Melissa++ Few points though. 1. I think -offtopic started to degrade well before any policy changes. 2. In my understanding, we're still allowed to ban people from #ubuntu-ops - if they do something wrong (ex. trolling). Thanks, Cody A.W. Somerville <div>On 1/24/07, Melissa Draper <<a href="mailto:melissa@meldraweb.com">melissa@meldraweb.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">John Vivirito wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >> Jan Vancura wrote: >> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Myself, I am very wary of taking actions in #ubuntu-offtopic, because I am >>>>>>>>>> almost scared by the user reactions that the too often provoke. We have had >>>>>>>>>> an example just a few hours ago. >>>>>>>>>> >>>> One elegant way of solving this in hard to manage channels is to set >>>> them +m, and devoice misbehaving individuals. This is anonymous >>>> (Chanserv just removes voice, and noone will know which op did it). >>>> >> On one hand its good its anonymous ( people cant target an op for doing >> their job ). However, i do think that we cant expect people to appeal to >> the op who gave a ban/mute/telling off/warning if they don't know who it >> was. >> >> >>>> This system could be easily enhanced by setting ubotu or Ubugtu to voice >>>> anyone on join (perhaps except those that have been devoiced by an op >>>> before). >>>> >>>> Removing voice also looks a lot less harsh than a mute (which looks like >>>> a ban), and is a lot quieter (one line instead of 3). >>>> >> but you do get an extra 'person voiced' line for /each person who joins/. >> >> kk >> >> >>>> Just a suggestion. Have a look at #freenode-social (but don't have a >>>> look at the voicing mechanism, there. >>>> >> -- Karl Goetz User of gNewSense: Free as in Freedom - <a href="http://www.gnewsense.org">http://www.gnewsense.org</a> Australian Ubuntu users team - <a href="http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AustralianTeam">http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AustralianTeam</a> Debian, The Universal Operating System - <a href="http://www.debian.org">http://www.debian.org</a> >> -- Ubuntu-irc mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-irc@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-irc@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc</a> >> > > I dont think an autovoice is best idea in an Ubuntu channel. its > different and will cause alot of un-needed questions and complaints > about it example "why is -offtopic the only channel that is autovoiced"/ > our answer would be? um because one or 2 users are bad apples or are > known trolls? wouldnt that be a little overboard for a couple of > users?.Than if someone on the blacklist join you will have alot of > people asking "hey why isnt joe voiced than people start thinking that > we are discrimanating against certain users (we are not) but it will > look like that to users. I dont see why mutes and bans wont work. Its > less spam in the channel and it makes a point (misbehave you will be > muted/banned). > - -- > GnomeFreak Personally, I don't think the process itself is the probelm. Our attitudes are. We don't need to change the process from that of kick/ban to a voice-devoice, as both do the same, are equally visible and will still cause arguments. Let's face it, it is our job to monitor the channel for misbehavior and deal with it as it comes. Currently, I believe, the problem is that we're not doing this. We've gotten scared of causing a reaction or become indifferent to the behavior itself (and sometimes participated in it). We've become ineffective. The issues: * We're too scared to ban someone, we're willing to let misbehavior pass, and hope another Op will deal with it, just so we don't have to argue with someone who comes into #ubuntu-ops to troll. Many people who come into #ubuntu-ops *know* why they've been banned. It's merely a game to them and the new object of the game becomes 'getting unbanned' as opposed to seeing how far they can go before getting banned. * Because we're now scared, we've gone soft. We're far too likely to unban a misbehaving user, just to make them shut the hell up. Arguments with trolling ban recipients can go on for hours with some people, and because we're now not supposed to remove people from #ubuntu-ops, and are supposed to leave dealing with banned individuals to other ops who were not the banning party, it's become a cumbersome process that we subconsciously avoid at all cost. * We've become indifferent to the trolling behavior of certain individuals. There are several long-time trolls in #ubuntu-offtopic, and we all know who at least some of them are. They seem innocent, naive and seem to get our sympathy. We let them get away with far too much, to the point where we snap at a petty point and the above two issues take hold. We need to be as firm with these people as we would be with someone who has just joined the channel for the first time 5 minutes ago -- but we're not doing this. Changing how we deal with trolling and misbehaving users isn't going to change how they react. De-voicing will *still* bring them into #ubuntu-ops, they'll still PM their comrades to shout to their defense, and they'll still be pains in the posterior. We need to deal with the real issues. Us. -- Sincerely Melissa Draper <a href="http://www.meldraweb.com">http://www.meldraweb.com</a> Phone: 0404 595 395 (intl): +61 404 595 395 P.O Box 1412 Lavington, NSW 2641 -- Ubuntu-irc mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-irc@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-irc@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc </a> </blockquote></div> -- Firefox (<a href="http://www.getfirefox.com">www.getfirefox.com</a>) -- A browser you can trust