Staff

[John Vivirito]

Chris Oattes wrote:
> Joseph Price said the following on 01/06/08 02:53:
>>> I believe that a system whereby the irc council could instigate a 
>>> namespace wide ban first if they believe that an individual should be 
>>> k-lined. This would involve the person in question being banned from 
>>> every #*ubuntu* channel. This would have to be a decision that would not 
>>> be taken lightly (but then again, neither should be the decision to 
>>> request a k-line).
>> Whether or not I think this is a good idea, I do not believe it is
>> feasible without gms and some new bots/scripts/code. There are a *lot*
>> of #ubuntu-* irc channels, most we don't directly control, many which
>> don't appear on chanserv or channel listings... plus staff with auspex
>> shouldn't be using it for something like this.
> 
> What is "auspex"?
> 
> As I understand it, it is possible for group contacts to take control of 
> a channel (I do think it is a bad idea to do this, but it does show that 
> it is at least possible to implement the idea). An alternative is to 
> make a change to the "rules" stating that, although individual channels 
> can be run as the respective owners wish, there is an exception that if 
> the irc council (after a public dicussion) deems it necessary to issue a 
> namespace-wide ban, it should be implemented by every channel as soon as 
>   possible.
> 
> It may be a lot of work to get a ban set in every channel, but this 
> solution should only be used in cases that are extreme enough to warrant 
> that sort of effort; If people question whether it is too much effort to 
> remove a user from the namespace, is what they have done *really* bad 
> enough to require such an extreme step.
>> Now for the juicy bit...
>>
>> I don't think its a good idea. Banning someone in every single channel
>> is "making a point". Demonstrating our power. Its just over the top!
>> Rather than "making a point", I think we should "deal with the
>> situation". The former tends to aggravate the people on the other end to
>> bad situations, making things a whole lot worse.
> 
> If this is the case, isn't requesting staff to k-line someone 
> essentially the same thing (over the top), and the issue should be dealt 
> with by talking to people, rather than trying to get them kicked off the 
> network?
> 
> I don't necessarily think that my idea is the best solution to the 
> problem, but it is a potential solution. I would like to hear some 
> constructive criticism, and for people to think about other possible 
> solutions, rather than just directing complaints at staff.
> 
> Chris. (Seeker`)
> 
> 
> As I understand it, it is possible for group contacts to take control of 
> a channel (I do think it is a bad idea to do this, but it does show that 
> it is at least possible to implement the idea). An alternative is to 
> make a change to the "rules" stating that, although individual channels 
> can be run as the respective owners wish, there is an exception that if 
> the irc council (after a public dicussion) deems it necessary to issue a 
> namespace-wide ban, it should be implemented by every channel as soon as 
>   possible.

I think this is fine as most chan. contacts are ops.

 > Now for the juicy bit...
 > >
 > > I don't think its a good idea. Banning someone in every single channel
 > > is "making a point". Demonstrating our power. Its just over the top!
 > > Rather than "making a point", I think we should "deal with the
 > > situation". The former tends to aggravate the people on the other 
end to
 > > bad situations, making things a whole lot worse.

>> Now for the juicy bit...
>> > 
>> > I don't think its a good idea. Banning someone in every single channel
>> > is "making a point". Demonstrating our power. Its just over the top!
>> > Rather than "making a point", I think we should "deal with the
>> > situation". The former tends to aggravate the people on the other end to
>> > bad situations, making things a whole lot worse.
> 
> If this is the case, isn't requesting staff to k-line someone 
> essentially the same thing (over the top), and the issue should be dealt 
> with by talking to people, rather than trying to get them kicked off the 
> network?
> 
> I don't necessarily think that my idea is the best solution to the 
> problem, but it is a potential solution. I would like to hear some 
> constructive criticism, and for people to think about other possible 
> solutions, rather than just directing complaints at staff.
I dont see an issue banning someone that is caausing issues in #ubuntu 
to just ban him/her in #ubuntu however if he decides to do the same 
thing in #kubuntu we ban him in #kubuntu, and so forth. Its fairly rare 
that someone needs to be banned in all channels, it happens but not all 
that much that i have seen or have delt with.


-- 
Sincerely Yours,
     John Vivirito

https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito
Linux User# 414246

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20080601/cfdd9efa/attachment.pgp>