was: "I hate you" ;-).

[Clay Weber]

I think we are forgetting that the OP here has historically been belligerent 
not only in irc but on forums as well.  We are basically feeding the beast, so 
to speak. 


On Saturday, May 7, 2016 11:12:38 PM EDT Patrick Hixenbaugh wrote:
> I think a fundamental disagreement here is that the role of the ops
> absolutely is to help "moderate" the tone of discussion to align with the
> values in the code of conduct.
> 
> If someone has a disagreement with anyone in the channel, op or not, the
> mods have a responsibility to keep it civil, and move it to a more
> appropriate channel if necessary to keep the channel from going off topic.
> In a support channel of over 1000 people, it absolutely is necessary to
> moderate the behavior and tone of users. I have even had disagreements with
> ops before, but there are systems in place to resolve them peacefully, and
> no one need be banned unless they are truly being unrelentingly disruptive.
> 
> Productive, civil discussions can absolutely result from technical
> disagreements, provided everyone respects each other, op or not.
> 
> On May 7, 2016 7:52 PM, "Matthew Lye" <matthew.lye at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > If you had started with this you may have been at least listened to, in
> > spite of the childish and incredibly immature views on how things should
> > be
> > run. Your argument is basically efficiency should be sacrificed to ensure
> > everything is done correctly.
> > 
> > In a real world situation where someone is being disruptive and abusive in
> > a privately owned space police can remove you, detain you pending charges,
> > and ultimately another person decides your fate. In this situation the
> > same
> > occurs, mods can remove you, prevent you from returning for a period, and
> > if you were banned and you think it was done incorrectly you could have
> > posted the snipet here and given reasons you though the action was wrong
> > and if it was wrong the ban would be removed. This has happened before but
> > is very very unlikely in this case. The system you argue for does actually
> > exist, just not in the way you think it should. The fact that you managed
> > to send emails here means you could have done the right thing and resolved
> > the situation the way you say you think it should be done.
> > 
> > You need to take responsibility for your own choices and your own
> > behaviour rather than blaming what occurs to you on others. I have very
> > little doubt you took action that resulted in your removal and it had
> > nothing to do with you disagreeing with a mod, but that the way you
> > disagreed was well outside the rules governing behaviour in our channels.
> > 
> > Take this as a learning opportunity to reflect. I think you have wasted
> > enough of peoples time.
> > 
> > -Matthew Lye
> > 
> >  Leadership is responsibility, not privilege, Action, not position,
> > 
> > Guidance, not knowledge, and outcome, not disposition.
> > 
> > "Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where
> > it often substitutes for both." - John Andrew Holmes
> > 
> > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:02 AM, 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
> > 
> > --
> > Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> > Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc


-- 
Clay Weber