<div dir="ltr">Others have given more in depth answers, I would like to give some very short ones:<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Rohan Dhruva <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rohandhruva@gmail.com" target="_blank">rohandhruva@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Thank you everyone for your responses.<br> <br> Someone on the channel said that there is no way I can come out<br> looking good in this whole discussion. Another person suggested that<br> while I had a point earlier, it has now been diluted by the ensuing<br> discussion.<br> I agree with both of those verdicts. If the whole conversation is<br> going to be coloured by that, I fear it will devolve into the same<br> points that were hashed on IRC.<br> <br> To pare down my email, the things I felt distasteful were:<br> * ops killing organic, non-insulting, non-inflammatory discussions by<br> silencing people<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>#ubuntu is for tech support. <br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> * ops basing ban decisions based on personal prejudice (e.g. towards<br> words like blitzkrieg and dictator, drawing conclusions of World War<br> II and Hitler)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>ops have to make judgment calls. judgment comes from thinking, which will be influenced by feelings.<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> * ops banning people in the main channel for discussions happening in<br> a completely separate channel (and to be banned by the same op who I<br> had the issue with is an obvious conflict of interest)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>judgment also comes from observing behavior in other channels.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> * general lack of responsibility towards IRC ops -- shown by an<br> attitude of "puppies don't die" if there are mistakes in judgement<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are many policies and procedures in place to contend with mistakes. You seem to think they are not appropriate because they allow for an op to make a mistake in the first place. <br> <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> * overall hostility in #ubuntu-ops, mainly with people's insistence to<br> leave the channel -- why is it so important to push people out of a<br> channel?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>When someone is speaking in #ubuntu-ops, ops notice it and stop what they are doing to see what is going on. If it isn't going to be productive, it would be nice if it stopped.<br> </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <br> Happy to hear thoughts about this.<br> <br> Cheers,<br> Rohan<br> <div class=""><div class="h5"><br> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Rohan Dhruva <<a href="mailto:rohandhruva@gmail.com">rohandhruva@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > Hi ubuntu-irc,<br> ><br> > I hang on out #ubuntu as "rohan", generally a lurker -- once in a while I<br> > ask questions and answer things I know.<br> ><br> > Today, I encountered something I found disturbing. There was a<br> > misunderstanding between two users, and an op decided to silence one of<br> > them. The discussion was civil (no swearing or flooding), but also<br> > off-topic. I feel silencing a user in this case is overreaching and rude --<br> > especially a user who might have been new to the IRC community (and maybe<br> > new to Ubuntu itself).<br> ><br> > On complaining about this in the channel, I was directed to to talk in<br> > #ubuntu-ops, which I joined and then stopped talking on #ubuntu. On the -ops<br> > channel (which is logged), I had a few heated words exchanged with the op<br> > who originally took the wrong action (in my opinion). Eventually, it boils<br> > down to whether words like "blitzkrieg" and "dictator" are offensive or not.<br> ><br> > Since the logs are public[1][2], I'll cut a long story short: the op chose<br> > to ban me from #ubuntu for a week. This was without me talking in #ubuntu or<br> > provoking drama in the main channel at all. The reason given was that I was<br> > likely to misbehave in #ubuntu, without there having been any evidence of<br> > having done so. As the logs will show, I tried to make my point in various<br> > ways, sometimes being drawn out. In interest of list readers' time, I can<br> > summarise the ensuing discussion as unfruitful and borderline hostile -- in<br> > (large) part due to my own insistence of remaining in the channel. I was<br> > unequivocally told to leave the channel at multiple times, with various<br> > people suggesting I get a life, or my insistent complaining as pathetic.<br> ><br> > I apologise for an already long email (but as people in the channel will<br> > tell you, it's much shorter than reading the whole scrollback!).. but here<br> > are the things I wanted to request members' views and comments on:<br> ><br> > * Is it ok to stifle discussion by silencing one person when an argument<br> > seems to be happening in the channel, under the pretext of avoiding drama?<br> > ** This is also against the guidelines of when to ban/kick a person -- there<br> > was no flooding, nor were there any swear words or unappealing language.<br> ><br> > * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for<br> > discussion happening in a completely separate channel?<br> > ** Especially when the discussion was exactly about the op overreaching:<br> > this seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Also, should an op's<br> > personal bias towards words like blitzkrieg and dictator be allowed to<br> > affect a user's ability to enter a channel?<br> ><br> > * What can be done to make #ubuntu-ops a more friendly place? The discussion<br> > was very obviously hostile, and I was penalised for speaking up against the<br> > very two ops I had a problem with, and in general the channel's attitude was<br> > "write an email and gtfo, you're just repeating the same things over and<br> > over". I don't understand the insistence to leave the channel, nor the very<br> > obvious ganging up of the "ops vs. users" -- at least I felt that way from<br> > the get-go. After I left the channel, the logs show people suggesting each<br> > other to skip reading the scrollback and offer sympathies for people who<br> > actually wanted to read it. If that can be written off as humour, I would<br> > like to ask why the same kind of humour leads to a ban in #ubuntu.<br> > ** This is especially important, because #ubuntu-ops is the first forum in<br> > the appeals flow, and the experience there was extremely elitist and<br> > hostile.<br> ><br> > * Why is it so bad to suggest an op be penalised? Why does doing that<br> > instantly evoke allegations of being childish and immature (as opposed to<br> > people claiming they themselves are intelligent adults)? If an op can ban<br> > someone for a week in a completely unrelated channel for discussion in<br> > another channel, why is it sacrilege that there should be at least some kind<br> > of disciplinary action?<br> ><br> > * Continuing from the previous question, the general feeling I got is that<br> > the accountability of ops in general is not up to the usual Ubuntu<br> > standards. Whereas packages in the repo are vetted in several different<br> > ways, there seems to be no similar vetting for the whole ops flow. People<br> > claiming that "puppies don't die" if an op makes mistakes shows that the<br> > general feeling of responsibility seems low. Another way of thinking about<br> > this is if that puppies are not going to die anyway, why go out of your way<br> > to ban someone for a joke here and there?<br> ><br> > * Turning the tables onto myself, was I annoying? In short, yes. Could I<br> > have done things differently? Yes. Feedback on my behaviour is as much<br> > appreciated as the discussion on the above bullet points.<br> ><br> > If you actually made it this far -- thank you! I am looking forward to<br> > hearing other points of view, and as someone on IRC suggested, I will try my<br> > best to ensure that this goes better than the discussion on IRC was :)<br> ><br> ><br> > Cheers,<br> > Rohan<br> ><br> > [1]: <a href="http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html" target="_blank">http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html</a><br> > [2]: <a href="http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html" target="_blank">http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html</a><br> ><br> > --<br> > Rohan Dhruva<br> ><br> <br> <br> <br> </div></div><div class=""><div class="h5">--<br> Rohan Dhruva<br> <br> --<br> Ubuntu-irc mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-irc@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-irc@lists.ubuntu.com</a><br> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Carl K </div></div></div>