Reasons for Being Banned from IGS
Brent Locher
people that have actually been banned from IGS. At one time I remember it
being stated (some time ago) that there were only two people that were
banned , and more recently it has been stated that as many as 40 people have
been banned but that currently there are only 12 people that are banned. I
thought it might be useful to people that are playing on IGS to review
actions that have led to banning on IGS. I provide this post as a service
to those that may not be aware of behavior which could lead to banning. Now
please bear in mind that because most people that are banned are not given
any explanation as to their banning, that the reasons I state here may not
be correct. I am trying my best to use my memory to connect the person who
was banned with the most likely reason as to why they were banned. Here is
the List (feel free to add to it for the sake of helping other IGS players
that may need some guidance).
Eric V. R. - started a go server with identical protocol as IGS.
Rich Br. - Made fun of a computer go program that was engaged in a
match on IGS.
Steve F. - talked about nngs in an IGS channel.
Patrick B. - Made nuicance posts on RGG over long period of time
alternately taking IGS's side then NNGS's side.
Scott W. - Guilt by association ( with patrick B and the university of AZ)
Terri ? - claims she does not know, but of late because she wrote an
article about IGS bannings.
Bill S. - Filled in his own eyes during games he lost. Made opponents
irritated. sent many emails to IGS admins about democracy and justice and
their lack thereof. alternatively slammed and then apologized to the IGS
admin in RGG.
Eric O. - asked personal questions about opponents he was playing. Often
posted suggestions for improving IGS to RGG.
after his banning - Alternatively grovels for acceptance and slams IGS
about their behavior.
Bill T. - I don't know what he did but IGS (at least at one time) had whole
archives dedicated to his unfit character to play on IGS. But I think it
generally revolved around controversial posts he made on RGG.
Bantari - I don't know reason, but I gather it is because of combative
posts about IGS on RGG.
Barry P. I am not sure he was banned - but I have inferred from his posts
that he is.
Ming Ch. - I do not know reasons but I am quite certain he is banned (could
be wrong)
Nick W. - he called the IGS protocol by another name on the BGA website
that he oversees.
byakko - I am not quite sure why this guy is but I think he is banned.
If you ever do get banned from IGS the (apparent) best way to get reinstated
officially is to send a formal letter to IGS and tell them that you are
unconditionally wrong and that you would like to be reinstated as an
accepted member of the IGS community. However, you must be sincere when
saying this otherwise you will not be reinstated.
I am currently not banned - but thiose T-shirts are kind of cool !
Brent Locher
John Tr. - helped write the nngs go server
William M. Shubert
...
> Bill S. - Filled in his own eyes during games he lost. Made opponents
> irritated. sent many emails to IGS admins about democracy and justice and
> their lack thereof. alternatively slammed and then apologized to the IGS
> admin in RGG.
I'd just like to point out, in case anybody is curious, that this "Bill
S." is not me. I never did these things, and I have never (to my
knowledge) been banned from IGS despite writing some code for NNGS and
writing/managing KGS.
--
Bill Shubert
KGS Admin
-
From: "William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org>
> I'd just like to point out, in case anybody is curious, that this
> "Bill S." is not me. I never did these things, and I have never
> (to my knowledge) been banned from IGS despite writing some code
> for NNGS and writing/managing KGS.
Bill has done an excellent job with KGS, and is undeserving of
certain public nagging remarks from Eric Osman on this newsgroup
when Bill has been readily accessible, to my experience, through
the vehicle of private email. It seems also, that Bill may have
considered certain intrinsic problems stemming from inappropriate
usage by NNGS of the IGS communications protocol when deciding to
embark upon a radically different, unique, and integrated design.
- regards
- jb
Kirk McElhearn
> If you ever do get banned from IGS the (apparent) best way to get reinstated
> officially is to send a formal letter to IGS and tell them that you are
> unconditionally wrong and that you would like to be reinstated as an
> accepted member of the IGS community. However, you must be sincere when
> saying this otherwise you will not be reinstated.
Fascisim is great, isn't it...
Kirk
Brent Locher
his probs with IGS here several months ago.
"William M. Shubert" <w...@igoweb.org> wrote in message
news:3AC531D9...@igoweb.org...
Robert S. Muldowney
I would just like to point out that I have been banned from IGS despite
not having written any code for NNGS. While I am an NNGS admin, I was
an admin for over 4 years before being banned. The only notice I
received was the usual terms of use which of course has been interpreted
so loosly that it is difficult to tell which breach of the agreement was
the actual offending act. This was 1 1/2 years ago and I have not asked
to return because I see no point in playing where I am not wanted.
Rob Muldowney
S.G.Fawthrop
Brent Locher wrote in message
<3ac512d0$0$14448$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>...
>I am currently not banned - but thiose T-shirts are kind of cool !
>
Have you tried since you wrote this posting? :)
Terri K. Schurter
I had an interruption in service a couple years ago. That lasted
about four or five weeks. During that time I sent many apologetic
emails to IGS administration. I apologized in general for any wrong
I might have committed. Since I was not sure what wrong I had
committed I could not apologize for it specifically. After a period
of time, I was informed that my account would function again.
Recently, perhaps two months ago or so, my account once again was no
longer fully functional. I have not inquired about this, nor have I
sent apologetic emails since I believe I have committed no offense.
I do not know for sure that I have been banned. I only know for sure
that I can not create an account that works.
The only reason I can imagine that this is so is because I have
written a column about Online Go for the eJournal of the American Go
Association.
These articles are archived on the British Go Association web site at
http://www.britgo.org/gopcres/agaart/
I don't believe there is anything offensive about these articles, but
you can certainly decide that for yourself.
Terri
Goddess of Go
*THE* Eternal Woman of American Go
AGAID#8
http://www.terriblue.com
http://www.wingsgoclub.org
god...@wingsgoclub.org
What is obvious to me is not always obvious to everybody else.
-
From: schu...@mars.superlink.net (Terri K. Schurter)
> As long as we are telling our stories I will tell mine...
>
>
> I do not know for sure that I have been banned. I only know for
> sure that I can not create an account that works.
>
> The only reason I can imagine that this is so is because I have
> written a column about Online Go for the eJournal of the American
> Go Association.
>
> These articles are archived on the British Go Association web
> site at http://www.britgo.org/gopcres/agaart/
What are AGA articles doing on a BGA website?
> I don't believe there is anything offensive about these articles,
> but you can certainly decide that for yourself.
>
> Terri
> Goddess of Go
- jb
- devil of go
---------------------------------- comments on two articles follow
#1:
at: http://www.britgo.org/gopcres/agaart/14.html
--------------------------------------------
> Go servers: Terri's 14th article
>
>
> Banned Online
> By Terri Schurter
> Today's subject is controversial: banning.
If it's "controversial" then, be careful or you might get bit.
> Banning is when an individual is prevented from playing on a go
> server. Although it may also have occurred on other go servers,
> the only actual instances I've heard of have occurred on IGS.
Why don't they just get another ISP, or another email account?
Better yet, have their buddies create an account and send the
password. Oh darn, I just exposed a hacker secret.
> As one would expect, banning can occur when a player has violated
> established server rules or codes of conduct - offensive language
> or behavior, for example - but there have been many complaints of
> unexplained and seemingly capricious bannings which continue to
> generate concern among online go players.
Well, you call yourself a "goddess" of Go. Has it never occurred
to you that some people find arrogation to deity status offensive?
> IGS rules prohibit promotion of other go servers, a prohibition
> that apparently even extends to casual "personal" communication
> between players (i.e. not shouted server-wide). Bannings have
> also been reported for acts committed away from the IGS proper,
> i.e. for publishing "unauthorized" material on a separate web
> site.
Can you find the cite where the word "unauthorized" was mentioned?
> Whether justified or not, a common complaint is that those banned
> are unlikely to be told that they've been banned, or why: their
> accounts simply fail to work. An "interruption in service" simply
> occurs.
If Sherlock Holmes can't figure it out, perhaps he needs to take
a look at Mad Cow Disease, Hoof and Mouth, or Toxic Breastmilk.
> I myself played on IGS for four years without incident, although
> based on what I had heard and read, I was careful to refrain from
> openly discussing my involvement with other servers.
In retrospect your service interruption seems justified since
you now exhibit what was formerly that latent propensity for
openly discussing your "involvement" with other servers.
> One day in 1999, however, my IGS account inexplicably stopped
> working. After more than a month - during which my requests for
> an explanation went unanswered - I received an email stating that
> my account had been restored.
Likely as not, your restoration efforts were getting tangled up by
"red tape" at the NKB's upper-echelon bureaucratic inner circles.
> Although it was never stated that I had been banned, my
> reinstatement occurred immediately before the 1999 Congress, at
> which I planned to wear a button saying, "Banned from IGS:
> probably with cause, but without explanation."
I see ...
Even with your flagrant and willful propensities for troublemaking
IGS policies do their utmost to offer tolerance and consolation.
> Some things for online players to consider:
>
> Should there be a guarantee of freedom of speech on go
> servers? Are there other ways to deal with obnoxious
> players? What action justifies banning? Must one commit a
> bannable action in public through a "shout" to qualify
> for banning, or are "tells" between players subject to
> scrutiny as well?
>
> What do you think? It's a free country and all views are welcome.
Ah yes, there's the nub. Is Japan a satellite state of the USA?
How would you cast that discussion in light of a "free world"
rather than merely one (fascistic) "free country?" Better say
that word "freedom" again, over and over, until you believe it?
===========================================================
at: http://www.britgo.org/gopcres/agaart/2.html
-------------------------------------------
> Social Dynamics of IGS and NNGS
> By Terri Schurter
>
>
> Choosing a Go server involves more than the technical issues we
> reviewed last week. For example, your server choice may be
> influenced by the atmosphere of the server.
Good point. With global warming and 100x the atmospheric
chlorine today as during the 19th-century, "your server
choice" may very well be derived from whether Planet Earth's
air remains breathable.
> This week we take a look at the social dynamics of the two client
> dependent servers IGS and NNGS.
No, the servers are not "client dependent." The clients are
"server dependent." You can still play using ASCII text.
> IGS is the larger of the two servers. Many serious players
> frequent it, including professionals. There are usually a large
> number of players logged on, so you can almost certainly find a
> game with a player your own level.
Owing to the larger number of professionals at IGS, your
chances of finding somebody at your own level are greater.
> Since IGS is a large community you may be more likely to run into
> tricksters and mean-spirited players simply because there are so
> many players. It is not uncommon to see a "fake 30k" having a bit
> of fun with an unsuspecting double digit kyu player. On the other
> hand, you may have the chance to play with an incognito pro.
Right, sometimes the pros like to log-in as "fake 30k" players.
> The IGS has the feeling of a large city where you can't possibly
> know everyone. Shouts (messages sent to the entire server) are
> common and you might want to disable them to avoid excessive
> scrolling.
Doesn't have to be a "large city" in order to not possibly
know everyone. Well, you might know their name and face,
but they still wouldn't know who you are.
> NNGS is a much smaller server with the look of IGS. You will find
> many fewer players there and have a harder time finding an even
> match as a result. But what NNGS lacks in size it makes up for in
> friendliness. You are likely to get to know people very well
> because you will see the same ones over and over again. If the
> IGS has the feel of a city, NNGS has the feel of a small town.
> Therefore, behavior one might get away with in a more anonymous
> environment is less likely. There are fewer shouts, but people
> gather for long chats in channels 99 and 42.
NNGS has been particularly "friendly" on this newsgroup,
and also "friendly" on the BGA webpages.
> Part of the social life of both servers is the "kibbitz" command.
> This allows those who are observing a game to discuss it out of
> "earshot" of the players. By and large those who frequent IGS and
> NNGS are technically savvy and also serious about Go. You will
> meet relatively few people who are totally new to the game of Go
> on these servers.
What is Go? I've never heard of it.
- regards
- jb
.
-
From: ki...@mcelhearn.com (Kirk McElhearn)
> Fascisim is great, isn't it...
Not quite so great as mislabelling something as fascism while
misunderstanding the actual nature of the beast. A doctrine of
liberty would allow each Internet Go Server the freedom to set
their respective unique policies. Your criticism instead seems
to stem from the erroneous notion that all Go Servers would need
to abide by uniform standards. Uniformity would be fascism here.
- regards
- jb
S.G.Fawthrop
groups) who share an interest cannot interact with one another?
- wrote in message <3ac65f18...@nntp.tfvs.tp.edu.tw>...
Brent Locher
get banned for posting to RGG. The official IGS line has been that one gets
banned for their bahavior on the IGS server. Anything off line from IGS
would not be grounds for being banned. I think I have been denied access to
IGS as of today. This is not surprising to me, but it does go contrary to
stated positions here on RGG by (apparent) spokesmen for IGS here on RGG.
The verdict is out on whether I am entitled to a t-shirt or not, but it is
clear that IGS will ban people that do not behave according to their desires
(while off line)
I tried in my post to factually explain why people were most likely banned
from IGS. I would like to point out that some IGS spokesmen just recently
made posts about how very difficult it is to get banned and that in the
history of IGS only a few people have ever been banned, and that it is
almost always because of their behavior while they are on IGS, not because
of their off line behavior.
Why would they disconnect me unless if they realize that reporting these
factual cases is something that they cannot defend (but can, of course,
punish).
Am I doing it to shame IGS ?
I think the answer is that if IGS cannot proudly defend their bannings (and
poor behavior on line is cause in my opinion) then they have shamed
themselves.
It would seem that IGS monitors peoples personal opinions and bans
accordingly
"Robert S. Muldowney" <los...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:3AC5E398...@eden.rutgers.edu...
Bantari
said...
> I have seen posting here on RGG by jb (aka jumangi) that nobody would ever
> get banned for posting to RGG. The official IGS line has been that one gets
> banned for their bahavior on the IGS server. Anything off line from IGS
> would not be grounds for being banned. I think I have been denied access to
> IGS as of today. This is not surprising to me, but it does go contrary to
> stated positions here on RGG by (apparent) spokesmen for IGS here on RGG.
>
> The verdict is out on whether I am entitled to a t-shirt or not, but it is
> clear that IGS will ban people that do not behave according to their desires
> (while off line)
>
> I tried in my post to factually explain why people were most likely banned
> from IGS. I would like to point out that some IGS spokesmen just recently
> made posts about how very difficult it is to get banned and that in the
> history of IGS only a few people have ever been banned, and that it is
> almost always because of their behavior while they are on IGS, not because
> of their off line behavior.
Well... this just shows how little do these selt-appointed
"spokesmen for IGS" know and how much attention we should pay to their
babble - because this is what it is, for most part.
The truth is - anybody can be banned from IGS for anything, and
they are. For misnaming a protocol, for helping out another server, for
complaining about ranking, for making silly moves, for writing emails, or
for posting on RGG. Among others.
The only thing we can do if we want to use IGS is to be careful
what you say or write *anywhere* and hope our actions will not in some
way irritate some IGS admin - cuz then its bye-bye IGS.
By the way - sorry about you being denied access. I hope it will
turn out to be a system glitch or something, and you'll be able to log
back on.
--
________________________________________
-Bantari
e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Brent Locher
and had the wrong IGS address. Well , I have a little egg on my face and
can't get the t-shirt
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15302d6e67eb4cd8989756@news...
-
From: "S.G.Fawthrop" <r...@eklectika.net>
> Don't tell me you are so self-centered as to believe that two people
> (or groups) who share an interest cannot interact with one another?
>> What are AGA articles doing on a BGA website?
Hmmm. What was -my- question?
In the future I'll be certain never to question Santa Claus and
Easter Bunny, while prostrating myself before the sacred cows.
-
Brent Locher (brl...@core.com) said...
> Actually I can get on. This one was my fault. I just got a new
> computer and had the wrong IGS address. Well , I have a little
> egg on my face and can't get the t-shirt
The real trick is how you can connect through both an ethernet
card and dial-up ISP networking at the same time.
>> Brent Locher (brl...@core.com) said...
>>> I have seen posting here on RGG by jb (aka jumangi) that nobody
>>> would ever get banned for posting to RGG.
Funny, I don't recall ever seeing that posting. I have, on
occasion, expressed the -opinion- that free speech inappropriate
for "shout" or "channel" on IGS should not be inappropriate here.
As with any forum however, the feature of a USENET does not grant
everybody a blanket license to yell fire in a crowded theater.
>> Brent Locher (brl...@core.com) said...
>>> The official IGS line has been that one gets banned for their
>>> bahavior on the IGS server.
No, actually it's only MIS-behavior that gets people banned.
>> Brent Locher (brl...@core.com) said...
>>> Anything off line from IGS would not be grounds for being banned.
The policy statements in effect since July of 1995 stipulate
quite clearly that involvement in alternative server development,
which at that time referenced pirated -CLONE- server development,
can be grounds for not being welcomed at IGS. In that event, the
USENET would not serve as an excusatory cushion due to its "free
speech" generally championed only by certain NNGS proponents who
were not beyond getting a poster banned from this very newsgroup.
> "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
>> Well... this just shows how little do these selt-appointed
>> "spokesmen for IGS" know and how much attention we should pay to
>> their babble - because this is what it is, for most part.
Perhaps you can identify the text whereupon I became self-appointed?
> "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
>> The truth is - anybody can be banned from IGS for anything, and
>> they are. For misnaming a protocol, for helping out another server,
>> for complaining about ranking, for making silly moves, for writing
>> emails, or for posting on RGG. Among others.
You've itemized a few -SOMETHINGS- but did not finish the list
for all of those ANYTHINGS. Could you complete the blanks, please?
> "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
>> By the way - sorry about you being denied access. I hope it will
>> turn out to be a system glitch or something, and you'll be able
>> to log back on.
For some folks, "logging on" is a system glitch. Such is life.
Ketho of Davenant
>Brent Locher (brl...@core.com) said...
>> Actually I can get on. This one was my fault. I just got a new
>> computer and had the wrong IGS address. Well , I have a little
>> egg on my face and can't get the t-shirt
Actually a sincere apology for defaming the IGS people would be in order.
Perhaps its _your_ type of erronious complaint that cast doubts on other banned
people's veracity. You jumped on a soapbox here and _claimed_ you were banned
for posting _here_. Either you were a purposeful liar or simply an idiot. In
either case you should apologize to the IGS staff. And do _try_ to _seem_
sincere, OK? Its for _exactly_ reasons like your false claims that I bet the
IGS staff has decided its not worth arguing with each and every disrruptive
user when they are removed. It's simply not worth the time to deal with idiots
making false accusations and bad excuses.
Ketho
"To search for the old is to understand the new."
Terri K. Schurter
>
>Brent Locher (brl...@core.com) said...
>> Actually I can get on. This one was my fault. I just got a new
>> computer and had the wrong IGS address. Well , I have a little
>> egg on my face and can't get the t-shirt
>
>
You probably didn't even know there really is a tshirt, but there is.
And you *can* have it if you want it even if you have not been banned.
You can find the tshirt at
http://www.cafepress.com/terriblue
Incase you are wondering I haven't sold many, but if I ever do the
proceeds will be spent to help pay for my professional lessons on KGS.
And what I learn will be transmitted faithfully to new players
wherever I am allowed to play. (Cafepress makes most of the money.)
Terri
Goddess of Go
god...@wingsgoclub.org
http://www.wingsgoclub.org
http://www.terriblue.com
*THE* Eternal Woman of American Go
AGAID#8
What is obvious to me is not always obvious to everyone else.
Kirk McElhearn
> From: ki...@mcelhearn.com (Kirk McElhearn)
> > Fascisim is great, isn't it...
>
>
> Not quite so great as mislabelling something as fascism while
> misunderstanding the actual nature of the beast. A doctrine of
> liberty would allow each Internet Go Server the freedom to set
> their respective unique policies. Your criticism instead seems
> to stem from the erroneous notion that all Go Servers would need
> to abide by uniform standards. Uniformity would be fascism here.
No, what is fascist is the arbritrary banning by IGS of people because
they have dared to make comments in favor of a different go server.
No only is it fascist, but it is childish, and, ultimately, sad. It as
also sad to constantly read your posts defending such a trite attitude.
Kirk
Brent Locher
>Either you were a purposeful liar or simply an idiot.
In this case just a simple idiot.
>In either case you should apologize to the IGS staff.
I sincerely apologize for implying that I was possibly banned when in
actuality I had used the wrong port to try to connect to IGS. (Is this just
cause for being banned?)
>And do _try_ to _seem_ sincere, OK?
OK - I say it with all sincerity! (does that seem sincere enough?) please
remember I am not apologizing in order to remain an IGS user. I would not
grovel to retain that .
>Its for _exactly_ reasons like your false claims that I bet >the IGS staff
has decided its not worth arguing with each >and every disrruptive user when
they are removed.
I have not said they owe anyone a reason. My original post just tried to
show a cause and effect relationship between behavior and bannings. If I
erred in any of these cause and effect relationships, please correct them.
But the IGS staff should not be ashamed of having the cause and effect
relationships documented.
>It's simply not worth the time to deal with idiots
> making false accusations and bad excuses.
Then why did you take the time?
Brent Locher
while I am on IGS. I resign my games ( lately I had a few disconnects
'cause my old computer was going on the fritz), I rarely shout, I don't
discuss other servers on their server, I don't fill my eyes or insist that
others tell me where they are from.
But if tweeking the fragile administration of IGS on RGG is something that
will lead to my being banned then I guess I will be entitled to one.
"Terri K. Schurter" <schu...@mars.superlink.net> wrote in message
news:9a7jga$sk7$1...@earth.superlink.net...
Alex Papadimitriu
banned yet,
and its clear you want one.
"Let's make it "in" to be "out". And if you aren't banned yet, wouldn't you
be tempted to misbehave just so you could wear one?"
Alex Papadimitriu
Brent Locher
Does IGS ban people for bad behavior outside of the IGS server?
By the way: why is it bad behavior to simply list the people that have been
known to be banned and state the reason they were banned?
If you want to rehash the fact that I screwed up go ahead. But I apologized
(as sincerely as I could) . But I won't grovel about it. But keep
reminding me!
"Alex Papadimitriu" <hesp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3AC780CD...@pacbell.net...
Alex Papadimitriu
Brent Locher wrote:
> The question is:
>
> Does IGS ban people for bad behavior outside of the IGS server?
>
Read Jeff Boscole's replies.
>
> By the way: why is it bad behavior to simply list the people that have been
I don't recall this being stated.
>
> known to be banned and state the reason they were banned?
Not all the people on "your" list are known to be banned or have been banned,
and
if you're not sure about some, then don't include their names.
>
> If you want to rehash the fact that I screwed up go ahead. But I apologized
> (as sincerely as I could) .
Selective and contradictory apologies are not sincere.
> But I won't grovel about it. But keep reminding me!
>
You screwed up.
Ketho of Davenant
>>Either you were a purposeful liar or simply an idiot.
>
>In this case just a simple idiot.
>
I thought so. But we really should make that loud-mouthed simple idiot. You did
make a lot of allegations about IGS that were not true.
> >In either case you should apologize to the IGS staff.
>
>I sincerely apologize for implying that I was possibly banned when in
>actuality I had used the wrong port to try to connect to IGS. (Is this just
>cause for being banned?)
You did much more than imply you were banned. You stated that you thought you
were banned for what you wrote _here_ and you whined about how unfair that was
and how that would make the IGS staff liars. Byt, as you admitted above, you
were wrong and were just being a simple loud-mouthed idiot.
>
>>And do _try_ to _seem_ sincere, OK?
>
>OK - I say it with all sincerity! (does that seem sincere enough?) please
>remember I am not apologizing in order to remain an IGS user. I would not
>grovel to retain that .
>
Than why obsess about them so?
>>Its for _exactly_ reasons like your false claims that I bet >the IGS staff
>has decided its not worth arguing with each >and every disrruptive user when
>they are removed.
>
>I have not said they owe anyone a reason. My original post just tried to
>show a cause and effect relationship between behavior and bannings.
And you are trying to change the subject from the actual post that I comment
on. You know, the one where you made false allegations about being banned for
posting to a newsgroup.
>
> >It's simply not worth the time to deal with idiots
>> making false accusations and bad excuses.
>
>Then why did you take the time?
I am in no way affilated with IGS, so my taking the time to point out what a
simple loud mouthed idiot you were being isn't that great a burden to me since
I don't have to deal with numerous IGS users. Thanks for admitting that you
were indeed being a simple loud-mouthed idiot that ranted and raved about
possibly being banned for posting to newsgroups when in fact you just bungled
it all at your end. Sterling job. :)
Brent Locher
of IGS only 40 people have ever been banned. This was put out by one of the
normal IGS spokemen ( but never an admin) as proof that IGS is very tolerant
towards folks. With that information I thought it would be useful to make a
list of folks who have been banned and the apparent reasons for being
banned. I actually think banning was fully justified in a couple of cases.
I think it was not in others. Where have I erred in the presentation of the
reasons people that the listed posters were banned?
You say I am a trouble maker? I don't see how presenting facts is making
trouble. I would say it is very useful information to users of IGS to see
case in point examples of behavior that can lead to being banned.
So far I think that behavior that leads to banishment includes:
1. participating in making a clone go server.
2. Not presenting information on an independent website in an IGS
acceptable manner.
3. Making unnnaceptable posts on RGG
4. Acting like a jerk on IGS (that is already spelled out in the IGS
guidelines)
5. Chatting about other go servers while on IGS.
6. Writing articles about IGS policies that IGS does not approve.
Which of these items do you think I err in stating people have been banned
for this behavior? I think that any user of IGS should understand that they
need to be aware of all 6 of these items if they desire to continue to play
at IGS.
I would think that IGS should be thanking me for being a help to their users
(unless if they are not comfortable coming justifying these reasons in which
case there are not really any policies, just arbitrary bannings - but I
assume there are policies and that the banning are not arbitrary, so I try
to list them out).
"Ketho of Davenant" <haini...@aol.com.hain> wrote in message
news:20010401161929...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
-
> Newsgroups: rec.games.go
> Subject: Re: Reasons for Being Banned from IGS
> Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:15:15 +0200
>> From: ki...@mcelhearn.com (Kirk McElhearn)
>>> Fascisim is great, isn't it...
> - <jum...@juno.com> wrote:
>> Not quite so great as mislabelling something as fascism while
>> misunderstanding the actual nature of the beast. A doctrine of
>> liberty would allow each Internet Go Server the freedom to set
>> their respective unique policies. Your criticism instead seems
>> to stem from the erroneous notion that all Go Servers would need
>> to abide by uniform standards. Uniformity would be fascism here.
From: ki...@mcelhearn.com (Kirk McElhearn)
> No, what is fascist is the arbritrary banning by IGS of people
> because they have dared to make comments in favor of a different
> go server.
> No only is it fascist, but it is childish, and, ultimately, sad.
> It as also sad to constantly read your posts defending such a
> trite attitude.
Even sadder would be your attempt to discuss issues without
providing any semantic basis. Let's see if you can reframe
your argument in terms of how that ongoing debate between
"fascism versus liberty" has been previously defined:
- regards
- jb
"The road to fascism is paved with socialist pretensions."
- Grant Singleton
(here follows introductory material into the nature of "fascism")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dwain Goforth (dw...@humboldt1.com)
Subject: Re: An Environmental War?
Newsgroups: alt.politics, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.clinton,
alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.greens, alt.politics.liberalism,
alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.socialism
Date: 2001-02-02 09:34:08 PST
Ron Bargoot wrote:
> dkb wrote:
>>
>> by James Ridgeway
>>
>> WASHINGTON, D.C.-As she sailed through her Senate confirmation
>> hearing last week, interior secretary nominee Gale Norton played
>> the classic moderate, draping herself with the dual mantles of
>> "conservative" and "conservationist."
>>
>> What bullshit.
>>
>> A Libertarian from the West, Norton has spent the last two decades
>> railing against federal control of public lands and doing all she
>> could to subject their water and energy resources to the bracing
>> reality of the marketplace. "I hate government telling me what to
>> do," she once said. "And I assume other people do."
> OH NO!!! The first Libertarian appointed to a cabinet position!!
> Whatever are we gonna do???
>
> Well, I'm gonna celebrate! And congratulate President Bush on an
> excellent choice.
>
> OOOhhh baby, I bet those Naderite Greens are pissed now. A LIBERTARIAN
> Secretary of the Interior.
There is little conflict between libertarianism and liberalism and
"Naderite" Greenism. It boils down to Justice, which Norton doesn't
seem to believe in.
"I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in examples of
justice and liberality." - George Washington
"I would define liberty to be the power to do as we would be done by.
The definition of liberty to be the power of doing whatever the law
permits does not seem satisfactory." - John Adams.
I hate feudal lords and corporate masters telling me what to do. And I
assume other people do, too.
"Of all the forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar
is the tyranny of mere wealth." - Theodore Roosevelt
"The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political
freedom was the business of government, but they have maintained that
economic slavery was nobody's business." - Franklin Roosevelt
"The economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the
institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek
to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions
requires the overthrow of this kind of power." - Franklin Roosevelt
> Guess those crazy, hazy, sleazy days of liberalism are really over,huh?
Yep, straight to fascism.
"Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon
the rubbish heap. Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself
illiberal and anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
"We stand for the maintenance of private property...We shall protect
free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible
economic order." - Adolf Hitler
> Ron Bargoot
> Libertarian
> http://ronbargoot.com
What kind of liberty do you stand for, Ron? When the public lands are
logged and mined and our children's inheritance is stolen from them
are you going to repeat the capitalist version of the Golden Rule ...
"He who has the gold, rules." ???
Are you looking for freedom from government, or freedom from ALL forms
of tyranny?
"The notion that the sole concern of a free society is the limitation
of governmental authority and that the government is best which
governs least is certainly archaic. Our object today should not be to
weaken government in competition with other centers of power, but
rather to strengthen it as the agency charged with responsibility for
the common good. That government is best which governs best."
- Robert Hutchins
When your corporate neighbor upstream pollutes your drinking water,
who are you going to call?
"Centralize property in the hands of a few and the millions are under
bondage to property--a bondage as absolute and deplorable as if their
limbs were covered with manacles. Abstract all property from the
hands of labor and you thereby reduce labor to dependence; and that
dependence becomes as complete a servitude as the master could fix
upon his slave." - Lewis Morgan
"Whereas it has been known and declared that the poor have no right to
the property of the rich, I wish it also to be known and declared that
the rich have no right to the property of the poor." - John Ruskin
If you're such a Libertarian, why don't you print your own money?
=================================================================
From: silverback (gdy5...@nospamspiritone.com)
Subject: Re: What is Fascism Really All About?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.society.liberalism,
alt.politics.greens, alt.activism
Date: 2001-03-13 06:14:15 PST
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:18:40 -0800, Silver Fox <F...@Bartleby.com>
wrote:
> classicliberal2 wrote:
>
>> (It's virtually unknown today, but there was, in 1934, a fascist coup
>> plot against the government of the United States. It, too, followed
>> the pattern.).
>>
> who was their banker? it would be interesting if
with both the Morgans and Mellons involved in it? You want to know who
their banker was?
> it was Brown Brothers Harriman.
> It most likely was, as they were handling funds for
> and international consortium of industrialists who
> believed in fascism as the ideal form of government.
> Brown Brothers Harriman descended from the Brown firm that
> fixed the price of cotton from the southern slaveholders
> to the advantage of the sweatshops in England back
> in 1818. That's the the Bush "family firm" -
> still in business today, with a slick cover story.
> They have some documents tied up in a court case
> in Chicago that would reveal how George I was
> receiving funds from arab nations via BCCI.
> Remember that part of the Iran-Contra scandal?
> They did a very thorough cleanup, but perhaps
> not thorough enough. The absolute worst was
> about to come out at the end of 1990.What happened
> then? The story WILL eventually be told.
>
> -fox
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:40:04 -0500, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
>> <s...@mitre.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> As I look at this, it brings visions of brownshirts
>>>>> attacking those who were unfortunate enough to be
>>>>> within their grasp.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fascism is definitely on the rise within the Republican
>>>>> Party.
>>>>
>>>> From a individual that does not have a clue to what
>>>> fascism really is
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not surprising.
>>>
>>> The basic tenets of Communism may be found in the
>>> writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.
>> ___
>>
>> Those writings would cover the basic tenets of Marxism, and, later,
>> Leninism; they wouldn't cover the basics of most forms of "communism."
>> ___
>>
>>> But the basic tenets of Fascism are much less well known.
>>> The far left-wing tends to call any non-socialist society
>>> "fascist," which has debased the term to the point that it
>>> has essentially lost its original meaning.
>> ___
>>
>> To merely say the word is overused would qualify for the
>> Understatement of the Year Award.
>> ___
>>
>>> Here is an excellent explanation of the principles and
>>> philosophy of fascism, co-authored for the Italian
>>> Encyclopedia (1932) by Mussolini himself:
>> ___
>>
>> [Mussolini quote followed]
>>
>> The Mussolini comments deal with fascism more as an ideology, but this
>> isn't really a proper definition, as there aren't really any
>> significant ideological principles around which fascism is organized.
>> A fascist is a crude reactionary, seeing, around every corner, threats
>> to traditional mores and establishments; seeing a firm hand as being
>> the only proper means of dealing with these threats. Mussolini was
>> really attempting to graft a set of notions, specific to Euro-fascism
>> at that time, onto this as though they were generalized principles
>> (fascism, for example, can theoretically be
>> non-expansionist--something not allowed for in what Mussolini wrote at
>> all). Fascism, in how it comes to power and in what it does with that
>> power, has followed a remarkably consistent pattern throughout
>> history; it can be properly defined by examining this pattern.
>>
>>
>
>--
>
> "There is always something queer in the closet.
> With Bush, it is going to be poor Jenna, the
> 19-year-old blonde who fell out of her dress
> while dancing with her father on their first
> official night in Washington. She might go
> sideways at any moment. She is already painted
> as the Cross the Bush family has to bear..."
> http://espn.go.com/page2/s/thompson/010122.html
> Hunter S. Thompson ESPN.com - 01/01/22
>
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
=============================================================
From: Dwain Goforth (dw...@humboldt1.com)
Subject: Re: Never forgive, never forget
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 2000-12-14 05:53:37 PST
Rick Cassidy wrote:
>> "Lars Eighner" <eig...@io.com> wrote in message
>>> As the cloak of fascism descends on America, let us remember that
>>> the cause of what is certain to come is Ralph Nader's greed for
>>> federal campaign handouts.
> Fascism is a TOTAL police state. One of my parents visited Nazi
> Germany in 1933, and we're not in a fascist state by a long shot.
> When you've got union members, Democrats, socialists, Nader, and
> others in jail for their beliefs, then you've got fascism.
Funny thing that Amnesty International list the US as the only modern
Western state with political prisoners
> When you've got Congress suspended, then you've got fascism.
We have a functioning Congress?
> When you're only allowed to vote for one party, then you've got fascism
You mean like the Republicrat party?
> When fascist bands of hooligans can beat you up on any city street,
> you've got fascism.
I take it your not black.
> Unless you understand what fascism really is, your statement is
> utterly meaningless.
Actually, some good definitions of fascism include...
"Fascism is a political, social and economic form of society wherein
by virtue of a merger which has been accomplished between certain
powerful financial interests and a military machine, the entire nation
is under the dictatorship of this oligarchy. Individuality and
freedom are suppressed - in the interests of the state - which happens
to be none other than the dictating oligarchy."
- U.S. Army manual, circa 1943
"Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon
the rubbish heap. Fascism...does not hesitate to call itself
illiberal and anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
"The struggle today is not one between communism and fascism; it is
the struggle between tolerance and bigotry--bigotry preached equally
by communism and fascism. Here in this country the worst fascists are
those who, disowning fascism, preach enslavement to capitalism under
the cloak of liberty and the Constitution. They steal not only wages
but honor." - John Lewis
"It would be easy for us, if we do not learn to understand the world
and appreciate the rights, privileges and duties of other countries
and peoples, to represent in our power the same danger to the world
that Fascism did." - Ernest Hemingway
"The road to fascism is paved with socialist pretensions."
- Grant Singleton
"The fascists cannot argue, so they kill." - Victor Margueritte
"Fascism is a lie told by bullies." - Ernest Hemingway
"Fascism is capitalism in decay." - V.I. Lenin
"Fascism is capitalism plus murder." - Upton Sinclair
============================================================
From: Alex Constantine <ale...@mediaone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Global Fascism
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 13:19:17 GMT
New Statesman
Fascism today is not just skinheads and an Austrian political thug.
There is also a geopolitical fascism, led by the US
John Pilger by John Pilger 5th February 2001
Washington
Former President Bill Clinton, having bombed and blockaded civilians on
several continents, and doubled America's prison population while
accelerating the number of mostly non-white executions by limiting
federal appeals, finally signed off by pardoning a coterie of suspects
and crooks, including a convicted Wall Street embezzler who reportedly
is to give $135m to Clinton's presidential library.
In Britain, liberals at Tony Blair's court wrote obsequious farewells to
Clinton, whom they loved. They mock Dubbya. Manufacturing difference
between the two is as important as the Westminster correspondents'
arduous task of running a cigarette paper between Blair and Hague, and
Straw and Widdecombe, suggesting democratic choice where there is none.
Thus, the dumping of Peter Mandelson was hot political news. In truth,
it was merely a useful exercise for the government to pretend it is
opposed to lying. Real political news was a week earlier. This was the
despatch by Blair of two of his senior people to Washington, including
Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff and a leading member of the
semi-masonic British American Project. "The Prime Minister is pitching
hard to be the first European leader to travel to Washington," reported
the Guardian. "Mr Blair is determined to prove that he can be as close
to the Republican George Bush as he was to the Democrat Clinton."
The reason that increasing numbers of people have stopped voting in
Britain is the same as in the United States. There is no one who speaks
for them. The two parties speak for big business and the supremacy of
American-led economic power. The rest is Monica Lewinsky, Peter
Mandelson and other lies. A current lie spun by the Secretary of State
for Defence, Geoffrey Hoon, is that the government has not yet decided
to support Washington's "missile defence system", the Son of Star Wars
insanity, of which the Fylingdales early warning base in north Yorkshire
is a vital component. "It's too soon," says Hoon, when there is not the
slightest doubt that the government has made clear to the Americans,
though not to the British people, that they can, as always, rely on
their "closest ally".
Whitehall may not like the old Reagan nonsense about a "missile shield
for freedom", but servility to America is a divinity, and Foreign Office
"strategy" is to promote Britain as a "bridge builder between Europe and
the US". What politicians must not do is provoke a wide debate, alerting
the public. Last week, Peter Hain was demoted to junior energy minister
not because he was at odds with "policy", but because his aggrandising,
public verbosity on Africa and in defence of infanticide in Iraq was
becoming an embarrassment.
Support for Son of Star Wars is treacherous of true British interests,
which lie in a peaceful and secure world, not one manipulated by
economic conquest and violence. Politicians genuinely speaking up for
these interests, and the human rights of the British people, would
condemn any collaboration with a missile programme whose dangers cannot
be overstated. It will trigger another nuclear arms race. It will
disturb and distort development priorities in much of the world. For
Washington, it will serve to "contain" the growing economic power of
China by forcing the Chinese to compete and, like the Soviets before
them, to spend themselves into submission. The Pentagon's obsession is
the control of space. Satellite technology was used extensively in both
the Gulf war and the Nato attack on Yugoslavia. The rationale of a
threat from "rogue states" such as Libya and North Korea is drivel.
These are surreal times. War plans are policy and there is no enemy.
Piratical corporations are afforded the rights owed only to humans,
while inhuman concepts go unrecognised. Umberto Eco tells us why fascism
is still latent, warning us that it is merely a diffuse form of
totalitarianism. He defines its characteristics: delusion of advanced
knowledge, disregard of rational and humane principles, state machismo,
racism, a consuming sense of insecurity, televised populism and the use
of newspeak with its unstated limit on ideas.
Modern fascism is not merely skinheads and an Austrian political thug.
There has long been a geopolitical fascism overseen by the United
States, assisted by Britain. Its record is truly blood-drenched:
Vietnam, Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti,
Iraq, Palestine, Turkey and Colombia. Remembering them is as important
as remembering the Holocaust. Globalisation, the advance of rapacious
capital, is another phase, with a new militarism known as "humanitarian
intervention". Within a space of 18 months, the Blair government used
armed force three times outside United Nations control. Since the Gulf
war, British governments have spent ï½£911m bombing Iraq - enough to buy
back the railways twice over. Within hours of Bush's inauguration,
American and British pilots reportedly killed six civilians in Muthanna
province, southern Iraq.
Once again, people are putting the pieces together. Not only is a
resistance to western economic warfare growing rapidly, the peace
movement has regenerated, and the true humanitarian intervention of
those seeking to expose and disarm nuclear weapons is gaining
recognition. On 18 January in Manchester Crown Court, a jury found two
Trident Ploughshares activists not guilty on a charge of conspiracy to
commit criminal damage. Their attempts to disarm the nuclear submarine
HMS Vengeance were justified on the grounds that the government was in
breach of international law. Bush and Blair have not yet won.
給給
Alex Constantine's Political Conspiracy Research Bin:
http://alexconstantine.50megs.com/
----------------------------------o
Bantari
(hesp...@pacbell.net) said...
> Not all the people on "your" list are known to be banned or have been banned,
> and if you're not sure about some, then don't include their names.
Faced with the sad lack of any meaningful communication with the
IGS administration, we can only infere the numbers and the reasons for
people being banned from what these people tell us in their own stories,
mainly through RGG. In a sense, this is IGS' admininstration's fault to
let us have such one-sided picture, if a simple clarifying statement
would clear things up.
I remember all the cases Brent mentions discussed here previously.
I do not think IGS made any comments about any of them (the prolonged and
unjustified bashing by "appologists" in every single case notwithstanding
- just look at this thread).
I do not think that Brent's lists' main emphasis was on the actual
people - it was rather on the reasons they claim to have been banned for,
or at least gotten in serious trouble for. And I agree with him that
knowing these reasons is important to all the IGS users. I have been
asking IGS to post such list officially for a long time, but to no avail.
Now - if you personally *know* that some of the reasons given by
Brent do not lead to "banning" or to getting into serious trouble, then
please use whatever influence you might have with IGS to specifically
include them in their policy.
If you just post refutations here without being absolutely
certain (and by "certain" I mean having some publishable written word
from IGS to that effect), you are potentially doing more harm to the IGS
community then many others because you are misleading people into
thinking some behaviors will not get them in trouble while in fact they
will. Specifically, you are doing more harm that somebody who just posts
a list of behaviors which might lead to problems.
Maybe its you who should be banned from IGS? Hehe...
But seriously - do you actually have something meaningful to add
to Brent's list, or are you just indulging in your usual mindless
flaming? The same goes for JB and this Ketho character.
Bantari
> > "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> >> Well... this just shows how little do these selt-appointed
> >> "spokesmen for IGS" know and how much attention we should pay to
> >> their babble - because this is what it is, for most part.
>
> Perhaps you can identify the text whereupon I became self-appointed?
Well... No, and there lies the problem. I could not find any text
appointing you to do anything with respect to IGS, and yet you keep
yapping and yapping, bashing people, correcting people, and making
statements.
I wrote this statement in response to Brent's comment that "some
IGS spokesmen just recently made posts about how very difficult it is to
get banned and that in the history of IGS only a few people have ever
been banned, and that it is almost always because of their behavior while
they are on IGS, not because of their off line behavior." As you see,
the "spokesman" was unnamed in both our posts.
I see you immediately identified *yourself* as this "spokesman" -
but the proof is on you to show us what actually makes you a "spokesman"
for anything as opposed to just a plain mortal like the rest of us, just
expressing your opinions.
If you do not have any document appointing you a "spokesman", and
yet you identify yourself as a "spokesman", the you must be "self-
appointed". And as such - of no real value.
> > "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> >> The truth is - anybody can be banned from IGS for anything, and
> >> they are. For misnaming a protocol, for helping out another server,
> >> for complaining about ranking, for making silly moves, for writing
> >> emails, or for posting on RGG. Among others.
>
> You've itemized a few -SOMETHINGS- but did not finish the list
> for all of those ANYTHINGS. Could you complete the blanks, please?
Of course I cannot give you a complete list. And this is part of
the problem - only IGS can provide such full list. Unless the IGS
publishes something meaningfull on this topic for a change, all we will
have are incomplete lists of our "guesses" based on what we ourselves
hear and see.
If it is hard for you to accept such situation, try convincing IGS
administration to give us such full list.
> > "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> >> By the way - sorry about you being denied access. I hope it will
> >> turn out to be a system glitch or something, and you'll be able
> >> to log back on.
> For some folks, "logging on" is a system glitch. Such is life.
I take it you speak from experience? Hehe...
Brent Locher
Otherwise I would think IGS would ban them. (I think acting as a spokesman
when you are not would fall into the banning category)news:MPG.15315382a17261d5989759@news...
Ketho of Davenant
>Faced with the sad lack of any meaningful communication with the
>IGS administration, we can only infere the numbers and the reasons for
>people being banned from what these people tell us in their own stories
Including those like Brent's where he ranted and raved that he thought he
_might_ have been banned and was in effect being victimized for posting here
when in fact it turned out he merely bungled his own connection? Sorry, but
"mistakes" like that greatly deminishes the credibility of the IGS detractors.
But let's gloss over that though, right?
Ketho of Davenant
>There was a post here a couple of weeks or so ago about how in the history
>of IGS only 40 people have ever been banned. This was put out by one of the
>normal IGS spokemen
And just the other day there was a post here by _YOU_ stating that you
_thought_ you were banned for what you wrote about IGS here in this newsgroup.
You ranted and raved about how unfair this was and how this would make IGS a
bunch of hypocrtits. THEN it turns out that YOU just bungled the connection
from your end and you were NOT banned. And now _you_ have the nerve to continue
to quibble over the credibility of other people's statements? In light of your
_own_ past statements, why should anyone believe you anymore? What other little
"mistakes" will you make that perhaps you wont get caught at or admit to? You
were either a malicous liar or you just didn't think you actually had to be
sure about the facts before you ran here and announced you "might" have just
been banned. In either case, why should anyone trust you now?
Brent Locher
previously banned. Yes (in my estimation) I do take some chance that by
writing this I too will be banned ( am I mistaken on thhis count or am I
being totally silly?) If I am being uneccessarily silly about this notion ,
let me know ( are you another psuedo spokesman for IGS?). But, in the event
that my postings on RGG would ever lead to being banned, I won't claim I was
a victim.
Getting back to the original post for a moment... Have I mischaracterized
any of the bannings? If I have please correct me. I think that the
bannings and the reasons is useful information for all IGS users to know.
If any of the cases I cited in the original post are in error, please
correct them. So far there has not been any comment as to the accuracy of
the original post (other than a possible name confusion).
"Ketho of Davenant" <haini...@aol.com.hain> wrote in message
news:20010401200802...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
-
From: "Brent Locher" <brl...@core.com>
> One would deduce that they do have some official capacity to
> speak for IGS. Otherwise I would think IGS would ban them. (I
> think acting as a spokesman when you are not would fall into the
> banning category)
If each point on the Go Board can attain (at least) three
conditions (white,black,empty) then do you suppose there
might be a few regions somewhere in a middle-ground amidst
extremist opposites?
>>> "Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
>>>> Well... this just shows how little do these selt-appointed
>>>> "spokesmen for IGS" know and how much attention we should pay to
>>>> their babble - because this is what it is, for most part.
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 05:43:24 GMT, - (jum...@juno.com) said...
>> Perhaps you can identify the text whereupon I became self-appointed?
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> Well... No, and there lies the problem. I could not find any text
> appointing you to do anything with respect to IGS, and yet you keep
> yapping and yapping, bashing people, correcting people, and making
> statements.
Of course "the problem" did not consist of vague rumor and
innuendo followed by dissembling and frenetic backpedalling?
I asked you to identify "text whereupon I became self-appointed"
and not whether you could find any text appointing me as such.
It's twice now that you've violated your threat not to reply
to me on this newsgroup ever again.
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> I wrote this statement in response to Brent's comment that "some
> IGS spokesmen just recently made posts about how very difficult it
> is to get banned and that in the history of IGS only a few people
> have ever been banned, and that it is almost always because of their
> behavior while they are on IGS, not because of their off line
> behavior." As you see, the "spokesman" was unnamed in both our posts.
Ok, what a relief. I'm not a spokesman, then. Next!
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> I see you immediately identified *yourself* as this "spokesman" -
> but the proof is on you to show us what actually makes you a
> "spokesman" for anything as opposed to just a plain mortal like
> the rest of us, just expressing your opinions.
I'd sooner be a plain mortal, but that wouldn't automatically
mean I'm like the rest of us.
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> If you do not have any document appointing you a "spokesman", and
> yet you identify yourself as a "spokesman", the you must be "self-
> appointed". And as such - of no real value.
Again, I don't recall where I made that identification, which
was where we had entered this particular sub-sub-sub-sub-thread.
Ketho of Davenant
>I never said I was a victim. I posted the reasons that people have been
>previously banned.
So you are a liar. You did indeed post that you felt you "might" have just been
banned for posting against IGS here. You ranted on and on how wrong IGS was to
dare do such things, in short, you painted yourself as a victim. You even
insinuated that they were liars and hypocrits. But wait, you were NOT banned.
You just ran off at the mouth here after YOU bungled things connecting on
_your_ end. After this farcical display you have since been trying to spin the
discussion to OTHER people being wrong and misrepresnting things when in fact
YOU have been the most guilty party in that regard.
Your lies and/or sloppy posting habits had you making gross accusations about
how you were being treated and why that simply were not true. Why should anyone
believe you now? I am still waiting to see anything approaching a sincere
apology for your totally false accusation against IGS in regards to you being
banned. Instead of retracting l your insinuations about them being hypocrits
you instead have chosen to brazen out your own "mistake" defaming IGS. And you
wonder why neutral third parties like me think you have no credibility to be
pointing fingers at anyone else's behavior?
Bantari
I am not sure where you come from, but where I live a simple
statement like "I think I have been denied access to IGS as of today."
immediately followed up by a retraction like "Actually I can get on.
But it seems that to some people every word not in line with their
perceived world-view is "ranting and raving" beyond their ability to
endure.
What can I say? "Get real" comes to mind. :-)
On 02 Apr 2001 00:08:02 GMT, Ketho of Davenant (haini...@aol.com.hain)
said...
--
Bantari
said...
> Brent wrote:
> >There was a post here a couple of weeks or so ago about how in the history
> >of IGS only 40 people have ever been banned. This was put out by one of the
> >normal IGS spokemen
>
> And just the other day there was a post here by _YOU_ stating that you
> _thought_ you were banned for what you wrote about IGS here in this newsgroup.
There is a difference between making a statement about a own
personal situation, even if its a wrong statement, and making a seemingly
authoritative statement about an institution about which internal policy
you know next to nothing.
After all - Brent is an expert on his own situation, but what
makes you or anybody else out there (except the IGS admins) an expert on
IGS fuzzy policies with respect to banning?
> You ranted and raved ...
<snip snip>
See my other post about "ranting and raving". Are you sure you're
not blowing this all a little out of proportion?
Bantari
said...
> Brent continues spinning:
> >I never said I was a victim. I posted the reasons that people have been
> >previously banned.
>
<blah blah blah>
Strong words, weak content.
I notice you again completely ignore the crux of Brent's post,
namely the question if you have anything meaningful to add or correct in
his list?
Ketho of Davenant
>> Brent continues spinning:
>> >I never said I was a victim. I posted the reasons that people have been
>> >previously banned.
>>
>> So you are a liar....
>
> <blah blah blah>
>
> Strong words, weak content.
>
> I notice you again completely ignore the crux of Brent's post,
Namely that he claimed to be banned from IGS and wasn't? And how he ranted and
raved how that mawas so unfair? No. I didn't miss that at all. But why are you
trying to ignore that? :)
Oh, wait, usenet isn't a public forum, its a one-way messaging service for you
and Brent to bash other people?
Ketho of Davenant
>> Brent wrote:
>> >There was a post here a couple of weeks or so ago about how in the history
>> >of IGS only 40 people have ever been banned. This was put out by one of
>the
>> >normal IGS spokemen
>>
>> And just the other day there was a post here by _YOU_ stating that you
>> _thought_ you were banned for what you wrote about IGS here in this
>newsgroup.
>
> There is a difference between making a statement about a own
>personal situation, even if its a wrong statement,
Yes, Brents infraction is much worse. At best he was an idiot that slandered an
innocent party because he was just too stupid to realize that he was not
"banned" before he started ranting and raving about it to the newsgroup. At
worse, his "mistake" was a thinnly veiled lie. But according to you we must
forgive Brent his "wrong statement" yet hold everyone else, including me, to
some higher standard? I see. Special rules for you and Brent. :)
Ketho of Davenant
> I am not sure where you come from, but where I live a simple
>statement like "I think I have been denied access to IGS as of today."
>immediately followed up by a retraction like "Actually I can get on.
Too bad this wasn't the case. What followed was a rant about IGS being hyocrits
and banning people for things they write here. THEN came a short, partial
admission. THEN came more attacks on OTHER posters for not being accurate. LOL
So, we must forgive Brent and let him make "mistakes" where he gets to slander
other people and also accept all his other claims at face value? Why does that
seem silly?
Brent Locher
here on RGG? A simple yes or no would be sufficient. But the several
paragraphs of emotional rants are ok too if it helps to get your blood
pressure down.
"Ketho of Davenant" <haini...@aol.com.hain> wrote in message
news:20010402103111...@ng-xc1.aol.com...
Bantari
said...
> Bantari tries to spin:
>
> >> Brent continues spinning:
> >> >I never said I was a victim. I posted the reasons that people have been
> >> >previously banned.
> >>
> >> So you are a liar....
> >
> > <blah blah blah>
> >
> > Strong words, weak content.
> >
> > I notice you again completely ignore the crux of Brent's post,
>
> Namely that he claimed to be banned from IGS and wasn't? And how he ranted and
> raved how that mawas so unfair? No. I didn't miss that at all. But why are you
> trying to ignore that? :)
He expressed his opinion about IGS and banning, which many people
seem to share. Not all his posts were about his being banned. I am not
sure if you noticed, but most of Brent's posts in this thread do not have
much to do with him thinking that he was banned.
And anyways - even if he *was* banned for what he wrote here,
as he thought, this would be an excellent reason to rant and rave and an
excellent example of IGS' silly attitudes in certain respects.
> Oh, wait, usenet isn't a public forum, its a one-way messaging service for you
> and Brent to bash other people?
Ah? And which people am I bashing? You? Well... pardon me for
disagreeing with you writing paragraphs of prose calling a person "liar"
for making a mistake and then immediately admitting it. And for you
"ranting and raving" about it long after the rest of people involved in
this discussion considered this little side-issue to the thread closed.
Duh.
And as for this forum being one-sided - you are not banned yet,
are you? Your voice is heard as much as mine is, and your "rants and
raves" carry no less weight than Brent's.
Bantari
> Yes, Brents infraction is much worse. At best he was an idiot that slandered an
> innocent party because he was just too stupid to realize that he was not
> "banned" before he started ranting and raving about it to the newsgroup.
Hehe... if Brent's mistake was to make a mistake in his assumption
of being banned, and this is what makes you "rant and rave" so much, are
you saying that he would be justified in posting what he posted if he was
indeed banned?
In other words - is capricious banning of players and whole
domains by IGS administration for RGG posts something that can and should
be "ranted and raved" about? It seems so from what you say.
> At worse, his "mistake" was a thinnly veiled lie.
Yes. Sure. And we always have to assume the worst in people who
express opinions contrary to our own. Is *that* your "standard"?
Why not just assume the best - namely that Brent really made an
honest mistake (which was maybe prompted by IGS' own behavior in many
cases) and jumped the gun too quickly. He aplogised and retracted almost
immediately afterwards, admitting his mistake. And if not for the
"ranting and raving" of people like you, the issue would have been
dropped, closed and forgotten.
> But according to you we must
> forgive Brent his "wrong statement" yet hold everyone else, including me, to
> some higher standard? I see. Special rules for you and Brent. :)
Listen kid - I am not holding you to any higher standard than
Brent. As a matter of fact, I am strongly leaning towards holding you to
a much lower standard. Whatever makes you happy, hehe... And this is
why I refrained from calling you all the names you called Brent. For
now. :-)
Bantari
said...
> Bantari lies:
> > I am not sure where you come from, but where I live a simple
> >statement like "I think I have been denied access to IGS as of today."
> >immediately followed up by a retraction like "Actually I can get on.
>
> Too bad this wasn't the case. What followed was a rant about IGS being hyocrits
> and banning people for things they write here.
And this was a perfectly valid "rant and rave", even disregarding
Brent's own mistaken assumption. There are people who, for a lack of
better explanation, seem to be banned from IGS for what they write here.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No? Ok - case stands.
> THEN came a short, partial
> admission. THEN came more attacks on OTHER posters for not being accurate. LOL
> So, we must forgive Brent and let him make "mistakes" where he gets to slander
> other people and also accept all his other claims at face value? Why does that
> seem silly?
No we must not forgive Brant. I hope he will learn his lesson and
not be so quick on the trigger in the future. But if Brant indeed
slandered anybody, you are certainly responding in kind. This is a great
approach, and clerly shows the "standards" you are writing about.
Bantari
Anyways, Mr Ketho - I have no intention of further indulging in
this pissing contest with you on this issue. Welcome to my mental
"ignore" list. Hope you have fun playing there together with Jeff.
Hehe...
Tada!
Until you post something that sparkles my interest again. :-)
Ketho of Davenant
>On 02 Apr 2001 14:28:42 GMT, Ketho of Davenant ranted and raved:
>> Yes, Brents infraction is much worse. At best he was an idiot that
>slandered an
>> innocent party because he was just too stupid to realize that he was not
>> "banned" before he started ranting and raving about it to the newsgroup.
>
> Hehe... if Brent's mistake was to make a mistake in his assumption
>of being banned,
No that was not his "mistake". His "mistake" was to claim he "thought" he
"might" be banned tna go on a diatribe against an innocent party. Since both
Brent and you continue to misrepresent and spin Brent's bad behavior, why
should anyone believe any charges you two make against anyone else?
After all, if Brent felt it was OK to slam an innocent party before he actually
knew what was happening, what credibility does he have? And your attempts to
whitewash Brent's insinuations and false accusations destroys any credibilty
you might have had also. Brent's post and accusastions are a matter of record.
Attempts by you two to excuse and whitewash his "mistake" simply shows you two
to be, well, less than sincere at best and liars at worst.
Ketho of Davenant
>> Namely that he claimed to be banned from IGS and wasn't? And how he ranted
>and
>> raved how that mawas so unfair? No. I didn't miss that at all. But why are
>you
>> trying to ignore that? :)
>
> He expressed his opinion about IGS and banning, which many people
>seem to share.
No, the post I am comment ing on is wher Brent came here ad told us he "might"
have been banned. He then went off from that making insinuations and
aaccusastions about an apparently innocent party. YOU keep trying to ignore
that and change the subject. If Brent gets to make a "mistake" and make
accussations against an innocent party, what right does he have to accuse
anyone else of bad behavior. What faith can anyone put in any of his claims
after such a self-serving "mistake"? And your continued efforts to excuse
Brent's "mistakes" shows you also have no objectivity. You have tried to
minimize, excuse and downright re-write what Brent wrote here. After a
sissembling display like THAT why should anyone trust you about anything else?
Perhaps all your "accusations" are "mistakes", lies and half-truths? I have
certainly seen more of those from you an Brent than anyone else discussing this
matter.
Michael Alford
of it yesterday when a friend asked me what I thought of the 'list'. I said
I hadn't seen it, and he mailed the post to me. There is a lot of
misinformation presented in this post that should be addressed.
>Subject: Reasons for Being Banned from IGS
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:20:15 -0500
>From: "Brent Locher" <brl...@core.com>
>Reply-To: "Brent Locher" <brl...@core.com>
>Organization: CoreComm LTD - Chicago, IL
>Newsgroups: rec.games.go
>
>There have been some pretty heated posts here lately about the >number
>of people that have actually been banned from IGS. At one time >I
>remember it being stated (some time ago) that there were only >two
>people that were banned , and more recently it has been stated >that
>as many as 40 people have been banned but that currently there >are
>only 12 people that are banned.
There is only one person that is banned. Some of these accounts were
disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy for banning accounts.
>I thought it might be useful to
>people that are playing on IGS to review actions that have led >to
>banning on IGS. I provide this post as a service to those that >may
>not be aware of behavior which could lead to banning. Now >please
>bear in mind that because most people that are banned are not >given
>any explanation as to their banning, that the reasons I state >here
>may not be correct. I am trying my best to use my memory to >connect
>the person who was banned with the most likely reason as to why >they
>were banned.
In plain English, you have no actual knowledge of these events, and your
post is nothing but uninformed speculation. This 'service' of yours is
hardly needed, since the vast majority of IGS users experience no difficulty
with their accounts.
>Here is the List (feel free to add to it for the >sake
>of helping other IGS players that may need some guidance).
Rather than deal with this entire list on a case by case basis, I will
simply state that only one person is banned. Some of the accounts listed
were in violation of policy as set forth in the RegMessage which all
accounts receive. One of them was never disabled. Others, like the Hag of
Go, were in violation of the 1995 Policy Statement. One of the people
listed never registered an IGS account. Others were enabled long ago. The
1995 Policy Statement has been posted here on rgg several times.
>Eric V. R. - started a go server with identical protocol >IGS.
>
>Rich Br. - Made fun of a computer go program that was >engaged
> in a match on IGS.
>
>Steve F. - talked about nngs in an IGS channel.
>
>Patrick B. - Made nuicance posts on RGG over long period >of
> time alternately taking IGS's side then NNGS's >side.
>
>Scott W. - Guilt by association ( with patrick B and the
> university of AZ)
>
>Terri ? - claims she does not know, but of late because >she
> wrote an article about IGS bannings.
>
>Bill S. - Filled in his own eyes during games he lost. >Made
> opponents irritated. sent many emails to IGS >admins
> about democracy and justice and their lack >thereof.
> alternatively slammed and then apologized to >the
> IGS admin in RGG.
>
>Eric O. - asked personal questions about opponents he >was
> playing. Often posted suggestions for >improving IGS
> to RGG. after his banning - Alternatively >grovels
> for acceptance and slams IGS about their >behavior.
>
>Bill T. - I don't know what he did but IGS (at least at >one
> time) had whole archives dedicated to his >unfit
> character to play on IGS. But I think it >generally
> revolved around controversial posts he made on >RGG.
>
>Bantari - I don't know reason, but I gather it is >because of
> combative posts about IGS on RGG.
>
>Barry P. - I am not sure he was banned - but I have >inferred
> from his posts that he is.
>
>Ming Ch. - I do not know reasons but I am quite certain >he is
> banned (could be wrong)
>
>*Nick W. - he called the IGS protocol by another name on >the
> BGA website that he oversees.
>
>byakko - I am not quite sure why this guy is but I >think he
> is banned.
>
>If you ever do get banned from IGS the (apparent) best way to >get
>reinstated officially is to send a formal letter to IGS and >tell
>them that you are unconditionally wrong and that you would like >to
>be reinstated as an accepted member of the IGS community. >However,
>you must be sincere when saying this otherwise you will not be
>reinstated.
>
>I am currently not banned - but thiose T-shirts are kind of >cool !
Anyone that invests in those T-shirts would lose money, since there would be
only a few wearers, even though Brent may qualify even though he is not yet
'banned'. However, I would be willing to help out by buying one, simply to
have as an historical curiosity. :)
malf
Patrick G. Bridges
MA> There is only one person that is banned. Some of these
MA> accounts were disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy
MA> for banning accounts.
My IGS accounts have been disabled, my email address prevented from
being registered on IGS, and any machine in my domain (cs.arizona.edu)
is prevented from connecting to IGS, I'm not banned from IGS. Gee
that's a real comfort. :)
I wish I knew what I did to warrant such gracious non-banning. :)
-Patrick
--
*** Patrick G. Bridges bri...@cs.arizona.edu ***
*** #include <std/disclaimer.h> ***
S.G.Fawthrop
Michael Alford wrote in message ...
>
>There is only one person that is banned. Some of these accounts were
>disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy for banning accounts.
>
Maybe true. After all, there is only one person that is malf on IGS and
only one that is tweet, and only one that is .....
I know I was not "banned" because I was "Vegetarian". However, my account
was disabled on multiple occasions, and I cannot connect from my ISP or my
any machine in my floor at work, not even as "guest" because I get a forced
disconnect as soon as I try.
But you are right, I am not, nor did I ever try to register as "banned". I
will however admit to registering an account once as "tweetified", long
after I was banished as "Vegetarian", just to see how long it would last and
prompted mostly by messages like yours which try to rewrite IGS history.
That account was deleted within 24 hours which is no big deal as I never
intended to use it. Seems like the act of deleting that account, though,
was implicit admission by tweet that the concept of being "tweetified"
bothers him.
Bantari
> There is only one person that is banned. Some of these accounts were
> disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy for banning accounts.
And you know this how??...
And what is the difference betwenn permamently "disabling" an
account and actually "banning" people? Semantics?
For example - two whole domains I used to use are disabled (they
are still disabled - I have checked - I cannot even log on as a guest
from these domains since the server says "connection refused" or some
such). Are my accounts thus "disabled" or are they "banned"? And what
is the actual difference since in either case I cannot log on from these
domains. Will my new (and secret, hehe) IGS account be immediately
disabled/banned if I made it public?
Plus - you guys need to get your stories straight. Within a short
period of time I have seen here seemingly "well informed" and
"authoritative" statements from die-hard IGS symphatisers naming numbers
like 1, 2, 12, and 40 with respect to how many people are banned. What's
up with that? Is just one person "banned" but 39 are "disabled"? And
what is the difference?
And how can we have any confidence in the numbers you give? Do
you have any official affiliation with IGS which allows you to make such
statements?
And why is IGS so unwilling to utter even a single peep of an
official statement which would cut through all this mess and set record
straight once and for all. Plausible deniability?
Questions, questions... hehe.
--
________________________
- Bantari (4d)
I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem.
email: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Brent Locher
>There is a lot of
>...... [But]Rather than deal with this entire list on a case >by case
basis, I will simply state that only one person is >banned.
So you state there is a lot of misinformation here, but fail to
specifically point out where it is.
I think I do understand it though. A person is banned when they have been
officcially disconnected through an open process within IGS. Everyone else
that has been chopped off at a whim is not "banned".
Alex Papadimitriu
"Patrick G. Bridges" wrote:
>
> My IGS accounts have been disabled, my email address prevented from
> being registered on IGS, and any machine in my domain (cs.arizona.edu)
> is prevented from connecting to IGS, I'm not banned from IGS. Gee
> that's a real comfort. :)
>
> I wish I knew what I did to warrant such gracious non-banning. :)
>
> -Patrick
>
I just did a find and stats command on IGS, and I found this.
stats bridgesp
Player: bridgesp
Game: go (1)
Language: default
Rating: NR 0
Rated Games: 0
Rank: NR 0
Wins: 0
Losses: 0
Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Wed Apr 4 21:19:52 2001
Last Access(local): (Not on) Thu Apr 5 06:19:52 2001
Address: patrick...@acm.org
Reg date: Wed Feb 21 02:34:37 2001
Info: <None>
Defaults (help defs): time 90, size 19, byo-yomi time 10, byo-yomi stones
25
Alex Papadimitriu
"S.G.Fawthrop" wrote:
>
> I know I was not "banned" because I was "Vegetarian". However, my account
> was disabled on multiple occasions, and I cannot connect from my ISP or my
> any machine in my floor at work, not even as "guest" because I get a forced
> disconnect as soon as I try.
>
I just did a stats vegetarian on IGS. :)
stats vegetarian
Player: vegetarian
Game: go (1)
Language: default
Rating: NR 0
Rated Games: 0
Rank: NR 0
Wins: 5
Losses: 14
Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Fri Mar 30 04:25:35 2001
Last Access(local): (Not on) Fri Mar 30 13:25:35 2001
Address: ve...@Eklectika.net
Reg date: Wed Jan 10 06:51:24 2001
Info: <None>
Defaults (help defs): time 90, size 19, byo-yomi time 10, byo-yomi stones 25
>
> But you are right, I am not, nor did I ever try to register as "banned". I
> will however admit to registering an account once as "tweetified", long
> after I was banished as "Vegetarian", just to see how long it would last and
> prompted mostly by messages like yours which try to rewrite IGS history.
> That account was deleted within 24 hours which is no big deal as I never
> intended to use it. Seems like the act of deleting that account, though,
> was implicit admission by tweet that the concept of being "tweetified"
> bothers him.
help register on IGS says....
A _NEW_ account must be used within 20 hours after registration, or
the account will be automatcially deleted.
Lord Tim Brent
EarthLink,MindSpring,AOL,NNGS,KGS,etc.) does have to right to bounce
whom they please-nor is there a need from any to have a give a reason
(for denail of access). I was almost thrown off of this server because
of NetKopping by a person with whom I have been involved with in an
at-times intense on-again,off-again flamne war ober the past 19
months.
Tim
------
Duchy of Grand Fenwick
"Of all the forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar
is the tyranny of mere wealth." - Theodore Roosevelt
-
From: "Brent Locher" <brl...@core.com>
> I think I do understand it though. A person is banned when they
> have been officcially disconnected through an open process within
> IGS. Everyone else that has been chopped off at a whim is not
> "banned".
The other day one of my stone-groups was "floating" in dire
limbo after getting disconnected, yet through some devious finagling
in a global _ko_ combination, I was able to revive them.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> And what is the difference betwenn permamently "disabling" an
> account and actually "banning" people? Semantics?
Since one of your former countrymen, Alfred Korzybski, had much
to do with popularizing the study of General Semantics in the book
_Science_and_Sanity_ (1933), you haven't much to complain about.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> Will my new (and secret, hehe) IGS account be immediately
> disabled/banned if I made it public?
Considering that it's a public secret already perhaps you could
still wear that T-shirt (and boxer shorts) while clicking the mouse.
From: Bantari <ban...@mynet.com>
> ... statements from die-hard IGS symphatisers ...
Do you have some anti-multiculturalist problem with the fact
that traditions other than your own should not also be die-hard?
From: "S.G.Fawthrop" <r...@eklectika.net>
> Seems like the act of deleting that account, though, was implicit
> admission by tweet that the concept of being "tweetified" bothers him.
It's a non-productive row you hoe when descending into personal
remarks. Why not speak of being Vegetarianized, another non-starter?
From: bri...@CS.Arizona.EDU (Patrick G. Bridges)
> I wish I knew what I did to warrant such gracious non-banning. :)
Oh, so now you expect an explanation for "non-banning" as well?
- regards
- jb
P.S. Bill Taylor, I saw your name on that "list" so why aren't you
paying attention to details?
-------------o
Michael Alford
>I wish I knew what I did to warrant such gracious non-banning. :)
>
>-Patrick
The stats command shows that the account 'bridgesp', email address
patrick...@acm.org logged on to IGS Apr 5.
Michael Alford
>But you are right, I am not, nor did I ever try to register as "banned". I
>will however admit to registering an account once as "tweetified", long
>after I was banished as "Vegetarian", just to see how long it would last and
>prompted mostly by messages like yours which try to rewrite IGS history.
>That account was deleted within 24 hours which is no big deal as I never
>intended to use it. Seems like the act of deleting that account, though,
>was implicit admission by tweet that the concept of being "tweetified"
>bothers him.
Excuse me? The stats command shows that 'vegetarian' logged on to IGS Mar
30th. As for 'tweetified', the RegMessage clearly states that new accounts
that are not used within 24hrs are _automatically_ deleted (emphasis mine).
Michael Alford
>Michael Alford says...
>> There is only one person that is banned. Some of these accounts were
>> disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy for banning accounts.
>
> And you know this how??...
Public statements by IGS admins, as I have posted here before.
>
> And what is the difference betwenn permamently "disabling" an
>account and actually "banning" people? Semantics?
No, not in my view. I think it is important we get this straight. Someone
that is 'banned' has no chance of being allowed back. That is the case with
only one person. Any account that is 'disabled' is in a temporary state of
suspension.
> For example - two whole domains I used to use are disabled (they
>are still disabled - I have checked - I cannot even log on as a guest
>from these domains since the server says "connection refused" or some
>such). Are my accounts thus "disabled" or are they "banned"? And what
>is the actual difference since in either case I cannot log on from these
>domains. Will my new (and secret, hehe) IGS account be immediately
>disabled/banned if I made it public?
Bantari, I don't know if you are deliberately lieing, just garbling the
information to suit your purposes, or are simply unaware. When I first read
this post, I talked to an IGS admin and asked about this. I was told that
no domain was ever locked out, only two machines. Since you mention two
domains, I assume that means one machine from each domain. As for your
personal account, I was told that the block on it had been lifted about a
month or so ago, the admin was not sure of the time frame.
I am now going to propose we use a new term here on rgg for the misreading,
misconstruing, and misinterpretation of information, and since you and
Locher both seem to suffer from the condition, I propose calling it the
'Locher-Bantari Syndrome' (LBS) :)
Michael Alford
>>There is a lot of
>> misinformation presented in this post that should be >addressed........
>
>
>>...... [But]Rather than deal with this entire list on a case >by case
>basis, I will simply state that only one person is >banned.
>
> So you state there is a lot of misinformation here, but fail to
>specifically point out where it is.
Trashing your list doesn't count?
>I think I do understand it though. A person is banned when they have been
>officcially disconnected through an open process within IGS. Everyone else
>that has been chopped off at a whim is not "banned".
See my reply to bantari.
Patrick G. Bridges
MA> In article <MPG.153552a8ee64e7cd989819@nntp>, Bantari
MA> <ban...@mynet.com> wrote:
>> Michael Alford says...
>>> There is only one person that is banned. Some of these
>>> accounts were disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy
>>> for banning accounts.
>> And you know this how??...
MA> Public statements by IGS admins, as I have posted here before.
>> And what is the difference betwenn permamently "disabling" an
>> account and actually "banning" people? Semantics?
MA> No, not in my view. I think it is important we get this
MA> straight. Someone that is 'banned' has no chance of being
MA> allowed back. That is the case with only one person. Any
MA> account that is 'disabled' is in a temporary state of
MA> suspension.
Of course, if noone from IGS ever tells anyone what they did wrong, or
offers any advice on how to register, or responds to polite email asking
what they can do to get reinstated, this is a distinction without a
difference.
MA> Bantari, I don't know if you are deliberately lieing, just
MA> garbling the information to suit your purposes, or are simply
MA> unaware. When I first read this post, I talked to an IGS
MA> admin and asked about this. I was told that no domain was
MA> ever locked out, only two machines.
As of this morning, all of cs.arizona.edu is still locked out. Oh,
and apparently the main university of arizona general-use UNIX
machine, in the domain u.arizona.edu, which serves an entire
university of 40,000+ people, is now locked out from IGS, too.
But only one person has ever been banned, or 12 if you believe Mr. Alden
instead.
Patrick G. Bridges
I'd guess that the account I had been using to (quitely) observe games
on IGS (bridgesp) is now "temporarily disabled." (I imagine I could
verify this through my earthlink dialup if I cared enough, since I
doubt that IGS has yet banned all of earthlink.net, though at this
point, who knows?).
I know the machine I had been using to watch games on IGS,
shell.u.arizona.edu, a machine which serves the entire University of
Arizona community and has by my count roughly 30,000 different
accounts on it, is now forbidden from connecting to IGS. I don't know
if anyone else had ever used it to connect to IGS; as it's essentially
big-iron and I used remote-X11 to run my client, it seems unlikely. I
have not bothered to check if other Arizona departments or machines,
like the ECE department, or the UofA dorms, are also banned from
IGS. (or temporarily diabled, if you like.)
Regardless, this whole process is counterproductive. I honestly don't
know why my IGS accounts are disabled. I've tried to treat IGS fairly
on here, making my criticisms of IGS constructive, and praising IGS
for the *many* things it does well. Regardless, I can guarantee that
my being prevented from connecting to IGS is not for anything I've
ever said, kibitzed, shouted, 'tell'ed, or done on IGS. If I had to
guess, I'd say that I'm forbidden from accessing IGS because I'm a
volunteer admin on KGS, and because I'm occasionally critical of IGS
on this forum, though typically in what I regard as a polite,
constructive manner. Although I regard this as a poor reason for
keeping me off of IGS, that is certainly the right of the IGS
admins. It *is* their server.
These cat-and-mouse games of creating new accouts with different email
addresses, etc., so that I can watch pro games on IGS would be
somewhat amusing but for one thing: IGS admins have started banning
entire domains in a mis-guided effort to keep me off of IGS for an
offense I haven't even been told about or given a chance to apologize
for. While amusing at first, this harms not only IGS by preventing
other Go players to connect to IGS, it harms the Go community in
general. I am unwilling to participate in a process that could
directly harm the Go community by preventing other players, especially
new players, from connecting to one of the better Go servers.
I am no longer willing to take part in a process that I now regard as
destructive to the Go community. Since IGS has not to this point been
responsive to my requests on what I have done to offend them so that I
might apologize, or how I can regain access to IGS, it seems I have no
choice but to no longer attempt to connect to IGS from any machine, be
it my UofArizona accounts, my Earthlink dialup, or the other DHCP
accounts I use when I travel. Doing so at this point harms not only
IGS by preventing players from connecting there, but Go in general by
potentially keeping other players, in particular potential beginners,
from playing the game at what I regard as an important part of the Go
community, despite its minor flaws.
I would hope that the IGS admins would in turn reenable access to IGS
from the cs.arizona.edu domain at some point, and any other domains
they may have blacklisted in an attempt to keep me from connecting to
IGS. This would allow players, both old and new, who come to the U of
A to continue to use IGS. If there's anything I can do to help this
occur, I would hope that the IGS admins would contact me about this
privately. If my actions have prevented anyone else, particularly
beginners, from connecting to IGS, that is truly tragic, and for that
I gladly and humbly apologize.
-Patrick Bridges
Bantari
> In article <MPG.153552a8ee64e7cd989819@nntp>, Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote:
>
> >Michael Alford says...
> >> There is only one person that is banned. Some of these accounts were
> >> disabled. As posted before, IGS has no policy for banning accounts.
> >
> > And you know this how??...
>
> Public statements by IGS admins, as I have posted here before.
> >
> > And what is the difference betwenn permamently "disabling" an
> >account and actually "banning" people? Semantics?
>
> No, not in my view. I think it is important we get this straight. Someone
> that is 'banned' has no chance of being allowed back. That is the case with
> only one person. Any account that is 'disabled' is in a temporary state of
> suspension.
Hmm... this is an important distinction. But in such case, it
begs another question - what can such "disabled" person do to get
"enabled" again? I have heard that "sincere letters of appology" might
do it, but how to start a dialogue with IGS if you do not even know what
you should appologize for?
>
> > For example - two whole domains I used to use are disabled (they
> >are still disabled - I have checked - I cannot even log on as a guest
> >from these domains since the server says "connection refused" or some
> >such). Are my accounts thus "disabled" or are they "banned"? And what
> >is the actual difference since in either case I cannot log on from these
> >domains. Will my new (and secret, hehe) IGS account be immediately
> >disabled/banned if I made it public?
>
> Bantari, I don't know if you are deliberately lieing, just garbling the
> information to suit your purposes, or are simply unaware. When I first read
> this post, I talked to an IGS admin and asked about this. I was told that
> no domain was ever locked out, only two machines.
This is not so. The first domain I am talking about, the
san.rr.com, usues dynamic ISP numbers, so every time I re-start my
computer and log on to the web, my ISP number is different. To make sure
that I cannot connect to IGS even as a guest (which is identified only by
ISP number, I think), a whole bunch of different numbers must be
disabled. Plus - I have tried to log on to IGS from at least 3 different
machines of my friends who also use the san.rr.com domain, and with the
same result. So how could it have possibly have been just one machine?
The second domain I meant is the qualcomm.com. I have tried to
log on from my own machine in my office, from a few computers of my co-
workers, and from a few computers in the lab. With the same result. So
again - how could it have only been one machine?
And this is not misreading or misunderstanding, and I am not
lying - I know this because I have tried it. So can you please explain
to me how is it possible that only one machine was "disabled" and yet it
was not possible to connect to IGS from all the machines in the same
domain I had access to? My interpretation was that the whole domains
were disabled - and if it was not so, what was it?
> Since you mention two
> domains, I assume that means one machine from each domain. As for your
> personal account, I was told that the block on it had been lifted about a
> month or so ago, the admin was not sure of the time frame.
Ok, great. Thanks.
To be honest - I gave up even trying to connect to IGS from these
domains some time ago. I think I have tried out the qualcomm.com less
than a month ago, but I might be wrong - maybe it was longer than that.
Be it as it may - your news about the domains being again enabled,
is a welcome news. After reading it I have indeed tried to log on from
my office computer, and I was not immediately disconnected with the usual
"Access denied" (or some such) message. So it seems to be working. I
still have to check out the san.rr.com domain and see what happens. :-)
> I am now going to propose we use a new term here on rgg for the misreading,
> misconstruing, and misinterpretation of information, and since you and
> Locher both seem to suffer from the condition, I propose calling it the
> 'Locher-Bantari Syndrome' (LBS) :)
Hehe... Good one.
In my defense, I can only say that I was not trying to mislead
anybody. My access was indeed "disabled", as you yourself have admitted.
And contrary to your statement that "only two machines" were disabled, I
know for a fact that it was more than just these two.
Anyways - thanks for your post.
Brent Locher
outrageous lies posted here that only your machine was disconnected and not
the entire domain? No?
I did not think so either. Well anyhow, congratulations for getting your
IGS connection reinstated. I guess you have to be a jerk to get it pulled
and just be a little bit bigger jerk to get it reinstated - (as you would
say) - hehe!
(BTW - I met Erwin Jacobs at my last company before any one ever heard of
Qualcomm or before they went public. We were teaming with them on a
program. Gosh I wish I would have bought some of their stock :)
"Bantari" <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15366270d2b5707598981a@nntp...
S.G.Fawthrop
(I know it is not you because malf also references that account.) That was
NOT created by me and I can point out several inconsistencies in the
definition of the account.
1. I have NOT been on IGS during the last week, as indicated on the "last
access" time stamp. I cannot even log on through my ISP or from work. I
just try, to confirm that it is still true - and it is.
2. I NEVER use ve...@Eklectika.net because I detest the abbreviation vege.
3. Eklectika.net IS my domain but I did NOT posses it at the claimed date of
registration of the account.
4. I never received an e-mail at ve...@Eklectika.net telling me of the
creation of this account.
5. The account was claimed to be created on a date I KNOW I was not logged
on - because is just happens to be my wedding anniversary and I know where I
was at that time!
In addition to all these points, the forgery that was perpetrated by the IGS
admin clearly indicates that we can no longer trust any of those logs which
certain people are inclined to quote.
I know that those who will not accept the truth will merely claim that the
above statements are lies, but I know that I have a good enough name in the
Go community in the US that that vast majority are going to believe me, so
don't waste your time with any more accusations.
Alex Papadimitriu wrote in message <3ACBC610...@pacbell.net>...
Ketho of Davenant
>Do you think that Kietho of Davenant will post a message about the
>outrageous lies posted here that only your machine was disconnected and not
>the entire domain?
No. Perhaps because he isn't a liar like you are, Brent? :) Want to rant and
rave some more how you "might" have been banned or have you sobered up since
your last "mistake"?
As for site bans, having run small game servers myself, they sometimes are a
necessary evil. If one troublemaker has multiple anonymous access from many
machines at say a university site, there isn't much that a server admin that
allows users to create new accounts at will can do except start banning
increasing portions of the troublemakers domains. I would think thought that it
should be possible to just disable new accounts from a given domain in general,
that's what were had coded on our game server, but I don't know what options
the IGS people have with their software.
One question though, why does Brent obsess about how a free go server is run to
the point of deluding himself into thinking he was a "victim" of a "possible"
banning? No life perhaps? Yes, that's probably it. :) Considering the number of
people that play on a server the size of IGS, the number of complaints about
problems seems amazingly small. Perhaps that's becasue it does provide a good
free service and other play options are available for anyone dissatisfied with
it in any way? Yes? But hey, why be reasonable when we can all be imaginary
victims like good old Brent? LOL
Alex Papadimitriu
Ketho of Davenant wrote:
> Brent trolls:
No, Brent does LBS (Locher-Bantari Syndrome). :-)
>
> One question though, why does Brent obsess about how a free go server is run to
> the point of deluding himself into thinking he was a "victim" of a "possible"
> banning? No life perhaps? Yes, that's probably it. :)
He's trying to earn one of those t-shirts. :-)
> Considering the number of
> people that play on a server the size of IGS, the number of complaints about
> problems seems amazingly small.
Yes indeed! Very small! Those few who do complain would try to have us think
there are 40,000+ banned from IGS. :-) Its so predictable who will flame IGS
whenever there is a chance. :-)
> Perhaps that's becasue it does provide a good
> free service and other play options are available for anyone dissatisfied with
> it in any way? Yes? But hey, why be reasonable when we can all be imaginary
> victims like good old Brent? LOL
I know what Brent did to IGS, but what has IGS done to Brent? Must be
the rating system. He misses that 1000th place decimal point that would reflect
the true state of his rating every second. :-)
Alden.Charles
(Patrick G. Bridges) wrote:
>As of this morning, all of cs.arizona.edu is still locked out. Oh,
>and apparently the main university of arizona general-use UNIX
>machine, in the domain u.arizona.edu, which serves an entire
>university of 40,000+ people, is now locked out from IGS, too.
>
>But only one person has ever been banned, or 12 if you believe Mr. Alden
>instead.
I'm inclined to believe Mr. Alden meant that at the time of writing a
total of 12 were being denied access; he overlooked the finer distinction
between (permanent) banishment and (temporary) suspension and simply used
the term from the title of the thread.
And about the potential 40,000 other people yearning to log on to IGS from
the University of Arizona campus: While Tuscon may not yet rival Seoul or
Tokyo as go centers of the world, let's concede that there is a greater
concentration of go players at U of A that in the United States as a whole
- let's say five times as great. Thus compared to the U.S. average of one
go player per 100,000, such a restriction on the machine you mention might
actually affect 1 out of 20,000 people on the campus - or two certain
people in particular.
But of course even they are not really affected - as noted already, you
had in fact logged on to IGS within a few hours of writing this latest
post about how you could not do that.
Charles Alden
-
> Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: "S.G.Fawthrop" <r...@eklectika.net>
> Wow! Now I know that tweet is trying to pull the wool over
> everyone's eyes! (I know it is not you because malf also
> references that account.) That was NOT created by me and I can
> point out several inconsistencies in the definition of the
> account.
Doesn't take much to qualify as "knowledge" for ya, eh?
Anybody can create an account. Anybody who creates an account
can perform a registration change.
> 1. I have NOT been on IGS during the last week, as indicated on
> the "last access" time stamp. I cannot even log on through my
> ISP or from work. I just try, to confirm that it is still true -
> and it is.
So you're using an account that you did not create? Confusing.
> 2. I NEVER use ve...@Eklectika.net because I detest the
> abbreviation vege.
If you harbor predilections for self-hatred, however, then it
might be your character to engage in sesquipedallian tergiversations.
> 3. Eklectika.net IS my domain but I did NOT posses it at the
> claimed date of registration of the account.
According to the whois query, you have been in possession of
"eklectika.net" since 28 December 2000, almost two weeks prior.
> 4. I never received an e-mail at ve...@Eklectika.net telling me of
> the creation of this account.
That's possible, however `vege' may have received an e-mail that
informed of an account registration change, if `vege' exists.
> 5. The account was claimed to be created on a date I KNOW I was
> not logged on - because is just happens to be my wedding
> anniversary and I know where I was at that time!
I will not ask if your wife also knew where you were.
> In addition to all these points, the forgery that was perpetrated
> by the IGS admin clearly indicates that we can no longer trust
> any of those logs which certain people are inclined to quote.
As you should know by now, anybody can create and re-register.
> I know that those who will not accept the truth will merely claim
> that the above statements are lies, but I know that I have a good
> enough name in the Go community in the US that that vast majority
> are going to believe me, so don't waste your time with any more
> accusations.
Glad to hear that you know you have a good name. Perhaps some
day the others will also come to know of that as well. If your
name is so all-fired "good" then why were you previously spoofing
this newsgroup with fake names, even posing as an agent provocatuer?
- regards
- jb
-----------------
> Alex Papadimitriu wrote in message <3ACBC610...@pacbell.net>...
>>I just did a stats vegetarian on IGS. :)
>
>>stats vegetarian
>>Player: vegetarian
>>Game: go (1)
>>Language: default
>>Rating: NR 0
>>Rated Games: 0
>>Rank: NR 0
>>Wins: 5
>>Losses: 14
>>Last Access(GMT): (Not on) Fri Mar 30 04:25:35 2001
>>Last Access(local): (Not on) Fri Mar 30 13:25:35 2001
>>Address: ve...@Eklectika.net
>>Reg date: Wed Jan 10 06:51:24 2001
>>Info: <None>
>> [...]
-------------------------o
Michael Alford
> This is not so. The first domain I am talking about, the
>san.rr.com, usues dynamic ISP numbers, so every time I re-start my
>computer and log on to the web, my ISP number is different. To make sure
>that I cannot connect to IGS even as a guest (which is identified only by
>ISP number, I think), a whole bunch of different numbers must be
>disabled. Plus - I have tried to log on to IGS from at least 3 different
>machines of my friends who also use the san.rr.com domain, and with the
>same result. So how could it have possibly have been just one machine?
>
> The second domain I meant is the qualcomm.com. I have tried to
>log on from my own machine in my office, from a few computers of my co-
>workers, and from a few computers in the lab. With the same result. So
>again - how could it have only been one machine?
You don't mention if qual.com is dynamic. No matter, I cannot argue with
you on this point. I am not a techie. I know that dynamic ISPs exist
(remember Hu? :)), but I do not know how they operate. I will leave this
part of the discussion to someone with more knowledge than I.
> Anyways - thanks for your post.
No problem. If fact, I did nothing more than ask a couple questions and
make a short post. If you really want to thank someone, why not thank the
IGS admins? All LBS aside for the moment, in the years I have been reading
this newsgroup, you have been the most consistent and prolific critic of
IGS posting here. Now, in spite of this and in spite of your violating some
policy, IGS admins have enabled your account. Seems you should acknowledge
them for that.
malf
Michael Alford
>
>Wow! Now I know that tweet is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes!
>(I know it is not you because malf also references that account.) That was
>NOT created by me and I can point out several inconsistencies in the
>definition of the account.
>
>1. I have NOT been on IGS during the last week, as indicated on the "last
>access" time stamp. I cannot even log on through my ISP or from work. I
>just try, to confirm that it is still true - and it is.
>2. I NEVER use ve...@Eklectika.net because I detest the abbreviation vege.
>3. Eklectika.net IS my domain but I did NOT posses it at the claimed date of
>registration of the account.
>4. I never received an e-mail at ve...@Eklectika.net telling me of the
>creation of this account.
>5. The account was claimed to be created on a date I KNOW I was not logged
>on - because is just happens to be my wedding anniversary and I know where I
>was at that time!
>
>In addition to all these points, the forgery that was perpetrated by the IGS
>admin clearly indicates that we can no longer trust any of those logs which
>certain people are inclined to quote.
>
>I know that those who will not accept the truth will merely claim that the
>above statements are lies, but I know that I have a good enough name in the
>Go community in the US that that vast majority are going to believe me, so
>don't waste your time with any more accusations.
The only name you should have is 'mud':
>fawthrop wrote on rgg:
>"3. Eklectika.net IS my domain but I did NOT posses it at the claimed date
>of
>registration of the account."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Server used for this query: [ whois.namesdirect.com ]
Registrant:
Steve Fawthrop
915 Glacier Ln NE
Rochester, MN 55906
US
Domain Name: EKLECTIKA.NET
Administrative Contact:
Fawthrop, Steve sfaw...@prodigy.net
Rochester, MN 55906
US
507 266 0171
Technical Contact:
Support, NamesDirect.com sup...@namesdirect.com
www.NamesDirect.com,
BM
000-000-000
Billing Contact:
Fawthrop, Steve sfaw...@prodigy.net
Rochester, MN 55906
US
507 266 0171
Record last updated on 3-Apr-2001.
Record expires on 28-Dec-2002.
Record Created on 28-Dec-2000.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.MYDOMAIN.COM 208.184.130.51
NS2.MYDOMAIN.COM 208.184.130.52
NS3.MYDOMAIN.COM 208.184.130.53
NS4.MYDOMAIN.COM 208.184.130.55
Need some help?
Results brought to you by the GeekTools WHOIS Proxy
Server results may be copyrighted and are used with permission.
Proxy © 1999, 2000 CenterGate Research Group, LLC
Your host (208.187.10.61) has visited 1 times today.
Pheh,
malf
Lord Tim Brent
(Alden.Charles) wrote:
>And about the potential 40,000 other people yearning to log on to IGS from
>the University of Arizona campus: While Tuscon may not yet rival Seoul or
>Tokyo as go centers of the world, let's concede that there is a greater
>concentration of go players at U of A that in the United States as a whole
>- let's say five times as great. Thus compared to the U.S. average of one
>go player per 100,000, such a restriction on the machine you mention might
>actually affect 1 out of 20,000 people on the campus - or two certain
>people in particular.
>
>But of course even they are not really affected - as noted already, you
>had in fact logged on to IGS within a few hours of writing this latest
>post about how you could not do that.
>
>Charles Alden
Charles,
Are you sure on that stat? Going by the US Population,that would mean
that there were around 2900 Go-Players in the USA and I cannot beleive
the number of players is that small.
Bantari
> No problem. If fact, I did nothing more than ask a couple questions and
> make a short post. If you really want to thank someone, why not thank the
> IGS admins? All LBS aside for the moment, in the years I have been reading
> this newsgroup, you have been the most consistent and prolific critic of
> IGS posting here. Now, in spite of this and in spite of your violating some
> policy, IGS admins have enabled your account. Seems you should acknowledge
> them for that.
Indeed I should. And so I do - I would hereby officially thank
the IGS administration for re-instating my IGS account and enabling the
qualcomm.com domain.
I still do not know what policy I have violated to get banned, or
what prompted my de-banning, but whatever it was - thanks. :-)
S.G.Fawthrop
You have really sunk to a new low now! I concede I made a mistake in the
registration date of my domain name, simply because I got confused over the
actual date as I did not use it for some time after it was registered. The
date claimed in the IGS registration was less than 2 weeks after I
registered.
But, despite our difference in this newsgroup, there is no way I would
publish your address and phone number in a public forum without your
permission -- no lame excuses about it being in a public domain already
please -- and I would not have expected you do so either.
If you still insist that it is me using that account then please ask tweet
for the log of the session I was supposed to have used on 31st March,
ensuring yourself that it was not forged or course, and let us see if the
ISP which it is claimed I logged on from actually matches mine. I know for
certain it was not me.
Alden.Charles
<t...@timbrent.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:48:42 -0400, cja...@mindspring.com
>(Alden.Charles) wrote:
>
>>- let's say . . . compared to the U.S. average of one
>>go player per 100,000,
>Charles,
>Are you sure on that stat? Going by the US Population,that would mean
>that there were around 2900 Go-Players in the USA and I cannot beleive
>the number of players is that small.
Of course this is a very rough estimate - I was aiming for the order of
magnitude. Indeed, I'd be surprised if anyone had an *accurate* census of
U.S. go players. The AGA has enrolled a few thousand over the course of a
couple or three decades; I read here recently that the number of active
AGA members hovers around 1000. Of course a larger number, many not
associated with the AGA, may be found in the Asian immigrant communities,
some of which even have their own clubs.
In the ultra sophisticated Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area
with a population of slightly over a million there are perhaps two dozen
active American-born players; there are also an unknown number of
(generally stronger) Chinese and Korean players, several of whom seldom
have time to play because they are involved in careers.
Thus perhaps Arizona is a microcosm of America after all, and two players
per 40,000 might just approximate the national average.
Charles Alden
Mike Vaughn
<cjalden-0604...@user-2ivf8lt.dialup.mindspring.com>,
cja...@mindspring.com (Alden.Charles) wrote:
> In article <i5csctgebjdjqpmks...@4ax.com>, Lord Tim Brent
> <t...@timbrent.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:48:42 -0400, cja...@mindspring.com
> >(Alden.Charles) wrote:
> >
>
> >>- let's say . . . compared to the U.S. average of one
> >>go player per 100,000,
> >Charles,
> >Are you sure on that stat? Going by the US Population,that would mean
> >that there were around 2900 Go-Players in the USA and I cannot beleive
> >the number of players is that small.
> Of course this is a very rough estimate - I was aiming for the order of
> magnitude. Indeed, I'd be surprised if anyone had an *accurate* census of
> U.S. go players. The AGA has enrolled a few thousand over the course of a
> couple or three decades; I read here recently that the number of active
> AGA members hovers around 1000. Of course a larger number, many not
> associated with the AGA, may be found in the Asian immigrant communities,
> some of which even have their own clubs.
Depending on how you want to count, you might wish to include anyone who
has been an AGA member within the past 10 years as a serious go player.
> In the ultra sophisticated Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area
> with a population of slightly over a million there are perhaps two dozen
> active American-born players; there are also an unknown number of
> (generally stronger) Chinese and Korean players, several of whom seldom
> have time to play because they are involved in careers.
eh? 'ultra sophisticated Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area'?
to do a benchmark -- compare the number of active chess players in the
'ultra sophisticated Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area' wiht
the number in New York or California, and apply a similar factor for go
players. And _then_ add in the number of Asian students in the US, which
are probably relatively fewer in R-D-CH than in the Northeast or the
West Coast (or even in the larger midwestern Universities),
> Thus perhaps Arizona is a microcosm of America after all, and two players
> per 40,000 might just approximate the national average.
Again, with large universities with a substantial population of Asian
students, Arizona might have more go/weiqi players than your baseline
estimate.
> Charles Alden
Alden.Charles
<mtva...@neu.NOSPAM+-.edu> wrote:
>eh? 'ultra sophisticated Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metropolitan area'?
Heh heh - wondered if I could slip this by. :-)
The ultra-sophistication of the Research Triangle area is not just because
of its high concentration of Ph.D.s, but because it has been graced by
having me live in it for a couple of decades. :-)
And, to give some measure of go popularity in America, until recently for
North Carolinians to play in a go tournament they would have to travel 250
miles to Washington DC or Maryland. True, there are larger numbers of go
players in New York or Los Angeles, but there are also entire states with
no go clubs or tournaments listed, ever.
Charles Alden
Alex Papadimitriu
"S.G.Fawthrop" wrote:
> 3. Eklectika.net IS my domain but I did NOT posses it at the claimed date of
> registration of the account.
It has been demonstrated otherwise since you owned this domain
2 week before.
> 5. The account was claimed to be created on a date I KNOW I was not logged
> on - because is just happens to be my wedding anniversary and I know where I
> was at that time!
>
You claim not being online during this time.
The registration date for 'veetarian' on IGS indicates Jan 10, 06:51:24, 2001.
The reg date is in Japanese time.
Jan 10, 06:51:24 Japan time = Jan 9, 1:51:24 pm PST
vegetarian (veget...@eklectika.net) played a game on KGS
Jan 9, 1:36:52 pm PST and Jan 9, 8:48:55 pm PST
You can find this by using the 'View user's information' on KGS for
'vegetarian'.
So you WERE online during this time. :-)
>
> In addition to all these points, the forgery that was perpetrated by the IGS
> admin clearly indicates that we can no longer trust any of those logs which
> certain people are inclined to quote.
>
Can we trust your quotes?
>
> I know that those who will not accept the truth will merely claim that the
> above statements are lies, but I know that I have a good enough name in the
> Go community in the US that that vast majority are going to believe me, so
> don't waste your time with any more accusation
Things change
Arturo Quesada
opera like threads amusing. Whether he was right or wrong, he felt insulted enough
to leave and I think we should honor that. Then move on.
Arturo
Patrick G. Bridges
MV> In article
MV> <cjalden-0604...@user-2ivf8lt.dialup.mindspring.com>,
MV> cja...@mindspring.com (Alden.Charles) wrote:
>> Thus perhaps Arizona is a microcosm of America after all, and
>> two players per 40,000 might just approximate the national
>> average.
MV> Again, with large universities with a substantial population
MV> of Asian students, Arizona might have more go/weiqi players
MV> than your baseline estimate.
I personally know of 6 non-asian go players at Arizona, so I'd say his
estimate is well off. :)
Antoine Mechelynck
think hard, and turn your tongue seven times in your mouth before you talk
again.
Alden.Charles
(Patrick G. Bridges) wrote:
> >> Thus perhaps Arizona is a microcosm of America after all, and
> >> two players per 40,000 might just approximate the national
> >> average.
>I personally know of 6 non-asian go players at Arizona, so I'd say his
>estimate is well off. :)
Though still rather closer than the original claim of 40,000+ people
potentially "affected". :-)
If indeed *any* are.
But I won't press the point - I know how frustrated Arizonans are these
days after watching their Wildcats fall to Duke in the national
championship basketball game. :-))
Charles Alden
Michael Alford
>Well Michael,
>
>You have really sunk to a new low now!
I'm the one whose behavior has reached some kind of nadir?
You have a strange set of standards.
Eric Osman
The main problem with how the igs admins are handling the infractions,
isn't the banning itself (and by banning I refer to those of us
whose computers can't even get to the login prompt on igs).
The problem is the lack of indication of what exactly we're charged
with and how to get back on.
Several people have stated what they believe, for example, my
offenses are.
For the sake of discussion, let's say they're absolutely right.
However, if the igs admins could say how long the ban is going to
last for this offense, or what they require in particular from me
to allow the ban to be lifted, that would be so much better than this
quiet void that is so frustrating to many of us.
Thank you. /Eric
Alden.Charles
<os7...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>The main problem with how the igs admins are handling . . .
>The problem is the lack of indication of what exactly we're charged
>with and how to get back on.
>However, if the igs admins could say how long the ban is going to
>last for this offense . . .
Eric, Eric,
All this time and wasted energy, and you still don't get it at all.
You still think that being a guest involves some sort of legal process
with hearings, prescribed sentences, courts of appeals, etc. by which you
can recover your *right* to enter wherever you please, no matter how often
or in how many places you have criticized, second-guessed, or made demands
upon the host? Even here, your whole message is how wrong-headed the igs
administrators are and what you deserve from them. And no doubt you have
some helpful suggestions for how they could serve you better?
> that would be so much better than this
>quiet void that is so frustrating to many of us.
I daresay the quiet accompanying your absence is more of a blessing than a
frustration to many of us. :-)
Charles Alden
>
>Thank you. /Eric
Eric Osman
Charles you mentioned courts legal appeals etc. not me
Alden.Charles
<os7...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Charles you mentioned courts legal appeals etc. not me
Eric you used terms such as "what we're charged with" and "how long is a
ban for an offense"; at the outset you asked to what higher authority you
might write to appeal your situation and presumably followed through on
that.
The point is, you think this is LIKE a legal process rather than a matter
of courtesy and respect to the host of a club. You may formulate all
sorts of qualified semi-apologies, with caveats for your conditions of
issuing same, but it all rings false when simultaneously you engage in
other conversations filled with scorn for those you pretend to placate.
Eric Osman
> The point is, you think this is LIKE a legal process rather than a matter
> of courtesy and respect to the host of a club. You may formulate all
> sorts of qualified semi-apologies, with caveats for your conditions of
> issuing same, but it all rings false when simultaneously you engage in
> other conversations filled with scorn for those you pretend to placate.
Charles, Charles, you don't listen.
I'll repeat.
I totally apologize to all I've offended.
The point is, tweet, could you please inform how to rejoin the
igs community.
Thank you. /Eric
-
> Alden Charles wrote:
>> The point is, you think this is LIKE a legal process rather
>> than a matter of courtesy and respect to the host of a club.
>> You may formulate all sorts of qualified semi-apologies, with
>> caveats for your conditions of issuing same, but it all rings
>> false when simultaneously you engage in other conversations
>> filled with scorn for those you pretend to placate.
From: Eric Osman <os7...@mediaone.net>
> Charles, Charles, you don't listen.
>
> I'll repeat.
>
> I totally apologize to all I've offended.
>
> The point is, tweet, could you please inform how to rejoin the
> igs community.
I have no reluctance at agreeing with "Charles" on this issue,
but shouldn't you say "Mr. Charles," or are you a drill sergeant?
Either there's a litigation, a possibility of litigation, or
there is not. The American tendency to litigate is not for any
intent to be anti-social but purposed toward the end of building
a more cohesive and integrated society (unlike the class-structure
divisions endemic to Britain). When you're locked-away, interior
to class-society, then you might not be capable of seeing what is
going on, unless you've made the (Herculean) effort to break free
of those circumstances. Rather often what appears immediately to
be anti-social is later adjudicated as a necessary liberation, and
a requirement always to conform to arbitrary standards for "society"
can itself be oppressive, stultifying, and paradoxically anti-social.
Thus we may once again return to a re-examination of incidents from
the story of India's Independence and Mahatma Gandhi, himself who was
trained as a lawyer by the British universities and gave them a dose
of their own medicine.
There is no advantage to preferring "less" over "more" when we
are reviewing information, and the features of computer technologies
have rendered that problem of information management a moot point.
Nonetheless sometimes we may detect -- if only merely a whiff -- the
tireworn snobbish attitude that presumes longwinded tirades are not
appropriate for high society, where the "real" socializing occurs.
Instead, if you plan to rant and rave better do it in parliament.
Let's discuss the meaning of "hear" and "listen" versus "obey."
If you "hear" something then you can demonstrate the fact by relaying
what you heard back to a sender or another third party. The matter
of "listen" is more difficult, since this may entail the procedure
of understanding which involves aspects of judgment and discretion,
another can-of-worms. In any case neither "hear" nor "listen" mean
"obey" -- which is the nub of the problem here -- and yet the game
of Go continually reminds its players of a tri-state logic that has
not only a middle-ground but also the higher and lower grounds that
extend beyond the preliminary grounds previously supposed.
As for playing on IGS, your answer is simple: get a new ISP and
obtain a new account, or have a buddy mail you the account password
if necessary. "Rejoining a community" is problemmatic, since there
is no single individual who can determine whether you are accepted
by a community.
- regards
- jb
.
Eric Osman
>
> As for playing on IGS, your answer is simple: get a new ISP and
> obtain a new account, or have a buddy mail you the account password
> if necessary. "Rejoining a community" is problemmatic, since there
> is no single individual who can determine whether you are accepted
> by a community.
>
Tweet, could you please allow me usage of igs or let me know what
you expect from me.
To the writer of the above: No, buddy's mailing me passwords doesn't
help, since I can't get to the login prompt at all. Other isp
does work, I've tried it, but I don't tend to use it because my goal
is to be allowed back on igs, not to "sneak in".
As for your last statement, yes, there is a single individual who
can determine: tweet .
/Eric
Ketho of Davenant
>Tweet, could you please allow me usage of igs or let me know what
>you expect from me.
What if he just expects you to go away and he simply does not want anything
more to do with you? If this wasn't the case, don't you think you would have
recieved some response by now? You have admitted to disruptive behavior on IGS,
why in the world would any sane server administrator re-admit someone like you?
Just because its what _you_ want? The more you go on about this , Eric, the
more convinced I become that your "banning" was a very reasonable response to
protect the users at IGS.
Fu, Ren-Li
associated with other servers. It doesen't make sense -- what if, for
example, a pro player played a game on NNGS? Does that mean they would start
banning pro players?
The other reason I don't believe that IGS is banning people for talking
about or associating with other Go servers is this would be an illegal form
of censorship, and they'd get sued from all angles.
Long live IGS! :)
-frl
Fu, Ren-Li
other servers online. Maybe not one where I can get a game in 10 seconds,
but... Think of it this way.
I can change my IP address at will. And I can change my e-mail address at
will too. How is IGS gonna ban me? It would be pretty difficult. Not that
I'm daring IGS to ban me, but I question the validity of the action itself.
Hence I love IGS as a personal decision, not because IGS can lord any kind
of power over me -- not that it does.
Anyways, who wants to be a member of a server who retards thr development of
the American Go community? Wait a minute, is Tweet a 9p? Maybe we have some
clue as to why now. Pros don't want too much competition. :)
-frl
Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15302d6e67eb4cd8989756@news...
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:33:11 -0500, Brent Locher (brl...@core.com)
> said...
> > I have seen posting here on RGG by jb (aka jumangi) that nobody would
ever
> > get banned for posting to RGG. The official IGS line has been that one
gets
> > banned for their bahavior on the IGS server. Anything off line from IGS
> > would not be grounds for being banned. I think I have been denied
access to
> > IGS as of today. This is not surprising to me, but it does go contrary
to
> > stated positions here on RGG by (apparent) spokesmen for IGS here on
RGG.
> >
> > The verdict is out on whether I am entitled to a t-shirt or not, but it
is
> > clear that IGS will ban people that do not behave according to their
desires
> > (while off line)
> >
> > I tried in my post to factually explain why people were most likely
banned
> > from IGS. I would like to point out that some IGS spokesmen just
recently
> > made posts about how very difficult it is to get banned and that in the
> > history of IGS only a few people have ever been banned, and that it is
> > almost always because of their behavior while they are on IGS, not
because
> > of their off line behavior.
>
> Well... this just shows how little do these selt-appointed
> "spokesmen for IGS" know and how much attention we should pay to their
> babble - because this is what it is, for most part.
>
> The truth is - anybody can be banned from IGS for anything, and
> they are. For misnaming a protocol, for helping out another server, for
> complaining about ranking, for making silly moves, for writing emails, or
> for posting on RGG. Among others.
>
> The only thing we can do if we want to use IGS is to be careful
> what you say or write *anywhere* and hope our actions will not in some
> way irritate some IGS admin - cuz then its bye-bye IGS.
>
> By the way - sorry about you being denied access. I hope it will
> turn out to be a system glitch or something, and you'll be able to log
> back on.
>
> --
> ________________________________________
> -Bantari
> e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
> homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Fu, Ren-Li
A club on bay street with perhaps 50 members. A club in north york with
about 100 members.
I estimate from the number of Chinese friends I have made playing Go that
there are a minimum of 200 other Chinese people and 100 korean people around
Toronto who play Go.
I estimate from people I met on IGS that there ae about 50 people in toronto
who use IGS.
From these numbers and talks with people who run bookstores I estimte
approximately 75 other people who may be go players in toronto.
This all adds up to approximately 75+50+100+200+100+50+20 or aproximately
600 people. Now the toronto area I described holds about 2 million people -
If we add another 100 people for the outlying areas and increase to 3
million, I believe we have a reasonably accurate figure of aproximately 700
players per 3 million people, or about 1 in 5000.
So I think 1 in 5000 is the right number for Toronto, but then again Toronto
has a huge influx of immigrants from other countries. I've met pros here
before.
Good luck ^^
-frl
Eric Osman
> recieved some response by now? You have admitted to disruptive behavior on IGS,
> why in the world would any sane server administrator re-admit someone like you?
Because the disruptive behavior, although perhaps warranting punishment,
doesn't warrant banning forever. /Eric
Chris Linseman
people to play with.
Patrick G. Bridges
FR> I don't know if it's true if IGS is banning people simply for
FR> being associated with other servers. It doesen't make sense --
FR> what if, for example, a pro player played a game on NNGS? Does
FR> that mean they would start banning pro players?
Oh, no, they don't generally ban people for playing on other
servers. I'm not aware of anything of that sort. They've disabled some
accounts for people being administratively involved with NNGS (john
tromp's, for example), but there was a good bit of bad blood on the
whole NNGS/IGS issue which was somehow involved. *Shrug*
FR> The other reason I don't believe that IGS is banning people
FR> for talking about or associating with other Go servers is this
FR> would be an illegal form of censorship, and they'd get sued
FR> from all angles.
Again false. IGS as a private service has the right to allow who they
want on their servers. It's their right. Some people may not like how
they exercise their rights in this area, but legally, they can do and
do do whatever they want.