Was: #ubuntu banlist - Now: IRC Op Guidelines

[Jared Norris]

On 18 November 2014 16:33, José Antonio Rey <jose at ubuntu.com> 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?
>
>
> --
> José Antonio Rey
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>

I've just renamed the subject to differentiate it from the previous
conversation around the banlist being full as I think it's probably a
separate discussion.

However, I'm far from an active op in the Ubuntu namespace but I do recall
seeing a set of guidelines [1] that might help frame the discussion.

I don't speak for the IRC team in any way shape or form but I daresay
that's a pretty good place to start. It does spell out expectations around
the different operator actions for different situations. I realise it's not
a catch all and I realise each situation is different but it probably does
provide a good platform for the discussion around what actions an operator
should take.

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/OperatorGuidelines

Regards,

Jared Norris
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jarednorris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20141118/0fd8f31d/attachment.html>