#ubuntu banlist

[Jeffrey Flaker]

The idea, as I see it, is to limit the number of bans by making NOT FUN
to disrupt a chat.  lf they are persistent (or a bot), then they will
fall to a ban.  Usually a person will give up long before that. 

I think it will self regulate for actual people but bots will be caught
in the net as a bot will not stop.


On 11/18/2014 01:46 AM, José Antonio Rey wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>