message to the San Francisco Go Club

[alex]

Assuming you have Hal Womack - toting a 3d rank - amongst the members of your club, I am asking you to convince this person to clear up his mind.

He is a shame for the Go/Weiqi community as well as the Dan community.

Could you please explain him to no longer abuse r.g.g. He can spew all his ideas in other places - there are enough channels on the Internet, but rgg ought to remain a _Go_ discussion group, not a group to discuss anti-semitic content. I think most users here will agree. Mind you, I am not condemning his ideas, not trying to gag him, but only criticising the fact that he is using the wrong channels and _knowingly_ disturbing a peaceful (how odd that word may sound nowadays) community (that is most likely very well aware of the issues he is spewing around). We live in a free (part of the) world where anyone can express their ideas, but that doesn't mean we should not follow some basic rules that are accepted in most parts of that world.

Now, because of this kind of behaviour, Usenet is drowning in noise, to the point of extinction, being replaced by ephemeral sites such as godiscussions.com. Because he is hateful and wants to share his hate with the world by any means possible does not mean he has to destroy useful resources. As a simple example, why would we have to waste search resources (energy, disk space, processor power) on such messages that are irrelevant to Go? To me this sounds like an egoistical way to get ideas across.

I tried to contact him via FB but he preferred to discuss matters by email. I think I made my point clear enough, but obviously Hal Womack is "beyond repair". Instead, he chooses to label me as part of his opponents, proving in my case that he is blind, incapable to see just that little bit further, distinguish a few shades. Now I post this message in rgg because this is where the misery (well, it's only ONE thread) is going on. His /voluntary/ removal will not end the flood of spam, but I think we can make a difference by calling extremist Go players to order.

See also

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.go/StNIcfvQZK0/CCjDUaRNEwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/hal$20womack

thank you,

alexander duytschaever
11k DGS

ps - consider this an academic question. I'm not THAT naive... Hal Womack has been spewing venom for years without anyone intervening. But at least I've tried, and if you are reasonable, you will have done your part. What else can we expect?

[Bantari]

Hi Alex,

I agree with what you say. However, as much as I applaud your efforts (I've been down this road before, with Hal and others) - I honestly think your efforts are futile. This does not mean you should stop, just in case I am wrong...

I honestly think that Hal has mental issues that prevent him from seeing that he is what he fights - a blinded zealot set on imposing his will on others, whether they agree with him or not. This is what he accuses others to be - but this is really what *he* is.

I don't think he will stop because of anything you do, or anything I do, or even anything anybody can do - he will just mentally label them all as "enemies" and proudly plow away as before. I assume he thrives on such opposition, since in his mind this gives some measure of justification for what he does and maybe even for his existance. Expect a flood of off-topic posts from him in response to all this labelling me and you and everybody else with some weird completely ulrelated names, probably having something to do with middle east.

From my experience, the best way to deal with such people is to ask them to seek professional help. But since they will not heed any such advice, the second best thing is to ignore them. This robs them of their audience and, in effect, makes them talk to themselves.

But here again I am afraid that Hal is too far gone - he has been talking to himself for years now.

So here we are. And since this forum is not moderated, he can actually do that and ruin the place for the rest of us. Funny thing is - he probably really believes that he is doing good, fighting the good fight. I suspect life in a bubble is too much fun for him, fighting shadows.

So, to conclude, if you really want to make a difference, figure out how we can make this forum moderated, and then try doing what it takes. This would be my only advice. Sorry, dude, I see not other way to go here.

Post by alex
Assuming you have Hal Womack - toting a 3d rank - amongst the members of your club, I am asking you to convince this person to clear up his mind.
He is a shame for the Go/Weiqi community as well as the Dan community.
Could you please explain him to no longer abuse r.g.g. He can spew all his ideas in other places - there are enough channels on the Internet, but rgg ought to remain a _Go_ discussion group, not a group to discuss anti-semitic content. I think most users here will agree. Mind you, I am not condemning his ideas, not trying to gag him, but only criticising the fact that he is using the wrong channels and _knowingly_ disturbing a peaceful (how odd that word may sound nowadays) community (that is most likely very well aware of the issues he is spewing around). We live in a free (part of the) world where anyone can express their ideas, but that doesn't mean we should not follow some basic rules that are accepted in most parts of that world.
Now, because of this kind of behaviour, Usenet is drowning in noise, to the point of extinction, being replaced by ephemeral sites such as godiscussions.com. Because he is hateful and wants to share his hate with the world by any means possible does not mean he has to destroy useful resources. As a simple example, why would we have to waste search resources (energy, disk space, processor power) on such messages that are irrelevant to Go? To me this sounds like an egoistical way to get ideas across.
I tried to contact him via FB but he preferred to discuss matters by email. I think I made my point clear enough, but obviously Hal Womack is "beyond repair". Instead, he chooses to label me as part of his opponents, proving in my case that he is blind, incapable to see just that little bit further, distinguish a few shades. Now I post this message in rgg because this is where the misery (well, it's only ONE thread) is going on. His /voluntary/ removal will not end the flood of spam, but I think we can make a difference by calling extremist Go players to order.
See also
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.go/StNIcfvQZK0/CCjDUaRNEwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/hal$20womack
thank you,
alexander duytschaever
11k DGS
ps - consider this an academic question. I'm not THAT naive... Hal Womack has been spewing venom for years without anyone intervening. But at least I've tried, and if you are reasonable, you will have done your part. What else can we expect?

[alex]

Hello Bantari,

Rest assured, I have no illusions (especially seen his history, as well as the amount of irritation he also generates in various other Usenet groups). And I don't have much hope on the part of the club, except maybe a hypocritical "it's not our responsibility, this is a free world, etc...".

Yet, as giving professional advice or ignoring him does won't change the situation, I'm trying this third option, namely to put some teeny weeny feeble pressure on his club, as an insignificant Go player towards a Go club, for them to try to convince him just to change his attitude towards rgg, as far as I know a valuable resource that has the potential to outlive other types of short lived media (hmm...). In other circumstances (abusers in general), this would not be a viable approach at all, it would be no different from crying in the desert...

(And while writing this I realise that Hal Womack has been facing this kind of criticism for years, so he is well prepared and most probably right now excitedly rummaging in his big box of middle east labels, to find the best label specially for me... labels? nooo... he has probably a big collection of nice rubber stamps, much faster to apply, seen the industrial size of hate he has to manage ...)

Making this forum moderated is not (and should not become) an option due to the concept of Usenet, but another option that is also still available is to formally complain at Google's, that's what the header "Complaints-To: ***@google.com" is supposed to be used for. But Google is conveniently unreachable for the moment, hiding behind automated answers that point to a silly mechanism obviously meant to protect them having to deal with too much abuse ... of abuse.

rgds

Post by Bantari
Hi Alex,
I agree with what you say. However, as much as I applaud your efforts (I've been down this road before, with Hal and others) - I honestly think your efforts are futile. This does not mean you should stop, just in case I am wrong...
I honestly think that Hal has mental issues that prevent him from seeing that he is what he fights - a blinded zealot set on imposing his will on others, whether they agree with him or not. This is what he accuses others to be - but this is really what *he* is.
I don't think he will stop because of anything you do, or anything I do, or even anything anybody can do - he will just mentally label them all as "enemies" and proudly plow away as before. I assume he thrives on such opposition, since in his mind this gives some measure of justification for what he does and maybe even for his existance. Expect a flood of off-topic posts from him in response to all this labelling me and you and everybody else with some weird completely ulrelated names, probably having something to do with middle east.
From my experience, the best way to deal with such people is to ask them to seek professional help. But since they will not heed any such advice, the second best thing is to ignore them. This robs them of their audience and, in effect, makes them talk to themselves.
But here again I am afraid that Hal is too far gone - he has been talking to himself for years now.
So here we are. And since this forum is not moderated, he can actually do that and ruin the place for the rest of us. Funny thing is - he probably really believes that he is doing good, fighting the good fight. I suspect life in a bubble is too much fun for him, fighting shadows.
So, to conclude, if you really want to make a difference, figure out how we can make this forum moderated, and then try doing what it takes. This would be my only advice. Sorry, dude, I see not other way to go here.

Post by alex
Assuming you have Hal Womack - toting a 3d rank - amongst the members of your club, I am asking you to convince this person to clear up his mind.
He is a shame for the Go/Weiqi community as well as the Dan community.
Could you please explain him to no longer abuse r.g.g. He can spew all his ideas in other places - there are enough channels on the Internet, but rgg ought to remain a _Go_ discussion group, not a group to discuss anti-semitic content. I think most users here will agree. Mind you, I am not condemning his ideas, not trying to gag him, but only criticising the fact that he is using the wrong channels and _knowingly_ disturbing a peaceful (how odd that word may sound nowadays) community (that is most likely very well aware of the issues he is spewing around). We live in a free (part of the) world where anyone can express their ideas, but that doesn't mean we should not follow some basic rules that are accepted in most parts of that world.
Now, because of this kind of behaviour, Usenet is drowning in noise, to the point of extinction, being replaced by ephemeral sites such as godiscussions.com. Because he is hateful and wants to share his hate with the world by any means possible does not mean he has to destroy useful resources. As a simple example, why would we have to waste search resources (energy, disk space, processor power) on such messages that are irrelevant to Go? To me this sounds like an egoistical way to get ideas across.
I tried to contact him via FB but he preferred to discuss matters by email. I think I made my point clear enough, but obviously Hal Womack is "beyond repair". Instead, he chooses to label me as part of his opponents, proving in my case that he is blind, incapable to see just that little bit further, distinguish a few shades. Now I post this message in rgg because this is where the misery (well, it's only ONE thread) is going on. His /voluntary/ removal will not end the flood of spam, but I think we can make a difference by calling extremist Go players to order.
See also
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.go/StNIcfvQZK0/CCjDUaRNEwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/hal$20womack
thank you,
alexander duytschaever
11k DGS
ps - consider this an academic question. I'm not THAT naive... Hal Womack has been spewing venom for years without anyone intervening. But at least I've tried, and if you are reasonable, you will have done your part. What else can we expect?

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by alex
formally complain at Google's

Useless because Google does not own Usenet. Google mirrors Usenet in a
peculiar manner and complaints to Google affect only this mirror.

[alex]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by alex
formally complain at Google's

Useless because Google does not own Usenet. Google mirrors Usenet in a
peculiar manner and complaints to Google affect only this mirror.

I disagree - what's the use of the 'Complaints-To:' field for otherwise? this is not meant for Usenet, but for the provider. (And I never said Google owns Usenet.)

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by alex
what's the use of the 'Complaints-To:' field for otherwise? this is not meant for Usenet,
but for the provider.

Ah, thanks, I was not aware of this field.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by alex
what's the use of the 'Complaints-To:' field for otherwise? this is not meant for Usenet,
but for the provider.

Ah, thanks, I was not aware of this field.

And also, regardless if Google is in charge here or not, *somebody* is - this is why I said research is necessary. And this will allow to find the entity which has to be approached with the request. There must be such entity - after all, somebody decides to create a new group or not.

I would start googling for something like "usenet moderation" - might help.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by alex
formally complain at Google's

Useless because Google does not own Usenet. Google mirrors Usenet in a
peculiar manner and complaints to Google affect only this mirror.

Oh, I did not pick up on that, same as with your point that usenet is a distributed system.

It is true - usenet is a distributed system, spread between many servers. However, each newsgroup is hosted on some specific server, and each newsgroup has a very strict limit on how much space it can have - once this limit is reached, old posts simply disappear to make room for new ones. And, at any point, the owner of the server where rec.games.go sits might decide to fold it, for whatever reasons. There are quite a few groups which vanished like that, even big ones.

What you see on Google is not a "mirror" - it is a Google-owned archives (yes, *owned*), which they got when they bought out DejaNews. Their goal is to archive (not "mirror") all usenet traffic - but you never know, at some point they might sell it or decide it is too costly, or whatever.

On top of that, many services and IP providers actively block usenet - like AOL, not that anybody cares for AOL. Here in the US this goes for many of the largest IP providers, like Time Warners Cable, who block access to usenet completely. Other large providers, like Verizon and Sprint severley limit usenet access. And it seems this is the trend joined by more and more companies.

So it is not all that peachy in usenet heaven these days.

Let me give you a quote on how people see usenet: "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea. Massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." The quote is from 1992, and things did not get better since then.

You can find the quote and the rest of the info when you google "usenet" - most you can find on the wikipedia page, but I also used other sources.

This is all I am going to say about that.

[Bantari]

Hi Alex,

I see your point and feel your pain. I have been ther emyself some 10 years ago, or more.

Seems the best option then is to move over to L19, which is what I (and most of the regular rgg contributors) did. I agree that it is more "ephemeral" than here, but is that really such an issue? What are we really going to discuss that is so weighty and important that it definitely has to be saved for posterity?

The way I look at it, we are all very weak, and rather insignificant. Nothing really earth-shattering will come out of what we say, most likely. And the discussions are for us to enjoy and maybe learn from.

To me, its like meeting buddies at the bar or in a coffee shop - I have good time discussing all kinds of things, and don't really care if somebody is taping or transcribing it all to save it for future generations.

When L19 goes away, there will be another forum people will move to, and I see no problem with that. Its the people, not the forum, which is really important.

And if you really think that what you say is so important that it should definitely be persistantly saved somewhere, you can do as Robert does - mirror your most "important" posts to rgg as well.

Post by alex
Hello Bantari,
Rest assured, I have no illusions (especially seen his history, as well as the amount of irritation he also generates in various other Usenet groups). And I don't have much hope on the part of the club, except maybe a hypocritical "it's not our responsibility, this is a free world, etc...".
Yet, as giving professional advice or ignoring him does won't change the situation, I'm trying this third option, namely to put some teeny weeny feeble pressure on his club, as an insignificant Go player towards a Go club, for them to try to convince him just to change his attitude towards rgg, as far as I know a valuable resource that has the potential to outlive other types of short lived media (hmm...). In other circumstances (abusers in general), this would not be a viable approach at all, it would be no different from crying in the desert...
(And while writing this I realise that Hal Womack has been facing this kind of criticism for years, so he is well prepared and most probably right now excitedly rummaging in his big box of middle east labels, to find the best label specially for me... labels? nooo... he has probably a big collection of nice rubber stamps, much faster to apply, seen the industrial size of hate he has to manage ...)
rgds

Post by Bantari
Hi Alex,
I agree with what you say. However, as much as I applaud your efforts (I've been down this road before, with Hal and others) - I honestly think your efforts are futile. This does not mean you should stop, just in case I am wrong...
I honestly think that Hal has mental issues that prevent him from seeing that he is what he fights - a blinded zealot set on imposing his will on others, whether they agree with him or not. This is what he accuses others to be - but this is really what *he* is.
I don't think he will stop because of anything you do, or anything I do, or even anything anybody can do - he will just mentally label them all as "enemies" and proudly plow away as before. I assume he thrives on such opposition, since in his mind this gives some measure of justification for what he does and maybe even for his existance. Expect a flood of off-topic posts from him in response to all this labelling me and you and everybody else with some weird completely ulrelated names, probably having something to do with middle east.
From my experience, the best way to deal with such people is to ask them to seek professional help. But since they will not heed any such advice, the second best thing is to ignore them. This robs them of their audience and, in effect, makes them talk to themselves.
But here again I am afraid that Hal is too far gone - he has been talking to himself for years now.
So here we are. And since this forum is not moderated, he can actually do that and ruin the place for the rest of us. Funny thing is - he probably really believes that he is doing good, fighting the good fight. I suspect life in a bubble is too much fun for him, fighting shadows.
So, to conclude, if you really want to make a difference, figure out how we can make this forum moderated, and then try doing what it takes. This would be my only advice. Sorry, dude, I see not other way to go here.

Post by alex
Assuming you have Hal Womack - toting a 3d rank - amongst the members of your club, I am asking you to convince this person to clear up his mind.
He is a shame for the Go/Weiqi community as well as the Dan community.
Could you please explain him to no longer abuse r.g.g. He can spew all his ideas in other places - there are enough channels on the Internet, but rgg ought to remain a _Go_ discussion group, not a group to discuss anti-semitic content. I think most users here will agree. Mind you, I am not condemning his ideas, not trying to gag him, but only criticising the fact that he is using the wrong channels and _knowingly_ disturbing a peaceful (how odd that word may sound nowadays) community (that is most likely very well aware of the issues he is spewing around). We live in a free (part of the) world where anyone can express their ideas, but that doesn't mean we should not follow some basic rules that are accepted in most parts of that world.
Now, because of this kind of behaviour, Usenet is drowning in noise, to the point of extinction, being replaced by ephemeral sites such as godiscussions.com. Because he is hateful and wants to share his hate with the world by any means possible does not mean he has to destroy useful resources. As a simple example, why would we have to waste search resources (energy, disk space, processor power) on such messages that are irrelevant to Go? To me this sounds like an egoistical way to get ideas across.
I tried to contact him via FB but he preferred to discuss matters by email. I think I made my point clear enough, but obviously Hal Womack is "beyond repair". Instead, he chooses to label me as part of his opponents, proving in my case that he is blind, incapable to see just that little bit further, distinguish a few shades. Now I post this message in rgg because this is where the misery (well, it's only ONE thread) is going on. His /voluntary/ removal will not end the flood of spam, but I think we can make a difference by calling extremist Go players to order.
See also
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.games.go/StNIcfvQZK0/CCjDUaRNEwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/hal$20womack
thank you,
alexander duytschaever
11k DGS
ps - consider this an academic question. I'm not THAT naive... Hal Womack has been spewing venom for years without anyone intervening. But at least I've tried, and if you are reasonable, you will have done your part. What else can we expect?

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
ruin the place for the rest of us

No. It depends on perception. Only those perceiving such an impact on
themselves consider this newsgroup ruined for themselves. Those that
don't are unaffected.

Post by Bantari
how we can make this forum moderated

Moderation ruins every discussion group because it replaces free
speech by censorship of posts and people.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
ruin the place for the rest of us

No. It depends on perception. Only those perceiving such an impact on
themselves consider this newsgroup ruined for themselves. Those that
don't are unaffected.

Well, I would say that if you stay here alone and talk to an empty audience, this pretty much ruins a forum for anybody. Unless this somebody is only interested in listening to his own voice rather than in a discussion. Because - and it might come as a surprise to you - it is hard to have a meaningful discussion with yourself. And if you do, this usually should be done in private.

But I am glad that this place is not ruined for you yet. But it is for most of the normal people. This is why there are so few bothering to come here and read/post anything. And the reason is, believe it or not, the unmoderated behavior of a few individuals.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
how we can make this forum moderated

Moderation ruins every discussion group because it replaces free
speech by censorship of posts and people.

This is blatantly false, and I am very surprised at you making such demonstrably untrue statement. It might be ruined for *you*, but then - you are asking for it sometimes, and run off the cliff in spite of well-meaning people telling you otherwise.

Personally, I have had many discussions which were not ruined even though moderation was present. Even in cases when moderators had to step in, the discussions were not ruined but rather enhanced or kept on track. And since discussions are not ruined, neither are the discussion groups.

Sure, there are always some discussions affected. But on unmoderated forums this is also the case. And I much rather have a discussions which is affected by a moderator who cautiones people to not be rude or stay on topic than by an a-hole who hijacks it and spams and behaves like what he is.

So I can attest from many personal experiences (on L19 and elsewhere) that moderation definitely does NOT ruin every discussion nor every discussion forum. It only ruins it for those who try to be jerks or are jerks without trying or are unable/unwilling to abide by what written or unwritten rules of the forum.

And the proof is in the pudding - look at the activity on L19 vs activity here. People moved there the first chance they got, and it was not for the pretty interface, I assure you.

Bottom line is that each media of information exchange, like a forum, needs a set of rules by which people can communicate and make their voice heard. Even in usenet there are rules, believe it or not, they are just very lax and loose. The trick is to make the rules so that meaningful discussion is possible while a-holes are weeded out or educated. And this will not happen by itself, there has to be a "teacher" - aka. "moderator".

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
This is blatantly false, and I am very surprised at you making such demonstrably
untrue statement. It might be ruined for *you*

Free go discussions are ruined if not all go players may contribute
everything go-related they could contribute. This affects not only the
potential writers of forum messages but also the readers, who get only
ca. one third from censored writers.

Post by Bantari
I have had many discussions which were not ruined even though moderation was present.
Even in cases when moderators had to step in, the discussions were not ruined but
rather enhanced or kept on track.

It seems you are not even aware of how much discussion contents you
are losing because moderation censors some writers. E.g., I write only
ca. one third on L19 of what I could write without moderation. You
perceive only those messages admitted and overlook all the messages
omitted due to (implicit) censorship and missing replies to such
messages.

Post by Bantari
It only ruins it for those who try to be jerks or are jerks without trying or are
unable/unwilling to abide by what written or unwritten rules of the forum.

Which go forum has its forum rules applied? Take, e.g., L19 and thread
derailment: very often threads contain much off-topic contents and
moderation does not apply consistently to all users.

Post by Bantari
look at the activity on L19 vs activity here.

Activity does not equate quality of contents.

Post by Bantari
People moved there the first chance they got

Do not forge history. It needed years for Godiscussions to overcome
the German DGoB forum when that was much more active than nowadays.

Post by Bantari
The trick is to make the rules so that meaningful discussion is possible while
a-holes are weeded out or educated.

With a 3 strikes to be out forever penalty system, user exclusion and
the thereby implied censorship due to the threat of immediate lifetime
exclusion override education.

With protected areas (study journals), meaningful discussion is
further restricted greatly because the sincerest comments on how to
improve are prohibited due to the threat of immediate lifetime
exclusion.

Meaningful discussion is prevented by rules allowing "catch the troll"
criers to prevail by the fake accusation of "flooding" etc. A TOS
stating nothing but "regular law applies" enables meaningful
discussion more easily than any arbitrary, not well-thought-through
set of TOS rules.

[Bantari]

Robert,

In all my times watching you post on L19 I have never seen anybody objecting to the content of the stuff you post, except when it was not appropriate to the thread and derailed it, or were repetitive, or you were beating a dead horse. In most cases you can always start a new thread, as you often did. Often people did not follow you to the new thread, but this has nothing to do with moderation but more with the way you communicate. Which brings me to my main point:

Most objections were directed at the manner and tone of your posts. And most of the time these objections were justified, I think. As you remember, I tried to give you hints and pointers as to what kind of mannerisms you should try to avoid, most of my advice you ignored. Maybe I should not give any advice, with all the history I have and all, but still - I meant well with you, and always will.

Back to the topic:
To be perfectly fair, each social situation you find yourself in will have some restrictions on what you should and should not do. Breaking these restrictions will result in exclusion, either by being kicked in (from a bar, for example)or being shunned (by your friends, for example.) It is a self-regulating mechanism.

The problem swith unmodertated forum is that there is no such mechanism. You can pretty much do and say whatever you want without any repercussions. And there is no defense other that "Don't read what you don't like." But this is a very weak defense for most people, or if you think in terms of child-friendliness, stuff like that. This is why people leave when they have an alternative. Even if moderation does impose certain restrictions.

Its like complaining that goverment, by definition, imposes and enforces rules. But it is still preferable to anarchy most of the time. Same thing.

Anyways...

Regardless how much you think you have to contribute, if your contribution disturbs others, it is not a good contribution. And regardless how much valuable stuff you have to say, if people find your manner off-putting and don't want to read it, it is up to you to change to conform to the group you are trying to be a part of.

Your attitude was always "I have important stuff to say and you all have to accept what I say or how I say or else you are supressive or something." But people just say "Bah! Go bite yourself, I read what I want, what I find interesting." If you want them to listen, if you want to teach or inform them, you have to adjust the only factor you have control over - yourself. But you were always very resistant to that. I guess it is easier to complain about moderation than be reasonable and listen to input. I have told you all of this before.

What I really want to say is this:
The problems you have are not caused by moderation but by your own behavior. In a moderated forum, you get moderated. In an unmoderated forum people just don't read what you write. The result is almost identical - your message is not heard. Except that moderated forum, through its moderators, gives you a feedback of which behavior is good and which is bad, so you can learn and improve. If you are open-minded and listen.

And I think this feedback is a good thing, very valuable. It helped me a lot. If you listen, it can help you as well. But I don't hold my breath, we've been through this dance before, you and I, and the results are minimal. So, since I do not really hope to get through to you, I think this is all I have to say about this for now. But no worries, we will talk again soon, I can smell it. ;)

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
This is blatantly false, and I am very surprised at you making such demonstrably
untrue statement. It might be ruined for *you*

Free go discussions are ruined if not all go players may contribute
everything go-related they could contribute. This affects not only the
potential writers of forum messages but also the readers, who get only
ca. one third from censored writers.

Post by Bantari
I have had many discussions which were not ruined even though moderation was present.
Even in cases when moderators had to step in, the discussions were not ruined but
rather enhanced or kept on track.

It seems you are not even aware of how much discussion contents you
are losing because moderation censors some writers. E.g., I write only
ca. one third on L19 of what I could write without moderation. You
perceive only those messages admitted and overlook all the messages
omitted due to (implicit) censorship and missing replies to such
messages.

Post by Bantari
It only ruins it for those who try to be jerks or are jerks without trying or are
unable/unwilling to abide by what written or unwritten rules of the forum.

Which go forum has its forum rules applied? Take, e.g., L19 and thread
derailment: very often threads contain much off-topic contents and
moderation does not apply consistently to all users.

Post by Bantari
look at the activity on L19 vs activity here.

Activity does not equate quality of contents.

Post by Bantari
People moved there the first chance they got

Do not forge history. It needed years for Godiscussions to overcome
the German DGoB forum when that was much more active than nowadays.

Post by Bantari
The trick is to make the rules so that meaningful discussion is possible while
a-holes are weeded out or educated.

With a 3 strikes to be out forever penalty system, user exclusion and
the thereby implied censorship due to the threat of immediate lifetime
exclusion override education.
With protected areas (study journals), meaningful discussion is
further restricted greatly because the sincerest comments on how to
improve are prohibited due to the threat of immediate lifetime
exclusion.
Meaningful discussion is prevented by rules allowing "catch the troll"
criers to prevail by the fake accusation of "flooding" etc. A TOS
stating nothing but "regular law applies" enables meaningful
discussion more easily than any arbitrary, not well-thought-through
set of TOS rules.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
In all my times watching you post on L19 I have never seen anybody objecting
to the content of the stuff you post, except when it was not appropriate to
the thread and derailed it, or were repetitive, or you were beating a dead horse.

You have not watched objections to my posts on L19 as closely as I
have. There have been many such objections.

Post by Bantari
Most objections were directed at the manner and tone of your posts.

This conveys a misleading picture; there has been a great variety of
objections. Part of them supposedly were directed at the manner and
tone but in most cases not because my tone would have inappropriate
for discussion but because the critics of my tone did not want to
tolerate some of my used discussion styles, such as insisting on
contents-orientated constructive criticism when a discussion was not
solved yet but still awaiting reaching a consensus.

Post by Bantari
most of the time these objections were justified

Of course not. There was by far too much harassment on me, the user of
GD or L19, up to the game "let's collectively attack until the admins
are convinced of guilt" while the attackers had a low risk because
every attacker's TOS violation was kept on a low level and many
attackers used anonymous accounts and some attackers attacked
indirectly by provoking other users to attack or complain to admins.
If the TOS were as strictly applied to everybody as to me when I got
penalties, half of the L19 regulars would have got penalties.

Post by Bantari
The problem swith unmodertated forum is that there is no such mechanism.

There are:
- killfiling
- Regular activity by many creates a social environment in which
spammers recognise their fault.

Post by Bantari
if you think in terms of child-friendliness

Violation of the law can be pursued by legal law.

Post by Bantari
Its like complaining that goverment, by definition, imposes and enforces
rules. But it is still preferable to anarchy most of the time. Same thing.

It is not the same thing because, in countries under the state of law,
gouvernment is controlled by impartial elections and jurisdiction.

Post by Bantari
Regardless how much you think you have to contribute, if your contribution
disturbs others, it is not a good contribution.

Wrong. There are always people feeling disturbed by particular good
contributions, e.g. if only for the reason of them appearing in the
recent news lists.

Post by Bantari
you all have to accept what I say

Nonsense. Users can ignore or disagree to what I write.

Also view it from the other perspective: prohibiting someone from
writing is a means of "forcing to accept" what others write.

Post by Bantari
The problems you have are not caused by moderation but by your own behavior.

You over-simplify. Factors include my own behaviour, moderation and
behaviour by the other users.

Post by Bantari
In an unmoderated forum people just don't read what you write. The result
is almost identical - your message is not heard.

You over-simplify. There are many types of users with a great variety
of perception.

Post by Bantari
Except that moderated forum, through its moderators, gives you a feedback of
which behavior is good and which is bad, so you can learn and improve.

You over-simplify. In an unmoderated forum, there is other feedback
and there are chances to learn and improve.

[Bantari]

Robert,

Not sure why I am still writing all this, have said it many times before, but here it goes, please - read carefully:

True, sometimes your content is questionable, deal with that and move on, we all do. Learn from that, and do not blame the world (or a specific social group, in this case.) Same goes for pretty much everybody.

Still - once again - by far most (if not all) of your troubles were because of your manner which people found off-putting and frustrating, not because of the content you post.

Once you make people angry at you, for whatever reason, once you put people off and make them dislike you, they will sometimes attack you for other reasons, including content. This does not change the fact that the initial problem is the way you post, not necessarily what you post.

Same thing happens to a lot of people, some learn some don't. You are among those who don't learn very well. Others in this category include Frank De Groot, for example. And me, a little bit as well. Still, this is about you, not about others.

You can be very frustrating for others to deal with, but the responsibility for changing is on you not on the world. You can be stubborn, repetitive, argumentative, patronizing, authoritative, and more - all at the same time. And did I mention stubborn? People often feel that you just don't listen, just talk, and they get annoyed with you. You don't pick up on the signs, and eventually they get angry.

I can be very much the same, and have been a lot in the past - but I try to learn and stop annoying. It is *my* problem, not the forum's and not the moderator's. Just like your problem is *yours*, and up to you to fix.

Or do you serious suggest that people just wake up in the morning and decide to single out Mr Robert Jasiek for all out petty attacks without any reason whatsoever? Please... get real.

Again - I was trying to explain this all to you multiple times. And yet it seems pointless. God knows I have been frustrated with you plenty of times, and attacked you as well, even though I really do respect you and what you do. Its just one of the perks of your personality, and has nothing to do with moderation.

It is up to you to adjust to the group you interact with, not up to the group to adjust to your weird ways.

About learning from clues:
True - there are clues here as well, if you are willing to learn and improve. But this is part of your problem, I think. Such willingness is not very apparent. If you don't react to the very clear hints on a moderated forum, then how can you hope to even see the much less clear clues here?

What have you learned from the way people reactions on L19 other than "moderated forums ruins all the fun, buaaahah!" It seems you just blame the forum and moderation for any issues you have, which is just the easy way out and a cop-out.

Anyways - this is all OT, and if you are interesting in learning more, lets take it up in private. No reason to drag all this laundry in public like that. Most people already know what I am trying to say, so the value for community is low.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
In all my times watching you post on L19 I have never seen anybody objecting
to the content of the stuff you post, except when it was not appropriate to
the thread and derailed it, or were repetitive, or you were beating a dead horse.

You have not watched objections to my posts on L19 as closely as I
have. There have been many such objections.

Post by Bantari
Most objections were directed at the manner and tone of your posts.

This conveys a misleading picture; there has been a great variety of
objections. Part of them supposedly were directed at the manner and
tone but in most cases not because my tone would have inappropriate
for discussion but because the critics of my tone did not want to
tolerate some of my used discussion styles, such as insisting on
contents-orientated constructive criticism when a discussion was not
solved yet but still awaiting reaching a consensus.

Post by Bantari
most of the time these objections were justified

Of course not. There was by far too much harassment on me, the user of
GD or L19, up to the game "let's collectively attack until the admins
are convinced of guilt" while the attackers had a low risk because
every attacker's TOS violation was kept on a low level and many
attackers used anonymous accounts and some attackers attacked
indirectly by provoking other users to attack or complain to admins.
If the TOS were as strictly applied to everybody as to me when I got
penalties, half of the L19 regulars would have got penalties.

Post by Bantari
The problem swith unmodertated forum is that there is no such mechanism.

- killfiling
- Regular activity by many creates a social environment in which
spammers recognise their fault.

Post by Bantari
if you think in terms of child-friendliness

Violation of the law can be pursued by legal law.

Post by Bantari
Its like complaining that goverment, by definition, imposes and enforces
rules. But it is still preferable to anarchy most of the time. Same thing.

It is not the same thing because, in countries under the state of law,
gouvernment is controlled by impartial elections and jurisdiction.

Post by Bantari
Regardless how much you think you have to contribute, if your contribution
disturbs others, it is not a good contribution.

Wrong. There are always people feeling disturbed by particular good
contributions, e.g. if only for the reason of them appearing in the
recent news lists.

Post by Bantari
you all have to accept what I say

Nonsense. Users can ignore or disagree to what I write.
Also view it from the other perspective: prohibiting someone from
writing is a means of "forcing to accept" what others write.

Post by Bantari
The problems you have are not caused by moderation but by your own behavior.

You over-simplify. Factors include my own behaviour, moderation and
behaviour by the other users.

Post by Bantari
In an unmoderated forum people just don't read what you write. The result
is almost identical - your message is not heard.

You over-simplify. There are many types of users with a great variety
of perception.

Post by Bantari
Except that moderated forum, through its moderators, gives you a feedback of
which behavior is good and which is bad, so you can learn and improve.

You over-simplify. In an unmoderated forum, there is other feedback
and there are chances to learn and improve.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
this is about you, not about others.

It is about the kind of forums, their TOS, their moderation, me (or
some particular users) AND the other users.

Post by Bantari
You can be very frustrating for others to deal with, but the responsibility
for changing is on you not on the world. You can be stubborn, repetitive,
argumentative, patronizing, authoritative, and more - all at the same time.

I might say the same about some other users (or you) but the
difference is: I have (on L19, I had) a great tolerance towards other
users while some other users do not have a great tolerance towards me.
On L19, this was my great mistake because it led to penalties for me.
Instead, I should have been intolerant from the beginning and reported
each TOS violation affecting me so that the admins would have stopped
attacks on me before any user would have run into receiving penalties.

Your description of me sounds very negative but can be viewed also
from an opposing view: such (besides many other) aspects of behaviour
were useful for a) raising the discussion frequency of RGG from
relatively low in 1996 to relatively high around 2000 and b) research
style discussions enabling me to solve go rules and ko definitions and
develop my understanding of go theory. Without persistent (you would
say 'stubborn') discussion, I could not as easily proceed this far.
The much criticised Jeff Boscole (the Oxford dictionary philosopher)
was even more persistent and so significantly motivated me to proceed
with my findings and understanding. This level of persistency I
experienced when studying at university; it is great for research and
questioning / discussing research to verify or refute claimed
findings. Thus persistency has served me very well, but I did not
realise in time that web 2.0 go forums oppose persistency and serious
research discussion and the like. For the sake of social peace (each
beginner has to say as much as each expert), expert persistency is
suppressed. Now, you call this 'very frustrating for others'. I call
it a great loss for the future of Western go that expert persistency
is discouraged a lot (and instead experts are expected to spend their
time explaining everything on beginner level). On the web 2.0, my
achievements would hardly have been possible. I do not want to imagine
how many other expert careers are spoilt by too little encouragement
of apprentice experts and instead putting them in a bad behaviour box.

Post by Bantari
Again - I was trying to explain this all to you multiple times.
And yet it seems pointless.

You cannot convince people like me that the purposes and achievements
of their lives would be useless and counter-productive. You can only
achieve that some run away (like Frank de Groot).

Post by Bantari
It is up to you to adjust to the group you interact with, not up to the
group to adjust to your weird ways.

See - you miss the basics of social interaction: it is two-sided.
Instead of dismissing expert ways as 'weird', the social majority of
non-experts should respect the experts' input and encourage the
growing of further experts.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
this is about you, not about others.

It is about the kind of forums, their TOS, their moderation, me (or
some particular users) AND the other users.

Nope, it is about *you* in this case.

You have no cotrol over the other aspects, so the only thing you can change is you. And so you are the deciding factor.

When you see a group expects certain behavior, moderated or not, you can do one of two things: (a) try to adjust and become part of the group, or (b) insist that they adjust to you, irritate people, make people mad, and get kicked out.

Or you can argue your point, but to be successful you need to do it in a way acceptable to the group.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
You can be very frustrating for others to deal with, but the responsibility
for changing is on you not on the world. You can be stubborn, repetitive,
argumentative, patronizing, authoritative, and more - all at the same time.

I might say the same about some other users (or you) but the
difference is: I have (on L19, I had) a great tolerance towards other
users while some other users do not have a great tolerance towards me.

This is very true. But so what? This is why you need moderation. You cannot expect everybody to have your levels of tolerance as you do - which is pretty high, I have to admin.

Still, the down side of this tolerance is that sometimes you don't learn. You "tolerate" it soo much you fail to see that they might have a genuine problem with what you do.

But yes - your tolerance is great. I was always amazed at that in the past.

Post by Robert Jasiek
On L19, this was my great mistake because it led to penalties for me.
Instead, I should have been intolerant from the beginning and reported
each TOS violation affecting me so that the admins would have stopped
attacks on me before any user would have run into receiving penalties.
Your description of me sounds very negative but can be viewed also
from an opposing view: such (besides many other) aspects of behaviour
were useful for a) raising the discussion frequency of RGG from
relatively low in 1996 to relatively high around 2000

Bah! Server wars in the 90's did that much better than anything you can possibly post, and I rather have dead forum than more server wars. This is a very bad argument you make. Really.

Post by Robert Jasiek
and b) research
style discussions enabling me to solve go rules and ko definitions and
develop my understanding of go theory. Without persistent (you would
say 'stubborn') discussion, I could not as easily proceed this far.

This is not what I mean by stuborn. Discussions are fine, and there are plenty of discussions going on on L19 as we speak. The purpose of the forum is to discuss things.

However - there are different ways of skinning the cat. Your ways of discussing things can be irritating. If you want to reach people, you need to think about that and maybe make changes.

Post by Robert Jasiek
The much criticised Jeff Boscole (the Oxford dictionary philosopher)
was even more persistent and so significantly motivated me to proceed
with my findings and understanding.

You are joking, right? About Boscole? he and people like him are the reason this forum died. It might be that you personally found something positive in what he wrote, but most normal people think differently, I fear.

Persistance is fine - but like with anything - it should not be forced upon others, especially when they do not appreciate it. This is what you always failed to see, and this is a part of why people find you irritating. You assume your approach and methodology is "correct" and everybody should adjust - even when you don't.

Post by Robert Jasiek
This level of persistency I
experienced when studying at university; it is great for research and
questioning / discussing research to verify or refute claimed
findings. Thus persistency has served me very well, but I did not
realise in time that web 2.0 go forums oppose persistency and serious
research discussion and the like. For the sake of social peace (each
beginner has to say as much as each expert), expert persistency is
suppressed. Now, you call this 'very frustrating for others'. I call
it a great loss for the future of Western go that expert persistency
is discouraged a lot (and instead experts are expected to spend their
time explaining everything on beginner level). On the web 2.0, my
achievements would hardly have been possible. I do not want to imagine
how many other expert careers are spoilt by too little encouragement
of apprentice experts and instead putting them in a bad behaviour box.

Post by Bantari
Again - I was trying to explain this all to you multiple times.
And yet it seems pointless.

You cannot convince people like me that the purposes and achievements
of their lives would be useless and counter-productive. You can only
achieve that some run away (like Frank de Groot).

No, I cannot. And I do not want to. Again - you read what you want to read into my words.

There are many people on L19 shich (a) have great achievements, (b) are respected, and (c) don't irritate people. Examples? John Fairbairn, Breakfast, the late T.Mark Hall, and so on... They all get into argument, they all discuss things, they can all be persistant, and they all are valuable and accepted members of the forum. Nobody attacks them.

You are different - and *you* is the operative word. Frank was another "different" one, in spite of all his achievements. It is up to you to figure out the why. Instead - you blame moderation.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
It is up to you to adjust to the group you interact with, not up to the
group to adjust to your weird ways.

See - you miss the basics of social interaction: it is two-sided.

In one-on-one, on neutral ground - true. But when you enter a specific social group, it is up to *you* to adjust, not up to social group. Just like when you move to another country it is up to *you* to learn their language, not the other way around, not even half-and-half!

And truth be told - you had enough warnings. I know I spoke to you multiple times, as did others - before things escalated. yet you "persisted" in what you were doing. Finally the axe fell. What did you expect?

Post by Robert Jasiek
Instead of dismissing expert ways as 'weird', the social majority of
non-experts should respect the experts' input and encourage the
growing of further experts.

This is such BS.

Nobody dismisses expert ways as weird. They dismiss *your* ways as weird. There are plenty of experts on L19 which are not dismissed and not thought of as "weird" - the examples I gave above and I could give many more.

Common fallacy: "I am expert, people dismiss me, therefore people dismiss experts."
You know better than that, Rober.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
Your ways of discussing things can be irritating. If you want to reach people,
you need to think about that and maybe make changes.
Persistance is fine - but like with anything - it should not be forced upon others,
especially when they do not appreciate it. This is what you always failed to see,
and this is a part of why people find you irritating. You assume your approach and
methodology is "correct" and everybody should adjust - even when you don't.

It means stopping almost all of my go theory research by means of
discussion. Luckily (only for me), my level of insight became so high
in ca. 2008 that I can generate most of my findings on my own and do
not need a lot of input from discussion any more. Other apprentice
researchers cannot use the current web 2.0 go forums well for reaching
a sufficient insight.

Have you read the description, as recently linked on L19, of John
Conway? He relies on discussion / test gaming as input from others by
luring everybody to discuss and play. He still needs the regular input
because he keeps inventing new games needing testers. You see a
similar persistency for Conway and me: input from everybody.
Dismissing such as irritating and in need for change means stopping
doing his kind of research.

Nobody is forced to join my or Conway's discussion, but we both rely /
relied on persistently seeking discussion. Instead sending a, say,
quarterly reminder for wishing input would be totally insufficient
because such researchers need over 100 times more input.

Post by Bantari
There are many people on L19 shich (a) have great achievements, (b) are respected,
and (c) don't irritate people. Examples? John Fairbairn, Breakfast, the late T.Mark Hall,
and so on... [...]
There are plenty of experts on L19 which are not dismissed and not thought of as "weird" - the examples I gave above and I could give many more.
They are not researchers advancing go theory (with which I do not mean go history, which in itself is useless for go theory helping players to become stronger) significantly.

Even Bill Spight is not an example. He changed his discussion style
from RGG to GD / L19. On RGG, his style contributed well to seeking
research input - on the web 2.0, his style hardly contributes for
this.

John Fairbairn does not advance go theory (other than history). When
he reports something useful (or something he thinks is useful, but
after closer inspection is not), it is his summary or translation of
go theory from Asian languages to English. For this, he needs much
access to Asian texts (which he has) but does not need persistent
research discussion.

I do not recall any new research for go theory by breakfast or TM Hall
(other than history). When breakfast speaks about go theory, it is his
understanding of previously existing go theory, but is not research
about advancing go theory.

Experts is not the same as researchers. Regardless, have you noticed
how cautious expert players (other than researchers) are about
discussing on the web 2.0? The amount of their contributed contents is
very far below what their level of understanding would allow them to
contribute there. The "welcome" culture on the web 2.0 is testing
whether the new user survives the sharks - see, e.g., Svetlana
Shikshina's announcement of her teaching. Now, say it again that it
would be only my personal problem;(

BTW, two of the people you mention have irritated. (No need to warm up
that. But do not spread myths.)

Post by Bantari
They all get into argument, they all discuss things, they can all be persistant,
and they all are valuable and accepted members of the forum.

They do not discuss for the purpose of seeking enough input for the
aforementioned purpose.

Post by Bantari
You are different

Indeed. I do research for advancing go theory to an extent beyond a
specialised study field. (Bill Spight advances go theory for a
specialised study field, which is so specialised that he can hardly
profit from regular discussion input by non-experts.)

Post by Bantari
yet you "persisted" in what you were doing. Finally the axe fell. What did you expect?

I expected the go community to tolerate discussions for the sake of
supporting research in go theory, as has been possible on RGG.

Post by Bantari
Common fallacy: "I am expert, people dismiss me, therefore people dismiss experts."

This is not what I am saying. I am saying that, on GD / L19 (and to
some extent SL), SOME people and a strict interpretation of the TOS
(e.g., "flooding" can always be (mis)interpreted to exclude the users
with persistent discussion) oppose persistent research-supporting
discussion by (apprentice) researchers in (not only specialised) go
theory.

[7***@gmail.com]

My overall premise - and this is important to what I say - is simple:
The main purpose of communication is not really to make people see things your way. It is to explain to people what you see and why you see it like that. If this is accomplished, the communication is successful. Even - maybe even especially - when they disagree with you and end up not changing their minds.

Discussion is a kind of communication where difference of opinions and divergent ideas are assumed up front. But the above premise still holds - a discussion can be successful and satisfying even if no consensus is reached.

But back to subject:

Robert, I could go on about this with you forever, arguing that every paragraph/sentence/word you say is wrong, and demonstrating how examples can be found to contradict what you say, just like you can do it to me and others - but what is the point? We have been at it for some 20 years now, and will probably do it for the next 20...

Persistence is good, but at some point you have to say "I made my arguments, i said what I think, others disagree - its their right" - it is very important to reach this point!!! If you never arrive at this point, its not persistence, but stubbornness. And this is one of your issues wrt to how other people view you. You never stop, even long after the dead horse is flogged, and people get angry enough to stop being open to any of your arguments. You will argue every word, every sentence, every paragraph. This is not always productive, even though you might think you do it in name of of "precision" or "scientific persistence."

So, i think I have reached such point here: I feel like I made my case. I know you disagree, and you think that you only irritate people because you are such an expert and have such wise things to say. Well, have it your way. Just a few more words.

Trust me - it is your delivery and your attitude, not really your content. I am really trying to help you here.

Good examples are many of the non-research related discussions you took part in - opposed basically by the whole rest of the world. Examples? The "DG/L19 quoting discussion" when you first joined, or the "sportsmanship discussion", and so on... Your goal is always not to try to understand what others say but to validate why you think you are right and they are wrong. Or at least - this is the impression you make.

To me, the irritating thing is not really that you disagree - I did not expect anything else, really - but that I do not have the feeling that you even try to understand what I (and others) tell you - but only concentrate on how to demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong - each time they think, feel, or behave differently from you. In this case you are like the late JB, except your arguments are much more rigorous and disciplined and your position is consistent.

Tying it back to my initial premise, it makes me feel like my attempts to communicate with you were a failure. And this is what you make people feel - and I have spoken to quite a few, both active posters and lurkers - since before there was GD/L19.

Anyways, as I said - I reached the point at which I would just have to get petty and start nit-picking, or recycle my arguments and start repeating them in different form.

So instead, I will just demonstrate how to do what I need to do: decide I made my case and allow you to disagree and have the last word. If you need more input, please - just re-read my previous posts, and keep an open mind. I am not your enemy, and my criticism is well meant to be constructive, even though my expectations are low.

And now, allow me to bow out of this topic and stop hijacking this thread.
Its not that hard. Look, here I go. ;)

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by 7***@gmail.com
at some point you have to say "I made my arguments, i said what I think,
others disagree - its their right" - it is very important to reach this point
[...] You never stop [...]
Trust me - it is your delivery and your attitude, not really your content.
I am really trying to help you here. [...]
Your goal is always not to try to understand what others say but to validate
why you think you are right and they are wrong. [...]
I do not have the feeling that you even try to understand what I (and others) tell you
- but only concentrate on how to demonstrate that you are right and they are wrong -
[...] If you need more input, please - just re-read my previous posts, and keep an open mind.

You do not understand how research works if it relies on input from
discussion. It is similar to a field study on collecting opinions. The
researcher needs continued input from opinions stated in reply to his
discussion messages. When discussion stops, the researcher's research
of this kind stops. Re-reading old messages (or reading only messages
from third persons' discussions or studying more pro games) cannot
reveal the same as new input from discussion involving the researcher
can.

Post by 7***@gmail.com
even long after the dead horse is flogged

What you and some others perceive as a dead horse is increasingly
valuable input for research. Research often starts to become fruitful
long after the first perceive nothing but dead horses.

Post by 7***@gmail.com
This is not always productive

Of course not. If research were that easy that each message would
reveal something new, many could be researchers. The usefulness rate
is ca. 1:1000 for the researcher and seemingly 0 for the
non-researcher reading the same discussion. It is so low because the
researcher does not know exactly what and where to find. It is easter
egg hunting in the wilderness or the art of extracting meaningful
information from the snow of an analogue TV screen.

Post by 7***@gmail.com
because you are such an expert and have such wise things to say.

It is not only about saying (even wise) things but about reading
seemingly uninformative things and extracting new insight from them.
New information tends to be hidden in fractions of sentences hinting
at the information indirectly around several corners.

[alex]

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 11:57:46 PM UTC+2, ***@gmail.com wrote:

<cut>
Actually the subject of this thread is about Hal Womack misusing r.g.g ...

Could we go back to the subject ? Consider creating a separate thread for discussing Robert Jasiek?


<remainder cut>

[Bantari]

See what happens without moderation? Just making a point here.

But ok, back to the topic.

I have no clue how to stop people like Hal Womack from abusing rgg. I have dealt with similar situations in the past, with different people, and the only option I see is to moderate. In other circumstances, peer pressure from the group is often enough to change a person's behavior, but in Hal's case I don't think this will work. It will just prompt him to feel more prosecuted and see it as part of some zionist plot to take over the world, or whatever.

So all I can say is: find a way to moderate. However - this is only half of the battle. There is no point moderating an empty forum (and I don't think anybody will bother enabling this functionality for rgg as long as it has like 4 people who use it, including Hal) - so you also need to get people to post here somehow. Right now, people are pretty happy to discuss their things elsewhere, places like L19, reddit, and lots of others.

Come to think of it, reddid has an interesting mechanism to deal with people like Hal. I think it might almost work, but not sure. Anyways - it will not be implemented here since this would require doing some major changes to the underlying usenet functionality.

Anyways, if you don't think you wnt to go through all that, or you think even if you try you will not have much success - just move to a place without Hal. If you ask me, the community is already too splintered, and I would rather prefere everybody to post on the same forum rather than having multiple forums discussing the same subject(s). This is why, unless you get everybody back to rgg and make them stay here (which might be a good solution, I just don't see any way to accomplish that), it is best not to try to provide yet another outlet which splinters the community even further.

Out of curiosity - what are you trying to accomplish by cleaning up rgg, and why not just move over to another forum where people do the cleaning work for you? If it is discussion with other Go players you are interested in, there are plenty of places where you can find it. Why try to resuscitate technology which is over 30 years old now and long surpassed by other stuff?

Post by alex
<cut>
Actually the subject of this thread is about Hal Womack misusing r.g.g ...
Could we go back to the subject ? Consider creating a separate thread for discussing Robert Jasiek?
<remainder cut>

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
Why try to resuscitate technology which is over 30 years old now
and long surpassed by other stuff?

For text-only discussion, the technology is as good as it was 30y ago
and there is no better technology yet (including comfortable backup,
saving, reliable access and whole screen viewing). Maybe even better
because news readers have been improved. What, besides modern net
security considerations, is obviously missing is an open source add-on
for displaying SGFs within the news readers and their inline support
of such add-ons. News readers can support pictures but not SGFs,
except that some news readers support launching a browser for external
viewing and the browser can have add-ons.

[Bantari]

The technology is "old" because for any kind of interesting functions you need 3rd party addons and clients, as you say, which definitely are NOT part of this technology - and pertty much a proof positive that usenet by itself is outdated.

Also as you say yourself - go-related discussion in general is definitely not "text only" any more - it uses go diagrams, for example, or even whole SGF embedding.

Even with 3rd part clients - unless everybody uses the same one, some features will not work. Think of L19's hiding of text - and how useful it is for presenting Go problems, for example, or for Malkovich games. This feature would not work unless everybody has the same client or a clinet supporting the feature exactly the same way.

There is the social aspect with features like liking, disliking, blocking, notifications, which 3rd-party clients cannot really support, by definition - it must be part of the underlying system and the persistent data.

...and I could go on and on, listing common features here which usenet does not (and sometimes simply can not) have.

The point is - the world moved on in the last 30 years, way past "text only". Usenet in its pure form is extremely out of date - to the point of being almost unusable for what we need - and people expect much more these days. With some spiffy 3rd party clients, it might be borderline usable for a while yet - but even this is highly questionable to me.

So why bother?

[alex]

even this is highly questionable to me.

Post by Bantari
So why bother?

Because its simplicity gives it more potential to survive than most of these flashy Web 2.0 sites?
Because it's extremely cheap to maintain?
Because it doesn't rely on 3rd party software?

[Bantari]

Post by Bantari
even this is highly questionable to me.

Post by Bantari
So why bother?

Because its simplicity gives it more potential to survive than most of these flashy Web 2.0 sites?
Because it's extremely cheap to maintain?
Because it doesn't rely on 3rd party software?

<sarcasm>I see rgg is surviving rather well these days, don't you think?</sarcasm>

The underlying tehnology is actually more complex for usenet than for a "flashy web 2.0 site". In both cases you need
1) a database or some such, and
2) a web interface to display the data

In case of "flashy web 2.0 site" - this is *all* you need.

In case of usenet, you need also, I think: (3) some usenet protocol and/or API to connect to it and (4) some 3rd-party client to have more than just the very simplistic display - which is no longer enough for people. And it *does* rely on 3rd-party software even without 3rd-party clients. What do you think this Google Groups portal is? Native usenet interface?

As for cost... do you know what the cost of runningusenet is and who is footing it? I don't, really, so cannot speak to it. Might be really cheap, but I bet it is more expensive than to pay for basic GoDaddy account and load up a free phpBB or something. Usenet only looks free to you because somebody else is paying.

The only advantage of usenet is, as far as I can see - data persisence. Both in terms of past posts and whatever will happen in future. But nobody can really tell for sure how much longer this will continue.

Still, I think this is important, and possibly the only valid reason to try to save rgg. But, as I said, you can always do what Robert does - post in both places, each time you think you have posted something of such great importance that it has to be saved or future generations will suffer.

Personally, I have not made such a post yet, and don't think I have seen such a post made on any of the Go-related forums by anybody. But I might be wrong.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
In case of "flashy web 2.0 site" - this is *all* you need.

You overlook the fundamental importance of availability regardless of
particular individuals willing to run a service. Usenet is independent
of this - the web 2.0 sites depend on this.

Post by Bantari
The only advantage of usenet is, as far as I can see - data persisence.

You miss lots of other advantages, such as
- "full" screen view of messages
- possible very comfortable view of text messages
- freedom of speech essentially only subject to the law
- high reliability
- easy data management
- none of the web 2.0 annoyance, such as blinking smileys distracting
when editing or (dis)likes without any meaning that could be
identified

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
In case of "flashy web 2.0 site" - this is *all* you need.

You overlook the fundamental importance of availability regardless of
particular individuals willing to run a service. Usenet is independent
of this - the web 2.0 sites depend on this.

This is very true, but not really part of the techical complexity of the actual technology.

It speaks more to persistence - which I admitted is an advantage of usenet.

Still - *somebody* runs usenet, *somebody* pays for the data servers it sits on, and *somebody* maintains and administers it and gets paid for that, and so on. And at some point that somebody might decide it is too much hassle and fold. Do you have any proof this is not the case?

Usenet is not natural phenomenon, you know.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
The only advantage of usenet is, as far as I can see - data persisence.

You miss lots of other advantages, such as
- "full" screen view of messages
- possible very comfortable view of text messages
- freedom of speech essentially only subject to the law
- high reliability
- easy data management
- none of the web 2.0 annoyance, such as blinking smileys distracting
when editing or (dis)likes without any meaning that could be
identified

You are confused and are totally mixing different concepts here. You completely miss so many points here, I am not sure where to start explaining.

None of the above has anything to do with usenet vs a hosted forum - "web 2.0 site" is just a not-very-exact euphemism introduced by alex and I perpetuated - in quotes, you might notice. I am not really sure a forum is, by definition, web 2.0. And if it is, usenet is web 2.0 as well, since it is a forum.

All of the advantages you list above are not unique to usenet (some are not even part of usenet but a function of 3rd party clients, which you can also use for most hosted forums) and can be *easily* achieved on basically *any* forum. Usually much better and with less trouble. The fact that people like it differently is not part of what the technology can or cannto do.

For example - "freedom of speach" you are so concerned about is a function of moderation not of media or technology. There are moderated usenet forums (ar at least - there were) and there are unmoderated hosted forums. One has nothing to do with the other and neither is unique to usenet or hosted forum.

For eample - "easy comfortable view of messages" - this only depends on how you style the forum, which is part of its underlying technology. On usenet, you are either stuck with Google Portal, which is terrible, or you have to rely on 3rd-party clients which are often even less persistent and more fickle than hosted forums - whener the developer decides to stop maintaining it. Or whenever they decide to start charging you for their software. Both of this happened to me in the past (broken client due to lack of maintenance and client going suddenly "commercial") - and to me this is actually one of the big drawbacks of usenet vs hosted forum.

For example - "easy data management" - I assume you talk about your own data management, since both usenet and hosted forum like phpBB manages its data very comfortably, I assure you, so you really have no point. On your end - the problem is that you started organizing your data in one form and you never ever want to adjust or change. I can understand your problem here, and the work involved - but this is still *your* problem, not the problem of usenet or any other technology.

One could argue that it is a problem of *your* technology, which is so inflexible that it cannot organize or recognize data in different formats.

What's more - hosted forum has a huge advantage here - it can (easily?) adjust its data format to what suits the users, while usenet cannot. So if you decide you want to have your data in different form, with usenet you are stuck. With hosted forum you might make an argument for a change - and if the argument is good enough, change might happen.

And so long, down the line of all your arguments. Most of what you say is "I am used to the way one specific way of doing things, so anything that works differently is oppresive and bad." I can't really help you with that other than point at reality and try to explain to you that the world will not adjust to your whim unless you have good reasons. So far, you have not given any good reasons.

And the rest of the people seem to prefere an environment that is "friendly" and has the "blinking smileys" - as well as being able to display go diagrams, embed sgf files, and all that silly stuff usenet will never be able to do.

So, unless you come up with some brilliant idea - you are stuck on usenet with alex and HAL. If this is what you like, no problem. If it is not - you need to either give some practical solution or move to where the action is.

I have proposed a solution, and argued why i think it is the only one I can see, and even outlined basic steps needed to implement it. Up until now, all you do is nitpick on selected words I use and keep derailing this thread. This is not what "free speech" is all about.

And you wonder why you get in trouble on a moderated forum?
That's one of the reasons. You are all negative, constantly trying to demonstrate why I am wrong on tangential issues - instead of coming up with some positive suggestions and solutions to the actual problem.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
Still - *somebody* runs usenet, *somebody* pays for the data servers it sits on, and *somebody* maintains and administers it and gets paid for that, and so on. And at some point that somebody might decide it is too much hassle and fold. Do you have any proof this is not the case?

Once more: NOT somebody, but MANY people at essentially independent
places. Usenet is as distributed as the internet.

Post by Bantari
can be *easily* achieved on basically *any* forum.

If so, the advantages are not achieved for any web go forum.

Post by Bantari
"freedom of speach" you are so concerned about is a function of moderation not
of media or technology. There are moderated usenet forums (ar at least - there
were) and there are unmoderated hosted forums.

If we go into these details, sure. I have wanted to simplify
discussion a bit. OC, freedom of speach does not exist on moderated
news groups.

Post by Bantari
"easy comfortable view of messages" - this only depends on how you style the
forum, which is part of its underlying technology

Sure, but in practice all go forums compete with making message view
as uncomfortable as possible. The "ideal" has always been views of the
size of a stamp rather than the full screen.

Post by Bantari
whenever they decide to start charging you for their software.

I recall the buggy days of a free usenet reader and am happy to pay
for my current, essentially bug-free client. Browsers are as free as
they are buggy.

Post by Bantari
"easy data management" [...] this is still *your* problem, not the problem
of usenet or any other technology.

LOL. A "technology" (web forums) that does not even offer the basics
of saving messages.

Post by Bantari
One could argue that it is a problem of *your* technology, which is so
inflexible that it cannot organize or recognize data in different formats.

Ok. Tell us browsers - without add-ons - that allow saving, for any
web forum, viewed or edited messages. The messages - not the entire
webpages. For Windows, iOS, Linux, Android.

Post by Bantari
it can (easily?) adjust its data format to what suits the users, while usenet cannot.

The Usenet can be adjusted by tags. One can write, e.g., [go] [/go]
tags as easily as, I mean MORE easily than, one can on any web forum.
The problem is not the data format but is interpreting it.

Post by Bantari
Most of what you say is "I am used to the way one specific way of doing things, so anything that works differently is oppresive and bad." I can't really help you with that other than point at reality and try to explain to you that the world will not adjust to your whim unless you have good reasons. So far, you have not given any good reasons.

Here, I need to escape discussion because of limited time.

Post by Bantari
And the rest of the people

There is no evidence on people's preferences in detail. However, it is
very clear that there is not one big mass of people having exactly the
same preferences. Proof: e.g., not everybody likes using the Likes, as
can be seen by (more than 1!) users never using them.

Post by Bantari
all you do is [...] keep derailing this thread

Sorry but please do not blame me for a) common RGG practice and b)
something you initiated before I joined as if I were the only one to
do it. Enough meta-discussion on this.

Post by Bantari
And you wonder why you get in trouble on a moderated forum?
That's one of the reasons.

Once more: if derailing threas were a reason for getting into trouble
on moderated go forums, then about half of their users would have to
be in great admin trouble. Some forums have "no derailing" in their
TOS but admins do not apply it except in arbitrary, exceptional cases.

Post by Bantari
You are all negative, constantly trying to demonstrate why I am wrong on tangential issues

Have you even noticed that you criticise my forums use in all detail,
and you have done so from time to time for many years, while I do not
criticise yours in all detail and repeatedly? How about describing
yourself with what you describe me?

The major issue has been whether forums, or in particular RGG, should
be moderated. You started the tangential issue of calling my person as
an example case. Now you resort to meta-discussion, i.e., you become
even more tangential. And this after having proclaimed to have quit
this part of the discussion.

Post by Bantari
instead of coming up with some positive suggestions and solutions to the actual problem.

My positive suggestions have included a) replacing forum TOSs by
simple references to the law, b) equal application of forum TOSs to
all users (and as persons (not as aliases)), c) reasonable forum
penalties instead of excessive penalties, d) more go contents on RGG
by everybody, e) an open source SGF viewer for usenet clients, f) full
screen message views on web forums etc.

[Silvano]

Post by Robert Jasiek
My positive suggestions have included a) replacing forum TOSs by
simple references to the law,

To which law? A legal utterance in Germany can be sentenced
as slander in Italy, a legal utterance in the US can be
absolutely illegal in China etc.
But an Internet forum is usually international.
Possible solution: the relevant law is the law of the
country where the persons or the organisation in charge of
the forum are seated. Do you know for example Japanese laws
so well that you can be sure of never writing anything to
that forum which is illegal in Japan? I don't.
Another possible solution: the relevant law is the law of
the country where the writer lives. Now try and find out
where I'm living. And I could probably hide it much better,
if I really wanted to.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Silvano
To which law?

To all applicable law (of involved national countries and of
international law), which also dissolves every possible conflict
between orders of priorities of several involved law systems. If
necessary, the courts determine which law is applicable and how to
dissolve priorities.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Silvano
To which law?

To all applicable law (of involved national countries and of
international law), which also dissolves every possible conflict
between orders of priorities of several involved law systems. If
necessary, the courts determine which law is applicable and how to
dissolve priorities.

Yes, and then you will need a TOS which is as thick and convoluted as the US tax code or any country's criminal law description - and moderators who need to study for years before they can do a half-decent job. Just like tax tax or criminal attorneys. Get real.

I assume you talk abotu GD/L19.

On L19 moderators are not some power-hungry authority figures out to get you and sqush your "free speah" rights. They are actually pretty nice and easy-going members of the community who try very hard to keep the discussion within bounds this community finds acceptable. They are doing pretty good job, although many, me included, have to compromise on our natural style and attitudes.

I can say that because I happen to know some of them personally, and have a lot of respect. They do a great job, and the way they moderate reflects the will of the community in 99.99% of the cases - and in the remining 0.01% they are willing to listen to good arguments and are not above admitting they were wrong.

About your personal problems on L19 - let me just say that, and then please - let the matter drop. Your attempts to argue against reality is not very flattering.

Once again - your problems with L19 was not due to unreasonable moderation or unreasonable posters who dislike you for no reasons. They were due to your own behavior and your own attitude - as some people, me included, tried to tell you before you got kicked - both in public and in privete. This is a fact and not really open to discussion - no matter how much you "disagree".

I talked to people about you (including moderators) in person and on the forum and via emails when you got kicked (and even long before, over the years) - and this is what people felt. I did that because you interest me, and because I wanted to know what the issue was exactly before I pleaded your case both in public and in private with some moderators to let you back in and kept telling everybody that you are not a troll and your contribution is valuable. I have to say - I was the only one. I am not saying you got back - conditionally - because of me, but I like to think I contributed to this decision. And it was the right decision.

I am saying this to make you understand two things: (a) I am not your enemy, and don't argue with you for the sake of arguing, and (b) I did ask and I did talk to people about you a lot, so I feel I am in a position to make informed comments about why you got in trouble. Please, listen to what I say instead of concentrating of proving that I am wrong.

Now, as I said - lets drop all that.

[7***@gmail.com]

To refocus this discussion let me reiterate the questions.

If I understand the OP correctly, the questions are:

1) Immediate: How to rid rgg of HAL and the likes?
2) Long term: How to revive rgg?

You have the floor, its your time to shine! Dazzle us.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by 7***@gmail.com
How to rid rgg of HAL and the likes?

The purpose should not be to exclude persons but to convince them that
excessive off-topic contents under the pretence of being Go contents
does not belong to this Go newsgroup.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by 7***@gmail.com
How to rid rgg of HAL and the likes?

The purpose should not be to exclude persons but to convince them that
excessive off-topic contents under the pretence of being Go contents
does not belong to this Go newsgroup.

The you are OT here. The question alex posted, as I understand is - is specifically how to get rid of HAL. Or isn't it?

And in any ways, it is not up to you to decide what the purpose should be. It is about the whole community, as small as it is: alex, you, Silvano, and me in this case. You are just part of it, with a voice, but not always the dictating voice. Seems like at least two of us - alex and me - think that getting rid of HAL is desirable.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
it is not up to you to decide

Yawn. You need not tell the obvious.

[Silvano]

Post by 7***@gmail.com
To refocus this discussion let me reiterate the questions.
1) Immediate: How to rid rgg of HAL and the likes?
2) Long term: How to revive rgg?
You have the floor, its your time to shine! Dazzle us.

I won't dazzle anyone, but:
1) Use filters.
2) No idea.

[Bantari]

Robert,

Most of what you say is true - since all the data is just text, on both usenet and hosted forum - which was precisely my point. This is exactly why you cannot cite none of what you cite as an advantage of usenet vs hosted forum. Especially since - while you can indeed easily write [go][/go] in a usenet post - for the usenet it is absolutely meaningless and only has any meaning if you use a 3rd-party client. For a hosted forum, it will have a meaning if you give it meaning.

The fact that no forum is configured the way you like is completely beside the point - we are talking about potential advantages of one technology vs another. And lets be honest here - usenet is certainly not configured the way 99% of people like, or rgg would not be that empty.

And there is another issue:

The huge disadvantage of usenet/client system is that (a) everybody has to have the same client configured the same way with the same plugis for the discussion to be smooth, and (b) once you depend on a specific client to give meaning to a content, the content stops being accessible - since you cannot count on the client being present wherever you go: internet cafe, university library, or a friend's place, etc. Huge disadvantage!

So, for the usenet to be accessible and its content meaningful - you are pretty much stuck with text-only, which is not sufficient anymore for go-related discussions.

As for the rest - please read up on that. It will take too much of my time to explain all this to you. Maybe some other time, but now, as alex prompted me, lets get back to the topic: how to get rid of people like HAL?

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
usenet is certainly not configured the way 99% of people like, or rgg would not be that empty.

"99%" has no meaning. It took years before people moved from RGG to
the web (and for several years, the German web forum was much more
active than any international web forum). I think the major attractor
for readers is the place where the majority of the top writers are.
Web forum features did not attract people, but top writers did.

Post by Bantari
everybody has to have the same client configured the same way

Disagree.

Post by Bantari
What TOS?

Web forum TOS.

Post by Bantari
You really need to make up your mind - you cannot claim that "moderation ruils every
discussion group" and the suggest a solution which depends on moderation.

Answered earlier.

Post by Bantari
then you will need a TOS

No.

Post by Bantari
On L19 moderators are [...] actually pretty nice and easy-going members of the
community who try very hard to keep the discussion within bounds this community finds
acceptable. They are doing pretty good job

What you describe applied to GD but not L19.

Post by Bantari
the will of the community in 99.99% of the cases

Random figures have no meaning.

Post by Bantari
your problems with L19 was not due to unreasonable moderation or unreasonable posters
who dislike you for no reasons. They were due to your own behavior and your own attitude

There were multiple reasons and unreasonable moderation and
unreasonable posters belong to the reasons. E.g., it has occurred that
recently an admin has praised a poster as a model user of the year
although that user spread hatred against me during that year. You
easily overlook such cases because you are not affected personally or
maybe because you do not read each message.

Post by Bantari
I was the only one.

No.

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
usenet is certainly not configured the way 99% of people like, or rgg would not be that empty.

"99%" has no meaning. It took years before people moved from RGG to
the web

Sure. Any major change takes years. The point is: they all moved. There is nobody here left. Period. If not for you, alex and HAL - this would be a dead place, and as it is - it is still dead.

Given rgg and a moderated forum, virtually *everybody* picked moderated forum. For whatever reason - but I would say moderation had something to do with that.

This is my meaning for "99%" - and is a very conservative number. Considering that what is left on rgg seems to be you (only half, since you post much more on L19), alex, and HAL - vs hundreds of active posters on L19 and elsewhere - this number should be more like "99.999%".

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
everybody has to have the same client configured the same way

Disagree.

You might disagree all you want, but it is the truth.

For example: consider the [hide] function. Unless each client handles it precisely the same way - which will be hard to enforce on all the random and independent and unpaid clien writers - this feature will be meaningless. And it is a very nice feature.

For example: consider sgf embedding - even more important than [hide]. It will never be a standard feature for all clients - the market is just too small. So we are talking plugin. But then - either we have one plugin and each client has the same API to add the functionality (which is very unlikely for a bunch of random client writers) - or the sgf plugin writer has to create multiple versions for multiple clients and keep updating them each time a client changes or a new client appears. I don't see nobody doing it, ever, the task is just too big to be done right - unless we are all willing to pay for it. Will you pay for it? I won't, not when I can use it perfectly well on hosted forum.

And so on.

You cannot just flatly disagree without giving any reasons. This is not how discussion works. But again - this is one more of the things that irritates people about you: making seemingly authoritative statements, completely unjustified, and considering it sufficient.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
What TOS?

Web forum TOS.

Then you will need a TOS.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
then you will need a TOS

No.

And then you will not need a TOS?
So which is it?

Post by Robert Jasiek
What you describe applied to GD but not L19.

Its the same crowd, some of the same moderators, and pretty much the same rules.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
the will of the community in 99.99% of the cases

Random figures have no meaning.

Spoke the king of random figures.

Instead of making empty rethoric, like with your "Disagree" statement above - can you please give some examples where moderators actually oppressed the community or went against the community's will? And I mean not one case - but multiple and frequent cases. I can remember only one case in all this time, and thus I said "99.99%" instead of "100%". This is my justification for the number.

You throw words and disagreements around without *any* justification, it seems. It really looks like you are arguing for the sake of arguing here.

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
your problems with L19 was not due to unreasonable moderation or unreasonable posters
who dislike you for no reasons. They were due to your own behavior and your own attitude

There were multiple reasons and unreasonable moderation and
unreasonable posters belong to the reasons.

There are always unreasonable users - and will always be, unless you strictly moderate every word of every poster to your personal liking. There were many more unreasonable users on the old rgg than there ever was on GD/L19 - and these rgg guys were much more unreasonable. Just look at HAL - there is no HALs on moderated forum.

But in your particular case, it is unimportant if there were unreasonable posters or posts or moderators. You were told and warned multiple times before you got kicked, and you were told specifically (by me, and I think by others) what kinds of things to avoid if you don't want to irritate and anger people. But you ignored all this - untill you got kicked.

What's more - you were told multiple times even before GD/L19 - on egg, and probably other places - what kinds of thing irritates and angers people - just like I am telling you now. And you decide to ignore it all and don't adjust. What do you expect?

Blaming it on unreasonable posters and oppressive moderator and lack of free speach is a very shallow excuse. People have been telling you these things FOR YEARS! And not only me. And yet you sting the same irritating tune...

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
I was the only one.

No.

Again you disagree without giving any justification.

Yes, I was the only one who openly posted that you being kicked out was not right, that your contributions were valuable and that you were not a troll. I started specific thread on GD/L19 about it, just to defend you - nobody ever answered in support. Please tell me who else did that. I have not seen any other open posts or threads defending you.

I also came here and told you that kicking you out was a mistake and that I will talk to moderators, which I did. Has anybody else come here and told you this? It is possible, but I have not seen any such posts, so tell me.

When I talked to moderators - one actualy told me that I was the only one speaking in your favor. Do you know of somebody else who talked to GD/L19 moderators for you?

So, once again I gave you reasons for my statement.
What is your disagreement based on?

[Detlef Müller]

Post by Bantari

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
usenet is certainly not configured the way 99% of people like, or
rgg would not be that empty.

"99%" has no meaning. It took years before people moved from RGG
to the web

Sure. Any major change takes years. The point is: they all moved.
There is nobody here left. Period.

Mhhhh ... <performing personal turing test> ... no.

Post by Bantari
Given rgg and a moderated forum, virtually *everybody* picked
moderated forum. For whatever reason - but I would say moderation had
something to do with that.

seems people get customed to pseudo-public Forums which might or might
not exist in 10 jears ... depending wether the person/enterprise
provide it further (for affordable prices).

Post by Bantari
This is my meaning for "99%" - and is a very conservative number.
Considering that what is left on rgg seems to be you (only half,
since you post much more on L19), alex, and HAL - vs hundreds of
active posters on L19 and elsewhere - this number should be more like
"99.999%".

So there were 30000 regular posters here in good old times?
Wow!

Post by Bantari

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Bantari
everybody has to have the same client configured the same way

Disagree.

You might disagree all you want, but it is the truth.

Now you are joking, aren't you?

We talk about reading and writing ASCII-text!

I never saw any misunderstanding (i.e. in linux.debian.user.german)
based on "different-client-problems" in groups where lots of different
clients are used (and surely hardly two of them configured the same
way).

Btw. most newreaders should be configured to open an appended
sgf-file with a sgf-editor or viewer of ones choice (as with
appended pictures).

[...]

Post by Bantari
For example: consider sgf embedding - even more important than
[hide]. It will never be a standard feature for all clients - the
market is just too small. So we are talking plugin. But then - either
we have one plugin and each client has the same API to add the
functionality

Using your favorite sgf-viewer is no bug, its a feature!
Depending on ones hardware (electronical and biolocical)
everyone has his personal favorite way of displaying the
information described in the sgf-Format ... same as the
text in ascii btw.

Post by Bantari
(which is very unlikely for a bunch of random client
writers) - or the sgf plugin writer has to create multiple versions
for multiple clients and keep updating them [...]

Thats why simply appending a sgf file just works. That's all
there is to it!

Maybe its a fact, but for me it is dissapointing to see
the folks giving away freedom for some flourishes ...

Detlef

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Detlef Müller
Btw. most newreaders should be configured to open an appended
sgf-file with a sgf-editor or viewer of ones choice (as with
appended pictures).
Using your favorite sgf-viewer is no bug, its a feature!
Depending on ones hardware (electronical and biolocical)
everyone has his personal favorite way of displaying the
information described in the sgf-Format ... same as the
text in ascii btw.
Thats why simply appending a sgf file just works. That's all
there is to it!

Well said, but it would be nice if also
- multiple SGF attachments can launch SGF viewers
- attachments can be saved
- [go] tags in the text trigger a viewer for inline go diagram view
- inline [sgf] is possible

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek

Post by Detlef Müller
Btw. most newreaders should be configured to open an appended
sgf-file with a sgf-editor or viewer of ones choice (as with
appended pictures).
Using your favorite sgf-viewer is no bug, its a feature!
Depending on ones hardware (electronical and biolocical)
everyone has his personal favorite way of displaying the
information described in the sgf-Format ... same as the
text in ascii btw.
Thats why simply appending a sgf file just works. That's all
there is to it!

Well said, but it would be nice if also
- multiple SGF attachments can launch SGF viewers
- attachments can be saved
- [go] tags in the text trigger a viewer for inline go diagram view
- inline [sgf] is possible

Well, usenet exists for some 35 years now. There are countless usenet clients out there.
How is your wish-list of fetures doing so far?

[Bantari]

Ok, kids, I give up.

So we have a consensus then. Let me summarize:
--(1) Robert's posting style is great and not irritating at all
--(2) Hosted forum users are mean and hostile towards experts
--(3) Moderation ruins every discussion forum
--(4) We need a TOS the size of the US Tax Code, and twice as detailed
--(5) Usenet is the greates thing since sliced bread
--(6) Technology never moved forward in the past 30 years, and if it did then only to produce garbage unworthy of our attention
--(7) 3rd-party client is the best approach to anything, and the rest of the world which moves away from that system (even the Go servers!!) - those guys are just idiots and have no clue!
--(8) Rgg is alive, well, happy, and bustling with activity, as is the rest of usenet
--(9) Whoever left rgg is a misguided ignoramus and all we need to do is to sit and wait for them to see the error in their ways and come crawling back and begging for forgiveness.

and finally, last but not least:

--(10) We all love HAL, the ultimate embodiment of "free speach"!!!!

And anybody who claims the above are not honest-to-god FACTS is full of manure and has no clue what he is talking about.

Long live the FACTS!!! What was I thinking to ever doubt the FACTS!
My apologies.

PS>
So for now, we can all go back to sleep and stop posting until I come back and stir the pot again. For usenet supporters, it is funny how all you guys keep dead quite until I come and say something. At least prove me wrong and start some discussions by yourself. Possibly about Go. Who knows, you might change things for the better. Oh, I forgot... you have "no time".

Oh well, was worth a try.

[alex]

To be honest, from my part, I lost the overview of the thread - too much side issues have cluttered the original message.

But I'm looking forward for a reaction from the SF Go club... don't tell me they are not aware.

On thing why I tend to go to rgg is exactly because there is no moderation, which is a key aspect of usenet, but also because the technology is so simple, and I think that deserves credit. As I use the Google web interface (too lazy to install a newsreader), there is no option to block someone.

Another issue that bothers me is that Google - whose services I assume HAL is using to access Usenet - is not (easily) reachable to report this problem, although they publish an address for that end.

Post by Bantari
PS>
So for now, we can all go back to sleep and stop posting until I come back and stir the pot again. For usenet supporters, it is funny how all you guys keep dead quite until I come and say something. At least prove me wrong and start some discussions by yourself. Possibly about Go. Who knows, you might change things for the better. Oh, I forgot... you have "no time".
Oh well, was worth a try.

[oren]

Post by alex
But I'm looking forward for a reaction from the SF Go club... don't tell me they are not aware.

They likely are not aware, since only a very small number of people actually look at rgg.

[alex]

I would be very surprised if they aren't aware of this thread.

Nevertheless, today I posted a message on their FB page: https://www.facebook.com/sfgoclub/posts/10207699451354986

In fact, as long as there is no reaction, I will assume they are approving this behaviour.

[alex]

Slightly unsurprisingly, the club silently deleted my message on their Facebook page.

I can only conclude that the San Francisco Go Club agrees with Hal Womack's extremely racist, antisemitic attitude.

[Hal Womack 3-dan]

"alex" whazzitsname, shall we plug it in just a bit?

In GM'14, to take one prominent example from many, Bibi massacred >500 children. Then about six months later he appeared before a joint session of the U.S. Congress, now known as the Lesser Knesset, to receive frenzied applause and hundred$ of million$ in extra tribute for this atrocity. The (U.S.) Senate unanimously (!) swallowed Bibi's cum, licking its lips.

Speaking further of witch, "alex" = 1 tiny voice among the legions of hazbaratz whom Bibi boasts of having hired to pollute the Internet by singing hosannas for his slaughter. I hereby explicitly urge the JeWar crimes prosecutor of the future to hunt down "alex" here as one of the long list of perps to be condemned and punished in the name of justice.

I am a humane racer and teacher of the law. I am also one of the best friends of the Jews, last and least among all the nations but still deserving of our love. A very few public Jews by blood, such as Mordechai Vanunu and Brother Nathanael*, do honor to the tribe of their ancestors. Many of the rest OTOH deserve "tough love" for JeWar criminals, witch's to say prison, if they wise up. Some of the most dangerous servants of the truly fanatical kosher cult of murder = agents of influence in the Merkin Faux Left such as Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman and Jeff Blankfort. Such spies can often be detected by their parroting of the Official Lie on 3T or the Twin Towers Topple aka "9/11".

The perverse stupidity of Jew abuse of the propaganda label "anti-Semite" has long been exposed. All of the children murdered by Bibi were true Semites, unlike the Ashkenazi. Arabs make up >9/10ths of Semites.

Love the Jews and hate their crimes! = An update of the aphorism from Augustine of Hippo, a source otherwise to be used with care.

"alex", to bear down on the point = a shameless apologist for murder and deserves the
punishment due for that crime. He feels safe in the company of his fellow swine
in high JAPE** offices, certainly including Bloody Bernie Sanders and all of the
other Carnival Clown Candidates for the 0-0 in the Year of the Monkey.

Camille Saint-Saëns - Danse Macabre

.............................

* http://brothernathanaelfoundation.org/

========================

Post by alex
Slightly unsurprisingly, the club silently deleted my message on their Facebook page.
I can only conclude that the San Francisco Go Club agrees with Hal Womack's extremely racist, antisemitic attitude.

Actually the master of the SFGC account also deleted my response to "alex", so Yidchik or jootool whichever profitted by the move as a whole.

[oren]

Post by alex
Slightly unsurprisingly, the club silently deleted my message on their Facebook page.
I can only conclude that the San Francisco Go Club agrees with Hal Womack's extremely racist, antisemitic attitude.

Or just that the San Francisco Go Club has no reason to get involved on a usenet issue.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Bantari
This is my meaning for "99%" - and is a very conservative number.

You cannot know because writers is not the same as readers. You even
miscount the number of writers.

Post by Bantari
never be a standard feature for all clients

It is possible to set a standard for what a client must achieve.

Post by Bantari
You cannot just flatly disagree without giving any reasons. This is not how discussion works.

Reason as above.

Post by Bantari
this is one more of the things that irritates people about you: making seemingly authoritative statements, completely unjustified, and considering it sufficient.

Instead of misinterpreting me, learn the obvious: I am too busy to
reply to each remark in detail. Busy with what? Writing go books, of
course. This is more important than answering all you concerns in
detail.

Post by Bantari
Then you will need a TOS.

What I have said: the TOS of a web forum should just be: "The law
applies."

Post by Bantari

Post by Bantari
the will of the community in 99.99% of the cases

can you please give some examples where moderators actually oppressed the community or went against the community's will?

Not oppressing the community is something else than not doing what its
current majority appears to want.

Post by Bantari
There were many more unreasonable users on the old rgg than there ever was on GD/L19

Disagree.

Post by Bantari
You were told and warned multiple times before you got kicked,

Except that none of the "warning" was conveyed clearly as a warning,
and this is of the greatest importance.

Post by Bantari
you were told specifically (by me, and I think by others) what kinds of things to avoid if you don't want to irritate and anger people.

I do not let my discussion behaviour be dictated by other ordinary
users - as little as I dictate their discussion behaviour.

Those criticising (e.g., by calling it irritating) my discussion
behaviour the loudest are those regularly disagreeing with me on the
contents. "Voltair shut up!"

Post by Bantari
- you were told multiple times even before GD/L19 - on [RGG...] - what kinds of thing irritates and angers people -

On RGG, not "I was told" but "I was aware" that some disliked certain
discussions. (Uh, I recall one(!) case when somebody suggested to me
by email that the Rules FAQ once every two months would be enough. I
replied that beginner rules questions would arise after ca. 3 weeks on
average, so every two weeks would make more sense than every two
months.)

On RGG, people had been friendly. They same people that became
personal wrote in a detached manner on RGG what expressing their
preferences for, as a few had written, "no server wars", "no rules
threads" etc. The unmoderated forum had been friendly. The moderated
forums became unfriendly WRT to those people because a) on web 2.0
forums it is easier to hide behind temporary aliases (while in a
newsgroup everything is stored for a long time) and b) moderators were
seen as potential allies to possibly get rid of particular people.

I do not stop discussion, study and research because an (even small)
number of people has a preference while being unwillingly to use a
filter. Mankind would still be hunters if everybody stopped
discussion, study and research because a few cannot tolerate it.
Intolerance must not rule the world.

Post by Bantari

Post by Bantari

Post by Bantari
I was the only one.

No.

Again you disagree without giving any justification.

You can feel ashamed that you overlooked or forgot that Bill Spight is
another example of having spoken in favour of me at L19. You did
eagerly participate in one of the threads in which he did so.

You might also ask yourself how important you consider yourself that
you would have been the only one having spoken in my favour on L19.

You have wanted justification - here you have it.

From time to time, you claim to be acting in favour of me. Maybe you
think it is all good what you do but think again. When you paint a
picture of me having been unreasonable and all other users and admins
always having reasonable, you are doing me a very great disservice
because you blame everything on me, quite like the baiters. I think
this is not your intention but you should be a bit more careful to
perceive the scope of what you express.

Do not try to educate my behaviour. Discussion about go contents with
you has been (tedious and) fun. Discussion about your education
attempts, however, are counter-productive.

Post by Bantari
When I talked to moderators - one actualy told me that I was the only one speaking in your favor. Do you know of somebody else who talked to GD/L19 moderators for you?

It is possible that you might have been the only one speaking in
favour of me - directly - to the moderators / admins - in private -.

I greatly appreciate this. Not because I think that a particular
person (me) should need any support as the particular person in front
of admins. It is because I think that admins should be convinved that,
regardless of the person, no person deserves being excluded
(temporarily) in a manner even remotely close to what happened to the
particular person (which happened to be me): disagreement about forum
use styles / contents / opinions -> mobbing -> driving the particular
person into accidental traps of TOS violation -> letting the admins do
the rest and then pretend nobody participated in the exclusion.

Post by Bantari
What is your disagreement based on?

Misunderstanding. First you described what I thought meant "public
messages on the forum". Now you have clarified to mean "private
messages to admins / moderators".

[Bantari]

Post by Robert Jasiek
My positive suggestions have included a) replacing forum TOSs by
simple references to the law, b) equal application of forum TOSs to
all users (and as persons (not as aliases)), c) reasonable forum
penalties instead of excessive penalties, d) more go contents on RGG
by everybody, e) an open source SGF viewer for usenet clients, f) full
screen message views on web forums etc.

What TOS? Usenet TOS? Rgg TOS? Where is that to be replaced?

Anyways - without moderation to enforce this TOS, people like HAL will ignore it and still do whatever they like. So this "positive suggestion" is useless and illogical unless you also introduce moderation - which is something that, as you say "ruins every discussion group."

You really need to make up your mind - you cannot claim that "moderation ruils every discussion group" and the suggest a solution which depends on moderation.

[SP]

Post by Bantari
But I am glad that this place is not ruined for you yet. But it is for most of the normal people. This is why there are so few bothering to come here and read/post anything. And the reason is, believe it or not, the unmoderated behavior of a few individuals.

What about using filters? In other Usenet groups I have
filtered out (jargon: plonked) more names than there are
writers here and I still get many interesting posts.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by SP
What about using filters? In other Usenet groups I have
filtered out (jargon: plonked) more names than there are
writers here and I still get many interesting posts.

Very good for those familiar with the Usenet and reading softwares
with filters.

Those not using Usenet readers can easily find it too difficult to
filter; many rather go away instead of bothering to find out about how
to use the Usenet properly.

(There can be special reasons not to filter unwanted senders. E.g., if
everybody just filters, nobody may actually know when a newsgroup is
being taken over. So it is good if at least a few monitor what is
happening.)

[troule]

rgg is what it is an open text only space where sometimes you find people asking info on go and getting answers.

You find people who think they are top-of-the-hill researchers and flood with their "papers" (and promote their book in between the lines), but i don't blame them as as they prove to be helpful with newcomers here sometimes.

You find sick people lost forever, advertising for viagra and so on...

Whatever, just select what you want and delete the others. By yourself.
It s a must have place even if it s not convenient and flood your mailbox.

Must have for the people who still come sometimes to ask or tell something relevant for our go community.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by troule
You find people who think they are top-of-the-hill researchers and flood with their "papers"

You sound as if a) you had doubts about the quality of research (Which
doubts? Why would "paper" be an inappropriate description for those
research texts from John Tromp or me starting with abstracts? Which
other related research would have equal or greater relevance? Can you
even mention other texts having more than 1/10 as much relevance? Can
you find any flaw in those papers?) and b) there would be hundreds of
(new) papers per day here (while there are maybe a few per year).

This is an example of what can be called a paper:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf The three next most relevant
contributions to a definition of ko (that is, not the other topic of
definition of the values of kos) also are from me. The least relevant
of these (defining ko as all stones in all positions) has less than
1/100 the relevance of the paper, so on-topic contributions by other
researchers (mainly Ing Chang-ko) have less relevance. For John
Tromp's (and his fellows) papers about counting numbers of legal
positions, the situation is similar: it is mainly his single effort.

I have not mentioned Bill Spight because I do not recall whether he
mentioned his papers here. If so, it must have been several years ago.
Not exactly what you'd call "flooding"... Concerning the contents of
his papers, he has a few fellow researchers but for exactly the topics
he studies, his papers are the best; if the topic is viewed in a
slightly broader context, his papers still put him in a group of a few
top researchers about (endgame) value theory.

Computer go researchers have, IIRC, hardly announced their papers
here. There is much greater competition in their study field(s):
dozens of relevant researchers. Even if every new CG paper were
announced here, it would be far from "flooding".

Post by troule
as as they prove to be helpful with newcomers here sometimes.

It is more than valid to speak about research of books regardless of
whether one helps newcomers. There is no duty to help others in order
to be allowed to speak about go theory.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by Robert Jasiek
Ing Chang-ko

Typo: Ing Chang-ki

[alex]

Robert, can you please not reply to this kind of attacks? The subject is not your papers, but the silence of the SF Go club that is not willing to make something clear to one of their members.

[Robert Jasiek]

Post by alex
Robert, can you please not reply to this kind of attacks?

"Attack" is a too strong word. Discussion of relevance of research
papers is of some interest (although maybe not for you). You need not
worry because I have changed the thread subject; doing so is common in
newsgroups and separates from the previous subject. You can profit by
sorting messages by subject rather than inheritance.

[troule]

Funny how each of us read what he wants to read.
Did i express doubt somewhere in my words?

I talked about flood, not about if you are at the top in something or not.

With womack you should cover together something like 90% of the posts here in volume (maybe more?)

Of course there is no duty to flood but i was just telling how i am happy when you answer some newbie coming around.