[00:26] <th0r> in case you guys don't recognize it, this jigawho is fillling #ubuntu with racist remarks and vulgarity
[00:56] <genii> Weird evil trend. Jussi and now Gary.
[00:56] <evilGary> it's due to being staff, it does things to you
[00:57] <genii> Heh
[01:05] <LjL> hi. i'd like to remove freenode webchat users controlling from the floodbots, if that's ok.
[01:05] <Pricey> LjL: pardon?
[01:06] <Pricey> as in the forwards from proxy-users ?
[01:06] <Pricey> meh exemptions
[01:06] <LjL> yes. there is no reason to favor freenode's webchat over other gateways.
[01:06] <LjL> and i don't want that to happen.
[01:08] <Pricey> Any reason for this change in heart?
[01:08] <LjL> there hasn't been any change
[01:08] <Pricey> is there any reason why we couldn't/shouldn't make it work on @gateway/web/ ?
[01:09] <LjL> i programmed the floodbots to give *mibbit* exempts, and i planned to extend that to other gateways that proved reliable so far as giving users' IPs
[01:09] <Pricey> hmm i guess not all web gateways giv... yeah
[01:09] <LjL> freenode has subsequently decided to use its position to ban the dominant gateway, and i don't want to help with that.
[01:09] <Pricey> Oh so this is about mibbit.
[01:09] <LjL> freenode has never published a valid reason for that, either.
[01:09] <LjL> about mibbit and freenode, yes.
[01:10] <Pricey> they've made blog postings
[01:10] <LjL> they don't explain anything
[01:10] <Flannel> Aren't all gateways forwarded right now?
[01:10] <LjL> there's no abuse potential, you know as well as i do that channels can ban mibbit if they want
[01:10] <Pricey> LjL: mibbit was banned in #ubuntu for a reason.
[01:10] <LjL> Pricey: all gateways were banned in #ubuntu
[01:10] <Pricey> LjL: why?
[01:11] <LjL> Pricey: because #ubuntu ops decided so, because they decided it would be too much hassle to ban the hex idents.
[01:11] <Pricey> not all gateways provide hex idents
[01:12] <Flannel> I'm confused.  What change are you proposing LjL?
[01:12] <Pricey> Flannel: stopping the +e's
[01:12] <Pricey> I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with reevaluating our gateway policy.
[01:12] <LjL> Pricey: and those that don't were never allowed in
[01:13] <Flannel> I think the current setup is good.  It prevents people from being banned, then running off to a web gateway and getting another crack at it.
[01:13] <Pricey> What I have a problem with, is getting involved with freenode 'politics' and stopping something that isn't really broken?
[01:13] <LjL> Pricey: mibbit wasn't really broken, either
[01:13] <LjL> i've been upset about this for a while
[01:13] <Pricey> LjL: and that's why we (ubuntu) allowed it into #ubuntu via this system!
[01:13] <LjL> i'm particularly upset right now, because the only way i have to connect is web gateways, and i'm just with something decidedly inferior compared to mibbit
[01:13] <Pricey> LjL: freenode's webchat isn't really broken either...
[01:14] <LjL> i don't care
[01:14] <LjL> i do want to get involved with "freenode's politics" at this point
[01:14] <LjL> i am on freenode
[01:14] <Pricey> Does 'ubuntu' have a say in this?
[01:14] <LjL> if freenode staff like to do everything without even telling its users what exactly it is about, that's their prerogative
[01:14] <LjL> doesn't mean i'll like it
[01:14] <Pricey> Seen as your changes reflect what we wish.
[01:14] <Flannel> You have beef with Freenode, so we're taking it out on Ubuntu?
[01:14] <LjL> Pricey: yes, you can write brand new bots if you want.
[01:15] <Pricey> LjL: I'm speaking to you as an Ubuntu guy.
[01:15] <Pricey> LjL: You're making a decision for Ubuntu here.
[01:15] <LjL> Pricey: as an ubuntu guy, i say that our current IRC provider is abusing its position, and we shouldn't be supporting this
[01:15] <LjL> if they shut off gateways access, then we shouldn't be willing to provide their specific gateway an advantage
[01:16] <Pricey> LjL: Could we sort this out with the IRC Council, operators and users though?
[01:16] <Pricey> Look over our policy.
[01:16] <Pricey> Then make the required changes?
[01:16] <Flannel> LjL: How are the floodbots supporting anything?
[01:16] <Pricey> I believe we have a meeting scheduled for this weekend.
[01:16] <LjL> Flannel: if you don't know that, that means you've never looked
[01:17] <Flannel> LjL: We have a responsibility to our users, blocking gateway users entirely isn't in the best interests of our userbase.
[01:17] <LjL> Pricey: look
[01:17] <LjL> Pricey: i never *added* support for freenode's webchat to begin with
[01:17] <LjL> Pricey: someone who had access to the bots' servers did
[01:17] <LjL> and now i'm saying i don't like that.
[01:17] <Pricey> I don't want to come down on one side or the other right now. I'm just saying lets not be hasty.
[01:17] <Pricey> Lets evaluate what #ubuntu requires first, then make changes.
[01:18] <LjL> Flannel: i never said you should block gateway users entirely.
[01:18] <LjL> you can easily let every gateway user in.
[01:19] <Pricey> We may even decide to place an exempt on the entire freenode or gateway/web
[01:19] <Pricey> who knows
[01:19] <Pricey>  /remove the ban
[01:19] <Flannel> LjL: If our current stance is offensive to you, letting everyone in would be offensive to you as well, because it wouldn't be materially different.  Mibbit still wouldn't be allowed in, because we don't control that.
[01:20] <LjL> Flannel: letting every web gateway in is different from only letting the freenode one in.
[01:20] <Pricey> LjL: You seem to be wanting to remove this feature solely because of freenode <-> mibbit politics.
[01:21] <LjL> Pricey: the original feature of exempting mibbit users got "broken" by freenode's politics, too.
[01:21] <Pricey> LjL: hmm?
[01:22] <LjL> Pricey: if freenode hadn't banned mibbit, no one would have ever had to touch the floodbot code to remove the mibbit code and add code about webchat.fn.net instead
[01:22] <Pricey> LjL: sure
[01:22] <LjL> so.
[01:22] <LjL> freenode has a say on ubuntu's politics
[01:22] <Flannel> Er... If freenode had added a webchat, we should've added it, regardless of whether mibbit still existed.
[01:22] <LjL> i don't see why i shouldn't be able to make a statement on theirs.
[01:23] <Pricey> 00:22:54 < LjL> i don't see why i shouldn't be able to make a statement on theirs.
[01:23] <Pricey> that is it
[01:23] <Pricey> it is not "i"
[01:23] <Pricey> it is "ubuntu"
[01:23] <Pricey> right there
[01:23] <Pricey> making this change is "ubuntu" making a statement
[01:23] <LjL> it's my bots. they were never made open source, as you very well know.
[01:23] <LjL> you're free to make other bots.
[01:23] <Pricey> Do you see that point though?
[01:23] <Pricey> Please don't rush into this.
[01:24] <LjL> yep, and i believe that the time i put into writing the bots is enough to morally allow me to attempt to make a statement.
[01:24] <LjL> ok, i won't rush it then.
[01:24] <LjL> i'm not sure if i can attend the next meeting though, that depends on whether i manage to stay connected through webchat
[01:25] <Pricey> LjL: Could you add an item to our agenda about evaluating our stances on gateways?
[01:25] <LjL> Pricey: i doubt it, i don't really have HTTPS access
[01:27] <Pricey> LjL: Could you jot your points down somewhere in an email to us, or just in PM, or leave htem in #ubuntu-irc-council incase you can't make the meeting?
[01:31] <LjL> I intended to remove gateway-exemption support from the floodbots. This is because, while that feature initially applied to Mibbit, Freenode unilaterally stopped Mibbit from accessing the network, and concomitantly created its own web gateway.
[01:31] <LjL> I consider this an unexplained abuse of a privileged position, and I do not think we should support it by explicitly supporting their gateway in #ubuntu by means of the bots.
[01:31] <LjL> I am not concerned about whether this should result in all gateways being disallowed, or all gateways being unbanned and allowed without any restrictions.
[01:31] <LjL> Pricey: ^
[01:35] <Pricey> LjL: and to clarify. Is this 'intention' going to happen, whatever we decide about our policy?
[01:35] <LjL> Pricey: yes
[01:35] <LjL> Pricey: unless of course you convince me i shouldn't
[01:35] <Pricey> so no..
[01:38] <Seeker`> isn't unilateral action like that just a little anti-CoC?
[01:40] <LjL> Seeker`: then i'll step down from ubuntu membership if it is
[01:40] <LjL> i've already taken care of removing the cloak some time ago
[01:41] <Seeker`> what about making the change to a copy of the code and giving the council a choice aobut what is run
[01:41] <LjL> what about no
[01:42] <LjL> are you kidding me?
[01:42] <Seeker`> no
[01:42] <LjL> Seeker`: then how is that different from having no say?
[01:43] <Seeker`> becuase you will hae made your point
[01:43] <LjL> i'm sorry but i don't exactly see how.
[01:43] <LjL> any more than i have made it by speaking here as i have, anyhow.
[01:44] <Seeker`> it doesn't strike me as particularly fair or good form to provide someone with a bot to fufil a particular service, and then giving them no say in how the bot runs in their channels
[01:45] <LjL> Seeker`: for that matter, it doesn't strike me as particularly good form to "convert" the bot from mibbit-exempting to webchat-exempting without even so far as telling me
[01:45] <LjL> i might not have agreed with that change - and as a matter of fact, i do not
[01:45] <Pricey> That is an issue you should take up privately.
[01:45] <Pricey> Revoke their access to your systems if required.
[01:46] <LjL> Pricey: actually, my bot is running on their systems.
[01:47] <Seeker`> saying "you've done something that I don't like, so I'll do something equally stupid" is just childish though
[01:47] <LjL> Seeker`: is also not what i'm saying
[01:48] <Seeker`> from what I've read, it does seem to be
[01:48] <LjL> what i'm saying is that i don't want to support special treatment of freenode's webchat
[01:48] <LjL> and since that's a feature i never introduced into the bots to begin with (someone else did)
[01:49] <LjL> i want to revert that.
[01:49] <Pricey> To clarify something, you did introduce the initial feature to treat mibbit with +e didn't you?
[01:49] <Pici> I thought you added support for another web gateway shortly before or after the mibbit ban...
[01:50] <LjL> Pricey: yup
[01:50] <Seeker`> I just don't its a particularly nice thing to do to project personal issues you may have with freenode onto a channel that isn't yours
[01:51] <LjL> Pici: oh yes
[01:51] <LjL> Pici: i added it for emma (funnily enough)
[01:51] <LjL> it was the gateway she used
[01:51] <nalioth> Seeker`: check this out:  his code is NOT open source.  somoene rewrote his code.
[01:52] <Pici> I never really looked at who was using it or what the site was exactly.
[01:52] <Seeker`> I'm not saying that the code should have been changed without his permission
[01:52] <LjL> Pici: well, for that matter i was about to say "wth are you talking about", i almost forgot. anyway, i didn't add it because mibbit was gone, if that was the spirit of the question (i think i added it while mibbit was still working)
[01:53] <Amaranth> Seeker`: But you're saying that change should stay
[01:53] <Seeker`> yes, I am
[01:53] <Seeker`> provided the council want it to stay
[01:54] <nalioth> Seeker`:  it's not open source.  the council has no say in it, except "we like floodbots" or "please take them away"
[01:54] <Pici> I'm not going to dig through my logs for this right now, but I think I remember that the change to support freenode's webchat over mibbit in the Floodobot code was more of a maintenance task since the mibbit ban came at us all of a sudden as well.  We weren't going to re-assess banning gateways at that time, we just wanted a fix for a new situation.
[01:54] <Seeker`> if code has been developed for someone, the developers political idiosyncracies shouldn't play a part in the functionality of the code
[01:54] <LjL> Pici: yes, i can imagine it was because of that
[01:54] <LjL> Pici: i'm not honestly exceptionally upset at whoever made the change
[01:55] <nalioth> and we do like the floodbots, and appreciate LjL's work on them
[01:55] <Pici> LjL: I'm just making sure that we have those points down though.
[01:55] <Pici> LjL: You've heard it from me enough that I like the floodbots too
[01:56] <LjL> Seeker`, i don't know if i'm understanding you correctly
[01:56] <LjL> but are you telling me what i should and should not do with my code?
[01:56] <Seeker`> I have no way of telling you what you should or shouldn't do with your code
[01:56] <LjL> ah.
[01:57] <Seeker`> I am merely stating my belief that if you have offered to develop some functionality, your internal politics shouldn't determine the functionality of that code
[01:57] <LjL> Seeker`, i developed that code for others, but not under no implied condition
[01:57] <LjL> if, say, ubuntu suddenly turned into an entirely commercial thing whose aim is to kill free software
[01:57] <LjL> well, the floodbots wouldn't stay for a minute
[01:58] <LjL> surely, i have a right to decide what to do with my code based on changes on the environment they operate in?
[01:58] <Seeker`> but that is an ubuntu issue
[01:58] <Flannel> Actually, that depends on the license under which you wrote the code....
[01:58] <LjL> Flannel: proprietary. never licensed under anything.
[01:58] <Seeker`> this is an issue that the IRC council have no control over; it was freenode's decision to screw with web clients
[01:59] <nalioth> Flannel: they're written under the LJL License
[01:59] <LjL> Seeker`: true enough (although part of the ircc are freenode staff), still #ubuntu is not only part of ubuntu, it's also a very important part of freenode
[01:59] <Seeker`> it would be like me deciding that mootbot shouldn't respond to people with nicknames beginning with "n" because someone called neil annoyed me at work today
[01:59] <Seeker`> i'd be within my rights to do it, but it would be a pretty crappy thing to do
[01:59] <Pici> Seeker`: You too?!
[01:59] <Pici> darn those neils...
[02:00] <mneptok> LjL: "By hosting your code on our server, you grant us an irrevocable public domain license for it." it could happen.
[02:00] <Flannel> Eh, stop picking on me.  Or at least, spell my name correctly.
[02:01] <LjL> mneptok: i'm sure it wouldn't in this case.
[02:01] <Seeker`> I'm just asking you to consider seperating out "I'm providing a useful service to a group of people" and "I have an issue with a decision made by a group of people tangentially related to first group"
[02:01] <Amaranth> mneptok: Actually that can't happen
[02:02] <mneptok> Amaranth: of course it could. you put source on my disk space, i can call the shots if you don't explicitly do so.
[02:02] <LjL> Seeker`: i'd hardly say that freenode staff is "tangentially related" to the operation of these channels.
[02:02] <Seeker`> mneptok: legally, you couldn't
[02:02] <Amaranth> mneptok: But you can't let you upload it then afterward say that
[02:02] <Amaranth> err, let me
[02:02] <Seeker`> LjL: was the decision made by any of the staff that run the #ubunt channels?
[02:02] <Pricey> LjL: please. That 'party of the council that are freenode staff' are talking with you as ubuntu irc people. Not freenode staff.
[02:03] <Seeker`> mneptok: by reading the first word in this line, you agree to pay me £1,000,000,000,000
[02:03] <Pricey> *the part
[02:03] <LjL> Seeker`: how would i know
[02:03] <LjL> Pricey: you should have remembered that at some other point, but ok.
[02:03] <mneptok> Seeker`: you don't own my screen. i own my disk.
[02:04] <Pici> I'd really rather not get into a fight about who owns the code.. be it with LjL or with anyone who did or might code something for us.
[02:05] <Seeker`> mneptok: you cannot create a contract unilaterally after an event has taken place
[02:05] <Pici> Its not constructive to go down that road..
[02:06] <Seeker`> LjL: I am assuming that you created the bots to aid the ubuntu project. Freenode and ubuntu are linked, but they are seperate entities, and the vast majority of the ubnutu project have no link to freenode other than that they are users on their network
[02:06] <LjL> Seeker`: i am not really a 360-degrees Ubuntu person
[02:06] <LjL> i am an IRC person
[02:06] <LjL> always been
[02:06] <LjL> i have to do with IRC, not Ubuntu at large
[02:07] <Seeker`> ok, replace "Ubuntu" with "Ubuntu IRC"
[02:07] <LjL> i mean meh, why do you think i left the irc council to begin with? because i liked Ubuntu politics? what do you think?
[02:08] <LjL> "Ubuntu IRC" is on freenode, and interaction between Ubuntu staff and Freenode staff has been important according to both Freenode people and Ubuntu people.
[02:08] <Seeker`> but that does not mean that they are one and the same
[02:08] <Seeker`> and most of the people that use #ubuntu have absolutely nothing to do with that relationship
[02:09] <LjL> and when i say people, i mean shuttleworth and dahlskjaer
[02:09] <LjL> most of the people that use #ubuntu have nothing to do with freenode, either, yet they were stopped from using mibbit
[02:09] <Seeker`> how many of the 1500 or so people have a clue about the workings of the interactions between Ubuntu and Freenode?
[02:09] <LjL> probably too feww
[02:10] <Seeker`> so because they were stopped from using mibbit, they shouldn't be able to use any web client?
[02:10] <LjL> Seeker`: whether they are or are not able to use any web client is not something i can or want to control. that's up the irc council.
[02:10] <LjL> i just don't want to provide auto-exempting and auto-banning services
[02:11] <LjL> for a gateway that freenode introduced because, allegedly, mibbit was prone to abuse.
[02:11] <LjL> if their gateway is *not* prone to abuse, then it can be left open without any floodbots to check it, surely.
[02:11] <Flannel> I don't think they ever made that claim
[02:11] <LjL> Flannel: well, they did claim they shut down mibbit because it was prone to abuse
[02:12] <Seeker`> I'm not trying to debate whether what freenode did was right or wrong
[02:12] <LjL> Flannel: considering they immediately made their own gateway, one would only assume they consider it much better in that respect
[02:12] <Flannel> LjL: No, their post clearly says that they shut it down because they spent too much time dealing with mibbit staff/whatevers dealing with abuse.
[02:13] <LjL> Flannel: not really, they say it "comes down to abuse" and they "couldn't maintain a relationship" with mibbit's owners
[02:13] <LjL> which i believe is bollocks, by the way
[02:14] <stew> its certainly not bollocks
[02:14] <Flannel> I have no idea whether its true or not, but the reason for shutting it down is that it took too long to deal with abuse from mibbit, not that there was abuse at all.
[02:14] <LjL> Flannel: also, i'd have explained my opinion on their blog, if my comment had ever been approved.
[02:14] <Seeker`> all I am trying to do is ask that you seperate out your dislike of freenodes decision from the functionality of the bots provided to the benefit of #ubuntu users and the #ubuntu operators
[02:15] <Seeker`> (some of which, like me, are not freenoe staff and have no say in freenods decisions)
[02:15] <LjL> Seeker`, connecting from web gateways thanks to the bot was always a privilege, not a right. by default, we always had all proxy-like connections flat out banned, and the topic in -proxy-users said that, and so did the bot.
[02:16] <LjL> stew: axod was going to provide DNSBL pruning.
[02:16] <stew> LjL: he did
[02:16] <LjL> stew: so what is the problem?
[02:16] <Seeker`> and the functionality is not being removed because a decision was taken by the owners of the channel that they dont want proxy users in the channel, the decision was made by you because you dont agree with a decision made by freenode
[02:16] <LjL> Seeker`: yes, yes indeed.
[02:16] <LjL> now, i think you've made your point about that, but i stand by my point
[02:18] <Seeker`> This probably won't mean much (or anything at all) to you, but I did think you were better than that
[02:18] <stew> LjL: many many problems.  he was unwilling to reasonably communicate with us until we actually started putting bans in place on their client.  then he said that if we wanted abuse to stop, we were going to have to implement new protocols that we don't have volunteer power in order to implement
[02:19] <LjL> Seeker`: no, indeed to be honest just about everything you said made me less willing to negotiate about this
[02:19] <stew> LjL: then his staff becaume quite abusive, getting themselves banned,  evading those bans
[02:19] <stew> LjL: then said they would be putting all their efforts into helping users of their client avoid our bans
[02:19] <stew> LjL: and things rapidly degraded
[02:19] <stew> LjL: we have concerns about the logging they do of users personal information
[02:19] <LjL> stew: he was simply right, though: if chanops actually wanted transparents bans and all (and you, on your turn, didn't want chanops to come complaining to you and asking for assistance), you'd have needed transparent hostmasks
[02:20] <Pricey> LjL: Do you understand the risk that brings with it though?
[02:20] <stew> LjL: yes, and especially given how poorly they are able to communicate, we're not comfortable wasting more volunteer time in order to exchange this data with them which we feel needs to be protected in ways we cannot trust them to do
[02:21] <Seeker`> I will go now then
[02:21] <LjL> stew: at least now you're saying that, while no one was on the blog. tell me though, how is that all different from just about any other gateway?
[02:21] <Pricey> LjL: allowing something outside our control to basically spoof any hostmask? :s
[02:21] <stew> LjL: and we really don't want to waste more volunteer time on this guys commercial venture
[02:21] <LjL> Pricey: yup, you need to trust the gateway about that.
[02:21] <stew> LjL: we've had fer less abuse from other gateways, and much less instances of other gateway owners themselves being abusing and trying to evade bans
[02:22] <LjL> stew: why do you allow other web gateways then?
[02:22] <stew> LjL: why wouldn't we?
[02:22] <LjL> stew: because they have potentially the exact same issues, as far as i'm aware. i guess most of them are just less popular.
[02:22] <stew> yes, there is potential for abuse of other gateways
[02:23] <Pici> s/you/freenode/
[02:24] <LjL> stew: not only abuse, but also misuse of personal data by the proxy itself
[02:24] <stew> LjL: yes
[02:24] <stew> LjL: if you are aware of such things going on, please let me know
[02:25] <LjL> Pricey: anyway, it can be implemented in a way that doesn't make it much of a risk: @gateway/web/<hostname>. so channels could just ban @*hostname to ban everything in one move
[02:26] <LjL> stew: and if you are actually aware of such things going on with mibbit, then i believe you should have informed users properly, instead of just writing a generic "there is abuse" posting that smells like bollocks to anyone who reads it and knows anything about it
[02:26] <Pricey> LjL: hostname@gateway/web/random
[02:26] <LjL> stew: that is really my main gripe - as usual, freenode doesn't communicate its motives for doing things. while that's their prerogative, it also pisses me off. as it did the other times.
[02:26] <LjL> Pricey: that's the way it is now...
[02:26] <stew> LjL: we've communicated our motives
[02:27] <Pricey> LjL: pretty much what you suggested above.
[02:27] <LjL> Pricey: i'm saying, change that "random" into the actual hostname, and you have an easy way for ops to ban without actually letting it "spoof hostnames" literally
[02:27] <LjL> Pricey: eh, nope, because if you just ban the "random" part, then the abuser reconnects and gets another session ID
[02:27] <LjL> that won't happen with the hostname
[02:28] <Pricey> LjL: with a 'gateway/web' in there, you can't set one ban which works on gateways too.
[02:28] <LjL> stew: then his staff becaume quite abusive, getting themselves banned,  evading those bans then said they would be putting all their efforts into helping users of their client avoid our bans  /  we have concerns about the logging they do of users personal information
[02:29] <LjL> stew: i haven't seen any of that anywhere before. on the other hand, i've seen on mibbit's blog that freenode's reasons for disallowing mibbit "aren't technical" but "have to do with general distrust of third parties". i'm led to believe the latter when the former party doesn't really tell me anything that doesn't smell like fud
[02:29] <Pricey> LjL: Please could you separate your issues with freenode from this discussion(channel)?
[02:29] <Pricey> This really isn't hte place.
[02:30] <LjL> Pricey: yup you can, you ban @*hostname
[02:30] <LjL> note the *
[02:31] <LjL> Pricey: considering there is no place (as #freenode really isn't the place, either), then i guess i'm just not discussing it.
[02:33] <Pricey> LjL: I believe * stands for "any, but at least one..."
[02:33] <Seeker`> * is 0 or more
[02:33] <Seeker`> typically, anyway
[02:34] <LjL> Pricey: no, there isn't that wildcard on irc
[02:34] <LjL> Pricey: you'd need ?* for "any but at least one"
[02:34] <Pricey> Seeker`: go for it
[02:34] <Pricey> odd, my test must fail
[02:35] <Pricey> i wonder what i did wrong
[02:35] <Seeker`> ?
[02:36] <Pricey> anyway, i don't make those decisions :)
[02:37] <Pricey> hehe, forgot to deop when i tried it in a random channel
[02:37] <Seeker`> hehe
[02:38] <Pricey> You learn something new every day.
[02:38] <Seeker`> time for bed; I have to be in work in 7 hours
[02:39] <Seeker`> bye
[02:39] <LjL> bye
[02:41] <LjL> oh by the way
[02:42] <LjL> i was wondering what hateball did so horrible to stay banned all this time? (at least, last time i checked he still was, i don't think i can check from here)
[03:16] <Flannel> !away > Cream
[03:16] <Pici> topyli: That was your (hateball) ban that LjL was referring to, may want to revisit it at some point in time.
[04:42] <elky> Pici, it should be noted however that hateball has not bothered to contact this channel about it, and that is the procedure specified in !appeals -- whereas i'm pretty certain "send LjL" is not.
[04:43] <Flannel> Howdy lasj, how can we help you today?
[04:44] <lasj> i need to be tested for the DCCExploit
[04:44] <Flannel> lasj: It seems you've already been tested, and should be able to join #ubuntu now
[04:44] <lasj> thanks
[04:48] <Pici> elky: Agreed.
[06:37] <topyli> Pici: hateball's ban is pretty old, true
[06:39] <jussi01> Just a reminder, we should be cleaning up bans not just in #ubuntu, but elsewhere as well.
[07:33] <elky> topyli, might be worth having a conversation with him, rather than just an unbanning. He's been around long enough to know the proper process for unbanning, but it'd be worth giving him a refresher.
[07:34] <elky> topyli, just a simple "oh hey, why didn't you tell me i'd forgotten to unban you! you could have asked in -ops at any time as per our appeals process" would do
[07:35] <topyli> aye, will do
[07:36] <topyli> can't really just go on and remove the ban, as i can't know whether the reasons for it are still around
[07:58] <Flannel> !u > abddu
[08:10] <elky> topyli, exactly the point.
[08:13] <jussi01> I disagree for that slightly. You can go ahead and remove the ban, if he comes back again and misbehaves, then it isnt hard to re-ban...
[08:15] <elky> jussi01, except that puts us at fault for letting him back in without sufficient precautions.
[08:15] <elky> i don't particularly like being held responsible for the misappropriated free will of others.
[08:15] <jussi01> elky: well no. we regularly (or should be) clear out old bans.
[08:16] <elky> jussi01, yes, but not blindly.
[08:16] <elky> jussi01, if you know you can access someone who is a known regular, then do so. if you cannot access someone and they are not a known regular then they are a completely different risk factor.
[08:17] <topyli> should at least make sure he knows his previous behavior is still not welcome. memoserv could do that i guess
[08:18] <topyli> i think i'd rather see if i can get him in pm within the next couple of days
[08:18] <elky> jussi01, if you have been clearing out bans without putting that much thought into them, then please start putting that thought in post haste.
[08:18] <elky> topyli, he's been in *that* channel.
[08:18] <jussi01> topyli: I agree. I feel that a memoserv + an unban is sufficient.
[08:19] <elky> jussi01, communication without acknowlegment is not communication.
[11:11] <ikonia> topyli: jussi01 elky if you like I'll speak to hateball as he has always been %101 fine with me
[11:12] <jussi01> ikonia: lets see how it goes with topyli, as its his ban. Unless topyli wants to jump in on that.
[11:13] <topyli> oh looks like he's online now
[11:13] <ikonia> topyli: yes, that's why I mentioned it
[11:14] <topyli> ikonia: i'll chat with him
[11:15] <ikonia> super
[11:17] <ikonia> eyeballs on lando-spacepimp
[11:21] <jussi01> where?
[11:22] <ikonia> ot
[11:22] <ikonia> he was a bit stupid in #ubuntu and
[11:22] <ikonia> he seems quiet now
[12:26] <gnomefreak> can someone set bot to make !info... default in #ubuntu-mozillateam
[12:46] <jussi01> gnomefreak: come again?
[12:47] <gnomefreak> jussi01: #ubuntu+1 is set up so !info bleh gives you Karmic version can you please do the same for #ubuntu-mozillateam
[12:47] <jussi01> gnomefreak: ahh. do you have ubottu or a clone?
[12:48] <gnomefreak> hold on i think its just ubottu
[12:48] <gnomefreak> yep just ubottu
[12:54] <Amaranth> !info
[12:54] <Amaranth> oh, I see what you mean
[13:06] <jussi01> gnomefreak: I cant remember the variable atm, but Ill try get to it. also, try pinging tsimpson
[13:07] <gnomefreak> jussi01: ok thanks :)
[13:08] <gnomefreak> tsimpson: if you get a chance can you please make !info bleh default to Karmic in #ubuntu-mozillateam
[19:05] <Flannel> !away > cryptide
[20:12] <NetEcho> uh.. I'm getting redirected from #ubuntu because of an old DCC exploit that hasn't affected me in some time
[20:13] <NetEcho> and test me isn't working
[20:14] <Pici> NetEcho: Can you please try it again
[20:14] <Pici> NetEcho: You're all set then
[20:14] <NetEcho> there we go, so howcome you guys started doing that?
[20:15] <Pici> If someone does the exploit and we detect that you got booted, then we forward you there.
[20:15] <mneptok> NetEcho: to prevent a ton of people from getting disconnected when idiots use that exploit
[20:15] <NetEcho> I haven't been affected by it.. that I know of
[20:15] <NetEcho> oh well
[20:15] <NetEcho> generally I use port 8001
[20:15] <NetEcho> mighta been on 6667 and got hit while I was afk
[20:15] <NetEcho> thanks guys
[20:16] <NetEcho> ttyl
[22:38] <guntbert> hi, please have an eye on BTK_Green_River in #ubuntu, he is only bad mouthing
[22:45] <Flannel> guntbert: We'll take care of it, thanks.
[22:45] <guntbert> ok, I'm off