Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"Bobby is the finest Chess player this country ever produced. His memory for the moves, his brilliance in dreaming up combinations, and his fierce determination to win are uncanny" (John Collins)
Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 13 of 13
This thread is meant as a replacement for the other thread that got deleted. In retrospect, the thread should of probably been edited. This thread is to discuss what happened, and for people to express what they would want to see as what being banned from IAGO is. Not that being banned is meant to be done much, but it is there. In this, the person in question won't be discussed. The idea is to focus on the standards for banning, rather than a particular case.
First, let me lay out how I have seen it. As I see it, what to be banned from IAGO means is that IAGO treats whatever is banned as not existing. The entity is not to be found anywhere in IAGO related material. Whatever is banned is also expected to treat IAGO the same, totally ignoring IAGO and acting as it doesn't exist.
Again, what being banned is not:
1. It doesn't mean that IAGO discusses the entity in any manner. It doesn't get into a feud with the banned entity or engage it in conversations with that entity.
2. It doesn't mean the entity would necessarily be banned from IAGO forever. If things change, then it is possible for the entity to be admitted back into IAGO. Of course, there may be cases for a lifetime ban, but that is another issue.
3. It doesn't mean IAGO will warn the world about said entity. If approached, IAGO will merely said said entity has been banned from IAGO. On a personal level, the why for the ban MAY be discussed, but such discussions will not occur in a public setting.
What being banned means:
1. The banned entity, person, game, organization, etc... is considered from IAGO's standpoint as not existing. IAGO knows nothing about it, and has no comment about it.
2. All related discussions regarding the banned entity will be removed from IAGO or censored, when possible. In cases where such is impossible to do, then it is possibly left behind will be locked and not left for further discussions.
3. Any work by or about said entity will be removed from IAGO, when possible. This means their game won't be found in the IAGO Clubhouse database, up for Hall of Fame or any other awards, or made mention of in any way.
This is my take on it. Feel free to comment in general what you would see being banned mean. If you want it different, please feel free to state so. As I see it, the objective here is to drive away anything that would drag and be counterproductive to engage in, not too engage in any sort of feuds. Idea is also to avoid any possible lawsuits.
The criterion for being banned will need to be discussed and agreed to, and such not handled lightly. IAGO leadership will decide who is or is not banned. Such will need to be worked on and decided upon.
2. All related discussions regarding the banned entity will be removed from IAGO or censored, when possible. In cases where such is impossible to do, then it is possibly left behind will be locked and not left for further discussions.
This is unbelivable. I thought you were a libertarian. Why is it that you want to run your organization (which is a government in miniature) so completely differently from how you want to run a state?
If you wrote anything in the previous thread, be aware that I didn't get time to read it before you deleted it.
1. It doesn't mean that IAGO discusses the entity in any manner. It doesn't get into a feud with the banned entity or engage it in conversations with that entity.
Not by itself, maybe? But that you have been dragged into the feud is plain as the day.
Im a bit baffled as to why peoples political affiliations real or imagined keep coming up. It has no bearing on how IAGO should be run.
Richards’s position is understandable. I see no problem banning someone for inappropriate conduct such as obscenity, veiled or open insults etc… and removing all negative materials relating to them from the group including other member’s opinions of that person. Should we allow a banned member to have their enemies use IAGO as a platform to slander them? If a person is not allowed to defend themselves in the forums then we should not be speaking of them.
Posts that are hostile, rude, or insulting garner an uncomfortable atmosphere and will stop people from participating here keeping IAGO a small and unproductive group. Remember that the right to swing your fist stops far before it reaches another persons face.
With all that said I have yet to see IAGO’s articles. The group’s policies and structure including any board members should be available onsite so everyone knows what is considered appropriate conduct. There is already plenty about what kinds of games are appropriate but we are missing the bylaws. I would like to see this worked on and in an open fashion so all members can vioce thier opionions.
That is not what Richard Hutnik has suggested. He has suggested a complete "memory hole" ban, where all traces of their existence be removed from record, including games they may have made. See point one under "what being banned means", dralius.
This is just nuts. This is not how a sane organization is run. In a real organization, if you're banned, you lose privileges associated with membership, and nothing else.
I'm mentioning Richard Hutnik's stated political preference in an attempt to appeal to his values.
But really, these attempts to keep IAGO from being a small and unproductive group have backfired immensely. To recap what I said in the thread that got deleted: Richard Hutnik got involved in the long-standing Mark Steere vs. Ralf Gering flame war, by accidentally using Steere's nazi nickname for Gering. Now he's a party in the conflict, and wants to ban Gering. He does this in the usual way by making a post here and asking for objections. When there are, he deletes it!When I wonder if I'm even allowed to write about this, I know it's gone too far.
Count me out as well.
vintermann It seems you feel that your opinion was not only ignored but silenced. I also saw those that felt the banning was appropriate so I don’t think you were ignored. Your opinion not being available for public consumption is another matter.
Sorry you’re leaving over an incident that does not need to repeat itself. I hope your reading this and will reconsider since leaving will neither fix policy issues nor help you be heard. That can only be accomplished through discussion and setting a transparent and unambiguous policy so that when an issue arises we won’t need to replay what has happened.
Gentlemen, let me step in here. Because this specific controversy is causing problems beyond what it should, I'm getting involved a little before I intended. I had a discussion with Rich, and am taking over as moderator. The banning issue has forced me to jump in a little early. I will put up a general policy statement reasonably soon, but I can tell you that the policy on bans has been revised.
Should any person or group be banned, it will be for breaking a policy or policies already known. This means specifically that, during the period of any ban, reference to the banned person or group will not be allowed onsite. Anything existing before [or after] a ban will be left strictly alone. I oppose destroying information.
Banning and censorship are troublesome topics. Any organization needs to protect itself. IAGO is an organization, loose as it is now, and should not allow itself be dragged into foolish controversies, which is what I see happening. Since Rich is, unfortunately, part of this controversy now, I'm taking over as moderator. I would like to continue the discussion, and would hope that Vintermann and others who have expressed only dissatisfaction so far will offer something constructive.
For the moment, my policy is simple. You will have to work to get banned; banishment should always be the very last resort. The basis of any policy for this site will be respect. Sadly, I must make a certain minimal level of respect an obligation rather than allowing it to be a naturally-expressed virtue.
- Comments will address ideas, not people; no "hitting".
- Language should be that deemed acceptable in "mixed company". Half the people who play these games are young. Respect them and their parents, please.
Expect this to expand to a more comprehensive policy. I invite comments.
Joe Joyce
Hello everyone.
Joe will be assuming moderator duties on here. However, I feel I should lay out the way I see things being, the purpose of IAGO, and how things will go down, due to my views being discussed.
First, as I see it, IAGO is to act as a mix of a trade organization and sports federation, whose job it is, is to advance the cause of abstract strategy games. The measure of its success is an increase in revenues to this area, and also an increase in popularity. This is the measure, and that is what it is supposed to do. I expect it to eventually act in a degree of authority and doing what it must. This could even result in it booting me out, if that is deemed the best course of action. Of course, the desire is not to boot anyone out, but to have things advanced. But such could be needed. Again, this could mean that I lose a voice, if I prove to be problematic. And I will make sure I step down and go away, if needed.
IAGO is on its way, based on the paperwork done by lawyer, to become a non-profit corporation with a board of directors and management. IAGO is meant to be a professional organization, complete with the need to do accounting and filing reports to the U.S government. In the works will be full tax exempt status. Again, this is serious business. IAGO is not some sort of Yahoo group or club, which treats things lightly, and is up to every bit of being flippant or willy-nilly. It certainly isn't meant to be platform for myself to pitch my view of the world, and as a means of making myself out to be an uberman, and worshiped. I have no interest in having a set of followers. I want things to be professional here. IAGO to act as a caretaker over the genre of abstract strategy games. And this isn't just myself.
There is going to be times where IAGO now will be on the despotic side. This is simply because there aren't enough voices speaking into here, and willing to act to do things, to advance things. I have found myself having to be a despot as a result. It isn't a position I am comfortable with at all, but it is there. Without this, there wouldn't be a drive to get much done. Of course, this needs to change, to be more universal, but it is there. You need someone boldly driving direction. This is where I have had to step in. Until we get a legal structure in place full, where you can actually have paying members, and a member congress that elects people, the default position will end up despotic. People on the advisory boards and steering committees of IAGO had agreed to this. But, my hope is that this will change. It isn't going to be every and any person having the same say, but a means by which things can be democratically reached.
Ok, onto my political views. People who happen to read the chess variant people see myself acting libertarian in regards to the future of chess. I do believe this is needed. This coming together is needed. I am arguably libertarian-centrist, and supported Ron Paul the past election. This is more out of lack of faith in government. But, it also has to deal with fact people, as citizens, are forced to live under the rule of others. Because of this, their freedoms need to be respected. However, being involved in IAGO is a matter of choice, and not required. People don't need to be here. However, if they choose to be involved, then there needs to be standards that are enforced, and IAGO looked after. The idea is to act as much like Mr. Rogers when possible. However, when dealing with people who are hostile, measures would be taken to deal with it. Also, as IAGO grows in clout, it will start calling some shots. This goes with the territory. And IAGO will face times where people who doubt IAGO, and treat it with contempt, will be ignored.
By the way, at the core, I would like the right view of the center to be respected, and decisions to be made based upon the input of many, and very little with myself driving things. So, you will so a bit "libertarian" there. But I also believe, above all, the ends IAGO is after, is what matters most. I also believe all forms of governance, even right down to a state of being despotic, can work. What I don't want to have happen here, though, is what has been see with different game organizations, where petty power grabs ruin things, or there are lawsuits flying about. Just the right decision, and people generally accept and work with what the decision of IAGO is, even if everyone groans in doing it, they know it has to be done. IAGO is supposed to belong to the abstract strategy game community after all. Of course, those who step up and do, will have say.
So, on this note, I will look to be more in the background. Your input is requested, however. The idea is to make the best decisions, not glory in being right. And note, all this is subject to change, as per determined by leadership. Glad to see people are concerned.
By the way, the rules of governance and structure will need to be worked on over time. These should be in place, so that IAGO continues with or without me. They aren't formally written down yet, but will look to be over time.
I agree IAGO does have to be run professionally if it intends to get respect from the gaming community and bring others into that community. If this means banning inappropriate behavior, then IAGO should, with caution, do so.
I don't know exactly why the individual was banned, but I do think that some lively discussions with a broad spectrum of views have been welcomed at this forum. Having said that, no one should get personal (read juvenile) when discussing problems and issues.
I do think that the person who is banned should be warned first by informing them of exactly what was inappropriate. Edit their comments by all means, but perhaps they should have the right to appeal the decision? In this case, the details of the ban might be circulated to a committee for a second opinion?
The individual in question was offered an olive branch when he first started to get hostile in the BGG Geeklist on the IAGO Hall of Fame. Upon being asked to "play nice" and willing to have him offer input, the individual proceeded to be even more hostile in the list, pretty much calling the people involved in the Hall of Fame induction process stupid. Debate was welcomed, but not when it turns into a chance to insult people. Due to the past experiences, that is why I made the judgment call regarding a ban. The ban wasn't meant to be permanent, bu may result that way. The individual in question was asked to ignore IAGO and IAGO ignore them. The said individual also failed to remove comments I had in regards to my heated discussion with Mark, and used it as ammo against Mark. Apparently, telling the said individual to go away was effective to get them to stop.
What you see here is what happens when one person ends up acting as a "chief cook and bottle washer" and attempts to make all the decisions, without known guidelines laid out. It isn't handled in the best manner. This is why Joe is now the editor here, and standards will be arrived at and made know. Joe will be working on this.
I didn't take any delight in having this happen, but it did. The said person was discussed with the leadership of IAGO, and the agreement, on the most part, was that they were to be avoided.
David, thank you for your comments. I appreciate very much both what you said and how you said it. If all conversation onsite were as civil and directed to the issue as yours, we would not be having this particular conversation. You raise important points. I will try to answer them.
I had been involved in IAGO for some months when the situation we are discussing first blew up. As I was watching it from the sidelines, I can attest that Rich is substantially correct in this, and the person banned merited it. However, I was unhappy with how the situation proceeded, and exactly how it was resolved. Thus my involvement, and taking over as moderator. Brief qualification: I'm an editor of The Chess Variant Pages [chessvariants.org]. The position here I see as substantially the same.
I will do my best to be fair, objective, and honest. I will also establish rules and policies to govern the conversations here. This is an IAGO website, and the purpose is to promote abstract strategy games. Rules will be based on respect. In general:
- Comments will address ideas, not people; no "hitting".
- Language should be that deemed acceptable in "mixed company". Half the people who play these games are young. Respect them and their parents, please.
- Discussions should remain on topic. Wandering or off-topic posts may be subject to editing.
Now to the general topic of bans. I had extensive experience in first-line union-management negotiations in my career, as management. I generally oppose "firing" anyone; there's too much time and effort invested by too many people to make this an attractive option. It's a complete waste of a resource, and should only be done when there is no value left. It's debatable how this attitude affected my career [I retired from the US Postal Service as an EAS17], but I think it's a good foundation for a policy on bans.
One thing I will not do is to be too specific; there lies madness. Guidelines, good will, and good sense can take most of us where we want to go. IAGO is too new to be anything other than flexible. For those who cannot understand that, here's the start of my policy:
- A person or group may be banned for breaking rules and/or policies of this site.
- A banning will be announced by a public statement here in the forum. That statement will contain a reason why a ban was imposed.
- Bans will last as long as the conditions over which they were imposed last. They are not permanent.
- Any discussions to remove a ban must take place privately.
- I will make every reasonable attempt to mitigate the circumstances that may lead to a ban. This may include both public and private messages.
- A record of all messages, public and private, will be kept.
This is not the final policy. It is still evolving and will be changed as necessary. It is an interim guide, until IAGO grows large enough to create and maintain such official policies as are required here.
One final word. The purpose of IAGO is to encourage gaming, not to ban people. We expect and hope for lively discourse. We are just requiring it be civil. Now, let's talk about gaming.
As always, comments are welcome and invited.
Joe Joyce
Thanks Joe. And thanks Richard. The policy is shaping up well. The devil will be in the detail I expect. For instance, in 'the rules'. But the initial direction looks promising. IAGO is by and large well operated and I think every effort should be made by those of us who benefit form its existence (myself included) to exhibit and encourage a supportive environment. So the policy, if carefully articulated, will assist in this by giving a clear set of behavior guidelines, rather than hinder free speech and stifle dissenting views.
Again, thanks for the work guys.
Thanks for the reply David. Joe will be implementing things here, and I will be stepping back more. What you witnesses was the lack of standards declared ahead of time, and myself trying to do too much. This has resulted in other shortcomings that had happened. My hope is this fix things, and we have harmony as well.
Ok, well I am off to sleep.
1 to 13 of 13