[01:06] ompaul, zewb is a ban evader to the extreme [01:10] wow, has anyone else read Seveas' blog post? [01:11] Seeker`: read the rest of planet [01:15] Seeker`: it's not wow, it bloody disgusting [01:16] "wow" as in "i'm amazed that someone would make a post like that" [01:17] * Daviey knew this [01:18] I won't comment [01:18] Gary: I think you just did :D [01:19] I didn't :p [01:19] I would like to know what Seveas suggests as an alternative [01:20] there you go again! [01:20] Gary: "no comment" is similar to saying guilty sir :) [01:20] Its the staff's network, they can do what they want [01:20] I like Daviey's comment :-D [01:20] the only alternative I can think of is to start a new server, which will be a hell of a lot more difficult [01:21] Seeker`: or move to oftc [01:21] which of course worked so well for debian [01:21] from what I understand, the people who are unhappy with freenode wont be happy unless everything is run the way they want [01:21] and that wont happen unless they run the network [01:23] and running the network is not as easy as it looks [01:24] yes, I can imagine [01:24] people complain about the ops workload at the moment [01:24] to run a network, there would need to be a new set of people to be "staff" [01:25] as well as the existing number of ops [01:25] and then the arguments start all over again... [01:25] exactly [01:25] because it would seem that being staff and being an op is a conflict of interest [01:26] sadly it can be [01:26] but it can work together well too [01:26] it needs both parties to understand the limitations [01:27] agreed, it is other people that I have seen saying that it is a conflict of interest [01:28] on a technical level freenode handles the traffic we push at it well and is one of the more stable irc networks i am on [01:28] Daviey: Yeah, ubuntu is the biggest group on here [01:29] i think more people need to realise that it's /just/ irc :( [01:29] Daviey: yeah [01:29] I think that people should just accept that the staff do what they have to do, and unless someone is willing to put as much time / resources into starting a new network, they are going to have to put up with the decisions of staff [01:29] Daviey, it might be 'just irc', but it's a gigantic part of the ubuntu community. [01:30] and take a long hard think about if they did - would they find themselves in the same position in the end too... [01:30] Daviey: I mean, oi, thats my life you are dissing :p [01:30] Gary: silly me, i thought you had no life :P [01:30] Seeker`, staff dont "have" to allow (or encourage, or participate in) the kind of spam that we were forced to put up with [01:31] elkbuntu: They may consider it a channel issue if someone keeps on spamming a channel [01:31] Seeker`, fail. [01:32] dont even try that one. [01:32] it was more than just a channel, or even a namespace [01:32] elkbuntu: the "spam" was blown completely out of proportion, and was clearly handled badly which has caused all this bad feeling. [01:33] is this spam what I think it is? begins with e, ends in a? [01:33] Daviey, it didnt cause the bad feeling, it was just the final straw [01:33] elkbuntu: so you think it was handled well? [01:33] Gary, indeed it is. [01:33] spam doesn't really have much to do with the running of the network [01:33] argggh, still, /me cries [01:33] Daviey, no, but it wasnt the sole cause. [01:34] Gary, we're talking issues, it is an issue. you cannot get around it. [01:36] Staff can't do anything more to stop a spammer than ops can do afaik [01:36] I don't see why a channel ban was not done earlier to be honest [01:36] Seeker`, maybe not, but they dont have to encourage it or excuse it [01:36] elkbuntu: I dont ever recall staff encouraging anything [01:36] Gary, it was. it was lifted without the knowledge of most of the council. [01:36] afaik it was never encourged [01:36] interesting definition of encourage you have. [01:37] Seeker`, they gave alternative ways, such as /invite to do the same deed. [01:37] they? [01:37] the point is, they shouldn't have to do anything about something that essentially isn't their issue [01:37] Gary, numerous staff [01:37] proof? [01:37] AIUI, they are here to ensure that the network keeps running [01:38] Daviey, the staff in question are in this channel. if they wish for it to be known they can let it be known. [01:38] If people want someone k-lined, there should be a namespace wide ban in effect for that person [01:38] * Daviey goes to gather some sticks, for a fire - looks like another witchhunt is on the cards. [01:38] without an exception for any channel [01:38] Seeker`, there was. certain parts of the namespace didnt comply. [01:38] as this would have the same effect as a k-line [01:39] The group contact can do whatever they wish with namespace channels, can they not? [01:39] if you really want me to explain how this worked in say the loco part of the namespace..... [01:39] hmm, i seem to remember elkbuntu defining emma's ban as _not_ a namespace ban. [01:39] in say -uk. [01:40] We were told that it was suggested that she be banned from every ubuntu-* channel [01:40] and that it was our decision [01:40] elkbuntu: emma has been a useful member of the -uk channel. [01:40] yes, but she was rarely banned from here, as per the coc [01:40] Daviey, she also made a certain member of the -uk channel feel very uncomfortable and unwelcome [01:40] as did he to her. [01:41] he was rather terse, which we don't encourage. [01:41] Daviey, he followed her around? [01:41] did i say that? [01:41] did i say you did? [01:41] elkbuntu: did you follow emma onto other networks? [01:41] elkbuntu: my point is, if the irc-council wanted someone k-lined, it would be possible for them to ban them from every #ubuntu-* channel, would it not? [01:41] Daviey, no [01:41] O RLY [01:41] Daviey, i was already on those networks [01:42] elkbuntu: And, as far as #ubuntu-* is concerned, it has exactly the same effect [01:42] okay, followe her into other channels that you weren't in on other networks? [01:42] Daviey, i joined as suggested by someone here who said they'd been sent from there [01:43] erm, check your logs - he didn't suggest you join [01:43] maybe he didnt. but he came in here and said he was acting on information he recieved from there [01:44] elkbuntu: please answer my question [01:44] Seeker`, no, it's not actually. numerous loco channels still dont have the allowance in their access list [01:44] elkbuntu: The group contact can request that control be transferred to them, can they not? [01:45] Seeker`, in ways that would breach the coc, sure. [01:45] it may not be designed for at present, but it is possible [01:45] it's conceivable, but not entirely possible. [01:46] yeah, if that happend, i could see more ## channels being formed [01:46] so banning someone from #ubuntu-* and enforcing it is against the CoC, yet pushing for someone to be k-lined isn't? [01:47] Seeker`, i should hope i dont have to spend the next hour wording the differences between the two scenarios [01:47] elkbuntu: what allowance in the access list do you want? [01:47] I fail to see the difference between the two [01:48] elkbuntu: perhaps I am stupid, please explain [01:48] Seeker`, you have to wait a while, i cant forsake my life for your professed stupidity [01:48] and if it takes an hour to explain the difference, perhaps the difference is too small to actually be noticable [01:49] ok, to put it simply. if the council was to wrench control of -uk from the current operators, would that be more of an effect than a kline? [01:50] i'n not saying you should "wrench control" from the current operators [01:50] wow, how rude can you get elkbuntu? [01:51] I am saying that there should be an allowance in the rules and guidelines forthe irc-council to instigate a namespace wide ban (an ubuntu-line, if you wish) [01:51] Daviey, depends how long i get interrogated here [01:51] hmm, "interrogated" [01:51] upon this u-line being issued, that person is banned from every channel in the #ubuntu namespace [01:52] Seeker`, good luck getting that by the CC [01:52] Seeker`: I was previously correct, a #*ubuntu* namespace ban wasn't intended for emma [01:52] corrected* [01:52] because it was not logistically possible. [01:52] I dont see how removing individual channel admins choice to ban someone (perhaps against their wishes) is anti-CoC, but removing their choice through a k-line is fine [01:53] elkbuntu: hmm, i don't think that is how you phrased it when you corrected me. [01:54] Seeker`: the difference happens, when a k-line has to be issued from staff - and they use reasoned judgement, but a (partial) namespace ban can be issued from non-staffers [01:55] the people 'issuing' the namespace ban, mind you, were not even council. [01:55] so hence, the council never issued any directive to a namespace ban [01:55] Daviey: I am suggesting that if a situation gets so bad that a k-line is requested, then a namespace-wide ban should be in place [01:56] also, only the council should be able to request a k-line based on actions in #ubuntu [01:56] #ubuntu-* [01:56] Seeker`, really now. [01:56] Seeker`: aye, but then i would also think that freenode would want to kline if the situation was that bad. [01:56] nalioth, ping! seeker doesnt want any of the spammers or flooders klined without council approval. [01:56] elkbuntu: No, I never said that [01:56] yes you did [01:56] no he didn't [01:57] only the council should be able to request a k-line based on actions in #ubuntu [01:57] it's taking what he said out of context [01:57] ok, let me clarify [01:57] I think you knew that, but hey [01:57] and you've not taken a single thing out of context in the past 40 minutes of my time? [01:57] no [01:57] In the case of a long running problem like emma, only the council should be able to request a kline [01:58] if a staffer sees something that they wish to k-line it is up to them [01:58] Seeker`: The council have as much to say in the running of freenode as the ops and users do. [01:59] the council did request a kline, on the basis it was politically more correct than spending hours accumulating access and trying to institute a namespace-wide ban. [01:59] elkbuntu: I don't remember the council requesting a kline. [01:59] PriceChild, i recall us doing so [01:59] PriceChild: My point is that there should be the equivalent to k-lineing that only affects the #ubuntu- namespace [01:59] Seeker`: there is dealing with a problem, and then there is making a point. [02:00] Seeker`: I would prefer we do the former. [02:00] as I understand it, one of the "issues" with staff is that they refuse to k-line people that some people deem to be spammers etc. [02:00] Seeker`: freenode's definition of spam happenned to differ. [02:00] that may be the case [02:01] but the point is, some people in #ubuntu-* wanted some people removed from the network for reasons X Y and Z [02:01] well there is certainly an overlap. I think all parties agree that "Join #linux on $network, we need users and ops etc" is spam. [02:01] freenode said no, so people sit there whining about it [02:01] And it would be an issue *you have* with staf, not an issue *with* staff [02:01] sorry, bad working [02:02] *wording [02:02] no problem [02:02] I am suggesting an alternative, whereby instead of requesting a k-line, the irc-council implement a namespace wide ban [02:02] which would approximate a k-line, and could be instituted without the involvement of staff [02:02] i really don't think a situation has yet happend where that is warranted. [02:02] It should be on a per channel basis [02:03] Daviey: maybe not, but it would take away one of the reasons why people are complaining so loudly about staff [02:03] Daviey, several times it would have saved our sanity whilst waiting for an actual kline [02:03] it's a select few complaining about staff. I think staff have been doing a mighty fine job - with little thanks tb [02:03] tbh [02:04] Daviey, you werent around much in lilo's days, were you? [02:04] things have changed *ALOT* since then [02:04] elkbuntu: care to quote an occasion? I can't think of many where a /kickban hasn't resolved most issues in #ubuntu.. Not sure how a k-line would have any difference. [02:05] elkbuntu: Why should staff get invovled with the day-to-day running of a channel? [02:06] Imagine it like a government. You wouldn't report a pothole in the road outside your house to the Houses of Parliment (i.e. staff), you would report it to the local council (i.e. group contacts) [02:06] Daviey, i can quote a personal attack by a loony who took offense to me kickbanning him from one channel for threatening violence... only to join *EVERY* channel in the list to proclaim me as a gay child rapist [02:06] what other networks do staff get as involved with the channels, users and opers than freenode? [02:06] and it would then be up to the local council to do something about it [02:06] elkbuntu: and a staffer wasn't around for how long? [02:06] Daviey, a good half hour [02:07] elkbuntu: we also have many looneys who might as well be kline exempt, as they have many many proxies to play with [02:07] Daviey, i'm often around when there are *zero* staffers to be found [02:07] and you think you could get irc council approval on a namespace ban before that? [02:07] Gary, this wasnt one of them. [02:09] Daviey, well in this instance, the staffer who showed up was nalioth, and hence on the council. it's not always the case though. often the entire council minus nalioth is around without any way to prevent flood spam attacks [02:09] "without any way"? [02:10] can you not ban people? [02:10] elkbuntu: can you clarify who did approve the partial namespace ban on emma, if it wasn't the irc council? [02:11] Seeker`, partial namespace ban as in major channels exempting this one, was approved by the council afaicr [02:11] bah [02:11] Daviey: ^ [02:11] can you guys please come at me one at a time. [02:11] <+elkbuntu> the people 'issuing' the namespace ban, mind you, were not even council. [02:12] elkbuntu: we are not coming at you. Please don't think we are. [02:12] actually you know what. screw this. i dont give up my weekends to be villanised. [02:12] Daviey, it sure as all hell feels like it [02:12] Daviey, im on the brink of quitting bothering right now [02:13] that will be joining seveas, hobbsee, and seemingly ljl as i've not seen a peep from him for weeks. [02:13] i hope you're pleased with yourselves [02:13] *sigh* [02:13] we are _not_ getting at you [02:13] elkbuntu: I'm getting fed up with all the complaining and sniping about different things. I am trying to suggest an alternative solution that will put an end to a large proportion of the reasons that people are complaining [02:14] Seeker`, you're not suggesting anything we havent already thought about. [02:14] behind closed doors.. [02:14] because this is really stuff we want trolls reading in -ops logs [02:14] All I see is people complaining about the freenode staff, and no suggestions of new ideas [02:14] I can see how you can think some of the things i'm saying are getting at you, but it's not intended this way [02:15] elkbuntu: did someone suggest my idea [02:15] Daviey, it's the fact i have as many as three of you throwing 'ideas' at me at once [02:15] I don't see what Seeker` has said to be things that are annoying [02:16] Seeker`, not in quite so many words, but there's a reason we have requested of all ubuntu channels to have ubuntuircouncil in the access lists of channels [02:16] Is there any way for me to officially suggest my idea [02:16] so that there will be a public discussion [02:17] Daviey, when did i say he was being annoying. im sitting here *alone* fending off questions and ideas from *two* and sometimes *three* people. i've only just got up, and im trying hard to have breakfast which is now cold [02:17] Seeker`: mailing list will be the best place IMO [02:17] that list needs to more discussion IMO [02:17] Daviey, yay, paddy frank can join in then too! :D [02:17] * elkbuntu headdesks [02:17] elkbuntu: would the ML be a suitable place to suggest it? [02:18] elkbuntu: to be fair, emma was on her own againts many of the irc council and ops. [02:18] Seeker`, it would be, it if would stay clean and calm there. given the people who we know hawk it, it'd not last long [02:18] Daviey, emma was never on her own. [02:18] _never_? [02:18] Daviey, we had numerous minions come at us on her behalf [02:18] after it kicked off? [02:19] Daviey, she already had a populated channel by the time we found out [02:19] she had paladine from close to the beginning [02:19] afaik [02:20] Please remember that i don't know emma from Adam, and she's done some realy stupid things. But i think she's been _really_ badly treated by both formal process, poor behaviour by some people. [02:20] Daviey, she managed to collect a good proportion of the worst behaved people from -offtopic who loved nothing better than to be her knights. [02:21] I can see /why/ she did that, trying to stand up against the council and -ops, which is really stupid and i do not condone it. [02:23] Daviey, the main problem with resolving with emma is that we'd get to a conclusion, and she'd take something someone said months ago, and revoke any committment based on it. [02:23] she'd wait *right* until the conclusion to 'discover' said evil, and then bawl about it. [02:24] this happened as many as half a dozen times. each time took as many as 12 hours of discussion to get to. in one case it was my entire weekend gone. [02:25] as in. wake->sleep negotiating with her for an entire weekend. [02:25] but then again, ubuntu ops dont catalyse, or so i'm told. [02:25] wow, isn't the aim of the traditional "internet troll" to waste peoples time? [02:25] hmm, i dunno - a resolution was pretty much forced upon her from the offset; and she appeared to largely follow most of it, until someone did something recent - then do things like revert topic, and msg people... Which was a silly, tit-for-tat response - but again, i can see /why/ [02:25] Gary, yes. we had to keep wasting time on her though, since there was no other way. [02:26] This problem will not go away until she's unbanned IMO [02:26] Daviey, she is largely unbanned afaik. [02:27] Daviey, i thought you didnt know her from adam? [02:27] I don't. [02:27] Daviey, btw, she only followed the parts of the resolution she added, which involved no actual change of behaviour. [02:28] telling people in ##u-u to not be mean to ops is a BIG FREAKING RED BUTTON to the people who were in there. [02:28] I don't, but if i see anything that i persevere to be unfair i'd argue their corner [02:29] I think i've criticised both sides equally to be fair. [02:31] either way, the way the ops team in general was villanised, and lost weekends to her, is a key reason why we've lost ops and infrastructure. [02:38] no, i think it's bad process planning and the good guys doing bad things that has caused this rift. [02:39] There is no way i would have bothered getting involved in this if there was better process and fairer/better treatment [02:40] If 1 user is able to cause this much hassle, there _must_ be a problem in the infrastructure. [02:41] the problem is that the infrastructure changed. i can recall a time when that one user would have genuinely been dealt with, rather than allowed to waste days of hours. [02:42] I think if the good guys had done things with better process, emma wouldn't have done things that she's now famous for, she wouldn't have been banned, and there would be no rift in the irc community. [02:43] Daviey, done what with better process? we shouldnt have asked her to stop spamming? we shouldnt have asked her to stop making racist comments? [02:43] It's worth noting that the irc discussion at UDS was the ONLY heated one, where people verged on shouting at each other. [02:44] im glad you had time to know that [02:44] I think initially she was banned from -offtopic more for having a strong opinion on the external logging bot. [02:45] time? [02:45] Daviey, i spent three days at the aussie version of CeBIT during UDS week. [02:47] shame, i wanted to go to asterisk & linuxtag this week - but couldn't get family time away really. [02:48] and btw, that 'strong opinion on the external logging bot' was seething and acidic comments about a 'slimey israeli company'. when we asked her to please not be so racist, she started screaming. [02:48] s/company/corporation/ [02:50] iirc, she then agreed to stop, so we let her back in, and practically the first hting out of her mouth was 'slimey israeli corporation' [02:51] but of course our processes are broken. we were foolish enough to give her a chance. how damn stupid and careless and reckless of us. [02:51] * ompaul pokes Daviey in the beard with a razor gillette mach 3 [02:52] Ah, chanserv has protect nicks now [02:52] grr [02:52] yes [02:52] whilst i agree the fact that they are israeli makes no merit to the discussion, and is just rude - i'm not sure it's racist. === Guest78382 is now known as Hobbsee [02:52] wonder why i got dumped in ##unavailable [02:52] ompaul: i'll poke you in the aye for that :) [02:53] Daviey, level three coffee and ohh we are not one week ago [02:53] Daviey: Saying "they should not be allowed because they are israeli" is racist, as it is saying that they shouldn't be allowed because of their race [02:53] elkbuntu: you know she actually had discussion with irseek, and got changes made? [02:53] Hobbsee: check your server tab [02:53] Seeker`: did she actually say "they should not be allowed because they are israeli"? [02:53] Daviey: I have seen comments to that effect since [02:54] Daviey, yes, im aware. [02:54] Daviey, are you aware what her initial demands actually were though? [02:55] Yeah, i sure devalues an argument when you put really stupid words like that in an argument, if she mean't it as racist or not. [02:55] * Daviey thinks we _should_ be careful what we say here, considering it is logged - and emma tends to read logs. It could cause libel issues, potentially. [02:56] Daviey, we're not saying anything that hasnt already been logged [02:56] liable to cause libel wow Daviey goes for a pun award [02:58] Seeker`, i think the comments you recall come from another who uses the 'slimey israeli corporation' line, and possibly taught it to miss e. [03:00] PriceChild: what about it? [03:01] Hobbsee: it will tell you about the forward [03:01] Hobbsee: i assume it will be because you were -e attempting to enter a +r channel [03:01] PriceChild: i was asleep overnight, so i wasn't trying to enter anything. [03:02] PriceChild: that being said, i turned on nick security, and freenode borkened the services again, forcing a reidentify [03:02] * Hobbsee should probably turn it off until freenode's more stable. [03:02] Hello my friends. [03:03] hi. [03:04] * elkbuntu raises an eyebrow [03:04] wait. i probably don't qualify as a friend, so i'll rescind that. [03:05] elkbuntu: I cannot remember who made those statements, although I do remember seeing them [03:05] For quite a while I have chosen not to take a look at the #ubuntu-ops logs because again and again what I find there is hurtful, antagonistic, and bad for my mental health. [03:05] * elkbuntu headdesks [03:06] emma: how can we help you? [03:06] I'm sorry that as fate would have it, this evening I took a look and found my name being mentioned so much. I just thought that since I am on your mind so much, you would value being able to speak to me directly. [03:06] actually, no, i dont value such. [03:06] In the absence of speaking to me directly it feels a great deal like the self-same on going effort to spread negative propaganda about me which has provoked so much needless conflict in the first place. [03:06] Hobbsee: does the definition of your resignation tfrom 'regular op duties' need to be explained again to me, to allow the whole, dealing with banned users in here kinda thing? [03:06] emma: Noone has an issue with you at the moment. This disucssion has come about due to the actions of some with respect to freenode staff. It just so happens that you have come up as an example in the discussion [03:06] emma: so, how did you find out that you were being spoken about today, if you choose not to look at #ubuntu-ops logs? [03:07] Hobbsee, I just told you that I did look at the #ubuntu-ops logs. [03:07] oh right. that was past, i see. [03:07] PriceChild: last i checked, -bugs and such is in developer land, and she still holds bans there. [03:08] emma, this has been a discussion between ops. we reserve the right to debrief ourselves. debriefing does not require your participation and in fact your participation would be counterproductive. [03:09] Daviey: i can't believe your blog post, when you complain about how others behave. [03:09] pot. kettle. [03:09] emma: could we talk about this tomorrow please? [03:09] elkbuntu, I don't think that I'm just being used as an example. From my perspective I see a lot of specifically targeting me and making a lot of unfriendly allegations without any chance to balance the slander. [03:10] elkbuntu, slander is very hurtful and counter productive. I am a person who has for the last 3 months or more done everything that I can to resolve a conflict only to find, repeatedly, and from the same select few people every effort made to keep the wounds open and antagonize me or others. [03:10] emma: you seem to be so insecure that you can't tolerate your name being mentioned, when you're one of the examples being used, in multiple situations. why? [03:10] emma: nobody is attacking you, just bringing up past events [03:10] emma, unless you want us to start having private conversations hidden off where you cant spy, please learn to keep a distance. [03:10] (see the end of #ubuntu-meeting, too) [03:11] emma: I would really appreciate it if you came back tomorrow. There has been a very long, heated discussion here this evening. [03:11] ignoring emma's attempt to sidetrack, Daviey, i'd suggest that clearly emma is *not* the only problem, seeing as there were also various heated discussions about flip. [03:11] I would like to say for the record -- It is the very same group of people who have done the most to maim my reputation, to antagonize, and belittle me, to provoke a reaction from me that they could punish, it has been this same small group of people who troll the CC and Freenode almost every single day. [03:11] Hobbsee: Yeah, notice i didn't do it on the first instance of this. And Seveas attitude is disgusting in his blog post. I agree that tit-for-tat isn't a good response. I did run my blog post past two other ubuntu members before posting it. [03:12] emma: this really isn't helping [03:12] Daviey: which makes you just as bad, no? [03:12] arguably [03:12] emma: i thought mark told you to obey the people in authority. [03:12] emma: why do you now refuse to do so? [03:13] I have not and do not disobey anyone in authority. I believe Mark also urged you to treat others with respect and abide by the CoC for leaders. [03:13] particularly as you've taken completely the wrong end of the stick, and run with it. [03:14] emma: PriceChild has already asked you to come back tomorrow if you wish to discuss this. PriceChild is in a position of authority. [03:14] I am going to leave now. I do not want to add to the stress of anyone. I just don't want to see myself being subject to slanderous allegations or antagonistic snarky comments from the same group of people every day. [03:14] goodnight. [03:14] emma, if you are not disobeying, then why are you here after council members have requested you leave? [03:14] *sigh* [03:14] and this is why things bottle up inside -- we cant talk about them. [03:15] everyone else can talk and vent -- except ubuntu ops [03:15] we have to hold ourselves to such a higher standard that we explode in very unbecoming ways. [03:15] then you should have a private channel in which to do so. [03:15] tomaw: it would be unlikely that there isn't one already. [03:15] tomaw, this used to be that private channel. [03:15] indeed, so use it. [03:16] elkbuntu: that is no longer true [03:16] it's public and logs are available to all [03:16] tomaw, no, because certain people said it was against the ubuntu way to have it private. [03:16] I am not aware of any such channel, and, as such, raised the issue in here [03:16] so we had to start logging it. [03:16] tomaw: we have private messages, and the way some of us those is attacked upon enough anyway [03:16] *way some of us use those [03:17] * elkbuntu nods PriceChild [03:17] we get hauled if we are found to be non-transparent [03:17] that is our burden [03:17] that's internal breakage above and beyond the need for private bitching channels. [03:17] anyway, guys, you're letting emma win here. [03:17] she's trying to sidetrack, and she's succeeding. [03:17] Hobbsee, look around and explain how she has not already. seriously. [03:18] I came in half way, so if I am sidetracking then I am sorry [03:18] yet she comes in here with her emo heartbreak story [03:18] I dont think this discussion should continue along its current path [03:19] for an ubuntu wide channel ban, does that take into account the wishes of those who are not in the core channels? [03:19] My intent was not at all related to emma, more a thought that you guys seems to need somewhere private to rant a little :) [03:20] I thought that the irc council was meant to "run" the irc side of the ubuntu community [03:20] which includes loco teams etc. [03:20] tomaw, we used to have that and it was taken from us. we now have nowhere and it is the inherent breakage that seeker and daviey rather ellude to unknowingly. [03:21] Seeker`: so, what happens if the loco guys disagree on an action by the irc council? [03:21] Seeker`, loco teams have always been let run their loco as they wish [03:21] elkbuntu: ah [03:22] Hobbsee: This is part of the reason that my idea isn't perfect [03:22] Hobbsee: But it is the *only* alternative I have seen being put forward, short of "Staff should do what I say" [03:23] which certainly isn't going to happen [03:23] * Hobbsee thought the staff had guidelines. [03:23] Hobbsee: such as? [03:23] looking for them now [03:23] Seeker`, those of us who have been around long enough can see the change in how things are handled that others may not be seeing. [03:24] the one i referenced last night, which PriceChild went off in a fury about. [03:24] elkbuntu: How long have you been part of the ubuntu irc community? [03:24] I read that as furry :( I'm so disappointed. [03:24] Seeker`, since breezy [03:24] PriceChild: no, i don't *think* you're furry? [03:25] But it would've been sooooo much more entertaining. [03:25] Seeker`, i used to get banned by seveas for doing !!!one!11!!! [03:25] heh [03:25] Seeker`, back then, that was ok. both seveas and i knew it was playing. we cant do that anymore. [03:25] the community is a lot bigger now though [03:26] things get less personal [03:26] and that is unavoidable imo [03:26] Seeker`, -offtopic has only grown by about 50 in that time really [03:26] elkbuntu: That is an increase of 50% [03:27] -uk has increased from ~30 to up to 100 since december 06 [03:27] yes. and the average intelligence of conversation in the channel ranks at about 10% of what it used to [03:27] i dont doubt that [03:27] but it means that things must change to cope with that [03:27] * PriceChild strikes all furry comments from the record [03:28] I have no idea what you are on about. [03:28] Seeker`, and they have. doesnt mean it's for the better. [03:28] elkbuntu: But complaining about the "good old days" doesn't really help - it isn't reasonable to expect things to be like they were then [03:29] Seeker`, no, but im not complaining per se, rather comparing to how damn strict we are now. [03:29] Seeker`: no reason to let them turn to hell either. there is a balance. [03:29] The current situation is clearly inadequate [03:30] and although there has been a lot of talk about how to make things better, there deosn't seem to have been a huge amount of change recently [03:30] Seeker`: i presume that if loco guys disagree, they should appeal to the irc council about why. [03:30] Hobbsee: yes [03:30] Seeker`: then you just get the feasibility of banning in many, many channels. [03:31] Hobbsee: Have you seen the -irc mailing list? [03:31] Seeker`, clearly you havent if you're asking her that [03:32] I haven't seen any replies to my mails apart from PriceChild's one [03:32] and I have been checking [03:32] Seeker`: ah, seen the next 2 mails. [03:33] PriceChild: do you really believe that absolutely everyone can be catalysed, and dealt with in that fashion? [03:33] Nope. [03:33] Which is why we have +qb and klines. === ubot3` is now known as ubot3 [03:35] yet...in your mail, you say that people should "deal with the situation", without handing out a mass channel-wide ban, or a kline. [03:35] Hobbsee: does my second email answer your question about banning in many, many channels [03:35] * elkbuntu is still rather traumatised from the instance where non-ops here spent 40 minutes trying to catalyse someone, only to fail and plea for my help... for which i got hauled by a freenode helper for not catalysing personally [03:35] fundamentally, this comes down to a question of how we implement the "you've had your chances, wasted all of them, and you are now Unwelcome Here" [03:36]