Who banned me? For how long?

[Kirby]

...the problem of stupid bans without merit will not be solved.

What does it mean for a ban to be "justified"?
I don't like banning. That's about it.
Most people probably disagree with my opinion,
but I'd rather read people swearing or spamming in the EGR than to see bold text saying,
"Gentlemen, please take this discussion elsewhere."

Therefore, in your opinion, all bans are "stupid and without merit" ?
And when you said "the problem of stupid bans without merit will not be solved," you did not really mean that --
what you really meant was "the problem of banning itself will not be solved." ?

So in your opinion, the only way to "solve the problem of stupid bans without merit" is to get rid of bans completely ?
Or, do you have any other solutions ?

I think that this is changing what I said. Even if I don't like the idea of banning in general, it doesn't mean that all bans are stupid. It's a spectrum - some bans are stupider than others.

One particularly stupid example was when I was kicked off for typing Japanese in the EGR. Another stupid event was when I was deranked due to a misunderstanding - an assumption that I was cheating before considering to ask me what actually happened.

These are examples of stupid punishment.

Now this is different than my idea of what I would ban if I were an admin. If I were an admin, I would be much more lenient. But I don't get that annoyed when an admin seems to reasonably ban someone - it's just not in line with the way I would personally do things.

Just like there's a spectrum of stupidness in bans, there's a spectrum of my annoyance. The more pointless or silly the ban, the more annoying it is to me.

So please understand that this is not the same as saying that all bans are stupid and without merit. However, some are.

[EdLee]

Even if I don't like the idea of banning in general, it doesn't mean that all bans are stupid. It's a spectrum - some bans are stupider than others.
Just like there's a spectrum of stupidness in bans ... The more pointless or silly the ban, the more annoying it is to me.
So please understand that this is not the same as saying that all bans are stupid and without merit. However, some are.

Therefore, the questions in Post #64:

(c) Can you imagine any situation, any at all -- even just one example would suffice -- where you would ban a user here ?
(d) Have you ever, in any other forum or venue, banned someone, and you felt it was the correct thing to do ?
(e) Have you ever, in any other forum or venue, witnessed another person ban someone, and you felt it was the correct thing to do ?

I'd like to know whether you are completely against the idea of banning anyone, in any forum or venue, under any circumstances, period.

...stupid bans without merit will not be solved.

You haven't replied to the above 4 questions.

You never once said anything good about banning (in this thread). We know you don't like banning.
And when you mention banning (in this thread), you associate it with "stupid," "stupider," "silly," "pointless," "annoying".
We know you are very biased against banning.

That's why I wanted to ask you if you have ever witnessed an opposite of a "stupid ban without merit".
I asked if you ever witnessed a "justified ban with merit" -- you replied with a question "What does it mean for a ban to be "justified"? "
Was that a rhetorical question ?

I'd rather read people swearing or spamming in the EGR than...

you'd rather see
"asdfasdf
asdfsadf
asdfasd"
scrolling by at 30 lines per second for 60 minutes so that no one else can get a word in edgewise?

What are your alternate, better solutions to xed_over's scenario ?

I'm also curious to your reply to:

If a hacker were to post your private information such as your name,
your working CC numbers, your address, and your ID numbers in public,
you would still welcome him to continue his efforts since you don't like banning?

If that person gets banned, would you say the ban is "justified", "correct", or even -- *gasp* -- "good" ?

But I don't get that annoyed when an admin seems to reasonably ban someone - it's just not in line with the way I would personally do things.

OK, so how exactly would you personally deal with such a person in tchan's question ?
That's also the reason for the question in Post #77:

So in your opinion, the only way to "solve the problem of stupid bans without merit" is to get rid of bans completely ?
Or, do you have any other solutions ?

Which you also have not replied -- what are your solutions ?

Key questions:

• In your opinion, is there such a thing as the opposite of a stupid/silly/pointless/annoying ban -- in other words, a GOOD ban ?
• You don't like banning. Even "when an admin seems to reasonably ban someone", all you do is "not get that annoyed" -- so, what are your alternate, better solutions ?

[Kirby]

What do you want me to say, Ed? There are multitudes of scenarios for which admins might ban someone, and some I would agree with and some I wouldn't. Again, if I were an admin, I wouldn't ban to begin with.

[Boidhre]

What do you want me to say, Ed? There are multitudes of scenarios for which admins might ban someone, and some I would agree with and some I wouldn't. Again, if I were an admin, I wouldn't ban to begin with.

There is no line you think crossing merits a ban? Or you wouldn't do it and leave another admin do it instead?

[Bantari]

Again, if I were an admin, I wouldn't ban to begin with.

Then what would you do if people seriously misbehave? Give them candy?!?

[Bantari]

Another stupid event was when I was deranked due to a misunderstanding - an assumption that I was cheating before considering to ask me what actually happened.

And then what did you do?

I am asking because the same thing happened to me. I got de-ranked after resigning a game after I realized I played a beginner and it was boring. After that, I tracked down the admin who did it, talked to him, we cleared it all up, I promised never to do it again, and we were good friends ever since. I even got my rank back. Until now, never even thought about it again, no big deal. And I certainly did not think of this admin action was 'stupid'.

It sounds like a big deal to you, so maybe your circumstances were different.
Interesting.

[Kirby]

There is no line you think crossing merits a ban? Or you wouldn't do it and leave another admin do it instead?

I don't know what the line is. Maybe there are actions that merit having a ban, but given the current situation, I am more afraid of admins than concerned about the everyday users.

Maybe it helps to think of an analogy. Let's say there's a small village where the community is pretty close and everyone knows one another. Now let's say that, to promote safety, we hire a bunch of cops to take care of our village. As a general rule in this small village, nobody really causes trouble, and people get along. But the cops are bored, so they start beating people up when they get the chance. Maybe someone leaves some gum on the sidewalk. Most people in the village don't care, but since the cops have nothing better to do, they cuff the guy and punch him in the stomach.

Maybe this example is extreme, but in the small community we have on KGS, I find this idea of punishing users worse than anything the users have actually done. Now, if the community gets larger or if things change, maybe I'll see things differently. But for the most part, I'm pretty much just afraid of saying the wrong thing to admins - they're the cops that might cuff me and beat me up if I use the wrong rhetoric.

We could have examples of rough villages that have murderers or actually need cops. But I don't see KGS this way.

[Kirby]

Another stupid event was when I was deranked due to a misunderstanding - an assumption that I was cheating before considering to ask me what actually happened.

And then what did you do?
...

First I tried explaining to the admin that did this directly. He would not listen to what I had to say. Then, I emailed the admins at KGS. The admin that did this was not open to changing the action at first, but after a few messages passed back and forth, one of the other admins said that I should deal with the admin that caused the action, and after some time, my rank was given back.

As an end result, my account is not de-ranked. But the entire dialog was annoying, and remains to be an example of what I find to be a stupid administrative decision.

[Bantari]

There is no line you think crossing merits a ban? Or you wouldn't do it and leave another admin do it instead?

I don't know what the line is. Maybe there are actions that merit having a ban, but given the current situation, I am more afraid of admins than concerned about the everyday users.

Maybe it helps to think of an analogy. Let's say there's a small village where the community is pretty close and everyone knows one another. Now let's say that, to promote safety, we hire a bunch of cops to take care of our village. As a general rule in this small village, nobody really causes trouble, and people get along. But the cops are bored, so they start beating people up when they get the chance. Maybe someone leaves some gum on the sidewalk. Most people in the village don't care, but since the cops have nothing better to do, they cuff the guy and punch him in the stomach.

Maybe this example is extreme, but in the small community we have on KGS, I find this idea of punishing users worse than anything the users have actually done. Now, if the community gets larger or if things change, maybe I'll see things differently. But for the most part, I'm pretty much just afraid of saying the wrong thing to admins - they're the cops that might cuff me and beat me up if I use the wrong rhetoric.

I see the situation differently. To use your example - KGS is a small village, which is constantly being raided by a huge number of bandits, insiders or outsiders, beating men up, having their way with the women, and stealing the crops and burning the huts. So the village hires 7 samurai to keep the bandits at bay... The samurai, by the nature of their job, must be cut from a different stone than your average villager, or there would be no need to hire them. They need to be more fierce, tougher, and more violent. Some of them tend to be rude to the average villagers, occasionally, but the overall result of having the samurai there is positive, the bandits raid less and when they do, the damage is smaller. And once the villagers and the samurai get to know each other some more, they will realize they can live together peacefully and both sides benefit. Some admins even become villagers in time.

Wait - wasn't there a movie like that once?

Anyways - my justification for this analogy is that I often see 'strangers' on KGS - accounts which were created seemingly with the purpose of misbehaving. I see somebody flooding like crazy, and then never see them again, never played single game, just log in and flood. Others make all kinds of trouble, are rude even vulgar - they are certainly not part of the 'little tight-knit community' you seem to be seeing. Most people I see on KGS are complete strangers, and most of those I can see making habitual trouble - are not regular accounts, I assume.

This is what the admins have to grapple with.

Sure, every now and then an admin overreacts and an innocent gets clobbered. But in 99% of the cases - this can be very easily cleared up, at least in my experience. In the remaining 1% - the 'innocent' maybe we not quite that innocent, and we might be in the grey area. But that can't be helped.

PS>
The bottom line is: when you are on KGS (or any other server or service) - you need to behave polite and with respect. Stupid jokes which are OK with a couple of buddies at the bar don't fly very well, even if some people still laugh. Making a jerk of yourself is also a no no. And when you do any of such things - you take your chances. Its the choice you make. But being polite and respectful would not get in you in trouble on KGS, I think.

[Kirby]

I see the situation differently. To use your example - KGS is a small village, which is constantly being raided by a huge number of bandits, insiders or outsiders, beating men up, having their way with the women, and stealing the crops and burning the huts.

I can't say that your viewpoint is invalid, but it is different than mine. I cannot think of any users who I'd consider as "bandits" on KGS. Like I said, in other larger communities, cops or samurais might be necessary. But I don't see it on KGS.

You gave the example of flooding. Is flooding really that bad? Is it worse than the fear I have of the samurai?

Or: Do people flood more because there are samurai? Perhaps in rebellion?

Admittedly, what I suggest here at the end is speculation, however, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

[Bantari]

I see the situation differently. To use your example - KGS is a small village, which is constantly being raided by a huge number of bandits, insiders or outsiders, beating men up, having their way with the women, and stealing the crops and burning the huts.

I can't say that your viewpoint is invalid, but it is different than mine. I cannot think of any users who I'd consider as "bandits" on KGS. Like I said, in other larger communities, cops or samurais might be necessary. But I don't see it on KGS.

Really? You never see people flooding like idiots, or being rude and vulgar on purpose? I see it on KGS, sometimes more often sometimes less, but it does happen. There are times when I myself am itching to go look for an admin to bad an idiot or two. Users like that can be irritating, and something sure has to be done. If talking to them worked, would be great, but it usually does not.

You gave the example of flooding. Is flooding really that bad? Is it worse than the fear I have of the samurai?

Well, then you need to do something about the fear.
I had a friend once who was afraid of the color red. But he did not try to repaint the world, he went to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms.

Or: Do people flood more because there are samurai? Perhaps in rebellion?

This is a valid point, and it certainly happens.
But I am not sure that the solution is to get rid of the samurai, since the problem is not the samurai but the immature bandits.

There are servers with minimum or no admin presence. Yahoo!Go, or PlayOK for example. You would not believe what goes on there at times. I rather take an occasional admin over-reaction over that any day! And anyways - admins were not created because we had an over-population of power-hungry individuals. They were created because there was a need - we got the samurai because there were bandits.

[Kirby]

I rather take an occasional admin over-reaction over that any day!

I think you are just reiterating our difference in viewpoint here. I don't see the individuals you describe as bandits, and I don't see the samurai as having a superior sense of justice, either. You seem to have the opposite viewpoint.

Well, then you need to do something about the fear.
I had a friend once who was afraid of the color red. But he did not try to repaint the world, he went to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms.

This is a one-sided argument. I could just as easily say, "You need to get over your irritation with these so-called bandits. Don't try to punish them or make them change. Go to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms."

The reason that this can be used in both directions is that what constitutes a "problem" is not agreed upon between us. I think the problem is the samurais. You think the problem is in a group of users to whom you refer to as "bandits".

It might help to think of it this way: Let's say that there are two user-experience "packages" available for KGS.
Package A
* Occasional flooding and swearing
* Freedom to speak freely without fear of the admin

Package B
* Occasional unjust punishment
* Freedom from flooding and swearing

You prefer the "Package B" user-experience.

I find "Package A" more fun and enjoyable. The factors I've considered in deciding that I like Package A better are:
1.) What I know about the KGS users and community - I don't think there are all that many "bandits"
2.) Unjust bannings really irk me - Why do admins know better for the community than the community itself?

Likely, you prefer "Package B" because:
1.) These users you consider as bandits really irk you
2.) You find an environment with more punishment, but less flooding, swearing, etc., more enjoyable

You are a user just like I am, so it's not my right to dictate that "Package A" is superior. I happen to like this type of environment. You appear to like a different type of environment.

[Bantari]

To be clear about where I stand on this:
I think admins could/should be more reasonable, and punishments could/should be more transparent. But, in general, admins are a good thing to have, and the rules of KGS are, in general, pretty decent. And admins on KGS, in general, enforce those rules in a decent way. Which is not to say there is no room for improvement, but I would never go so far as to not have any bans (some people deserve it) or even remove admins altogether (which it seems you are suggesting.)

This is a one-sided argument. I could just as easily say, "You need to get over your irritation with these so-called bandits. Don't try to punish them or make them change. Go to therapy. You need to address problems, not symptoms."

The reason that this can be used in both directions is that what constitutes a "problem" is not agreed upon between us. I think the problem is the samurais. You think the problem is in a group of users to whom you refer to as "bandits".

Hmm, I see, you are making a good point here.
Its what I say about escapers - instead of looking for ways to eliminate them, you need to find it within yourself to not be bothered too much.

Ok, I can certainly admit the validity of your viewpoint.

To me, there is one distinction though, and it lies the following:
Escapers issue is highly personal. They bother *you* but otherwise they have to consequence on anybody else.

Misbehavior, on the other side, affects the community. Take rudeness and vulgarity, for example. If it is only personal, in a chat, I would say - you are right, let it go, you can always block the bandit, its your personal issue that it bothers you. In a more public setting, things are different - you might have children whom you do not want exposed to vulgarity, for example. Its not something you can just shrug off and look the other way.

Same goes for flooding - it actually prevents the proper function of the chat or kibitz window since it becomes difficult or/and impossible to have any conversation. It is very annoying when you try to have a nice go-related conversation in a room, and an idiot starts flooding and laughing until the cows come home. I have seen it happen. What do you do then?

Having said the above, I admit that in some instances the KGS policies (or their enforcement) tend to be too strict. For example - restricting non-related chat, or restricting kibitz only to the game itself (I hear of cases people were punished discussing players rather tan games, which to me is a stupid thing to punish people for.)

In general, I would like some common sense on KGS. Punish people for the stuff that disturbs others/groups. And if something does not disturb others/groups, don't punish it. Of course, there will be always grey areas and judgement calls, and there will always people who disagree with admin actions, but that cannot be helped - in any setting.

[Boidhre]

There is no line you think crossing merits a ban? Or you wouldn't do it and leave another admin do it instead?

I don't know what the line is. Maybe there are actions that merit having a ban, but given the current situation, I am more afraid of admins than concerned about the everyday users.

Maybe it helps to think of an analogy. Let's say there's a small village where the community is pretty close and everyone knows one another. Now let's say that, to promote safety, we hire a bunch of cops to take care of our village. As a general rule in this small village, nobody really causes trouble, and people get along. But the cops are bored, so they start beating people up when they get the chance. Maybe someone leaves some gum on the sidewalk. Most people in the village don't care, but since the cops have nothing better to do, they cuff the guy and punch him in the stomach.

Maybe this example is extreme, but in the small community we have on KGS, I find this idea of punishing users worse than anything the users have actually done. Now, if the community gets larger or if things change, maybe I'll see things differently. But for the most part, I'm pretty much just afraid of saying the wrong thing to admins - they're the cops that might cuff me and beat me up if I use the wrong rhetoric.

We could have examples of rough villages that have murderers or actually need cops. But I don't see KGS this way.

You're dodging the question nicely. When we talk about whether we need admins or not, we ask, is it possible that someone can come along and do X. Now KGS is not a closed community, if I cared to troll on there I could have an account set up on an IP unrelated to my own ready in a few minutes. It'd be trivial. This is a good thing because it means any 15 year old kid curious about go can do the same thing. It's a double edged sword having an open community but a closed one isn't really what anyone wants (and they can be created within the server anyway with the rooms system).

It's entirely possible for someone to come along and start disguised links to porn in EGR pretending to help newbies. I don't think any of us think this should be allowed. You don't need admins for 99% of users, you need them for that fraction of a percent who are there just to ruin other people's fun.

[Bantari]

It might help to think of it this way: Let's say that there are two user-experience "packages" available for KGS.
Package A
* Occasional flooding and swearing
* Freedom to speak freely without fear of the admin

Package B
* Occasional unjust punishment
* Freedom from flooding and swearing

You prefer the "Package B" user-experience.

I find "Package A" more fun and enjoyable. The factors I've considered in deciding that I like Package A better are:
1.) What I know about the KGS users and community - I don't think there are all that many "bandits"
2.) Unjust bannings really irk me - Why do admins know better for the community than the community itself?

Likely, you prefer "Package B" because:
1.) These users you consider as bandits really irk you
2.) You find an environment with more punishment, but less flooding, swearing, etc., more enjoyable

You are a user just like I am, so it's not my right to dictate that "Package A" is superior. I happen to like this type of environment. You appear to like a different type of environment.

I see you have edited your post after I responded.
But actually, what you say is very well though-out and I can agree with that. There are two packages and you and me we prefer a different package.
And if it was only about personal preference - I would say it is a matter of preference, and yours is as good as mine, possibly better.

However - as I indicated on my response in my previous post - there are more 'objective' reasons why occasional flooding and vulgarity are worse then occasional admin mistake. But this too can be seen as a matter of opinion... or not.

I think the best solution would be to have a room on KGS where the 'bandits' could misbehave as much as they like without repercussion of the admins. Just create a special room on KGS with 'no admins allowed' rule - maybe you can convince wms of an advantage of such room, and case solved. ECR came close... In this sense - KGS is really a tool which can give us both the experiences. Unless you suspect that the flooders and swearers will not want to sit in your room to flood and swear - but instead they enjoy doing it in everybody's face. Then there is the problem.

Other than this - the 'special room' solution should satisfy you. You will be able to have any kind of conversation, about anything you want, and flood, and swear, and be as rude as you want - no problem.

Nifty, eh?