Thanks for providing the example. It's much better than the one which I had proposed.

In this instance, I would make a distinction between what A and B said versus person C. Person C changed the topic from prayer to specifically religion (i.e., does God exist). I believe that such a discussion is inappropriate for the EGR.

Having warned the people to stop the discussion in the EGR, if it continued I would direct one or more not to talk in the EGR for a specified period of time.

At this point, the people in the discussion would have several options.

1. Continue as they are (although I would recommend that this choice isn't selected)
2. Talk with me in private chat to provide their point of view and possibly result in the EGR chat ban being revoked
3. Continue the discussion in another room
4. Stop the discussion altogether

The purpose of the publicly-available ban list isn't clear to me.

If a person believes that he or she has been banned inappropriately, then there are several avenues for resolving the situation. The preferred option is for the person to write to admin@gokgs.com and explain the situation. All such e-mails are investigated and explanations provided to the person who complained. The person can also speak with the admin after the ban has expired to obtain a more detailed explanation.

There is also a personal embarrassment aspect to be considered. Being human, we all make mistakes. When I make a mistake, I apologise to the person involved and attempt to rectify the original mistake. As well, it's very common for people to explain the circumstances of their mistake to me (e.g., bad day at school, while playing go to relax an escaper taunted him or her before leaving and the person over-reacted by dropping the f-bomb). The person who was banned recognised that he or she was at fault and is embarrassed by the original reaction. These things happen. I obviously make mistakes too and certainly sympathise with people who make mistakes under difficult circumstances.

Therefore, taking this example, what is the purpose of making this person's name and circumstances available for public view?

I think if I were the admin in this situation, if I felt something was out of place, I would target that specifically. I think the ambiguity over what conversation should stop can create problems.

If an admin feels that one (or multiple) of those comments was out of place, they should target that specifically:

Admin a) "Please move conversations about religion to pm or another room"
Admin b) "Avoid puns based on racial stereotypes, this is against the TOS, further conversation along those lines will result in bans"

I think clarity would eliminate a lot of the problems here.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

'Admin' shouldn't have said anything in the first place.

Ditto, admin shouldn't have said anything in the first place.

viewtopic.php?p=98129#p98129

Over 3 years and I'm still waiting...

I'm not Doug, but I can think of a few things offhand that might be problematic --

First one that comes to mind would be exposure of aliases (or really privacy in general). As a matter of policy we don't reveal alternate accounts for people haven't publicly made it clear it is one of their aliases, however a boot log would quickly put an end to that. This is perhaps a small thing, but I still think there is a principle there that should be respected. You may not believe so, but I'd like to think that even users who were banned have a right to some privacy. Likewise, even if it's abusive private chat, it's still their private chat and discussing it with the whole server without their consent is a line I wouldn't want to cross. There's a lot of room for non-banned people to get caught in crossfire here too...Imagine, you're in a game and you get beaten by a sandbagger, who then goes on to use all sorts of obscenities to describe you, your family and your go playing...you discreetly bring it up with an administrator who bans the sandbagger giving a reason of "Please don't make abusive remarks to other users"...suddenly a whole group of people who become boot log junkies (let's be honest, this will happen if there is a public boot log) are scouring through the sandbagger's recent games to find out why they are booted. Suddenly your bad day against a mean opponent is a public affair even though you have done nothing wrong and may have wanted to keep it a (relatively) private matter.

The second goes along with the server idea of "no public accusation." Just as people love to keep escaper lists, "doesn't say hello and good game" lists, tilde lists and all sorts of other blacklists, this would just provide more fodder for people who like to feel smug and superior to others. Worst case scenario it could turn into witchhunting. Best case scenario it is a giant forum of "public accusation"

The third is that I would worry about some disruptive users treating it like a scoreboard, trying to get on the ban list as many times as they can...giving them public validation may exacerbate their behavior.

I've not yet made up my mind on whether a public boot log is a good idea, but would err on the "No" side.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear on my intent -- I was trying to see if and how a greater context might influence opinion on the proper course of action. So to clarify -- you feel the comment is equally harmless both from someone who it is their first day on KGS and someone who has a history of making derogatory remarks about asians? (Just to avoid being misinterpreted, I am genuinely asking, since the purpose of the thread is to share perspectives)

Do you think Huckleberry Finn is derogatory?

Do you like strawberries?

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Maybe this is the same issue people have with admins - they can be seen as thinking they are superior to others.

It's just a matter of precisely which people get to see the bannin infomation - the admin(s) or the public. The witchhunting and accusations may happen in public if logs are made public. Currently it is the admin that has that information, which may explain some sources of contempt.

I know I don't like being banned myself at the decision of another person who is not, in my opinion, superior to me.

I feel, "hey, who does that admin think he is? where does he get off thinking i deserve to be banned? " Most admin decisions have to have some subjectivity involved, and I'm sure, in my subjective opinion, I could find reasons to ban the admin, givn enough time.

Anyway, I know banning will continue, but I guess I am just saying that the feelings of superiority that you mention could potentially be seen in admins, too.

_________________
be immersed

Definitely not the same. The first case would be someone trying to be funny, but the second is just "keeping at it" and probably about to say something worse

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

"You must learn to live with disappointment." - The Princess Bride

_________________
And the go-fever which is more real than many doctors’ diseases, waked and raged...
- Rudyard Kipling, "The Light That Failed" (1891)

Person A: Prayer will help your go
Moderately off topic - but not worth mentioning

Person B: In my last game, I didn't have a prayer
Also off topic, but an attempt at light humor - so I'd do nothing.

Person C: Assuming of course that god exists.
Totally off topic

Person B: The hand of god was scratching his nose
Totally off topic

Admin: Please take this conversation elsewhere
Too vague. Admin should say that religion is against the TOS

Person A: But seriously, when I pray before a game, my concentration is significantly better.
OK. Maybe a constructive comment

Person B: I've tried meditating
Definitely a constructive comment

Person C: Yeah, when praying go, pray as the asians do.
At this point, were I an admin, I would publicly inform player C that he was close to a ban because it was the 'wrong direction of pray'.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

@Joaz: You repeatedly describe things as "off topic" and my interpretation is this is a criticism which if severe enough warrants banning. But what is the correct topic? Go? Nothing in the TOS says you must only talk about Go on KGS. Indeed the TOS doesn't even mention religion, though main rooms like the EGR do have some more restrictive policies.

Maybe I missed it, but a very significant piece of context is missing from this example: where on KGS is it? The English Game Room? The All Politics room? Some random hikaru fan's ego boosta room? In a high dan game with lots of observers? In some random 5k game with a few friends chatting?

As a short participation, i really think this discussion is bizantine. Even if all agreed on a course of action here,which is unlikely, and did so on 50 more ocassions which would take weeks, it might only affect the very small subset of admins that use L19, that have to make a decision in a situation as detached as a hypothetical one.

Specially on volunteer admins, it think this shouldnt rely so much on their snap judgement. Honestly more often than not, i feel admins are too lenient than too harsh.

For a solution, there are way more effective methods than behavior-inducing a few admins.

Now i dont want to interrupt the hypothetical fun

_________________
Founder of Kaya.gs

I think it's pretty ridiculous to consider that those chat lines of A/B/C would actually require moderation.

KGS always says it wants to be family-friendly, but if there was a kindergarden where kids were moderated in such a way as people on KGS I think we'd see a generation of psychos growing up.

I agree with topazg here.

Off topic>

It was always puzzling to me why people would find topics by themselves 'offensive'. What is so offensive about two people discussing the existence of God? In general... really puzzling. I can see people being interested in a topic or not interested, but getting offended because somebody else discusses something with a third person - this just boggles my mind... I have not really experienced anything like that in Europe (or at least I don't remember), is that an American thing? Is common sense so scarce that it is easier to forbid a topic altogether than apply common sense and judge it on case-by-case value? I don't get it.

True, discussions can degenerate to ugliness, and certain topics are more prone to it than others (religion, politics, etc) - but its the ugliness that might be offensive, not the topic itself. Or so I think. If the discussion is conducted in a civilized manner with good arguments being exchanged, really, why would anybody be offended?

And I am not talking here about fringe cases like pedophilia or something, which really can be too much... but religion is something that everybody has an opinion of, as is politics and a lot of other interesting issues... people discuss is on public media all the time.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I think that what you may be missing is that permitting the discussion of the existence of God on the internet does not lead to a fascinating metaphysical dialogue; instead it leads to an e-invasion by those strange people who stand on street corners with sandwich boards about burning in hell. And then discussion gets heated and angry and no one is having fun anymore.