[12:27] "!factoid | someone", "!factoid | otherperson" should "someone: blahblah", "otherperson: see above" [12:34] Any of you folks made yourself Ubuntu business cards? I need to figure out how to do templates in OOo...(haven't done this since my Windows days) [12:35] tonyyarusso, jenda was talking about the possiblity of printing them properly [12:35] tonyyarusso, could work out pretty cheap but well done [12:35] tonyyarusso: would that help at all? it'd still be one wasted line, just like it is now. shorter, maybe, but what is annoying to people and clients is the fact that there *is* a message, more than its actual length [12:36] LjL: Well, depends on the factoid. For the 7-line factoids it would. Otherwise, probably not necessary. [12:37] PriceChild: Well, I already have a bag of cardstock that I'm looking to use up. [12:37] tonyyarusso: well, i'm seeing this from a GUI-based client perspective, where length of lines doesn't really matter much, but scrolling does, given QtTextBrowser's sluggishness [12:37] anyway i'll file a bug [12:37] tonyyarusso, fair enough :) === TomSwift [n=regerror@user-142h773.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #ubuntu-ops === Hobbsee [n=Hobbsee@ubuntu/member/hobbsee] has joined #ubuntu-ops === mode/#ubuntu-ops [+v Hobbsee] by ChanServ === Hobbsee_ [n=Hobbsee@ubuntu/member/hobbsee] has joined #ubuntu-ops === mode/#ubuntu-ops [+v Hobbsee_] by ChanServ [12:46] tonyyarusso: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bots/+bug/80671 [12:46] Malone bug 80671 in ubuntu-bots "Ubotu's repeat protection may need improvements" [Undecided,Unconfirmed] [12:47] LjL: looks good [12:48] how are we doing? [12:50] Hobbsee: Depends who you ask I think [12:50] tonyyarusso: oh? [12:51] Hobbsee: There was some interesting stuff earlier, although I wasn't around either. See the message on the ML, and then this channel after that. [12:51] lots of mess...ages [12:51] tonyyarusso: i saw the ML stuff - the message from Mez [12:51] yeah there was some heat around that [12:52] apparently resulting in Hawkwind resigning from his op position among other things [12:52] oh lovely. why? === Hobbsee keepsreading === gnomefreak doing fine. hint dont let things like that get to you. all it does is get consume you [12:52] gnomefreak: good to hear [12:52] Hobbsee: because he didnt agree with the way it was handled (short version) [12:53] gnomefreak, that statement qualifies a lot of things [12:54] ompaul: i know [12:56] ompaul: he was very general on why he was resigning. something like i dont agree the way ops does things [12:56] with* [12:56] do* [12:56] the * [12:56] i really screwed that one up [12:56] *I can read anyway* [12:56] :) [12:56] :) [12:57] there's one thing, and i say this without having read all the logs, that bothers me about somerville32 and hawkwind - it's that they want to change things, yet they havent had to deal with users like malt last night, or spam wars, or whatever. now, maybe it's my timezone, and i just dont see it, but i dont think it's fair to say that the current thing is screwed up beyond believe, and to judge us by the way we responded, until they go through [12:57] it themselves. === mc44 was worried ompaul would struggle with reading at his age :p === hybrid [n=x@72.169.30.254] has joined #ubuntu-ops === hybrid__ [n=x@72.169.30.254] has joined #ubuntu-ops === ompaul looks at mc44 === ompaul shakes his head [12:58] Hobbsee: well, Hawkwind did say there was more than just that that got on his nerves, however he wasn't inclined to explain it all, he sounded more like he was just fed up [12:59] i've yet to see hawkwind deal with people in #ubuntu or #ubuntu-offtopic. it's *not* the same thing as banning in a small channel. if this kind of thing went on in a small channel, it would be cause for concern. [12:59] Hobbsee: i think somerville32 was more agaisnt the sending the user to an auto kline channel (atleast was well known for that) [12:59] but with the kind of people we're dealing with....and the anon. proxies, etc.... [12:59] Hobbsee: at any rate, one thing we've been discussing - and i mention it because i myself agree it shouldn't have been done - is the sending of malt to a channel that would cause him a k-line (or maybe not, but that was the intention anyway). you saw that yourself, and laughed about it IIRC from the log... [12:59] gnomefreak: we had no staffers. but yeah :P === gnomefreak thinks less people needed to be involved but not my call [12:59] now really, IMHO this is not likely to be a good thing to do is it [01:00] LjL: probably not. but i can see why Mez did it [01:00] i saw the ban itself a ban as anyother ban that we may come across daily and if all bans are gonna be overlooked by other ops than the -ops team will fail to do its job correctly [01:01] looked over [01:01] damn its bad today [01:01] I can understand why someone might do it, but I can't condone it. I think we can probably (at least mostly) agree that the auto-kline channel redirect was not the best idea. Which would be good, b/c then we could focus on the rest of it, if needed. [01:01] LjL: in truth, what *i* laughed at was that he fell for it - with such a knowledge of irc, and proxies, and ban evading, and everything else, he fell for the most known auto-kline channel. [01:01] Hobbsee, it isn't actually an auto k-line channel [01:01] Hobbsee: i can, too, but i'm rather pressed to make sure Mez and you and anybody else involved understand it wasn't too good an idea. other people here were even inclined to take action against Mez because of that... now, tricking somebody (who deserves it) into something as trivial as k-lining themselves, while fun, isn't really worth all the fuss that it'll create - and it has [01:02] PriceChild: used to be [01:02] gnomefreak, yeah [01:02] PriceChild: Did you check? What is it these days? [01:02] tonyyarusso, jenda doesn't know [01:02] tonyyarusso: invite only [01:02] LjL: of course. but after ~30 mins of him trying... [01:02] tonyyarusso, I tried to get in over proxy and its invite only [01:02] tonyyarusso, but its not officially registered or anything [01:02] PriceChild: k === gnomefreak hasnt tried and dont plan on it [01:02] if I may make a comment - this reads just like the situation when I packed up my bags [01:03] ompaul: yep only thing is everything is public now :( [01:03] ompaul: except i think, though of course i'm not you, that you would be more inclined to disagree with Hawkwind this time [01:03] LjL, I tend to take the ops side who did the ban [01:03] ompaul: It does look similar...which is upsetting. Although, somewhat different also. [01:03] 07:31 <+Hawkwind> Sorry, he was also kicked by Hobbsee for admitting he knew he [01:03] was speaking to a lady [01:03] er, what? [01:03] gnomefreak: well we'll have time to see if that turns out to be a very big deal [01:04] it was a simple ban why it got this out of hand needs to be addressed [01:04] he was kicked because he was being damned annoying, and highly offensive. [01:04] LjL: no, that was a different loser [01:04] ompaul: Any insight to add, given that? [01:04] Hobbsee, no use arguing against people who aren't even here [01:04] Hobbsee: yeah, i found that out from my logs [01:04] i know...i'm just surprised... [01:05] tonyyarusso, yes, however to do this I would like the floor, and point out this is an opinion, based on being in irc for some 13 or 14 years at this stage [01:05] the floor? [01:05] ompaul: Fine by me. [01:06] Hobbsee, I think Hawkwind was just showing a lot of frustration - not just over this event. [01:06] LjL: ie shut up :) [01:06] ah right, alright [01:06] LjL, to make my point and not be asked about it during it :) [01:06] somerville32: quite likely. however his frustration was misplaced - ie, didnt really say what was wrong [01:06] once people accept responsiblity for thier actions than the appealing will go down and the ops argueing with ops will go down (everything that apokry.. and Hobbsee did was just and the best way to handle it) the extras that came out maybe could have been thought about more before saying them [01:06] sure ompaul, i just didn't know the expression :) [01:06] and who bans for 24hrs for pasting, btw? [01:06] i thought the bans were lifted a few mins after... [01:06] Hobbsee, me if the person does it a second or third time [01:06] Hobbsee: only repeat offenders [01:07] Hobbsee, We've seen it. [01:07] Hobbsee: me, if you do it twice after i've told you [01:07] ompaul: ah right. that makes sense then [01:07] Hobbsee, I don't think anyone disagrees that he should have been banned, etc. etc. [01:07] I think people were upset with how it was handled and certain things people said and did [01:08] so here you go, if someone else bans, I strongly suggest that other ops should leave any query on it for a while [01:08] that could be up to an hour after [01:08] somerville32: quite likely. but until the first group of people actually handle a couple of these things, with repeat offenders and proxies - are you really licenced to comment? [01:08] there is good reasoning behind this and it should be done privately [01:08] particularly because you're usually getting abuse from the user as well [01:09] if you go to someone while they are angry they will be defensive and then feel under threat === gnomefreak cheers Hobbsee and apokryphos for the way they *did* handle it :) brb smoke [01:09] They got some ass to kline himself? They've got skills. [01:10] ompaul: exactly [01:10] and that is what happened with me - I walked because I felt that I had just had a ban evader - who then went on to pick a fight with someone else ... [01:10] PuMpErNiCkLe: ah, yeah... [01:10] ompaul: would it be a good idea to, for instance, /msg ompaul Hey - not sure I agree with that last ban; would appreciate discussion in 60 minutes if that's all right. ? [01:10] Hobbsee, Yes, I do feel I am. Does one need to participate in a war to have an opinion on wars? [01:10] and I was really annoyed that I had to fight on two fronts as I saw it [01:11] pss can we let ompaul speak for a moment please? [01:11] so then I read the logs of it the next day I blew up [01:11] Right, shoot. /me shuts up. [01:11] this was at that time a private channel and that was like a third front - i.e. exhausted [01:12] so I said the most logical thing I could [01:12] I am out of here [01:12] -- now I made a point of saying I would go to a meeting [01:12] somerville32: to understand the stress, and it coming at you from all corners about this guy - yes, you really do. it's not like they've gone away for a while, and come back later - they're constantly at you. [01:12] my understanding was it was here [01:12] it moved ... to a logged channel [01:12] I was not willing to come out with that stuff in such a meeting [01:13] but hey you open it up to the world I know it is logged now [01:13] somerville32: the more they badger, becoming more and more offensive and profane as they go on, is just going to make you want to get rid of them. when done for long enough, any way to get rid of them effectively will do. [01:13] Hobbsee, And thats when you ask another op to step in. We must always maintain a level of professionalism and emotional detachment. I've been in situation where I've gotten personally upset and thats ok. [01:13] Hobbsee, I don't think anyone disagrees with the ban. [01:14] so the side arguement goes on - and the parties have logs they can read this === jenda [n=jenda@ubuntu/member/jenda] has joined #ubuntu-ops === mode/#ubuntu-ops [+v jenda] by ChanServ [01:14] hey jenda [01:14] tonyyarusso, the comment you gave there works [01:14] Hobbsee, We see what the guy did - we saw him being purposely malicious, crude, and vulgar. [01:14] ompaul: would it be a good idea to, for instance, /msg ompaul Hey - not sure I agree with that last ban; would appreciate discussion in 60 minutes if that's all right. ? [01:14] ompaul: Cool. *notes* [01:14] tonyyarusso, and that would have been less devisive [01:15] if that is the right spelling [01:15] Hobbsee, The issue was the other stuff. Way too many people get involved and emotional involved. [01:15] but I had had enough [01:15] Hobbsee, The whole thing with Mez attempting to exploit his system and trying to trick him into visiting a channel which Mez believed to be an auto-kline channel was absolutely and completely wrong. [01:16] somerville32: you'd have to speak to Mez about that. also remember that if a staffer with kline powers had been around, the guy whould have also been klined. [01:16] -h [01:16] ompaul: may i? [01:16] Hobbsee, Furthermore, contacting the ISP... way out of line. [01:17] tonyyarusso, the volunteer got to the point - where they said I can waste my time better [01:17] LjL, yeap I am done [01:17] ompaul: Makes sense. [01:17] that was kinda separate - discovering that he was abusing his contract with the ISP, and reporting it. [01:17] i mean, maybe it wasnt their place - but it's alos for the good of everyone else who uses that isp [01:18] When you say it "wasn't their place", how do you define that? === somerville32 is on the phone. [01:18] as in, wasnt the guy's place to contact the ISP abotu the guy's abuse of his ISP [01:19] and disobeying the terms of use in flaming, and running an IRC client. [01:19] Isn't it? How else would they know? [01:19] well, exactly. hence the maybe [01:19] 'k [01:19] ompaul: i think it's worth noting that you say, on one hand, that the banner shouldn't be questioned right away, *and* on the other hand, that they should be questioned *later* (an hour, or whatever), if one disagrees with the ban. i think both points are important -- i think in the past, we've just tended to *never* question other ops' actions, or question them with third parties at a much later stage. but this has built up silent conflict [01:19] that exploded after a while, i believe. on the other hand, questioning everything right when it happens, as you say, is counter-productive too, as people are already upset and get even more so [01:20] I'm not inclined to report someone for running services, since their may or may not be Apache in the vicinity, but abuse, yes. [01:20] tonyyarusso: i thought nmap told you what the service was? [01:20] Hobbsee: When I say may or may not, add a wink. [01:20] heh [01:20] Hobbsee, I can tell nmap strange things }:-> and I often do [01:21] LjL, accurate take [01:21] gnomefreak: in my logs, he said he'd be ban evading. [01:21] by proxy [01:21] (in query, which i pasted in here) [01:22] Hobbsee, you know you are right, we know you are right, anyone want to disagree [01:22] at that point, you effectively lose all kindness, and the ops will fight you until you go away. [01:22] ompaul: another thought that's in my mind is that this "always give the possibility of a fair appeal" concept is excessive, and a waste of energies... really, sometimes IMHO people just don't deserve an appeal, and making a comedy here in #ubuntu-ops is a complete farce. that's my take, do you think i'm mistaken or missing something? [01:22] i'm not sure that's wrong... [01:22] LjL: i think it's useful sometimes... [01:22] Hobbsee: sometimes, sure [01:22] LjL: but there's no reason to leave a guy that isnt going to change, etc [01:23] LjL, I concur that not everyone needs an appeal [01:23] I can prove that [01:23] Hobbsee: yes but it was made a point, before, that you ("you" as you personally and the other ops involved) didn't give this malt enough possibility of an appeal. judging from what i hear he did... that's ridiculous to me [01:24] how much abuse were you suggesting that he could do? [01:24] LjL: I was one of the people who was pushing for always having a chance to be reviewed. My intent was for being able to get a second op to look at it, not to have the same op have to waste more time on you. Additionally, while I think that, the _moment_ they do something offensive on their review time, I have no problem closing it totally then. [01:24] he was abusing mez, abusing myself, abusing this channel....hwo long do you think that should have gone on for? [01:24] Hobbsee: myself? honestly? i think he'd deserve a laugh in his face and an immediate ban from here. but the point ain't my guts feelings [01:25] I meant it not so much as an appeal as a review, as a check on our own ops. If there were already more than one op present for the ban, it would no longer be necessary from my line of reasoning. [01:26] sorry - minor interjection as I have not followed this arguement - it appears from what you said that for this person I would have sought a kline - so if they klined themselves so be it [01:26] ompaul: i think i can give some convincing evidence too, but then *prove* it, perhaps not. if this were a court of law, the concept of always having the possibility of an appeal would surely be most important. however, *to me*, this place shouldn't work like a court of law - but i suppose other people see that as a fit model [01:26] Lj [01:26] LjL: surely people get sent out of the court of law if they're abusing the judges during their trial? [01:26] i guess they do [01:26] surely the court doesnt just let them stay there, only abusing? [01:26] Hobbsee, they do [01:26] Hobbsee, they get contempt of court [01:27] LjL: i think you're correct - as long as the person is actually being sane, and not abusive. [01:27] bye bye for whatever usually 7 days or some such [01:27] Hobbsee: but right now i'm thinking, in general, of whether *having* an appeal procss is *always* worth having for *all* offenders. i'm not thinking specifically of malt's case [01:27] and i haven't fully read the logs, either [01:27] What do we mean by appeal? I think that's a question that needs to be addressed. [01:27] see you ompaul [01:28] We often have users who think it means "hey, if I go whine a bit, maybe they'll let me off easy" [01:28] LjL, no, that is what the court says :) [01:28] gnomefreak: your cloak saves you from the kline, BTW [01:28] gnomefreak: you just reconnect [01:28] tonyyarusso, right now i think it just means roughly "the person comes here, moans a bit, we talk, and in the end will still take the decision to the op who did the ban, who'll most likely just deny unbanning" [01:28] _I_ want it to be, "I think that may have been unfair/misunderstood. Could I get a second opinion?" [01:29] ompaul: ah. whops :) indeed i was thinking that your current visits seemed to be quite more frequent than weekly =) [01:29] tonyyarusso, I don't think that is fair to the person who was given the trust in the first place to be an op [01:29] LjL: In action anyway, but perception might need some work. [01:29] ompaul: I can see that. [01:29] tonyyarusso, and it qualifies for a challenge to them [01:29] ompaul: Truthfully, it stemmed largely from wanting my own work reviewed :P [01:30] tonyyarusso, so ask me or nalioth or someone else to look at it [01:30] If done well (ie, some miracle occurs.....), it could also lead users to a better understanding of what they need to change. [01:30] ompaul: That works too. [01:30] :) [01:30] somerville32: you're free to take it ot the CC you know. but most of the ops will step down, i suspect. [01:31] and the rule of "dont criticise people unless you've walked a mile in their shoes" definetly applies. [01:31] tonyyarusso, putting "IT UP TO" someone who just had to do the irc equivalent of take a baseball out to a random stranger and my not be feeling great after doing it [01:31] i wouldn't walk a centimeter in your shoes :P [01:32] is as I have already said .. very much an insult to them [01:32] ompaul: Hmm, point. [01:32] Hobbsee, where is that from? [01:32] I have a thought: [01:33] ompaul: that somerville32 was thinking of taking it to the CC? earlier in the logs [01:33] ompaul: is this channel still being logged somewhere? [01:33] I think so [01:33] hmm i'm not sure it is yet [01:33] What if we made it policy to not review bans for users here until an hour after it had been issued? Surely one hour to walk away from the computer and grab a sandwich won't kill anyone, so it's still minimal inconvenience to them, while giving time for issuing and observing ops to both calm down, and commence their in-pm discussion if applicable, but still giving a chance to appeal? === Hobbsee isnt logging on the client she's reading form, sorry [01:33] my take on it after that meeting [01:33] Thoughts? [01:34] ubuntulog: is here [01:34] tonyyarusso: what happens when they dont actually obey the ban, and keep coming back? [01:34] sounds sane, otherwise [01:34] Hobbsee, escalate get Freenode involved and have them removed [01:34] Hobbsee: i still, and will probably always, stand that ban evading = you're out and no appeal of any kind [01:34] but *shrug* that's just me [01:34] Hobbsee fire up xchat and hit them with lart [01:35] ompaul: where freenode staffers are unavailable. [01:35] 1. From the sounds of the e-mail, it is against their TOS to send obscene content - not the http server. 2. When do we decide if an appeal is allowed or not? I just don't see a fair way to determine when and/or if. Besides, if it is _clear_ that the user deserves it, the appeal should be rather quick 3. I think Hawkwind brought that "appeal" time issue up only because of prior incidents. [01:35] Hobbsee: Then I say first return, send them a /msg explaining that ban evasion is bad, and they are welcome to come back in an hour. If they continue after that, lay on the smackdown. [01:35] Hobbsee, in that event queue it [01:35] ompaul: queue? [01:35] I think any apoint about the appeal being handled badly is absolutely ridiculous [01:35] Ideally, send them the /msg _before_ they have a chance to come back evading [01:35] we heard him out, he was very abusive, he was banned [01:36] Hobbsee, set it up as a message [01:36] Hobbsee, for your local favorite freenoder [01:36] somerville32: 1) i have no idea 2) i think perhaps if three ops say "no, you were rightfully banned, shut up", if the user still whines, quiet them and be done 3) maybe, but he was saying this about *this* incident it seemed to me [01:36] apokryphos: I agree personally. But, wasn't there, so would rather look at it systemically than individually, for my purposes at least. [01:36] Hobbsee, at this stage you must know a couple of them [01:36] what happened after that we might be able to discuss, for sure. But he had a fair appeal (regardless of whether he deserved one), and he was abrasive [01:37] I'm also not all for a systematic process for everything [01:37] LjL: It is hard to have time appreciation from reading logs. TBH, I think that is a non-issue anyhow. [01:37] ompaul: ah right. [01:37] we are operators (humans), hence we use judgement === Hobbsee --> afk [01:37] though really, *sigh*, we shouldn't have a *rule* to decide when an appeal's an appeal... it really should be obvious when someone is *that* abusive. but ok i'm living in my own world. [01:38] apokryphos, did you get that on news at 11 ;-) cos you are right [01:38] And I think your second point really hightlights a major issue - some of our attitudes towards users. [01:38] somerville32: i think you should be in #ubuntu and have ops in there for a while. [01:38] ompaul: 8) [01:38] Abusive user or non-abusive user, we must be professional and respectful at all times. [01:39] somerville32: so you agree that there is nothing contentious to the original appeal process? [01:39] professional, yeah, respectful, well yeah, though we don't have to treat them with golden gloves... *but* it doesn't mean you deserve more than 10 seconds of appeal *no matter what* you have done [01:39] ... [01:40] if you're like the guy i tried for a while to give you a bantracker pointer too, do you deserve more than 10 seconds of my attention? no, really, no [01:40] also just read your comment about the CC now, somerville32 [01:40] The appeal process really doesn't exist [01:40] and that will never change with me [01:40] People come in here and complain [01:40] and nobody is going to reverse anything [01:40] Infact, more people just get upset [01:41] we don't have to unban people for the sake of them appealing [01:41] which is what you seem to be suggesting [01:41] somerville32: Do you think my idea of an hour to cool down and discuss privately before that step would help that fact? [01:41] apokryphos: +1 [01:41] that's ompaul's idea but anyway :P [01:42] LjL, if it works it is in the public domain [01:42] somerville32: now, unless you're going to have weight in your point, you're going to have to actually demonstrate that there's something wrong in the appeal process [01:42] which consists of someone's ban not being reversed when it should have been [01:42] I like tonyyarusso's idea, but until that hour is over I feel all ops should be seen to publically support the banning op [01:42] s/unless/if/ [01:42] PriceChild++ [01:42] (well ompauls) [01:43] apokryphos, The issue is more complex then that. [01:43] a lot of these ideas are good, and we said we'd be a team but I'm not really seeing that [01:43] support *if asked*, of course, you don't *have* to brag around and say "hey, look what a beautiful ban LjL did" ;-P [01:43] somerville32, I think you don't understand the position you are putting an op in [01:44] have they no right to support? [01:44] PriceChild: I'd rather not see them at all. As in user walks in, says hey, one op says "We'll be happy to review in an hour's time, but not before then. See you in a bit?" And go back to idling. [01:44] LjL: haha [01:44] ompaul, I'm not sure what context you're speaking in. [01:44] ompaul: sure they do, i'm just saying, for the sake of avoiding ambiguity, that if you don't like a ban, you're not *required* to lie and say you do. you can keep silent - for that one hour at least === tonyyarusso made that exact point in our meeting before [01:45] We're kind of offtopic [01:45] somerville32, no we are on topic [01:45] we're not [01:45] Since we waited more then 1 hour before addressing the issue [01:45] anyhow, I'm off to bed [01:46] tonyyarusso, but do you think things should be handled immediately? [01:46] somerville32: perhaps we waited too long, this time [01:46] member cloaks cant be klined? [01:46] gnomefreak, but they can be lost [01:46] well i mean like everyone else? [01:46] one day is probably too long, the involved ops will have gone away, and talking with *other* ops will only get them more angry ("talking behind their shoulders") [01:46] tonyyarusso, In the vast majority of cases I believe that the ops should all pull together as a team... temporary bans are nothing... [01:46] so really, there's probably a timing that is best. i don't know if an hour is best, but probably a day's too long [01:47] ompaul: that i found out by watching. but to join a channel with autokline i can just reconnect === gnomefreak likes that. didnt know that :) [01:48] PriceChild: I don't think we should do anything immediately. In other words, any ban that is set stands for at least an hour. What happens later can vary. Most of the time I would expect an hour later it would be confirmed by another anyway, but I see little point in pinging everyone and getting them to say "I'll support that" in the meantime or whatever. Am I making sense? [01:48] tsmithe would like to request his ban to be removed from -offtopic [01:48] tsmithe was baned from -offtopic? [01:48] tonyyarusso, yeah completely [01:48] for days === ompaul thinks /me had something to do with that [01:48] for the whole, venezuela thing [01:49] tsmithe: aaah. Has it happened before. [01:49] ? [01:49] nope [01:49] well [01:49] it? [01:49] ompaul: I think I remember this. === ompaul goes to check [01:49] tsmithe: Banning specifically. You could mention any warnings also. [01:49] tonyyarusso, I don't mean everyone should appear... I'm just saying that whoever deals with the person entering -ops should say "I am not going to go back on this staff member's decision" etc. The ban stays in place for at least an hour (or more) and I stand by the ops decision. === gnomefreak never gets to ban tsmithe :( [01:49] tonyyarusso, i don't think i've been banned much from there before... and i don't recall much about anything? [01:50] gnomefreak, is that some kind of weird op privilege, banning me? [01:50] PriceChild: Right, that can be part of their explanation. I think I see what you're getting at now. [01:50] :P [01:50] i think daniel is the only devel i have banned and it wasnt even him [01:50] heh? [01:50] tsmithe, you're our bitch [01:50] PriceChild, i know! :( === tsmithe hugs PriceChild === PriceChild hugs tsmithe [01:51] yays! [01:51] tsmithe: someone was using daniel's nick (dh...) spammingone night [01:51] tsmithe: reading [01:51] gnomefreak, ahh k [01:51] tsmithe, you mention your trip again and you will be gone for a week [01:51] gnomefreak: I remember that! [01:51] ompaul, i won't; course not [01:51] Why can't he mention his trip? [01:52] i think it counts as spammage [01:52] somerville32, he spams [01:52] somerville32: He wants money for it [01:52] somerville32 knows that :P [01:52] tsmithe: Spamming isn't nice :( [01:52] i don't [01:52] tsmithe: Then why were you banned? [01:52] it's not like i go in; hit and run style [01:52] somerville32, and tell me this - why don't you know this rather than ask us here - this is what we were saying all along [01:52] i'm not going to argue how it's not spam [01:52] you're the ops here, not me [01:52] tsmithe: Also, while we normally don't let behaviour in one channel influence decisions in another, I think PriceChild (?) said you did the same thing in the forums channel - behave there too please? === TomSwift [n=regerror@user-142h773.cable.mindspring.com] has left #ubuntu-ops [] [01:53] tonyyarusso, of course [01:53] tsmithe, it is spam - very simply - I get to say that and understand that spammers go out of the channel with bans [01:53] ompaul: I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you asking a question? [01:53] tsmithe, has learned his lesson about the spamming I've muted him enough in #ubuntuforums === gnomefreak testing repos for packages for the last time tonight [01:53] Can you qualify "this"? [01:54] and the -offtopic one [01:54] somerville32, ehh no, I am being retorical, you could hit the bug bot and see what he is being removed for === Jucato [n=jucato@124.106.176.133] has joined #ubuntu-ops === mode/#ubuntu-ops [+v Jucato] by ChanServ [01:54] he hasn't repeated in some time [01:54] tsmithe: One suggestion that imo would make it less spamlike would be if you happen to be discussing the trip, and someone seems interested, invite them to your #tsmithe-venezuela channel, and post the link to your blog there rather than in these channels. [01:54] ompaul: It isn't working. [01:54] I would like to vouch for him.... but then again i'm not an op in -offtopic [01:54] tonyyarusso, good idea... that channel does sit a tad empty :P [01:54] PriceChild: Thanks. [01:55] PriceChild, being banned tends to prevent it being repeated [01:55] ompaul, indeed :) Its up to you [01:55] ok... but you don't mind if i link to my blog not about the venezuela thing, right? [01:55] as in a post i've made on it === gnomefreak got up this morning -offtopic was quiet (not a person talking) for about an hour. found all the -offtopic chat going on in here [01:55] ompaul: Capital punishment tends to stop repeaters too. [01:55] somerville32: tried lately? it seems to be back to normal now for me [01:56] LjL: k [01:56] tsmithe: As long as it's not pointing to a page regarding donations I think I'd be fine [01:56] somerville32, they get an appeal lasts years .. but does not happen 20 seconds after the judge says byeeeee [01:56] tsmithe: and is low in regularity [01:56] tonyyarusso, ok cool [01:56] ompaul: True ;] [01:56] Welp, bbiab [01:56] mc44, yes === gnomefreak almost gave tsmithe a way to get around it but im hushing now [01:57] i actually think i wasn't "regular"... it was kinda sporadic [01:57] gnomefreak: well, they do, but they autoreconnect. at least mine did [01:57] it was definitely often, though [01:57] Hobbsee: ty i didnt know that ;) [01:57] tsmithe: All right - let's see how you do for a while, eh? :) === tsmithe hugs tonyyarusso [01:57] of course [01:58] tsmithe: if you post to the blog is fine have the donations part on a different page a link on you blog page but shhhhh i didnt tell you that :) [01:58] :) [01:58] oh and dont overly post it [01:58] i actually didn't expect any donations [01:58] we're watching you tsmithe ;) [01:58] but i've made 30 :) [01:58] so i'm happy === Mez waves [01:58] isnt that like 50 USD? [01:59] yeah i guess [01:59] Hi Mez [01:59] hi [01:59] gnomefreak, i don't know what that means though [01:59] I saw a few pings for me in here - sup ? [01:59] usd == us dollars [01:59] i know [01:59] oh [01:59] gnomefreak: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%C2%A330+in+dollars&btnG=Search [01:59] i just dunno how much that is [01:59] Mez: People aren't happy with how you handled the incident last night. [01:59] a lot? a little? [01:59] wow, a dollar's twice a pound now? wow. [02:00] err i mean, the opposite [02:00] about 60 dollars not bad [02:00] Mez: #1, a number of people weren't happy with your #asdfg redirect. Other things also ensued. [02:00] tsmithe, please head off back to the other place this is not your average chat room - but I think you have gathered that already [02:00] i have [02:00] Mez: Not to mention how you apparently tried to exploit his system, etc. etc. [02:00]