[03:21] <nhandler> @login
[03:26] <Myrtti> ConcreteRose seems to make very little sense
[03:27] <IdleOne> trolls continuously, been a week now
[03:27] <IdleOne> in and out of the channel. nothing vulgar but mostly non-sensical
[03:27] <Pici> Has he been removed yet?
[03:28] <IdleOne> few times
[03:28] <IdleOne> and been told about !ot
[03:28] <Myrtti> judging from my last log he/she is communicating a bit through an online translator or such
[03:29] <IdleOne> Myrtti: might be but in that case he has had the chance to translate !ot many times
[03:29] <Myrtti> not denying that
[03:30] <Pici> IdleOne: If it seems like hes not doing it on-purpose, then it might be wise to forward to here.  Otherwise, a straight ot ban next time, plus a pm to explain.
[03:31] <IdleOne> iirc he was also in -offtopic and was showed the way out
[03:31] <IdleOne> don't remember exactly
[03:33] <IdleOne> speaks English just fine
[03:34] <Myrtti> so it seems
[03:35] <Pici> toodles
[03:35] <IdleOne> later Pici
[03:35] <Pici> IdleOne: oh, I was waving to concreteguy
[03:36] <IdleOne> oh
[03:36] <IdleOne> lol
[03:36] <IdleOne> Myrtti: got in one second before I did
[05:57] <bazhang> may want to check eremite in +1
[05:59] <bazhang> eremite@bas1-london47-1279598173.dsl.bell.ca very nasty part message after several warnings
[07:26] <bazhang> was friendforall just asking for payment?
[07:27] <Flannel> It's certainly an odd conversation.  Sounds like a 419 scam almost
[07:27] <Flannel> But, no, I think he was offering to pay for the guy to send him a CD
[08:10] <dholbach> good morning
[09:48] <richthegeek> wait,  I'm still banned?
[09:49] <elky> Are you? Where did you try to join?
[09:50] <elky> @login
[09:50] <elky> @btlogin
[09:50] <elky> tsimpson, the bot still ignores my @command PMs :(
[09:51] <gord> tsimpson, ^^^ same for me :(
[09:51] <elky> If it doesn't change, i'm going to start referring to it as poopybot.
[09:52] <knome> lol
[09:56] <elky> richthegeek, do you understand why you were banned?
[09:56] <richthegeek> elky: I know the circumstances leading to it, the reason is still unclear
[09:56] <elky> !guidelines
[09:57] <elky> are you familiar with the abovementioned guidelines?
[09:57] <richthegeek> elky: yes, one moment - i have the log saved
[09:57] <richthegeek> http://richthegeek.dyndns.info:62/log.txt
[09:58] <elky> richthegeek, you were advocating for people to harass the apple store, correct?
[09:59] <richthegeek> elky: no, I was asking if anyone had interesting ways of temporarily breaking a Mac (Unix) system, for me to use to harrass my friends who happen to work in an apple store
[09:59] <richthegeek> elky: there a few caveats in that situation that change the tone somewhat
[09:59] <elky> richthegeek, discussion of breaking/hacking/cracking stuff is not something we permit in any of our channels.
[10:00] <richthegeek> elky: breaking implies permanence, hacking implies security
[10:00] <richthegeek> elky: and this was not pointed out to me by anyone leading up to the ban, or in the ops talk
[10:01] <richthegeek> elky: at any rate, if that is where the line is in these channels, I'll make sure to stay on the correct side of it
[10:01] <elky> richthegeek, the ops were trying to explain this to you. You were refusing to heed their halt or indeed even listen to them.
[10:02] <richthegeek> elky: I'm not where you are getting that from - in the #ubuntu-offtopic it was just "shut up" "no" /banned
[10:02] <richthegeek> elky: in the -ops it was trying to find out where this is written down, and why I was kicked without any proper warning, temporary kicks, etc
[10:03] <elky> richthegeek, you were directed to the guidelines, and you persisted after being told to stop. The guidelines say to stop when told to stop. I'm not sure why semantics of whether or not you wanted permanent "breaking" is even relevant.
[10:03] <richthegeek> elky: I have no issue with the line being where it is - the issue is that it's not written as that, that the actions were so drastic and sudden, that there was no warning, that attempts for clarification where met with "read the FAQ" despite me having referenced it several times prior to this
[10:04] <richthegeek> elky: yes and I read the guidelines and found nowhere mentioning a rule that I was breaking
[10:04] <richthegeek> elky: please show me where it says "stop when told to stop"
[10:04] <elky> !o4o
[10:04] <elky> That is mentioned in the guidelines.
[10:05] <elky>  If you are asked to stop, do so politely.
[10:05] <richthegeek> elky: is that online anywhere?
[10:06] <elky> The guidelines you just allegedly read.
[10:06] <richthegeek> elky: the guidelines I did read where online, the ones I was pointed at least
[10:06] <topyli> hi richthegeek. i was the one that originally banned you and failed to make you understand why
[10:06] <elky> !guidelines
[10:07] <topyli> looks like elky is unable help you understand either. this is very frustrating and makes me sad since i would certainly like to get you back to the channel
[10:07] <richthegeek> fair enough - this is the first time someone's actually pointed to the relevant point rather than just linking... mea culpa for not reading a sentence halfway into a paragraph... dia culpa for not pointing this out before banning.
[10:08] <topyli> elky, if you like to try some more, please do :)
[10:08] <richthegeek> topyli: read last sentence, google "mea culpa" if required
[10:09] <elky> richthegeek, to be honest, the logs I have indicate you weren't even listening, just trying to validate why you wanted to vandalize/sabotage an apple store.
[10:11] <richthegeek> right, so you believe how you reacted to my initial action was entirely in proportion and context? and that the -ops talk clarified any of the issues I bought up?
[10:11] <elky> richthegeek, you were asked to stop and refused. People not stopping when told "stop" and "no" is one of my pet hates.
[10:12] <richthegeek> pet hates aren't valid rules. Ops need to be objective.
[10:12] <elky> richthegeek, except stopping when told to stop /is/ a valid rule.
[10:12] <elky> Written in two places.
[10:12] <richthegeek> yes, and rules oughta be pointed out before banning someone violating them
[10:13] <richthegeek> look, I understand now (and tbh back then) that the topic was a little close to the edge. The issue is that a perma-ban for not shutting just because it's an op asking is way OTT. Most of my time in the #ubuntu IRC is helping people out, so I'm hardly a leach or negative influence on it apart from this time.
[10:13] <elky> richthegeek, that's not how it works. ignorance is not an excuse in life either.
[10:13] <elky> You can't go vandalising and sabotaging and then say "oh, i didn't have someone read me the legislation for that, hence you can't punish me"
[10:13] <elky> Life Doesn't Work That Way
[10:14] <richthegeek> IRC != life
[10:15] <richthegeek> regardless of your argument, it still doesn't explain why the op didn't warn at all
[10:15] <elky> Yes, it's not. That's why you're not in jail for conspiring to sabotage/vandalise.
[10:15] <richthegeek> it's pretty standard procedure: warn, kick, ban
[10:15] <richthegeek> in that order
[10:15] <richthegeek> elky: sabotage/vandalise imply permanence
[10:15] <elky> richthegeek, no they don't.
[10:15] <richthegeek> yes they do
[10:15] <richthegeek> as laid down by law
[10:16] <elky> richthegeek, you don't get to redefine words to suit your purpose.
[10:16] <richthegeek> I'm not
[10:16] <richthegeek> it's how they are defined in the laws relating to them
[10:16] <elky> sabotage can be letting air out of a tire. air can be replaced. It's still sabotage.
[10:16] <richthegeek> if it's not permanent (ie undone by a reboot, or washed off by the rain) it's not vandalism
[10:17] <richthegeek> that wouldn't be a sabotage - it'd be attempted murder...
[10:17] <elky> making someone late is attempted murder?
[10:17] <Mamarok> *sigh* at pointless arguing...
[10:17] <richthegeek> depends on intent and result
[10:17] <richthegeek> yes, it is pointless...
[10:17] <richthegeek> and not answering the original issues of why it was a ban as first response
[10:17] <elky> Mamarok, I agree. He's refusing to listen. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion or letting him in to a place he refuses to heed the rules for.
[10:18] <Mamarok> agreed
[10:18] <richthegeek> elky: I'm not refusing to listen - I understand where the rules are and won't discuss anything like that on OT or main again
[10:18] <elky> richthegeek, it wasn't the first response. You don't get to tell us what your punishment is.
[10:18] <richthegeek> elky: that's an entirely different thing as to the OP being a james blunt
[10:18] <richthegeek> elky: yes it was
[10:18] <Mamarok> riight, calling ops names now?
[10:19] <elky> richthegeek, first responses were the several warnings you tried to worm around.
[10:19] <richthegeek> mamarok: -_- want me to change it to "acting out of proportion"?
[10:19] <richthegeek> elky: one request to stop without reason, request for reason, ban in response to request
[10:20] <richthegeek> elky: without the existing of the rule being pointed out, it's not a warning.
[10:20] <gord> richthegeek, right now you are heading down the wrong road if you want to become unbanned, arguing with the op's really won't work
[10:20] <richthegeek> gord: so the general method is saying "We don't care. We are infallible. Grovel or suffer"?
[10:20] <elky> richthegeek, You don't get to decide this. I'm not continuing this discussion with you as you clearly are not going to heed the rules.
[10:21] <richthegeek> elky: I am going to heed the rules
[10:21] <richthegeek> elky: that isn't what the discussion is about
[10:21] <richthegeek> elky: the discussion is about how it was handled as a process
[10:21] <knome> richthegeek, we've heard your point of view now. no need to repeat.
[10:22] <richthegeek> well then either unban me or present a point to contend
[10:22] <topyli> richthegeek, this channel is a good place to discuss your plan. when you want to do so again, please return
[10:22] <elky> 2010-04-04T16:42:47 <topyli> richthegeek, wut? leave them alone <-- this is where you're told to stop ... 2010-04-04T16:48:59 <topyli> richthegeek, none of that is welcome on ubuntu channels. so stop it <-- this is where you're told why to stop.
[10:23] <topyli> richthegeek, if you want to discuss operator conduct, we have an appeals process and an email list
[10:23] <elky> 8 minutes later, you got banned.
[10:23] <richthegeek> elky:, first one is a up for interpretation, it wasn't a request to stop talking about it but a request not to do it
[10:24] <elky> richthegeek, no, it's not up for interpretation.
[10:24] <richthegeek> it is, it's not saying "stop talking about it" in any way at all
[10:24] <elky> 2010-04-04T16:54:14 <topyli> richthegeek, no. you're going to harass an apple store <-- where you're told a second or third time
[10:24] <elky> 2010-04-04T16:52:23 <topyli> richthegeek, i'm mentioning it now, and i'll remove you if you continue <-- where you're warned of the consequence pending
[10:25] <richthegeek> this is all pointless without topyli pointing out the rules when requested
[10:25] <elky> 2010-04-04T16:51:32 <richthegeek> I'm reading the guidelines already topyli, and I will bet they don't mention this
[10:25] <elky> which comes after 2010-04-04T16:51:11 <topyli> !guidelines > richthegeek
[10:26] <elky> No, you're not winning that argument because it's false.
[10:26] <richthegeek> that's like me saying "don't murder people because : http://www.britishlaw.org.uk/"
[10:26] <elky> richthegeek, come back when you're not going to contradict yourself. Bye.
[10:27] <topyli> thanks for the summary elky. richthegeek, i'm not going to propose to the irc council that we edit the guidelines to include "planning to sabotage an apple store." we alredy require application of common sense in the channel topic
[10:28] <elky> We're being nice and not enforcing it by EMP as the topic suggests.
[10:28] <topyli> heh
[10:29] <richthegeek> elky: I'm not contradicting myself. Furthermore I'm not saying I'm not going to follow the rules in future. I've said that I understand where in the rules the reason for my ban is. That discussion is as good as over. My point is that topyli didn't give a fair warning (no direct link, quoting, anything like that...) and I am just asking why he didn't follow a standard (as in standard by IRC precedence) procedure
[10:29] <richthegeek> elky: I'm not arguing that my ban wasn't valid as it clearly was... my issue is that the method it was handled was really shockingly poor
[10:30] <elky> richthegeek, topyli's actions were well above board. If you can't cope with that kind of standard, then I suggest you chat elsewhere.
[10:33] <topyli> richthegeek, oh so you do understand why you were banned? and you even say you will follow the guidelines?
[10:33] <topyli> that's all you had to say in the first place in order to start discussing removal of the ban
[10:34] <richthegeek> one mo
[10:34] <richthegeek> sorry, talking to housemate
[10:34] <richthegeek> topyli: yes I understand, yes I will the guidelines.. I said that a few times throughout the course of this convo once (finally) the relevant section was pointed out.
[10:35] <topyli> my competence as an operator is a completely different subject that can be discussed elsewhere. this channel is for resolving bans and such problems :)
[10:36] <richthegeek> topyli: sure, but the discussion about your competence (which my opinion of is getting better throughout) was never seen as seperate by anyone involved, it seems
[10:36] <richthegeek> topyli: and so my questions about your competence were for some reason seen as me arguing with my ban
[10:36] <topyli> um, no. you were saying you did nothing wrong according to the guidelines
[10:37] <richthegeek> topyli: I was asking where in the guidelines I had apparently done something in violation of. Not the same thing.
[10:38] <topyli> we still haven't been able to point out where the guidelines specifically forbid you from discussing apple store sabotage
[10:38] <richthegeek> topyli: as it has now been pointed out perfectly by elky, that is no longer an issue, discussion, argument, or any other superlative.
[10:38] <elky> You were told *4* times to stop it. The first time you were told such discussion was not welcome, the second repeated the firm words "stop it". You then tried to validate upon the word "offtopic" at which point you were PMd the guidelines which you admitted in channel to reading. You were then told that we didn't permit people to harm systems, property or business, a third stop it. Then a further fourth time that discussion on
[10:38] <elky> how to "harass and apple store" was not welcome. You then dismissed all these 4 warnings and tried to claim them invalid as a "personal opinion" and were removed as you clearly were not going to behave.
[10:38] <elky> four warnings is miles above board.
[10:38] <richthegeek> topyli: no, but the section about "stopping when asked" was finally pointed out rather than obliquely referred to
[10:39] <topyli> i don't think we can be more clear than we were. i certainly can't
[10:39] <richthegeek> elky: a kick would have been enough, and would have swerved this series of discussions... I still believe procedure wasn't followed
[10:40] <elky> richthegeek, if a ban has you still unwilling to admit fault, I'm not convinced a kick would have rendered any better result.
[10:41] <richthegeek> elky: my response has been to ask for clarification with regards to the rules and question how they were enforced
[10:41] <elky> No. You're faulting topyli. This isn't a court of law, and you can be grateful for that. It also means that you don't get to match legislative semantics to get out of a punishment.
[10:41] <richthegeek> elky: or at least, that was my intent.
[10:41] <richthegeek> elky: contradicting yourself there, but we'll ignore it.
[10:42] <elky> richthegeek, I'm not contradicting myself at all.
[10:42] <richthegeek> "Thats Not How Life Works"
[10:42] <elky> That was to a different angle you were trying.
[10:42] <richthegeek> sorry, "Life Doesn't Work That Way"
[10:43] <elky> that was "I hadn't been read the rules hence they don't apply to me"
[10:43] <richthegeek> if you are trying to link IRC to life then I can follow the same angle - if you ignore my response you invalidate yours.
[10:43] <richthegeek> anyway
[10:43] <richthegeek> I accept that the reason for punishment was valid - I accept what the rules are - I will restrict my #ubuntu conversations to purely technical questions and helping others in the future - I will never again visit #ubuntu-offtopic
[10:44] <topyli> speaking of life, if you walk into my favorite pub and start a discussion we the regulars don't approve, we will ask you to stop. if you don't stop, we'll throw you out
[10:44] <richthegeek> topyli: in real life that'd be against the law
[10:44] <elky> richthegeek, not here it's not.
[10:44] <richthegeek> topyli: at least in Britain...
[10:45] <topyli> it's our pub. #ubuntu-offtopic is our channel. law has nothing to do with it
[10:45] <elky> richthegeek, any proprietor has the right to refuse on any grounds.
[10:45] <richthegeek> regulars, not proprietor... and that is a legal grey area if we persist with the real life metaphor
[10:46] <elky> richthegeek,  if you think a proprietor is going to ignore hir regulars, lol
[10:46] <topyli> richthegeek, i my pub, the proprietor is trying to stay friendly with the regulars. it's in her interest
[10:46] <richthegeek> elky: I'm used to city pubs where the regulars are three drunk old goats in the darkest corner...
[10:47] <topyli> somehow i can believe that
[10:47] <richthegeek> all city pubs are like that
[10:47] <richthegeek> before you imply anything seedy
[10:48] <elky> I've just lost my past hour to this discussion. 8pm is too late to be at work. I'm going.
[10:48] <topyli> #ubuntu-offtopic is not. i suggest you come back later when you want to talk about the ban
[10:48] <richthegeek> topyli: jeez... "I accept that the reason for punishment was valid - I accept what the rules are - I will restrict my #ubuntu conversations to purely technical questions and helping others in the future - I will never again visit #ubuntu-offtopic"
[10:48] <richthegeek> topyli: again, the discussion is not about the ban!
[10:48] <topyli> then the discussion is off topic for this channel
[10:49] <richthegeek> topyli: then accept my acceptance, remove the ban, we can all go back to our lives and I can finally ask how to stop some XSession errors
[10:50] <topyli> that's offtopic for #ubuntu-offtopic :)
[10:51] <topyli> oh you're banned on #ubuntu as well?
[10:51] <richthegeek> topyli: in #ubuntu
[10:51] <topyli> i'm not an operator on #ubuntu
[10:51] <richthegeek> muted for asking an offtopic question
[10:51] <ikonia> I'll have a look
[10:51] <richthegeek> I asked the same question in #ubuntu, they said "ask in #ubuntu-offtopic"
[10:51] <ikonia> richthegeek: when was this ?
[10:51] <richthegeek> about 10 minutes before I got banned from OT
[10:52] <elky> ikonia, the 4th of april.
[10:52] <ikonia> ahhh ok, the same apple incidnet
[10:52] <ikonia> incident
[10:52] <ikonia> two seconds, I can remove that
[10:53] <topyli> oh i think the offtopic on #ubuntu thing is probaby simple
[10:53] <richthegeek> I cant find my log for that..
[10:54] <ikonia> richthegeek: try to talk now
[10:54] <richthegeek> "cannot send to channel"
[10:54] <ikonia> I have the lgos for it, - you where asking about how to break apples to mess people up ikn the apple store
[10:54] <ikonia> there you go
[10:54] <richthegeek> still getting a "cannot send to channel" error
[10:55] <jussi> ikonia: no %
[10:55] <ikonia> it's showing as removed in BT
[10:55] <jussi> ;)
[10:55] <richthegeek> no error that time
[10:55] <ikonia> thank you jussi
[10:55] <ikonia> there we go
[10:55] <ikonia> that should do it
[10:56] <jussi> ikonia: the new ircd doesnt use the % anymore
[10:56] <richthegeek> are you seeing my message?
[10:56] <ikonia> ahhh
[10:56] <richthegeek> in #ubuntu I mean
[10:56] <ikonia> yes
[10:56] <richthegeek> sweet
[10:56] <richthegeek> thankyou for that.
[10:56] <richthegeek> now to fix all the issues I've had since Apr 04
[12:20] <gord> i always forget that the ubuntu channels attract a little more ... "attention" around release. gonna have to buy more headache away
[12:21] <elky> you forget this? some of us spend 6mths a year nightmaring of it
[12:22] <Tm_T> elky: shock big enough can erase memories
[12:22] <Tm_T> shock like, err, #ubuntu around the release
 I know nothing about pony yet, elky
[12:24] <elky> um.
[12:24] <elky> !no pony is <reply>PONY! Ponyponyponyponypony! http://windowseat.ca/images/monster_pony.jpg - NO PONIES FOR YOU!
[12:25] <elky> !pony
[12:25] <persia> That's a bug.  "pony" is useful
[12:25] <elky> oh, someone /deleted/ it...
[12:25] <elky> ubottu, unforget pony
[12:25] <elky> !!!!!!!
[12:25] <persia> Likely "cleanup: not obviously relevant to Ubuntu"
[12:25] <elky> oooh, i know what it is...
[12:26] <elky> !no pony-#ubuntu-offtopic is <reply>PONY! Ponyponyponyponypony! http://windowseat.ca/images/monster_pony.jpg - NO PONIES FOR YOU!
[12:26] <elky> :D
[12:26] <gord> does that mean i get a pony now?
[12:26] <IdleOne> no
[12:26] <elky> !pony-#ubuntu-offtopic | gord
[12:27]  * persia always liked http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/2/23/pony.jpg
[12:27] <elky> gord, no, but now you can deny others
[12:27] <elky> persia, that's what it used to be. someone made it new and improved
[12:28] <gord> oooh now i don't get mysterious midnight hilights that i can't find in my scrollback anymore, wootles
[12:29] <Tm_T> gord: shame, isn't it
[12:48] <jussi> !unforget pony
[12:49] <jussi> oh, it was -ot and got change
[12:49] <jussi> meh
[12:49] <jussi> just always remember that gord doesnt get ponies.
[12:49] <IdleOne> if I was a pony I would have a serious self esteem issue right about now. forget, unforget, forget, unforget :/
[12:50]  * IdleOne gives the pony a carrot
[12:50] <jussi> lol
[12:50] <jussi> just to give it to gord
[12:51] <jussi> oh cripes cant write today...
[12:51] <jussi> just dont give it to gord...
[12:51] <persia> The carrot or the pony?
[12:51] <IdleOne> So official policy is NO pony or carrots for gord!
[12:52] <IdleOne> noted
[12:52] <gord> its not official, its just jussi being mean :(
[12:52] <jussi> the pony. gord can have carrots.
[12:52] <IdleOne> [TASK] jussi to email ML about pony/carrot policy
[12:52] <IdleOne> So we all know :)
[12:53] <Pici> Would anyone mind if I updated the !ppa factoid to be more unser centric?
[12:53] <jussi> !ppa
[12:53] <Pici> er, *user*
[12:53] <Tm_T> Pici: please do
[12:53] <jussi> Pici: please do.
[12:53]  * Pici does
[12:53] <jussi> lol
[12:53] <jussi> Pici: see its Tm_T's turn today...
[12:53] <jussi> ^^
[12:53] <persia> I kinda like it *not* being user-centric, as users who install PPA stuff tend to end up with odd bugs.
[12:53] <Pici> jussi: I was just thinking that.
[12:54] <Pici> persia: I'll be sure to add something about them being not-supported
[12:54] <persia> OK.
[12:54] <jussi> persia: then we should warn about that. the reality is that users use PPA's all the time
[12:54] <Pici> jussi: Right, and the factoid right now doesn't tell them anything they need/want to know
[12:54] <persia> jussi: Just like they used the various pre-PPA 3rd party repos all the time.  Doesn't mean we like it, because it tends to break their systems, and we can't fix it.
[12:55] <jussi> Yes, exactly. so we need to carry apropriate warnings.
[12:56] <IdleOne> Even with a warning that a PPA is not supported by Ubuntu the fact that it is on Launchpad makes it more "legitimate" and people will tend to not heed the warning
[12:56] <nhandler> Yep. Pretty much one of the only real reasons to use such a PPA is if you are helping to find/fix bugs.
[12:56] <jussi> *cough*  no.
[12:57]  * jussi points to what Kubuntu does with PPA's
[12:57] <ikonia> and that's wrong
[12:57] <ikonia> they should lead by example and get that stuff into main
[12:57] <IdleOne> what does Kubuntu do with PPA's?
[12:57] <ikonia> if the developers don't push updates into main, because it's "too hard" then the process is not working
[12:57] <jussi> IdleOne: Provide later versions of KDE prior to release.
[12:58] <jussi> ikonia: its not like that.
[12:58] <ikonia> what's it like then ?
[12:58] <Pici> ikonia: I don't think that the software being pushed into the PPAs is stable enough for a MIR (if thats the right term in this situation)
[12:58] <persia> ikonia: KDE is special, because upstream is all sorts of oddly packaged.
[12:58] <ikonia> then the process doesn't work
[12:59] <ikonia> we should not be pushing out large user base software in a PPA
[12:59] <persia> Mind you, I think users should *never* use those PPAs, but they actually help get the stuff into the primary repos.
[12:59] <h00k> can I complain that when I used Kubuntu last it was all "hey, you should install these commonly installed restricted things like flash and mp3 support, just click here!" and I wasn't even doing anything that required any of those to be installed :(
[12:59] <persia> Pici: MIR is entirely not the right term.
[12:59] <nhandler> Yeah, Kubuntu is a bit different. But if you look at https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/KubuntuPPAs most of the PPAs are for people to test things prior to the changes going to the official repos
[12:59] <jussi> h00k: not here...
[12:59] <h00k> jussi: :D
[12:59] <Pici> persia: I had a feeling I was mincing acronyms
[12:59] <h00k> jussi: (I know)
[12:59] <IdleOne> Well have a nice day folks
[12:59] <ikonia> Pici: I knew what you where saying though
[13:01] <IdleOne> Oh, everybody make sure to get a good nights sleep and eat your wheaties in the morning. Release Day!!!
[13:01] <jussi> !latest
[13:01] <jussi> something along those lines might be useful^^
[13:02] <persia> PPAs aren't even always latest.  Sometimes they're horridly outdated.
[13:02] <jussi> true
[13:02] <persia> Or misguided attempts to repackage obsolete software when upstream changed the name.
[13:03] <ikonia> I have zero issues with PPA as a concept, but we tend to see them getting pushed as fixes and updates as the perception is that fix/updates don't get filtered into main
[13:03] <jussi> oh, like those old beryl ppa's? :P
[13:03] <Pici> how about: no ppa is <reply> A Personal Package Archive (PPA) can provide updated/new software not normally available in the offical Ubuntu repositories - Looking for a PPA? See: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas - WARNING: PPAs are concidered third-party packages and are not supported.
[13:04] <persia> I don't like "Updated/New".  How about "Alternative" or similar.
[13:04] <ikonia> Pici: nothing wrong with that, however I don't think people fully understand the risks of PPA's, eg: the package maybe sane, but they pull updated deps to meet the package needs from unstable areas
[13:05] <Pici> persia: thats fine.
[13:05] <Pici> ikonia: I'm all-ears on how you'd like to say that in 10 words or less.
[13:05] <persia> ikonia: The other risk is that anyone enabling a PPA is granting root on their system to the PPA owner.
[13:05] <gord> I don't think the risks of ppa's are communicational in a factoid
[13:05] <ikonia> Pici: no no, I agree it's tough
[13:06] <gord> i would remove concidered from that Pici, there is no middle ground they just are third party
[13:13] <jussi> even if you dont, then please spell "considered" correctly :D
[13:13] <Pici> yeah yeah
[13:13] <persia> !easybuntu
[13:14] <persia> Oh well.  I hoped that was still around, which would be an example.
[13:14] <Pici> !easyubuntu
[13:14] <persia> That's not what I remember anyway.
[13:14] <jussi> isnt that one that was similar to automatix?
[13:14] <jussi> !automatix
[13:15] <persia> I remember it talking about adding additional software not provided by the Ubuntu team, and being entirely unsupported.
[13:15] <Tm_T> !ultimatix
[13:15] <Tm_T> oh boy
[13:15] <Pici> !automatix
[13:15] <jussi> she is sad atm
[13:15] <Pici> shes responding in pm to me.
[13:16] <tsimpson> one sec
[13:16] <Pici> 08:15:23 <ubottu> Automatix is no longer developed or supported by its creators and is not recommended, supported, or needed by Ubuntu. See http://mjg59.livejournal.com/77440.html and « /msg ubottu WorksForMe »
[13:16] <Pici> well, not anymore.
[13:17] <Tm_T> there's plenty of others that are based on automatix though
[13:18] <Pici> maybe: "WARNING: PPAs are third-party packages; they are unsupported and something about having risks"
[13:18]  * Pici needs more caffeine and a thesaurus
[13:19] <Tm_T> Thesaurus, a dinosaur that is it
[13:19] <Tm_T> ...that didn't come out nicely
[13:19] <Pici> It made sense when I read it the first time.
[13:20] <Pici> I put the current text in !newppa for those wanting to create ppas.
[13:33] <tsimpson> !no already is <alias> final
[13:44] <ikonia> Pici: and are used at your own risk
[13:45] <tsimpson> !isitoutyet is <alias> isitout
[13:46] <tsimpson> bazhang: nubotu uses the ubottu database directly, so any changes to the ubottu DB are reflected in nubotu
[13:46] <bazhang> tsimpson, thanks :)
[13:46] <Pici> !no ppa is <reply> A Personal Package Archive (PPA) can provide alternate software not normally available in the offical Ubuntu repositories - Looking for a PPA? See https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas - WARNING: PPAs are third-party packages; and should be used at your own risk.
[13:47] <tsimpson> or *should* be, assuming no IO lag
[13:47] <Pici> !ppa s/;/,/
[13:47] <Pici> !ppa =~ s/;/,/
[13:48] <persia> What about the "entirely unsupported" bit?
[13:49] <Pici> its with those brain cells that haven't woken up yet.
[13:49] <persia> heh
[13:49] <Pici> !ppa =~ s/third/unsupported third/
[13:50] <ikonia> I like how this is coming together
[13:53] <ikonia> what the heck is nubotu ?
[13:53] <tsimpson> did you see it's cloak?
[13:53] <jussi> lol
[13:53] <tsimpson> -'
[13:53] <ikonia> yeah
[13:53] <ikonia> but what is it ? an rp only ubottu ?
[13:53] <Pici> Who is this stdin fellow?
[13:54] <bazhang> haha
[13:54] <jussi> ban him I say!
[13:54] <jussi> :P
[13:54] <Tm_T> we need stdout to compensate it
[13:54] <tsimpson> he was redirected to stdout a while ago, haven't seen him since
[13:55] <ikonia> so is nubotu just an rp only ubottu clone ?
[13:55] <jussi> no
[13:55] <jussi> nubotu is tsimpson's clone.
[13:55] <jussi> often used for testing
[13:56] <Pici> we're okay with ljl's bot, right?
[13:56] <Pici> Lots of people like/expect it
[13:56] <tsimpson> Pici: I've asked ljl to bring it in
[13:56] <jussi> Pici: Im not, I hate it. but it is expected.
[13:56] <Tm_T> haha
[13:56] <Pici> jussi: okay then
[13:57] <tsimpson> nubotu is not for your eyes ;)
[13:57] <Tm_T> nu as "not useful" then?
[13:58] <tsimpson> n(ot you)ubotu
[13:58] <tsimpson> *your
[14:05] <Tm_T> tsimpson: that explanation contains no humour aspect, I refuse to accept it
[14:06] <jussi> Tm_T: how about n(obodies)ubotu :D?
[14:10] <Tm_T> bot has no bodies, that is correct
[14:11] <jussi> oh lol
[14:25] <h00k> it appears I was disconnected
[14:56] <h00k> bazhang: you were slightly quicker
[14:59] <bazhang> thinking about removing jotall as well
[15:04] <h00k> I am, also.
[15:04] <h00k> I asked him to take it to a pm if there are further issues.
[15:04] <Pici> Thank you :)
[15:04] <bazhang> he has asked zero support questions as far as I can tell. Just wanting to challenge the language policy
[15:12] <h00k> no PM yet. a good sign.
[16:26]  * mneptok waves from the hotel terrace
[16:27] <funkyHat> Would be fancy if ubottu remembered the last comment it asked you to make and went with that if you just put @comment
[16:27] <funkyHat> Or maybe it does that and I just don't know about it ⢁)
[16:29] <funkyHat> Did I overreact just now in #ubuntu-offtopic?
[16:30] <bazhang> no
[16:30] <funkyHat> Good ⡈)
[16:31] <gord> although its traditional to /remove not /kick. just to avoid any auto-rejoin on kick sillyness
[16:31]  * funkyHat remembers, /ar not /ak
[16:32] <funkyHat> It's short for /argh
[16:32] <h00k> I just banned a GodricBrutus in #ubuntu, watchout for him in #ubuntu+1 potentially with inappropriate screenshots
[16:34]  * Tm_T huggles h00k
[16:35] <h00k> Tm_T: :3
[19:25] <jpds> Pici: Known troll / he's been doing that in some channels now.
[19:26] <Pici> jpds: I know
[19:26] <Pici> I still ... over it
[19:27] <tsimpson> Pici: maybe not, he's in -meta now
[19:27] <tsimpson> I mean, "maybe not stopped"
[19:28] <jpds> tsimpson: /KILL him.
[19:28] <Pici> tsimpson: I'm not over it, I'm elipsising.
[19:28] <tsimpson> jpds: I can't
[19:35] <h00k> more spam in #freenode, yay!
[19:56] <nhandler> ikonia: You might want to update whatever script you are using to ban people to handle web gateways better
[19:56] <ikonia> nhandler: ?
[19:56]  * h00k sigh
[19:56] <ikonia> the freenode gateway address was unique (I thought)
[19:56] <ikonia> I got him on a nick ban in #ubuntu, I'll change that in -ot too
[19:57] <tsimpson> ikonia: the IP is hex-encoded in the ident
[20:01] <ikonia> what's going with the ban mask in #ubuntu-ot
[20:01] <ikonia> can I not do $nick!*@* anymore ?
[20:02] <ikonia> worked that time
[20:02] <ikonia> how odd
[20:02] <tsimpson> you can, but they can just change nicks
[20:03] <ikonia> he won't
[20:03] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: no point in joining here to discuss anything any more as you've just told me to shut up and called me a fucker in private
[20:03] <AcePreshaw> im sroy to all the ips
[20:03] <AcePreshaw> ops
[20:03] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: if you want your ban lifted please come back when you can be calmer and not use insults
[20:04] <AcePreshaw> im now
[20:04] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: this is not the first time you've done this behaviour
[20:04] <AcePreshaw> i now
[20:04] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: you where told last time not to do it, now you've come back doing it again
[20:04] <ikonia> why ?
[20:04] <AcePreshaw> im a noob at irc bots
[20:04] <ikonia> you're not a bot
[20:04] <ikonia> and being new does not excuse being told not to do something, then doing it again
[20:05] <AcePreshaw> all the bots in here
[20:05] <ikonia> there are no bots, these are pretty much all people
[20:05] <AcePreshaw> ~ubntu
[20:05] <ubot3> Factoid ubntu not found
[20:05] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: anyway, as I've said, I suggest you go away for a few days and think about your behaviour in the ubuntu channels and decide if you can and will follow the fules
[20:06] <ikonia> come back here and we'll talk about removing the ban
[20:07] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: do you understand ?
[20:07] <AcePreshaw> Yes I do
[20:07] <ikonia> AcePreshaw: ok, great. If you can leave the channel, think about your behaviour and come back in a few days, we'll talk about removing the ban
[20:08] <AcePreshaw> sory
[20:08] <ikonia> ok, we'll speak to you in a few days
[20:08] <AcePreshaw> for calling u a F**er
[20:08] <ikonia> ok
[20:08] <AcePreshaw> ok
[20:08] <AcePreshaw> Fanx :)
[20:11] <Tm_T> it's very clear that he knows what he is doing
[20:11] <h00k> yes
[20:12] <ikonia> yes
[20:49] <Pici> yes
[20:49] <jrib> I agree
[20:50] <gord> so we are in agreement then
[21:05] <jrib> I really like seeing a string of names with different colors in my irc client, Tm_T green, h00k pink, ikonia red, Pici cyan, me white, and now gord brown
[21:06] <jrib> argh, now I broke it
[21:06] <gord> rainbow op's activate!
[21:09] <Tm_T> jrib: why I'm green? Could I be black, bloody red or orange?
[21:09] <nhandler> Tm_T: The script has chosen. You shall be green
[21:09] <jrib> Tm_T: you are yellow with pink background when you highlight me if it's any consolation
[21:10] <Tm_T> pink <3
[21:47] <Tm_T> bjf[afk]: hi
[21:48] <Tm_T> apw: pgraner: hi, is there something we can help you with?
[22:01] <mneptok> Gordon Brown?
[22:04] <Tm_T> mneptok: that's out of my powers, sorry
[22:37] <funkyHat> Are we alright to take +r off of -offtopic now?
[22:39] <LjL> hey, is ot supposed to be +r?
[22:39] <funkyHat> teehee
[22:39] <LjL> that makes me suppose it's already been asked, uh.
[22:40] <tsimpson> it shouldn't be +r, looks like it was a mistake
[22:40] <tsimpson> please remove it :)
[22:41] <LjL> someone from #ubuntu earlier was claiming the channel did not exist, now i guess i know why ;)
[22:41] <funkyHat> Done
[22:56] <switchgirl> i need to complain
[22:57] <switchgirl> http://paste.ubuntu.com/424246/
[22:57] <switchgirl> in #ubuntu+1
[23:32] <bjf[afk]> Tm_T, hi :-)
[23:45] <jrib> bjf: can we help you with anything?
[23:46] <bjf> nope, i'm helpless, I was made op on #ubuntu-kerne and told I needed to hang out here :-)
[23:46] <bjf> #ubuntu-kernel
[23:56] <jrib> bjf: oh, okay.  someone needs to give you +v then
[23:56] <bjf> jrib, what's that do for me?
[23:56] <jrib> bjf: well basically just lets everyone else know that you are an op and not a user looking for help
[23:56] <bjf> ah! :-)
[23:57] <h00k> only cool people are pink
[23:59] <bjf> jrib, just so you know, I'm guessing that apw and pgraner were also anointed ops of #ubuntu-kernel today