IRC Guidelines

John Vivirito gnomefreak at gmail.com
Thu Aug 13 14:22:06 UTC 2009


On 08/11/2009 09:04 PM, Jan Claeys wrote:
> 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.
This is why we warn them.
> 
> 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...
Dont we always warn before removing/banning/muting?

>> 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.

The problem here is we dont allow any religious topics in
our channels, whether it is in #ubuntu or
#ubuntu-offtopic ect...
So i dont really see how the satanic/or what not versions
would have anything to do with it unless they are describing a
picture on the site.
-- 
Sincerely Yours,
    John Vivirito

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

"How can i get lost, if i have no where to go"
    -- Metallica from Unforgiven III

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20090813/123a68be/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list