[03:58] <gos> hi, i want to install a program to design of this page: http://www.sweethome3d.com/download.jsp    ,but lubuntu said that the program does not have a valid certificate. "can i install this program without any risk?
[04:00] <IdleOne> gos: This is not a support channel. You are in #ubuntu-ops right now
[04:01] <IdleOne> gos: you were sent here because you tried joining #ubuntu and are banned from there
[04:01] <persia> #lubuntu is probably the safer choice for lubuntu support.
[04:02] <gos> but that site is valid?
[04:02] <IdleOne> ask #lubuntu
[04:04] <IdleOne> gos: if you wish to discuss the ban in #ubuntu then you are in the right place, otherwise please part the channel
[04:05] <IdleOne> what's the freaking point in me asking a user to part if I can't enforce it when they don't
[04:10] <persia> Helps train folk in social integration and attention to peer commentary, and highlights folks who have much to learn in these areas.
[04:12] <IdleOne> I'm not sure I know what any of what you just said means
[04:13] <maco> IdleOne: i think the last bit was about shaming
[04:13] <IdleOne> shaming?
[04:14] <maco> public wrist-slapping
[04:14] <IdleOne> hmm
[04:15] <IdleOne> Well I still feel like we should all have access to remove users from here
[04:15] <persia> It's all about shaming really, and the rest was about making sure those who care for ensuring folks follow guidelines know who isn't reading the guidelines (or following them) even with reminders.
[04:17] <persia> Ideally, we want everyone to be coorperative, and listen to their peers, because this means we don't have to do anything as ops.
[04:18] <persia> But this is made easier if we know who isn't following those guidelines, as we can track them for special observance.
[04:19] <persia> whereas, if we kick folks often, that makes people think it's not serious until they get kicked, which makes our work harder.
[04:19] <persia> All that said, I'm tempted to see wider enforcement as well, but that doesn't change the rationale for not needing it.
[04:19] <IdleOne> So a user like gos who has been here on several occasions asking for support and being told that this is not a support channel and being asked to leave, who is still here for no reason. How is this helpful to the ops team or even him/her
[04:21] <IdleOne> Who btw knows they are banned and that is why they keep getting sent here
[04:21] <IdleOne> it is frustrating when I have to go pinging people to remove a user who clearly does not care about the no idle rule.
[04:23] <persia> Annoyingly, the truly uncooperative fail to benefit from the rationale expressed above, and are simply frustrating.
[04:24] <IdleOne> especially when I took the time to go to #lubuntu and asked them to part -ops
[04:24] <persia> So, I posit that we're optimising for the borderline, which would be good if there were fewer outliers.  With current volume, it may be a more delicate balance between operator frustration and user education.
[04:24] <IdleOne> I am being ignored by a troll because they know I can't do anything about it
[04:24] <IdleOne> figures they part soon as I said that
[04:25] <persia> It demonstrates that learning has begun.  May it continue successfully.
[04:25] <IdleOne> We can only hope
[04:25] <persia> Indeed.
[04:25] <IdleOne> persia: Thank you for your patience with my obvious semi-rant
[04:27] <persia> No problem.  Thanks for giving me the opportunity to document the point in a way that makes more sense to me.
[04:27] <persia> I've come to share your opinion about +o, but going over the reason we don't have it helps dim my own frustration.
[05:07] <elky> It would be lovely to be able to afford to have people who can manage this channel independently of the daily ops, but sadly, we don't have the human resource for that.
[05:09] <IdleOne> elky: There are those who have expressed the willingness
[05:09] <elky> IdleOne, except we need them on the front line as daily ops, and the staffing levels would dictate they'd not stay independent long for this reason.
[05:10] <elky> In Idealville we'd have 3 groups, wholly independent. Ops, ircc, and managers of this channel.
[05:10] <elky> In Realton, this isn't sustainable for the reason I state above.
[05:11] <IdleOne> I don't see this channel as separate from the core channels but an extension.
[05:11] <persia> Ah, so that if some op is exceedingly annoyed with some user, they lack the ability to also block them from here?
[05:11] <elky> IdleOne, which is true, but this is for appeal process purposes
[05:11] <elky> persia, so that who maintains the peace here is "independent"
[05:12] <elky> currently members of two of the parties in the appeals process maintain the peace here.
[05:13] <persia> Makes sense.  I tend to look for social, rather than technical, solutions.  Something like expecting folks with ops here to recuse themselves from keeping the peace in cases where they are op on the channel of interest or on IRCC.
[05:13] <elky> one, daily ops, the current party in a dispute, second, ircc, a potential arbitrator in the dispute.
[05:13] <IdleOne> I see, the daily ops can be trusted to enforce the rules in the core channels but not trusted enough to be impartial
[05:13] <elky> persia, that's fine, and most do, until there's a staff shortage.
[05:13] <persia> That said, I can see how that degenerates badly if things fall out of balance.
[05:13] <persia> Right.
[05:14] <elky> The current rate of burnout isn't sustainable for daily ops, let alone for maintaining a reservoir of peacekeepers who won't ever need to step over the line to make sure there's enough ops.
[05:15] <elky> Every time it gets brought up, it gets brought up in a broken fashion which neglects to understand the cycle of life. This is because once you understand the cycle of life, you give up on the idealism and deal with the hand reality has played you.
[05:15] <persia> I disagree with the contention in the second sentence.
[05:16] <persia> I think some folks both carry ideals and deal with the hand available, seeking to change the rules for the future.
[05:16] <persia> Not that this disagreement matters in this context :)
[05:16] <elky> Sure, maybe I should have been clearer about "as reality currently stands"
[05:17] <elky> future realities may or may not provide escape routes.
[05:18] <persia> But given the model of many-headed "core" of most-populous channels with shared ops, there's an automatic shortage with recusion.
[05:18] <persia> Plus all the soft, idealiistic reasons I said earlier :)
[05:18] <elky> Yup. Damn those caveats.
[07:43] <jussi> !ics =~ s/ubuntu/Ubuntu/
[07:43] <jussi> !ics > rww
[08:46] <knome> jussi, ping!
[13:52] <LjL> !staff | please check #ubuntu-unregged
[14:55] <alabd> Good day all , why my user is banned from #ubuntu ?
[19:36] <niko> mind if i +r ?
[19:37] <maco> niko: i already did
[19:37] <niko> yes i noticed
[19:41] <Pici> Hm, I thought we were still +r too
[22:10] <knome> sent pog here since he's getting excess floods
[22:10] <knome> if there is a more appropriate way, let me know
[22:11] <IdleOne> knome: forward to ##fix_your_connection
[22:11] <knome> okay, thanks
[22:12] <knome> should i join there myself, or.. ?
[22:13] <IdleOne> no need
[22:13] <knome> okay
[22:13] <knome> can they remove the ban when the issue is solved, or will that guy come to me?
[22:13] <Tm_T> knome: what ban?
[22:13] <IdleOne> they will have to go to a channel op
[22:14] <knome> IdleOne, okay, ta
[22:14] <IdleOne> so yeah you
[22:14] <IdleOne> np
[22:14] <knome> Tm_T, banned pog from #xubuntu since he was having numerous excess floods
[22:14] <Tm_T> so it's you who remove the ban (:
[22:14] <knome> join, excess flood, join, excess flood...
[22:14] <knome> yeah, np :)