State of #ubuntu-offtopic

[Cody Somerville]

Melissa++

Few points though.

1. I think -offtopic started to degrade well before any policy changes.
2. In my understanding, we're still allowed to ban people from #ubuntu-ops -
if they do something wrong (ex. trolling).

Thanks,

Cody A.W. Somerville

On 1/24/07, Melissa Draper <melissa at meldraweb.com> wrote:
>
> John Vivirito wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> >> Jan Vancura wrote:
> >>
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>> One elegant way of solving this in hard to manage channels is to set
> >>>> them +m, and devoice misbehaving individuals. This is anonymous
> >>>> (Chanserv just removes voice, and noone will know which op did it).
> >>>>
> >> On one hand its good its anonymous ( people cant target an op for doing
> >> their job ). However, i do think that we cant expect people to appeal
> to
> >> the op who gave a ban/mute/telling off/warning if they don't know who
> it
> >> was.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> This system could be easily enhanced by setting ubotu or Ubugtu to
> voice
> >>>> anyone on join (perhaps except those that have been devoiced by an op
> >>>> before).
> >>>>
> >>>> Removing voice also looks a lot less harsh than a mute (which looks
> like
> >>>> a ban), and is a lot quieter (one line instead of 3).
> >>>>
> >> but you do get an extra 'person voiced' line for /each person who
> joins/.
> >>
> >> kk
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Just a suggestion. Have a look at #freenode-social (but don't have a
> >>>> look at the voicing mechanism, there.
> >>>>
> >> -- Karl Goetz User of gNewSense: Free as in Freedom -
> http://www.gnewsense.org Australian Ubuntu users team -
> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AustralianTeam Debian, The Universal Operating
> System - http://www.debian.org
> >> -- Ubuntu-irc mailing list Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
> >>
> >
> > I dont think an autovoice is best idea in an Ubuntu channel. its
> > different and will cause alot of un-needed questions and complaints
> > about it example "why is -offtopic the only channel that is autovoiced"/
> > our answer would be? um because one or 2 users are bad apples or are
> > known trolls? wouldnt that be a little overboard for a couple of
> > users?.Than if someone on the blacklist join you will have alot of
> > people asking "hey why isnt joe voiced than people start thinking that
> > we are discrimanating against certain users (we are not) but it will
> > look like that to users. I dont see why mutes and bans wont work. Its
> > less spam in the channel and it makes a point (misbehave you will be
> > muted/banned).
> > - --
> > GnomeFreak
> Personally, I don't think the process itself is the probelm. Our
> attitudes are. We don't need to change the process from that of kick/ban
> to a voice-devoice, as both do the same, are equally visible and will
> still cause arguments.
>
> Let's face it, it is our job to monitor the channel for misbehavior and
> deal with it as it comes. Currently, I believe, the problem is that
> we're not doing this. We've gotten scared of causing a reaction or
> become indifferent to the behavior itself (and sometimes participated in
> it). We've become ineffective.
>
> The issues:
>
> * We're too scared to ban someone, we're willing to let misbehavior
> pass, and hope another Op will deal with it, just so we don't have to
> argue with someone who comes into #ubuntu-ops to troll. Many people who
> come into #ubuntu-ops *know* why they've been banned. It's merely a game
> to them and the new object of the game becomes 'getting unbanned' as
> opposed to seeing how far they can go before getting banned.
>
> * Because we're now scared, we've gone soft. We're far too likely to
> unban a misbehaving user, just to make them shut the hell up. Arguments
> with trolling ban recipients can go on for hours with some people, and
> because we're now not supposed to remove people from #ubuntu-ops, and
> are supposed to leave dealing with banned individuals to other ops who
> were not the banning party, it's become a cumbersome process that we
> subconsciously avoid at all cost.
>
> * We've become indifferent to the trolling behavior of certain
> individuals. There are several long-time trolls in #ubuntu-offtopic, and
> we all know who at least some of them are. They seem innocent, naive and
> seem to get our sympathy. We let them get away with far too much, to the
> point where we snap at a petty point and the above two issues take hold.
> We need to be as firm with these people as we would be with someone who
> has just joined the channel for the first time 5 minutes ago -- but
> we're not doing this.
>
> Changing how we deal with trolling and misbehaving users isn't going to
> change how they react. De-voicing will *still* bring them into
> #ubuntu-ops, they'll still PM their comrades to shout to their defense,
> and they'll still be pains in the posterior.
>
> We need to deal with the real issues. Us.
>
> --
> Sincerely
> Melissa Draper
>
> http://www.meldraweb.com
>
> Phone: 0404 595 395
> (intl): +61 404 595 395
>
> P.O Box 1412
> Lavington, NSW 2641
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>



-- 


Firefox (www.getfirefox.com) -- A browser you can trust
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20070124/a81858df/attachment.html>