Re: [Fgs-bs] F*ETURE request

[Desired Username]

--- tps12 <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Right.  I was thinking of a hierarchy like this:
> >
> > 1) Maturely ignoring
> > 2) Censoring
> > 3) Banning
> >
> > But since a Gojo hit doesn't actually ban whereas
> a
> > censor really does censor (if only for one
> person),
> > maybe 2 and 3 should be reversed.
> 
> Okay, I'm lost. You mean banning from games, right?
> Can't we just rely on
> people being silenced if they get hit with enough
> bad gojo? Although, then
> I foresee (and really, no idea what's inspiring this
> scenario):
> 
> 4) registering many accounts to gojify one's enemies
> 5) retaliation in kind
> 6) scripted retaliation
> 7) "I'm leaving FGS forever."
> 8) more retaliation
> 9) ???
> 10) PROFIT!!
> 
> I lost my point. Ah, here it is: is there a problem
> with gojo (other than
> the fact that it's vapor) that requires us to add
> kibitz bans? If so, how
> can we change our concept of gojo to account for
> that?

1) I think the registering many accounts problem can
be solved by requiring a minimum amount of games
played in order to gojofy.  Not games won, just games
played (to completion, resignations don't count
towards this).

2) When you gojohit someone, you can still see them
talking, they (and you) are just incrementally more
likely to be banned.  If you are being stalked, that's
not enough.  You want to be able to censor if you
don't have the emotional strength to simply ignore. 
Or if you just don't like someone but don't want them
banned from a room or game.

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