Re: [Fgs-bs] F*ETURE request

[Desired Username]

--- tps12 <address@hidden> wrote:
> Desired Username wrote:
> > 1) How would access be controlled?  The gamers? 
> > Presumably everyone would be able to read the
> > "official" commentary.  And the officials able to
> read
> > the questions in the temp?  No, questions about
> that
> > game should be visible in the SGF for later
> > downloading.  This sounds like the shout/gshout
> > distinction.  Hard to enforce.
> 
> What the heck is gshout? Anyway, point taken.

"Go-related shout".  I have no idea how that is
supposed to be enforced.  I do like your idea of
channels, though.  And if we had pro games, they'd be
perfect (though maybe that already works
somehow--haven't their been pro games "rebroadcast" on
KGS?)  

> > 3) This reminds me.  Someone who is censored by
> > another user shouldn't be able to comment in that
> > person's games, either.
> 
> Okay, so censor lists need to be stored server-side.
> This relates to 
> buddy lists...clients should let censor lists stay
> private, i.e., not be 
> stored on or ever sent to the server. Which means
> you can *only* ban 
> certain kibitzers if you're willing to let the Evil
> Admins know about 
> it. 

Hm, yeah.  I guess I don't have a problem with this. 
Morally speaking, it SHOULD be more onerous to censor
someone than to just be their buddy.

>Also, there's an issue of conflict. If A and B
> play a game, and A 
> has censored B's mentor C, is it fair to prevent C
> from commenting on 
> the game of his pupil?

Well, he could always comment on it later.  But in
general, you are right.  What if there were separate
channels for each player and they got only their own
channels saved in the SGF?  This is perhaps going
above and beyond the call of duty on the part of the
censorship code.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com