<br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/4/29 Sarah Hobbs <<a href="mailto:hobbsee@ubuntu.com">hobbsee@ubuntu.com</a>>:<br><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Freenode has become very lax with regards to trolls that are people, and not bots. Consequently, some of us are quite unhappy with this, and are reconsidering being a part of this environment, where the trolls are respected and listened to more than the IRC operators, by freenode staff.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Seems it might be contagious after all. Well, I'll try to provide some mental antivirus for this absurd discussion,<br>
but let's make sure we're talking about the same things first. IRC Operators are just that; operators on the IRC<br>
network. I suspect you're talking about chanops, which is something else entirely. Otherwise, that would indicate<br>
that IRC Operators aren't part of the network staff, which would certainly be chaotic. I'm not splitting hairs, <br>
simply pointing out that chanops and IRC Operators are two very different things, and there is a reason why that's<br>
important in this context. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
This applies to many trolls going around on freenode, including ones that harass others in multiple channel namespaces, which really should be a network issue.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Right, here we go. First of all, an IRC network is an infrastructure. It enables users to chat among themselves, or send<br>messages to and subscribe to messages sent to a channel. Servers also have to communicate among themselves in <br>
order to keep the network synchronized and so forth. <br><br>Let's first look have a look at the technical side of what you're suggesting, which as I understand it, is for the network <br>staff to interfere when users are being naughty in more than one channel. I'm wondering if you have any idea of the<br>
the number of between users, channels and staff members on Freenode? How should the Freenode staff act when <br>someone sais that someone said something in a channel that they didn't feel was nice? Should they step in and try to<br>
negotiate between those parties? It's easy to see how impossible that would be. It is also unreasonable. If a couple has<br>an argument via the phone, should they expect the respective phone companies to mediate between them? <br>
<br>That brings me onto the non-technical side of what you're suggesting. As I said before, an IRC network is an infrastructure<br>for text-based telecommunications. It's easy to visualize an IRC network as something resembling a small WWW. <br>
Actually, that concept is used in irc links like irc://network:port/channel and you referred to a channel as a namespace<br>yourself. If a user spreads lies about you on two different message boards on two different domains, who should you<br>
contact? IETF? W3C? Perhaps you should, if you feel that the lies are a consequence of a technical flaw in the network. <br>If you don't, then I'd suggest you first go to the administrator of the bulletin board and ask them to make the required<br>
changes. If they refuse to listen, contact the server administrator if that's someone else and ask them to take action, and<br>so forth. Does this sound reasonable to you? Well, if it does, then you've just realised that you're wrong before. You see, <br>
in this case the message board is an IRC channel, and chanops are the admins who has the power to exclude users who <br>misbehave. They even have the power to define what kind of behaviour is acceptable. The users of thiese channels have <br>
the power to silence the users they don't like. The fact that a user misbehaves in several channels simply means that <br>thiese channels operators must learn to cooperate, and if necessary find a technical solution of their own, such as <br>
inter-channel bots. <br><br>I can't believe anyone in the Ubuntu Community would actually suggest that the network staff should define and enforce <br>some global set of rules for what users can and cannot say on the network. Those kinds of rules are for channels only, <br>
and the responsibility of keeping channels nice lays on the chanops only, and not the network staff. <br><br>I'll leave you with a thought; what would you say if someone proposed to establish a network wide internet police to shut <br>
down all websites containing statements that are politically incorrect in some countries? <br><br><br>> Thanks for taking action, Seveas. I suspect you'll be the first of many.<br>> Hobbsee<br></div></div><br>You're still connected I see, Hobbsee. Isn't that just a little bit hypocritial you think, maybe? <br>
<br><br><br>Best regards <br><br>Jo-Erlend Schinstad<br>