KGS Worst AdminOrAssistant
Table of contents |
Background
Just as in the real world, there are good apples and bad apples, there's bound to be good admin/assistant and bad admin/assistant. It's a sad fact that not all people can handle "power". Since there's a page that awards "BEST" admin/assitant to recognize the work of some wonderful admin/assistant, there should be a page that also shows the "not-so-pretty" half of some of the people that has been entrusted to administrate our beloved KGS server.
In this regard, clueless as i am in wiki-editing, i took on the effort of starting this page. Why now? I've been an user in KGS for like 5 years now. Why start now? Well, you see, i had my shares of disagreement with a few admin, especially during the introduction of English Chat Room. But of course that was to no avail. After that period, i've decided that it's not really worth the aggravation. Once the admin has decided, we users don't really have any say in it, right? Well, a fresh encounter with an old "buddy" admin of mine, recently had me thinking again. KGS is like a home to me, as i'm sure that many KGS users will say the same. So if we don't even bother to try to help shape it into a better place, who will?
Why not just email the "recommended" admin@igoweb.org , some might say. Most user who have walked this path will probably tell you the same thing. Sure, they're corteous, and will reply your email. But after some back and forth correspondence, most of the time you probably will feel as if you were having a discussion with a brickwall. As one user once observed, "Have you ever see any instance where an active admin/assistant comes out and said -that admin/assistant MIGHT have been wrong/mishandled the issue/overreacted?-".
Hopefully, by the creation of this page, there will be some recognition about "questionable" work of some admin that might lead to better and clearer standards for admins in doing their job.
In that spirit, I'm going to start this page by nominating a dear "friend" of mine, BigDoug. So BigDoug, here's to you, my friend.
--NoSide
cdude: Can we vote against the nominees too? I find that KGS admins (including BigDoug) are effective at reducing unpleasant chatter and do it with a sense of humor and tolerance. And yes, that includes telling _me_ to be quiet. This is very different from the arbitrary and reckless booting that takes place on IGS, or the incessant spam at Yahoo.__
Thad: Actually if BigDoug has his way, KGS will become a lot more like IGS. See the comment I added to his name.__
Noside : Hardly consistent with the purpose that i started this page with :) Been a while since i checked this page. I wonder whether the admins/assistants posting nominations below are for real. It certainly looks as if someone (or somepeople) are trying very hard to make this page looks like a joke. I wonder why :) Oh and by the way, i've removed bigdoug's nomination of himself (regardless whether it's the real bigdoug's posting or not), since if one admin/assistant feels that him/herself is the worst admin/assistant, he/she should just resign instead of posting here. Logical, right? :) __
IanDavis: I'm afraid it isn't. BigDoug has as much right to vote as you have. I'm reinstating his democratic rights.
Noside : Well, if you could give me one good reason why an admin who feels he/herself is the worst admin shouldn't resign his position (instead of nominating here), then i'd be happy to receive his nomination. Besides, you're not supposed to cast a vote using other people's name :)
sigh: No matter how good the admins are, there will always be a worst one. If we made this a game of weakest link by eliminating the worst admin one by one then there would be no admins left. Anyone should be able to vote for themselves, and just because they think all the other admins are better doesn't mean they think they are bad enough to have to resign.
How this works
Please submit your KGS nick when you vote.
I would like this page to be transparent. If you feel you have a valid complaint against an admin/assistant, there shouldn't be a need for you to be anonymous. KGS isn't really run by a Gestapo-inspired admins, so there shouldn't be any repercussion even if you post your KGS nick here when you nominate. So if you don't dare to come out and say it outright, then don't bother. This probably will discourage people from posting, but in the long run i feel this will be more beneficial as to give more credibility.
You don't have to actually feel YOU've been wronged by an admin/assistant to qualify you to vote. Even if you only observed and disagree with an admin/assistant conduct, feel free to cast your vote here.
To nominate a new admin/assistant, simply add the new nominations in the nomination tab.
To add your vote to an existing nomination, add your KGS-NICK in the nominator list.
--Noside
A voice of Reason
I want to make it clear that i never intended this page to be an attack of any admin or assistants as A PERSON. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who'll vouch for the people who're nominated here as "good person".
I intended this page to be a page where KGS users can say "I think A or B is doing a bad job at being an admin/assistant". So far, users really have no place to channel this opinion. (and please, none of that "you could just say it to an admin". We all know how well that works :P). This is why I insisted that one must use his KGS nick to nominate, as anonymity would be detrimental to the purpose of this page
I don't really see what's wrong with the existence of this page, and even less why it was described as "THIS SORT OF PAGE HAS NO PLACE ON SL."
Finally, let me quote Arno on what he thinks about SL: ""I don't understand what people are fighting about. SL is a large sandbox, in fact, it is so large some people mistake it for a beach. What I'm trying to say is that everyone can build his own sandcastle here. I don't understand why certain pages are a threat. Let them have their sandcastle, and you can have yours. And where your pages intersect be respectful and share alike (e.g. like on the liberty page which gives room to both meanings of the term). I don't see an issue that can not be sorted out.""
In this spirit, I've put back the Nominations below.
--NoSide
egb - considered reasons for the nomination are potentially a great help to both the nominee and other nominators - the objective being to improve admin ?
I think they usually do a great job. It can be difficult to accept that, at times, one does not do as good a job as one would wish....
Nominations
1. BigDoug (there is really nothing big about him....nothing)
Nominated by : Noside
Votes : Noside, RetroGen, BigDoug, DangoMouse, olczyk
Thad:A few days ago, I was on CyberOro watching progames. I was also on KGS. I asked ( in the EGR ) whether anyone knew what the game that Cho Chikun was playing on Oro. There were some people who tried to help, and some people who were rude. I started a conversation with the helpfull people and ignored the rude ones. At which point BigDoug chimed and told me to stop trolling, and that CyberOro was not on topic there.
I cannot imagine an IRC baseball chat channel where a person asking who the Dodgers are playing tonight, is told he is off topic. BTW the game was the final round of the preliminary tournament for Meijin.
2. jyem
Nominated by : Medice
Jyem is not the only person at fault with my complaint; I've only chosen to vote for Jyem because the room policy for the EGR is found at igoweb.org/~jyem. I feel that the reasons for warnings are simply getting out of hand (this is not to imply that their usually are logical reasons). People are daily, maybe hourly warned for talking about something that might offend a particular admin, regardless of whether the general population of the room is interested in the subject. Upon talking via PM with Nyanjilla, another admin, he simply stated "Use common sense". Common sense is something that is applicable when you are talking about swearing, offensive language, and the like, but how is it common sense to regulate conversations based on a particular admin's preferences?
Talking about KGS policy, current events, and many more topics have been prohibited in the EGR from time to time. To me it is silly to ban this type of conversation. If I were to make my own GO server, I would allow freedom of speech, possibly restricting on sex-related conversation, swearing, and common areas of "taboo" -- not for friendly conversation.
But this is not my GO Server. I don't make the rules. But why not state what can be banned in the KGS policy? Having a subjective set of rules might be alright, but they need to be more clearly defined because there are simply too many biases of admins on this server. I am not the only one on KGS that becomes annoyed when our conversation is restricted, when we are not doing ANYTHING that has been restricted in the KGS Policies.
Most of all, when asked about these kinds of issues, an admin should respond to you and try to help the situation. Not just ban you from the server or ignore you.
As quoted from Nyjilla today, people that don't like the KGS admins or the KGS policy shouldn't try to make things better... They should "just drop it".
Votes : glue, Werfeus, RetroGen, jramon, SlickShot
3. medice
Nominated by : Jyem, Werfeus, hihiou?
4. ZeroKun
Nominated by : BigDoug
5. Celila
Nominated by : Suvi
6. Suvi
Nominated by : Celila
Votes : Lacour Nezumi? flush fido? Assu? rubik Kurukuru? willsgames plinkzz Zp? jer? chwinG? jun
7. glue
Nominated by : owl
Votes : Zazie
8. owl
Nominated by : glue Nomination supported by minismurf
9. javaness
Nominated by : Drimgere
Votes : Willsgames Javaness
10. Igobot?
Nominated by : tesuji
11. Nyanjilla
Frequently bans without warning.
12. DrStraw
this dude just loves to boot people for absolutely no reason. Signed, Noquar