IRC Guidelines

[Jan Claeys]

Op zondag 09-08-2009 om 00:57 uur [tijdzone -0500], schreef Michael
Lustfield:
> > Every word that somebody might perceive as "swearing" might be perceived
> > exactly the opposite by others...
> 
> That's one of the reasons I see some of these words as inappropriate in
> #ubuntu* channels. If it's controversial at all, it's supposed to be
> avoided.

But you can't just ban people because they use words that have no
negative (or maybe even a positive) meaning for them.  They will think
you're nuts.  ;-)

Of course pointing out that this might be offensive to some people is
okay, and if people start to use it *on purpose* to offend then they
deserve to be kicked/banned.  But not if they accidentally use it
because it's a common expression in their daily life.


> > I think it's more important in what context on IRC words are used; e.g.
> > if they are used explicitly to insult people, or if they are used
> > excessively, that might be a reason to kick/ban.  
> 
> The opinion of only reacting to excessively seems like a bad idea to
> me. I think the no matter what, bad language should be reacted to.

But what is bad language?  What is bad in your eyes might be innocent in
other's eyes, and vice versa.

Also, I don't say we can't explain possibly offensive words, but if
people don't do things on purpose to hurt, it's much better to just talk
to them.  Even if they don't really agree.

>  Even
> if it's just a private message explaining that it's not ok. If they
> don't listen then it escalates just as any other situation.

If they start to do things on purpose because they know it might hurt
others, then things are different.  In most cases this sort of behaviour
is quite obvious.


> One thing I don't want to see happening though is this: A user is
> warned repeatedly for offensive language but then kicked for harmless.
> I believe that a warning/silence/removal/kick/ban should only happen
> on offensive words. I've seen this happen more than once. (Yes, I'm one
> of them.)

Well, I'm pretty laid-back as an oper, so people have clearly been
trolling before I kick/ban...


> > [1] http://www.freebase.com/view/en/hell_brewery_the_beer_from_hell

> As a reply to that link:

To be clear, that brewery is located in a Slovakian place called Banská
Štiavnica, where "Hell" seems to be a common family name:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bansk%C3%A1_%C5%A0tiavnica#Famous_people>

So it has nothing to do with the English word "hell" really.


> http://ubuntusatanic.org/
> Does that mean this is just fine and great too?

I guess some people would object against the semi-naked pictures and/or
some of the religious (and/or pseudo-religious) symbols used...

Obviously they cater to a niche market of certain Ubuntu users.

> In reality, that may be fine and great but I have a hard time seeing
> many being ok with the idea of that existing. It's without a doubt
> controversial. In my head, it's just as controversial as the Christian
> Edition.

Well, to me the Christian and Muslim editions are fine.

As long as a special-purpose remix is respectful to others, and doesn't
include hate speech and such, I have no problem with them.

So I don't see anything controversial from my PoV...


-- 
Jan Claeys