RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

Sat May 17 03:42:48 UTC 2014

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Carl Karsten <carl at personnelware.com>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Thank you, I promise to also reply with short answers then.
>>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Carl Karsten <carl at personnelware.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Others have given more in depth answers, I would like to give some very
>> > short ones:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thank you everyone for your responses.
>> >>
>> >> Someone on the channel said that there is no way I can come out
>> >> looking good in this whole discussion. Another person suggested that
>> >> while I had a point earlier, it has now been diluted by the ensuing
>> >> discussion.
>> >> I agree with both of those verdicts. If the whole conversation is
>> >> going to be coloured by that, I fear it will devolve into the same
>> >> points that were hashed on IRC.
>> >>
>> >> To pare down my email, the things I felt distasteful were:
>> >> * ops killing organic, non-insulting, non-inflammatory discussions by
>> >> silencing people
>> >
>> >
>> > #ubuntu is for tech support.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> * ops basing ban decisions based on personal prejudice (e.g. towards
>> >> words like blitzkrieg and dictator, drawing conclusions of World War
>> >> II and Hitler)
>> >
>> >
>> > ops have to make judgment calls.  judgment comes from thinking, which
>> will
>> > be influenced by feelings.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Judgement comes from evidence, not personal bias. Drawing implications
>> that certain words are related to certain historical events is
>> personal bias, not good judgement.
>>
>>
> I disagree with your opinion of what judgment is, and  is and isn't good
> judgment.
>
> I also disagree with what you think is and isn't ok.  I suspect it is
> because we have different ideas about what happens in the event that
> something is not ok.
>
> Neither of our opinions alone will dictate the final outcome, so I am
> comfortable acting on my opinions knowing that if I make a decision that
> others disagree with there is plenty of opportunity for things to be
> rectified.
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> * ops banning people in the main channel for discussions happening in
>> >> a completely separate channel (and to be banned by the same op who I
>> >> had the issue with is an obvious conflict of interest)
>> >
>> >
>> > judgment also comes from observing behavior in other channels.
>> >
>>
>> If so, judgement should be reserved to that other channel. Not spill
>> over to #ubuntu, where there was no sign of misdoing by me.
>>
>> >>
>> >> * general lack of responsibility towards IRC ops -- shown by an
>> >> attitude of "puppies don't die" if there are mistakes in judgement
>> >
>> >
>> > There are many policies and procedures in place to contend with
>> mistakes.
>> > You seem to think they are not appropriate because they allow for an op
>> to
>> > make a mistake in the first place.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> There are procedures, but it seems like both #ubuntu-ops and this list
>> are not an effective way to bring them up. All I have seen up to this
>> point is irrational behaviour excused under the catchphrase "judgement
>> calls need to be made".
>>
>>
> Your ban got removed.
>
> You are welcome to propose changes do the documented procedures.
>
>
My ban was removed because the other op was being nice -- nothing else. It
wasn't done as a realisation of a mistake (in my opinion) by the original
op. If ban being removed was my only goal, I would not have started the
discussion in the channel or subsequently this thread.

I would have been ok with the ban being in place -- my concern here is with
the way it was meted out and whether there should be any policy against
such unprovoked escalation.

That said, I do appreciate removal of the ban (as I already said in the
channel too).

>
>
>>  >>
>> >> * overall hostility in #ubuntu-ops, mainly with people's insistence to
>> >> leave the channel -- why is it so important to push people out of a
>> >> channel?
>> >
>> >
>> > When someone is speaking in #ubuntu-ops, ops notice it and stop what
>> they
>> > are doing to see what is going on.  If it isn't going to be productive,
>> it
>> > would be nice if it stopped.
>> >
>>
>> Inviting people to leave the channel because the discussion does not
>> go the way you want or because someone disagrees with you is not
>> "would be nice". It's hostile. (you refers to the people in the irc
>> channel, not you, Carl)
>>
>>
> I think the requests to part the channel were done politely.
>
>
I agree with you. But being done politely doesn't mean it was not a hostile
thing to do.

>
>
>>  >>
>> >>
>> >> Happy to hear thoughts about this.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Rohan
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi ubuntu-irc,
>> >> >
>> >> > I hang on out #ubuntu as "rohan", generally a lurker -- once in a
>> while
>> >> > I
>> >> > ask questions and answer things I know.
>> >> >
>> >> > Today, I encountered something I found disturbing. There was a
>> >> > misunderstanding between two users, and an op decided to silence one
>> of
>> >> > them. The discussion was civil (no swearing or flooding), but also
>> >> > off-topic. I feel silencing a user in this case is overreaching and
>> rude
>> >> > --
>> >> > especially a user who might have been new to the IRC community (and
>> >> > maybe
>> >> > new to Ubuntu itself).
>> >> >
>> >> > On complaining about this in the channel, I was directed to to talk
>> in
>> >> > #ubuntu-ops, which I joined and then stopped talking on #ubuntu. On
>> the
>> >> > -ops
>> >> > channel (which is logged), I had a few heated words exchanged with
>> the
>> >> > op
>> >> > who originally took the wrong action (in my opinion). Eventually, it
>> >> > boils
>> >> > down to whether words like "blitzkrieg" and "dictator" are offensive
>> or
>> >> > not.
>> >> >
>> >> > Since the logs are public[1][2], I'll cut a long story short: the op
>> >> > chose
>> >> > to ban me from #ubuntu for a week. This was without me talking in
>> >> > #ubuntu or
>> >> > provoking drama in the main channel at all. The reason given was
>> that I
>> >> > was
>> >> > likely to misbehave in #ubuntu, without there having been any
>> evidence
>> >> > of
>> >> > having done so. As the logs will show, I tried to make my point in
>> >> > various
>> >> > ways, sometimes being drawn out. In interest of list readers' time, I
>> >> > can
>> >> > summarise the ensuing discussion as unfruitful and borderline
>> hostile --
>> >> > in
>> >> > (large) part due to my own insistence of remaining in the channel. I
>> was
>> >> > unequivocally told to leave the channel at multiple times, with
>> various
>> >> > people suggesting I get a life, or my insistent complaining as
>> pathetic.
>> >> >
>> >> > I apologise for an already long email (but as people in the channel
>> will
>> >> > tell you, it's much shorter than reading the whole scrollback!).. but
>> >> > here
>> >> > are the things I wanted to request members' views and comments on:
>> >> >
>> >> > * Is it ok to stifle discussion by silencing one person when an
>> argument
>> >> > seems to be happening in the channel, under the pretext of avoiding
>> >> > drama?
>> >> > ** This is also against the guidelines of when to ban/kick a person
>> --
>> >> > there
>> >> > was no flooding, nor were there any swear words or unappealing
>> language.
>> >> >
>> >> > * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
>> >> > discussion happening in a completely separate channel?
>> >> > ** Especially when the discussion was exactly about the op
>> overreaching:
>> >> > this seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Also, should an op's
>> >> > personal bias towards words like blitzkrieg and dictator be allowed
>> to
>> >> > affect a user's ability to enter a channel?
>> >> >
>> >> > * What can be done to make #ubuntu-ops a more friendly place? The
>> >> > discussion
>> >> > was very obviously hostile, and I was penalised for speaking up
>> against
>> >> > the
>> >> > very two ops I had a problem with, and in general the channel's
>> attitude
>> >> > was
>> >> > "write an email and gtfo, you're just repeating the same things over
>> and
>> >> > over". I don't understand the insistence to leave the channel, nor
>> the
>> >> > very
>> >> > obvious ganging up of the "ops vs. users" -- at least I felt that way
>> >> > from
>> >> > the get-go. After I left the channel, the logs show people suggesting
>> >> > each
>> >> > other to skip reading the scrollback and offer sympathies for people
>> who
>> >> > actually wanted to read it. If that can be written off as humour, I
>> >> > would
>> >> > like to ask why the same kind of humour leads to a ban in #ubuntu.
>> >> > ** This is especially important, because #ubuntu-ops is the first
>> forum
>> >> > in
>> >> > the appeals flow, and the experience there was extremely elitist and
>> >> > hostile.
>> >> >
>> >> > * Why is it so bad to suggest an op be penalised? Why does doing that
>> >> > instantly evoke allegations of being childish and immature (as
>> opposed
>> >> > to
>> >> > people claiming they themselves are intelligent adults)? If an op can
>> >> > ban
>> >> > someone for a week in a completely unrelated channel for discussion
>> in
>> >> > another channel, why is it sacrilege that there should be at least
>> some
>> >> > kind
>> >> > of disciplinary action?
>> >> >
>> >> > * Continuing from the previous question, the general feeling I got is
>> >> > that
>> >> > the accountability of ops in general is not up to the usual Ubuntu
>> >> > standards. Whereas packages in the repo are vetted in several
>> different
>> >> > ways, there seems to be no similar vetting for the whole ops flow.
>> >> > People
>> >> > claiming that "puppies don't die" if an op makes mistakes shows that
>> the
>> >> > general feeling of responsibility seems low. Another way of thinking
>> >> > about
>> >> > this is if that puppies are not going to die anyway, why go out of
>> your
>> >> > way
>> >> > to ban someone for a joke here and there?
>> >> >
>> >> > * Turning the tables onto myself, was I annoying? In short, yes.
>> Could I
>> >> > have done things differently? Yes. Feedback on my behaviour is as
>> much
>> >> > appreciated as the discussion on the above bullet points.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you actually made it this far -- thank you! I am looking forward
>> to
>> >> > hearing other points of view, and as someone on IRC suggested, I will
>> >> > try my
>> >> > best to ensure that this goes better than the discussion on IRC was
>> :)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Rohan
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html
>> >> > [2]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Rohan Dhruva
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Rohan Dhruva
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>> >> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carl K
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>> > Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rohan Dhruva
>>
>> --
>> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Carl K
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
>

-- 
Rohan Dhruva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20140516/7a346625/attachment.html>