Re: [Fgs-bs] F*ETURE request

[Desired Username]

I was just about to agree, but now I'm not so sure. 
On the one hand, a "game channel" is just like another
room, anyone (not banned) should be free to talk. 
OTOH, it's a "game channel" created by the two
players, so they should be able to decide the rules.

I guess if the person was being TRULY annoying, they
could get gojoed off the game (which was probably what
you were saying).  If they weren't banned but a player
didn't want to see their comments, they could censor
that person locally (that is, in their client) before
viewing the SGF.

--- tps12 <address@hidden> wrote:
> Gotcha. I don't think a single person should be able
> to prevent somebody
> from speaking in their games. That's a community
> decision, after all.
> 
> > But....
> >
> > Let me come at this another way.
> >
> > When I censor someone, what I'm doing is saying "I
> > don't care about the rest of you, but I want to
> ignore
> > this person."  It's a personal decision (a
> personal
> > FREEDOM, you might say).
> >
> > When I hit their gojo, I'm saying something
> different.
> >  Now I'm saying "I don't want this person in this
> > room."  In a way, it isn't about me at all.   I'm
> > making a (small piece of a) community-level
> decision.
> >
> >
> > I think the first, censoring, is a less drastic
> > action.  For one thing, it doesn't affect the
> censored
> > person at all.  IMO, people should try
> (individually)
> > censoring before voting to ban.  And a stalkee
> should
> > always have the option of censoring someone they
> think
> > is bothering them.
> >
> > I just realized that maybe this is a semantic
> error.
> > When I say "censor", I mean "/ignore".
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fgs-bs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fgs-bs


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