State of #ubuntu-offtopic

[Anthony Yarusso]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lorenzo J. Lucchini wrote:
> I believe that the current state of #ubuntu-offtopic isn't the
> best.
>
> Discussions about "!offtopic4offtopic" subject take place and
> almost invariably end up in heated arguments, and the operators
> often do very little until the situation is out of hands.
>
> Myself, I am very wary of taking actions in #ubuntu-offtopic,
> because I am almost scared by the user reactions that the too often
>  provoke. We have had an example just a few hours ago.
>
> In a general sense, I believe that it is good for #ubuntu-offtopic
> to be less strictly "guarded" than other channels, and I am all for
>  "closing an eye" on little things. However, right now I strongly
> feel we need to create a turning point.
>
> Thus I propose that, for a period of time, we enforce guidelines
> and policies in a much stricter fashion than we are currently doing
>  on average. * It is something very hard to follow discussions in
> #ubuntu-offtopic and to correctly identify the people who are
> misbehaving, so I propose that, after a "Discussion ends here,
> now!" warning (see the "!stop" factoid), people insisting should be
>  banned or muted immediately. * Discussions that fall into the
> realm of "!offtopic4offtopic" should be stopped as soon as
> possible, *before* they even start to become heated. * Even though
> the CoC and guidelines and "!offtopic4offtopic" already apply, we
> cannot realistically expect people to undergo a drastic change in
> operator behavior with no notice, so I believe we should make it
> clear in the channel topic that the policies will be applied more
> strictly that it was usual. * Bans, mutes and other actions do not
> need to be particularly long, but they need to be issued firmly and
> timely.
>
>
> I strongly believe that it is very important for all concerned
> operators to come to an agreement about this topic, and to act "in
> sync". Wide inconsistency of operator behavior is very likely, in
> my opinion, to have a very negative effect on the channel.
>
> For this reason, I ask that all concerned operators state their
> opinion on this matter, possibly with a "yes" or "no" vote (of
> course, such a black-and-white vote without discussion may be a bit
>  overboard, but I propose this since some discussion has already
> taken place on #ubuntu-ops).
>
> Only in a climate of agreement on the issue and mutual support
> among operators I believe what I have exposed can have a positive
> effect.
>
>
> by LjL ljlbox at tiscali.it
I was one of the folks talking about this in #ubuntu-ops earlier.
Essentially, I don't care much about the specifics of how we go about
it, but I think the #ubuntu-offtopic channel needs a firm nudge in the
right direction.  I don't know if any other channels are similar -
I'll leave that to those who frequent them.  In the past I've been
trying to go the "issuing lots of warnings" route, but can attest that
it doesn't work very well.  Meanwhile, issuing mutes/bans makes
someone whine about you for a while, but the channel is fine, so I for
one prefer that to letting the channel run rampant.  I'm not sure what
I think of jenda's idea yet.  It seems a bit different from what we
usually have in ubuntu namespace, but maybe that's exactly what would
make it effective...  I'd be up for giving it a shot, or the bot !stop
warning and then normal ban/muting - either way.  My summary: I do
think we need to work on getting that channel more sane, and I do
think we need to act as much together on that as possible, mostly so
people don't get any funny ideas (playing favorites, oh so-and-so's
here, we can get away with stuff with them, whatever).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFtYk56iO+5ByUi/QRAgXyAJ9VPUS5aBly2HdT/MVw/O+2/LDsoQCeIu+m
ILumsu7qFpD2PSPU1krm3gg=
=5Gdz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----