right they may be as armchair administrators.

PS: If we are talking about silly posts, I cannot comment as an innocent.

[Joaz Banbeck]

... I assume(d) that anything that could have been done to avoid a ban was done...

[admin]
Yes, other attempts were made: multiple warnings and a temporary ban a month or so back. None of those worked.
[/admin]

[Bill Spight]

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 generally agree. As some of you know, I used to be an admin (Lead Helper) for an online conferencing service in the 1980s. We banned one person, who may have suffered from paranoid personality disorder. Anyway, he caused a great deal of disruption, much more than is tolerated here. By comparison, our service was more like the wild west.

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.

When I first became a Helper, way back when, I was shocked to find out that around half of the discussions among helpers was about that guy, who had been causing trouble for years. Talk about process, we were bogged down with it. I am not at all sure that a proper process has not been followed here. There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private. People need to be able to express opinions that might be harmful if made public.

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.

I think that that claim is irrelevant. Brown seems to be overly in love with his own ideas, but who isn't?

At this point, I would like to discuss some of his recent behavior which I find objectionable. Feel free to skip the rest.

But with an integer komi, there can be a komi value where perfect players would always get a jigo.

That's not logical - the only thing that's sure is that there can be a komi value where imperfect players would sometimes get a jigo. i would imagine that DM experimented with 6.5 and 7.5 and found that 7.5 was closer to 50%. It's entirely possible that 7.5 is closer to 50% than 7.

But one thing is for sure: if anyone ever learns anything from A0, it won't be anything to do with komi.

To me, the most fascinating thing is the markedly different styles of A0 and Master - but of course, i am biased like hell, because A0's honte style is more like Swim's than Master's

So far, OK. Brown rambles and obfuscates a bit, which may be annoying. He interjects a plug for his program, which may also be annoying. But being annoying is no crime. His argument is also wrong, but again, that is no crime.

Fedya quotes the above, and continues.

Completely disagree. Proof:

1) There is such a thing as perfect play. After all, one (well, more due to symmetry) move must be the best in any given situation (or multiple moves could be equal in that they lead to the same outcome in terms of score)
2) Both sides play every perfect move
3) The game will end with each side having some integer number of points.
Therefore,
4) There must then be some integer komi that would make the final score equal.

Proof

there's a flaw in your straw, dear Liza, dear Liza; there's a flaw in your straw, dear Liza, A Flaw!

Hint: It's got something to do with the Monty Hall Problem

Brown links to a Harry Belafonte song, such links being his style. That also may be annoying. His claim is also wrong. He then violates the social conventions of debate by

1) not attempting to prove it;
2) pretending superiority to Fedya, by offering a hint. BTW, the hint is also wrong. More obfuscation.

This is more than annoying. It is a form of ad hominem attack.

The exchange continues.

Why don't you actually post the flaw instead of a constant stream of useless non sequitur garbage?

Fedya is irritated, but attacks what Brown said, not Brown himself.

Your avatar is Charles Coburn.

In the 1940s, Coburn served as vice-president of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a group opposed to leftist infiltration and proselytization in Hollywood during the Cold War.[citation needed] Coburn was a member of the White Citizens' Councils, a group which opposed racial integration.[4][5]

in my eyes, black and white are equal.

A not so subtle ad hominem attack, based upon association. This is really not acceptable. I tend to avoid Brown's posts, but not entirely. However, I get the impression that he (Edit: assumes an air of superiority and) engages in minor putdowns. While as an admin I wonder whether I would vote to ban him, I am not going to second guess that decision.

[Elom]

...There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private...

I can't imagine how a public discussion on banning a particular individual— goodness forbid before applying the ban could possibly work (hilarity would undoubtedly ensue and no, it doesn't mean 'it a little funny' ).

[Bill Spight]

...There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private...

I can't imagine how a public discussion on banning a particular individual— goodness forbid before applying the ban could possibly work (hilarity would undoubtedly ensue and no, it doesn't mean 'it a little funny' ).

Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. When admins do so with no public discussion, there will always be a suspicion of abuse of power. We have certainly seen many complaints about banning on go servers. It would be more transparent, and perhaps better, to take that power away from administrators and have it reside in the community as a whole, or in a delegated group (jury), with a public discussion of the member's behavior (a trial), giving the member a chance to defend himself publicly. In the case of the person I mentioned above who was eventually banned, some years earlier there had been a public discussion of his behavior, in an attempt, which proved to be in vain, to induce him to change it.

[EdLee]

Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups.

In extreme cases, there's one further step: contact the authorities.
This just happened ( for a particular server ) in a very recent international tourney.
In the past, another server also had to contact the authorities ( in a certain country ).
In such cases, public discussion is even out of the question.

If that's not tragic enough:

Malicious prank calls.

[John Fairbairn]

Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. When admins do so with no public discussion, there will always be a suspicion of abuse of power.

Yes (though I do not suspect any here). And there are also types of bans. Creative use of different types can be one way of being transparent. I can't remember the details, but one member here was banned from doing something like posting more than two replies to a thread. He was thus not banned completely but the reasons for his partial ban became clear.

In Brown's case a ban on youtube links may be sufficient - and why should we give youtube free advertising anyway?

[Elom]

...There is no reason, and in fact, there is good reason to keep admin discussions about banning private...

I can't imagine how a public discussion on banning a particular individual— goodness forbid before applying the ban could possibly work (hilarity would undoubtedly ensue and no, it doesn't mean 'it a little funny' ).

Banning is the ultimate sanction available to this and many other online groups. When admins do so with no public discussion, there will always be a suspicion of abuse of power. We have certainly seen many complaints about banning on go servers. It would be more transparent, and perhaps better, to take that power away from administrators and have it reside in the community as a whole, or in a delegated group (jury), with a public discussion of the member's behavior (a trial), giving the member a chance to defend himself publicly. In the case of the person I mentioned above who was eventually banned, some years earlier there had been a public discussion of his behavior, in an attempt, which proved to be in vain, to induce him to change it.

I do agree with this sentiment— I guess I have been influenced by some people defending themselves in a very aggressive manner; if the person was on the verge of being banned that person might struggle to hold a civil conversation, but the reason for banning may have little to do with such a thing and it is unpreferable to remove the right of someone to defend themselves...

Administrators get all the fun. Doomed if they ban, doomed if they don't .

[PeterHB]

... I assume(d) that anything that could have been done to avoid a ban was done...

[admin]
Yes, other attempts were made: multiple warnings and a temporary ban a month or so back. None of those worked.
[/admin]

This is the important bit for me. I'm in favour of trusting admins to attempt to have good judgement. To discuss sanctions with the other admins where at all possible. This case took at least 18 months before banning. I don't know, but assume it was discussed amongst the admins before banning him. Assuming that's true, this seems entirely reasonable to me. Being warned once should have been enough. Multiple warnings and a temporary ban are bending over backwards to give him a chance to change.

Admins are people too. It is healthier to trust them than to undermine them when they try their best, even if they don't get everything right. People's character improves when you trust them.

[Uberdude]

This case took at least 18 months before banning. I don't know, but assume it was discussed amongst the admins before banning him. Assuming that's true, this seems entirely reasonable to me.

Your assumption is correct. As others have also surmised, there is a private sub-forum where admins discuss admin things together.

Being warned once should have been enough. Multiple warnings and a temporary ban are bending over backwards to give him a chance to change.

I also think the admins* probably erred too much on the side of being lenient/cautious, which meant user frustration boiled over into the creation of this thread.

* of which I am a relatively new and junior one, but have done little of the difficult admin work making decisions about human behaviour: I was co-opted as a simple spam deleter in European timezone. One time I split some of djhbrown's off-topic posts to a new thread but that was poorly received so have left him alone (from an admin perspective) since (also as I sometimes engage with him felt there could be a conflict of interest / lack of impartiality) and only put on my admin hat for trivial easy things (such as adding a missing 'l' to this thread's title ).