#ubuntu banlist

[Jeffrey Flaker]

My take;
Send a private message first warning them of what is about to
happen.........  Then, setting +q for 1, 5, 10, 30 then 60 minutes -
THEN ban. 
Kind of set the stage to show the disruptive user the error of their
ways.  What this MAY do, is make the user either not come back knowing
they will be banned and it will, in the process, make for less actual bans


On 11/18/2014 01:33 AM, José Antonio Rey wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Even though I am not an op, I would like to pitch in a couple
> suggestions for discussion.
>
> I understand that the banlist is set to be able to host more bans than
> usually. But this should not be a factor why every disruptive user
> should get banned - as we have seen now the banlist may get full at any
> time, preventing ops from setting further bans.
>
> Is using +q an option instead of a ban? I, personally, believe that a +q
> would be enough in some of the cases where I have seen a ban in place.
> This would also be a more polite way of saying 'Please, stop being
> disruptive' after trying to be a catalyst, and after the +q the ban
> could be set if necessary.
>
> What do you think?
>
> On 11/18/2014 01:21 AM, Robert Wall wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> The banlist in #ubuntu is getting rather full. If you're an #ubuntu
>> op, please take some time to look in Bantracker *as soon as possible*
>> at the list of bans and quiets you have set. Please clean up any that
>> do not need to be set, and comment any that do. I have provided
>> details in #ubuntu-ops-team, and can provide assistance with BT
>> searching and other such things by email or in PM if needed (or ask in
>> #ubuntu-ops-team if you'd prefer).
>>
>> While the banlist is not yet full, it is important that you look into
>> this *as soon as possible* to avoid us hitting limits.
>>
>> As a reminder, the current total maximum number of bans, quiets,
>> ban-exempts, and invexes we can have set is 500 (this is increased
>> from the normal limit of 100, and we have way more bans set than most
>> channels our size). That we are hitting 500 bans (and not for the
>> first time) reflects badly on our banlist management skills, and is a
>> problem that needs to be fixed.
>>
>> Once you're done cleaning up, I would like us to consider methods of
>> avoiding this situation in the future that do not include "one or two
>> ops get fed up of the banlist being almost full and spend hours
>> aggressively pruning it by themselves".
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Robert
>>