RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

[Rohan Dhruva]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<joerlend.schinstad at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2014 02:00, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You say that that the ops were calm and mature, which is again biased
>
>
> Pardon? I didn't have any kind of preconception at all. I simply reviewed
> the evidence, took notice of the fact that you kept hammering on with
> abusive language which was not returned in any way.
>
> rohan --->  k1l: there, more evidence of you being a total douchebag jerk. i
> did *nothing* in #ubuntu
> rohan --->  k1l: this is exactly what a dictator does, and if rustles your
> german ex-nazi jimmies, it's your problem -- don't take it out on people in
> IRC channels
> k1l --->  lrohan: enough of that insulting. that is not making your ban be
> lifted.
> rohan --->  k1l: you are the one who is being insulting -- i did nothing in
> #ubuntu, and yet i am banned because you decide to take offence over nothing
> rohan ---> ikonia, k1l -- both of you really need to grow up. IRC was around
> much before you kids came in and ruined it
> rohan --->  if you want to be so silly, go work on Yahoo! Answers forums
> k1l --->  rohan: its enough. please come back in a week if you want the ban
> to be lifted
> rohan --->  k1l: i don't give a shit about your stupid ban, you're obviously
> someone with nothing better to do than overuse your moderator powers
>
> It's not bias to form an opinion after reviewing evidence, regardless of
> who's involved. You were being abusive and
>

If you choose to resort to pasting snippets out of the irc backlog,
you should have the fairness to paste what happened before that. I was
incensed *after* being banned in #ubuntu, *not* before. In fact, if
you read right about 10 lines above your paste, you'll see how k1l was
being unreasonable with adamcunnington. And even more so with me, by
banning me for absolutely no reason. Before that, I believe I was
quite civil (except calling someone a baby for doing what I thought
constituted babyish behaviour).

>From the logs, it is clear and obvious that k1l took personal offence
to certain words, as at least one other user in the channel agrees.
Allowing the same person to go ahead and ban you is an obvious
conflict of interest.

>>
>> To draw an analogy, if you have an argument with another person, would
>> go to that person's house and change the locks? That's how irrational
>> the ban seems to me.
>
>
> That analogy doesn't make sense. #Ubuntu is not a private residence or even
> a general chatroom. It is a technical help channel, comparable to a customer
> support service or perhaps a workshop. If you're being disruptive,
> preventing people from doing what they're there to do, then it makes perfect
> sense that you'll be asked to leave. But if, as you say, you «don't give a
> shit», then it makes sense that someone will guide you to the door, asking
> you not to come back until you've calmed down.
>

Again, if I was actually disrupting the environment you choose to
drawn an analogy to (workshop, service desk), I would be completely
fine with it. But it's clear (as I've said over and over again) that I
did nothing to disrupt the main channel, nor showed any indication of
doing so. Not once was I being disruptive, in fact, I immediately
moved the discussion elsewhere after being directed to.

And to repeat my request -- if you're going to paste out the bad
parts, I would request you to do so for both parties involved.

>> You asked for comments, so here's mine. I saw no ops misuse or personal
>> agendas at all. They were being calm and mature and did exactly what they're
>> supposed to. In my opinion, they were right, you were wrong and I suggest
>> you simply go do something else for a while and get your mind on other
>> things. I'm sure you'll be welcome when the anger and frustration subsides.
>>
>
>> Unfortunately, this kind of "go get a life" response is exactly the
>> kind of insulting hostility I experienced in the channel, and this
>
>
> That is not what I wrote and not what I meant. I would never tell anyone to
> «go get a life» or to RTFM or anything like that. That's not how we
> communicate in the Ubuntu community and that's pretty much what all of this
> is about, isn't it? What I meant to convey, was that you seem to be
> emotionally caught up in something that should be considered a non-issue and
> if you keep discussing it, then you're not allowing yourself to calm down
> and put it behind you. I follow that advise myself all the time; when I feel
> adrenaline pumping into my system, I try to go play the guitar or something.
> You seem to take it as a personal insult, but then, perhaps the reason is
> that you're angry. My personal experience indicates that anger always seeks
> to sustain itself.
>

Thank you for clarifying -- point taken!

> You've mentioned the «puppies don't die» thing a couple of times. I think
> you're misunderstanding what we mean by that. So let's look at an example.
> Someone comes into #Ubuntu complaning about weird disk issues. If these
> issues are caused by malfunctioning hardware, then the advise is always to
> disconnect it and immediately stop using it. Because the more you use it,
> the more damaged it will get, constantly reducing the chances that you'll be
> able to recover your data. But because of an angry debate, this point never
> gets across to the user, he quits and continues to use the disk until it
> fails for good. That's real damage. On the other hand, if you're denied
> access to the channel for a week because ops are worried that you'll disrupt
> the channel and cause more discussions – what harm is there? It is perhaps,
> slightly irritating. But then again; you have to take at least some of the
> responsibility for that. The other users don't.
>

The angry debate was not in #ubuntu, and I was doing nothing to
promote any sort of disruption in #ubuntu. Which is why I think I
should not have been banned there.

I can bear the slight irritation -- this is about the wrong action of
the op of banning me in a separate channel. As long as this is not
seen as irresponsibility of the op involved, I presume am not making
the issue very clear.

-- 
Rohan Dhruva