Life In 19x19

Hello,

stalkor wrote:if i advertise the ASR 2 times in the EGR and i get banned for that i would be very *bleeped* off because i try hard to make KGS a better place with the room i have and can't do my "job" as room owner when i'm completely banned. the consequence is that these advertisers may stop using kgs altogether, a lighter action, like the chat ban, would be more appropriate.

I don't think that admins would penalise you if you advertised the ASR twice in 24 hours. The problem originated because people who became new room owners were often enthusiastic about gaining new participants, so they advertised at 10- or 20-second intervals across multiple rooms. That was a contributing factor to the introduction of the one advertisement per day guideline.

In this instance, the person who wanted to play rengo advertised about five times in two minutes. Even then, I didn't ban him immediately. Instead, I spoke with him so that he understood that rules applied to both KGS Plus subscribers and non-subscribers. In almost all instances, a person who advertises multiple times will be warned prior to being banned.

BigDoug wrote:Hello,

stalkor wrote:if i advertise the ASR 2 times in the EGR and i get banned for that i would be very *bleeped* off because i try hard to make KGS a better place with the room i have and can't do my "job" as room owner when i'm completely banned. the consequence is that these advertisers may stop using kgs altogether, a lighter action, like the chat ban, would be more appropriate.

I don't think that admins would penalise you if you advertised the ASR twice in 24 hours. The problem originated because people who became new room owners were often enthusiastic about gaining new participants, so they advertised at 10- or 20-second intervals across multiple rooms. That was a contributing factor to the introduction of the one advertisement per day guideline.

In this instance, the person who wanted to play rengo advertised about five times in two minutes. Even then, I didn't ban him immediately. Instead, I spoke with him so that he understood that rules applied to both KGS Plus subscribers and non-subscribers. In almost all instances, a person who advertises multiple times will be warned prior to being banned.

it's interesting to see that the 24 hour guideline for advertising has a bit of a grey area, i thought rules were pretty much set in stone:)
It's always good to keep communication open with persons who broke a rule to reach an understanding but my idea is for this type of ban to happen after this interaction.
As was quoted in a different thread bigdoug enforces a type of chatban though my idea actually does prevent the chatting for a period so in a sense its already used on KGS.

How come the percentage of admins who are female is so much higher than the percentage of baduk players who are female?

badukJr wrote:How come the percentage of admins who are female is so much higher than the percentage of baduk players who are female?

How is this relevant to this discussion?

I see almost 80% agrees on this idea so in continuation and to build on a pm chat with bidoug i would like to discuss policies. For example; in case of roomowners getting the option to give a player a chat ban, what timelimit(s) could be used? What should happen to abusive roomowners who ban a lot of ppl for no reason.

Also id like your views on how you think this option could effect how you enjoy kgs


…go!:)

stalkor wrote:I see almost 80% agrees on this idea so in continuation and to build on a pm chat with bidoug i would like to discuss policies. For example; in case of roomowners getting the option to give a player a chat ban, what timelimit(s) could be used?

2 hours, 4 hours, 24 hours. Yes, from 4 to 24 is quite steep, but I think anyone deserving a 4-20 hours ban can receive a 24 hour one.

stalkor wrote:What should happen to abusive roomowners who ban a lot of ppl for no reason.

I assume other owners of the same room can find out "chatban logs" as for why it was banned and the like. And then remove the ownership of the room? If a room is constantly being cleaned by owners of chat powers, I assume people will leave those rooms altogether.

stalkor wrote:Also id like your views on how you think this option could effect how you enjoy kgs
…go!:)

I'm not sure this can affect me much unless you ban me, I only talk in the ASR and the Nordic Go Academy rooms. But does the band extend to the whole KGS? If it's like this, it could be a problem. Could a room owner of a room I'm not in ban my chat without me being in his/her room? This could end with people banning people for no reason.

I think the idea was that room owners could only ban chat in the rooms that they own, if you get chatbanned by a room owner, you could still talk in other rooms.

speedchase wrote:I think the idea was that room owners could only ban chat in the rooms that they own, if you get chatbanned by a room owner, you could still talk in other rooms.

I was also sure of this but wanted it clear: if a room owner goes on a spree of chatbanning, his/her room will become empty in no time. No big deal for users

The more that I observe the workings of forums and rooms, the more I come to the conclusion that the ability to ban is the primary tool for creating a good online environment. I suppose that such a comment sounds very cynical, but there are unusual dynamics at work that we often do not consider.

Most of us reflexively would prefer a place that is defined by positive incentives rather than negatives. In the real world, that is how we often make our decisions.

At my favorite burger joint, I go for positive reason: the burgers are outstanding. At the local concert hall, I go for a good reason: the music is superior. It feels better to go for a positive reason. And this positive orientation is easy for the management to maintain. There are no diseased cows trying to walk in to the restaurant, and no tone-deaf musicians trying to sneak in the back door of the concert hall.

The two examples above are places where a product is sold. But it gets different when the product is the other guests. Nightclubs are notorious for restricting guest access, and the snootiest of them have the biggest bouncers and the most restricted clientele. When your primary 'product' is the other guests, you have to restrict.

Online forums and chat rooms resemble nightclubs more than restaurants. The primary product is the other guests, and like nightclubs, the reputation can fall very quickly when the wrong people are let in. One obnoxious drunk in a nightclub can ruin everybody's evening, and one obnoxious troll can ruin a forum.

The rest of the policy decisions are almost irrelevant. So what if the drinks are watered down and the music sucks and the speakers are shot. If it gets you laid every night, you'll keep coming back. If you hate the escaper policy and the inane chatter, but there are lots of strong players, you'll keep coming back.

It is the people that matter, and banning the unpleasant ones is the best tool to make the environment better. We reflexively like the idea of positive incentives rather than negative ones, but eventually we settle for whatever keeps the diseased cows out.

Joaz Banbeck wrote: I suppose that such a comment sounds very cynical

at least you realize how elitist you are. youve already gone and made the assumption that youre desirable and that other people are the problem.

Joaz's analogy reveals its own limits. The beefy guys in front of nightclubs are not asked to make complicated decisions. They have lists of people who are specifically allowed in; people who start fights are specifically shown out; everyone else they resolve by estimating the value of their clothing relative to the capacity of the club. What they do not do is wander around the club, evaluating people on their knowledge of fine alcoholic beverages, on the urbanity and wit of their conversation, or on their dancing.

Similarly, I'm sure the KGS admins do a competent job dispatching the truly profane, the spam-mongers, and the rank-manipulators, but I don't have enough respect for the admins that I want them to read sane, articulate conversations decide ex cathedra whether it's good enough for KGS.

xDragon wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote: I suppose that such a comment sounds very cynical

at least you realize how elitist you are. youve already gone and made the assumption that youre desirable and that other people are the problem.

Are apostrophes also elitist?

jts wrote:Are apostrophes also elitist?

im glad im not pathetic enough to go after peoples punctuation.

xDragon wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote: I suppose that such a comment sounds very cynical

at least you realize how elitist you are. you've already gone and made the assumption that you're desirable and that other people are the problem.

No, I've made the assumption that I'm the agent of the owner.

It is not about elistism, it is about property rights. There is no right or wrong here. The owner of a nightclub or forum can run it the way he wants to. And he and his agents/employees/representatives etc act on his behalf doing it the way he wants it done.

You can own a forum and exclude me. It will cost you about 100 per year to do it. A nightclub cost a bit more, but you can do that also if you come up with some cash. You can exclude me from that too. You can do it because it is yours. You can run things your way when it is your property and you can decide that I'm the problem.

And I won't call you elitist when you do.

jts wrote:Joaz's analogy reveals its own limits. The beefy guys in front of nightclubs ... do not do is wander around the club, evaluating people on their knowledge of fine alcoholic beverages, on the urbanity and wit of their conversation, or on their dancing...

True. Such decisions are best when they are simplest. The more complex the decision and the finer the metrics of evaluation, the more effort it takes. There is a diminishing rate of return for that extra effort.
So there will always be a margin of error in the bouncer's judgement. And there will always be someone who hates him for it.

Good luck, Stalkor.

I'm actually rather impressed at how apt the bouncer analogy seems to be ... good job Joaz and jts