general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave

[Terence Simpson]

Lorenzo J. Lucchini wrote:
> On Monday 15 February 2010 08:51:59 Michael Lustfield wrote:
>   
>> Isn't there @mark in the Bantracker that would suffice perfectly for
>> this? Not only inform other ops but also give detail in the ban logs if
>> a ban does come up. That's what my impression of @mark was for.
>>     
>
> Actually @mark was introduced to file bantracker comments for things that did 
> NOT result in a ban. Specifically, I wanted it badly in order to mark 
> discussions with banned people in #ubuntu-ops, so that other ops could look 
> them up easily at the next appeal.
>
> To comment on actual bans, you go to the bantracker website and comment on the 
> ban entry directly (or I think there is also a function to do it from IRC 
> now, but I don't know the syntax).
>   
It's the "@comment" command: /msg ubottu comment <id> some comment here
If you leave out the comment it will retrieve the comments for that ID,
rather than adding one.

You can see all the commands available with: /msg ubottu list Bantracker
and get a short usage message with: /msg ubottu help @command
(replacing 'command' with the command you want help with)
> I know it's a little more work, but it's worthwhile doing, as simply @mark'ing 
> with a comment of "The ban just above [...]" just makes things confusing, 
> when it was introduced to make them *less* confusing...
>   
As it happens, we are working on giving the bot the ability to /msg an
op, after a ban or kick, giving the ID of the "event". Then one can
easily use the @comment command without having to lookup the ban ID,
which you can do with @bansearch.
> by LjL
> ljl at ubuntu.com
>   
Terence Simpson (tsimpson)