was: "I hate you" ;-).

Sat May 7 16:38:08 UTC 2016

If you got banned it was probably for a reason. Ops are always right don't
fight it you will just be removed from this mailing list.
On May 7, 2016 12:02 PM, "Xen" <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:

> In public places where there is recognised authority, they have to comply
> with certain rules.
>
> One of those rules is that they can only exert their normal powers that
> they have by way of their function, when they are recognisable as part of
> that function. In other words, they must wear a uniform or in some other
> way be distinguisable from other people.
>
> The reason for this is explained by the simple fact that otherwise people
> could mask as police officers and demand anything from anyone, while
> claiming to be in the authority of law. And this can never happen. This is
> why there are laws and rules against that.
>
> What you do in the IRC channels is throw away that distinction and that
> knowledge and that rule, and assume both roles at once, obfuscating what
> needs to happen.
>
> What I see you doing is acting as user first, and moderator after, in the
> same discussion.
>
> Because communication in good manners can only happen between equals, this
> is called the SNAFU principle, explained as precisely that -- because of
> that if you mix roles as a moderator, and assume both user status and mod
> status at the same time, you are guaranteed to mess up any debate you are
> having with your superior access to tools to guarantee that you win any
> factual disagreement.
>
> I am sure you understand this. But let me explain a little.
>
> If there is factual disagreement and one of them, precisely the moderator,
> has any ego surrounding the issue, that person might get offended by the
> disagreement.
>
> People who get offended by disagreement typically try to force the other
> to shut up in whatever way. Normally, people have very little recourse to
> do so. In a technical system like this, when one party has these powers to
> silence another, this power will be used to win arguments of a factual
> matter.
>
> The same happens when you are locked up in e.g. psychiatry or even a real
> prison. The one with the stick wins the debate. Always. I haven't been to
> real prison, but I have been locked up in a psychiatric establishment for a
> long time.
>
> I now expect personal attacks from you based on that admission.
>
> What you see happening in your channels is that disagreeing with a
> moderator who was acting in the capacity of a regular user, leads to a ban.
>
> The only way to avoid it is to suck up to the moderator and say "oh yeah,
> sorry, you are right". Then the mod is happy and you are allowed to stay.
>
> They call this power abuse. They call this power corrupts. They call this
> might is right. You really think you are impervious to that?
>
> In police terms. They have different terms for "question" and "request".
> By law, a person is allowed to reject compliance with a question. By law, a
> person is compelled to agree with a request.
>
> When police says "Would you like to step out of the car?" that is a
> question and has a different legal status from "Sir, I order you to step
> out of the car."
>
> What you do as moderators is make these question-like non-obligatory
> statements and then when a person says "No, I would not like to do that"
> you silence or ban them when they speak again.
>
> This IS power abuse.
>
> No matter how much you can say it isn't, if ANY lawyer or attorney, judge
> or person of wisdom would look at this from regular society? They would
> agree with these sentiments because they are encoded in law and have been
> for a long time.
>
> And then you say "You were asked to do this thing."
>
> Pardon me? If it was just a question, I was allowed to say no. That is the
> basis of human conduct.
>
> And now you make it appear as if the opposite is true. That if any person
> asks you to do a certain thing, you have to comply.
>
> And why? Because, and here it comes: "your conduct should not change
> depending on whether a moderator was around". So it is no longer about
> authority. Now it is about morality. These moderators do not just claim
> authority over the channel. (Which actually they don't). They now claim
> authority over the morality of all people residing in the channel.
>
> As such they do not perform the function of keeping order. They perform
> the function of keeping people in line with what they think people should
> act and behave as.
>
> Note particularly the word behave. They are moderating behaviour, but not
> keeping order. Not as such.
>
> They are not moderating acts. They are moderating behaviour, and this is a
> distinction.
>
> Call me primitive again now, please. I beg of you.
>
> They are not responding to deeds. They are responding to questionable
> behaviour.
>
> According to them, of course.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By now you may wonder why I am saying this because there seems to be a
> disconnect between my previous communication and my present one.
>
> If police were to act the way you do, and of course they often do
> especially in lesser developed countries, but in my country there would be
> public hearings about it. "Sir, you were asked to step out of the car, you
> didn't, and now you're arrested."
>
> That sort of thing is illegal but it is what you do.
>
> I am going to keep this short now, I think I have spent enough time on
> this. This is about my third or fourth rewrite. Yes I have trouble writing
> and being clear.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I will just repeat the following with an example to show what I am talking
> about:
>
> A #debian moderator tells me not to use "service networking restart" or
> "systemctl restart networking" because: networking is not a daemon and as
> such it cannot actually be restarted.
>
> A completely pretentious distinction without practical relevance.
>
> That moderator subsequently went on to ban me when I disagreed.
>
> "service networking restart" does its job the way it is intended, and
> moreover, there is no other way to do it (that I know of).
>
> So I questioned his statements the way I would do with any normal person.
> I said "Well apparently it does something, doesn't it?" "It kills my
> network link" (I actually had an error in my interfaces file, apparently
> resulting from a Debian upgrade). I said "Maybe it does something."
>
> Because why on earth would someone feel the need to tell me not to use a
> certain feature only out of principle?
>
> It happens more. In a recent thread on SystemD someone told me not to use
> ifconfig to acquire network device status.
>
> He told me to use "ip -o a" which gives a vastly reduced set of
> information and is not useful to be parsed by a human.
>
> And he said "I hate that distributions have not deprecated it yet"
> (ifconfig).
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Linux people often have this habit of telling you what to do.
>
> They are also telling you how to do a certain thing, as if there is only
> one correct way.
>
> The English phrase applies. There is more than one way to kill a cat. But
> to many this thought is not acceptable. No, you will use THE way that we
> have all agreed on is the only way that should be used.
>
> I consider this deeply offensive. I am not to be told by random strangers
> how to live my life.
>
> Yet when I make an issue ouf of this in any IRC channel manned by Linux
> people, I get into a fight with a moderator, because it is most often
> moderators (that you cannot identify) making such statements.
>
> And even if you could identify them, the way it is (because of past
> experience for example) -- this is not acceptable human conduct. Telling
> people how to behave, what to do, is not acceptable human conduct.
>
> I was going to say "how to act" but they don't actually tell you what
> choices to make. You are right about that. They leave you free in your
> choice, but they still try to curtail what you /DO/. You are allowed to
> make the choice to pursue a certain route, as long as you don't use the
> commands that are necessary for it, so to speak. Useless distinction? Not
> so.
>
> When I first got into trouble in #ubuntu it was with a person called
> Ikonia. She would remember. I am a 1000% sure it is a woman, because no man
> would behave like that.
>
> Some have identity disorders though, but that aside.
>
> First I didn't know she was a moderator, but that shouldn't have mattered.
> She was aggressively pursuing a path of dissuading a person to do a certain
> thing that she considered the "wrong" thing to do. "Do it right." she said.
> She said "I disagree. Do it right."
>
> The person was relaxed about it and toyed with it a little. He said "Well,
> the more objections you give, the more stuff I think of I need to do before
> I reboot". She was complaining that he was still talking about the issue
> she thought she had cut short.
>
> She had said "Maybe technically it is possible, but it is not acceptable."
>
> "The risks are not acceptable."
>
> Pardon me? You can decide for another what risks are acceptable for him?
>
> The issue, namely, was a choice between driving a few hours to a remote
> server location and doing things at site, and performing a risky operation
> that, if it failed, would end up him having to drive there anyway. So the
> worst case scenario would be him having to drive there anyway, which he
> would need to do regardless if he didn't attempt it. There was no risk.
> There was no loss. There was no danger.
>
> I am trying to find my IRC log of it (yours). Thus far, check out this one
> if you will:
>
> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2016/01/01/%23ubuntu.html
>
> And search "Ikonia". Exact same behaviour. Different person. Exact same
> behaviour. In Dutch we call that "schofferen". It appears to translate to
> "violate, desecrate". She is ordering that person around, the other person
> chimes in and also starts ordering him around to avoid a discussion. That
> person was not hostile like I may have been. That person was patient and at
> first said polite things such as "You realize you are not helping me?" And
> Ikonia responds "Your attitude is not acceptable to me."
>
> I am reminded of "In order to be a master, you first have to serve." And
> Ikonia is not serving here, she is just ordering around.
>
> This person is a terror.
>
> And I know for a fact people are going to belittle this now the way I have
> written it.
>
> In the end that person posted the requested fdisk output after which
> Ikonia immediately lost interest. By complying with her demands, the
> momentum was lost and everyone lost interest.
>
> Apparently they coudln't solve it. But they also did not try. They just
> tried to achieve the system they wanted without actually being interested
> in his question.
>
> By my standards this current document is a horrible email as I have
> suppressed most of my emotion to begin with, which is why it will seem
> extremely disconnected.
>
> You may not understand why I am writing this at all, and I understand
> that. I am tempted to delete the whole thing.
>
> Yet I am going to send this now and say "fuck it, fuck everything".
>
> Sometimes you have to not care, right?
>
> Maybe in the end something will come out of it, but don't expect it of me,
> please.
>
> Oh yes and I was going to say I apologize for not having put in a header.
> That could be considered a misconfigured email client.
>
> I mean a subject header. See ya, and ruin my day if you can.
>
> You people are good at it anyway.
>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20160507/68d9414b/attachment.html>