#ubuntu banlist

[José Antonio Rey]

Probably the +q for 1m can be skipped, 5 is decent enough for a first
time quiet.

On 11/18/2014 01:40 AM, Jeffrey Flaker wrote:
> 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
>>>
> 
> 

-- 
José Antonio Rey