[02:49] <maco> ugh sanddbox is a pain in the ___
[02:54] <IdleOne> Now you can either follow the rules and guidelines or you can be banned
[02:54] <sanddbox> I disagree, now who do I consult?
[02:54] <IdleOne> !appeals
[02:54] <sanddbox> I am of course referncing the guideline "When disagreements occur, consult others"
[02:55] <sanddbox> Why was i kicked from #ubuntu?
[02:55] <IdleOne> you can consult the IRCC by following the link ubottu just gave you.
[02:55] <sanddbox> Why was i kicked from #ubuntu?
[02:55] <IdleOne> your attitude is poor and disruptive to the channel.
[02:55] <IdleOne> that is why I banned you.
[02:55] <sanddbox> your attitude is poor and disruptive to the community
[02:56] <sanddbox> i get what's going on
[02:56] <IdleOne> perhaps and you can bring that up to the IRCC if you like
[02:56] <sanddbox> i exercise my right to free speech and ask who to consult (per the guidelines)
[02:56] <sanddbox> and i get banned
[02:56] <IdleOne> you have no right to free speech on irc
[02:56] <sanddbox> you're destroying free speech as surely as obama is
[02:56] <maco> no i think the +q was at the repeated insults
[02:56] <maco> which, if you've read the rest of those two links you were given, you will see is not allowed
[02:57] <IdleOne> the +q was for repeated insults and general disruptive behavior
[02:57] <sanddbox> maco, i stopped the remarks after i was informed of the guidelines
[02:57] <maco> also, the first amendment does not apply to the internet
[02:57] <sanddbox> yes it does
[02:57] <sanddbox> the US controls the internet
[02:57] <maco> or to any form of censorship that is not imposed by the US Government
[02:57] <maco> no it doesn't
[02:57] <sanddbox> it was made by DARPA
[02:57] <maco> its been a long time since anyone but private ISPs controlled it
[02:57] <sanddbox> please, i don't want to get the cyber police involved
[02:57] <IdleOne> I think we are done here. You have the info you need to appeal my decision. Please part this channel
[02:58] <maco> the US Gov does not own Comcast, Verizon, etc. and i'm pretty sure the US doesnt control the Great Firewall of China
[03:02] <IdleOne> !ops | please remove sanddbox.
[03:02] <sanddbox> why can't I stay?
[03:02] <IdleOne> read the topic
[03:02] <IdleOne> no idle policy.
[03:02] <sanddbox> my issue is still not dealt withj
[03:03] <sanddbox> i haven't gotten a reply for my online appeal
[03:03] <IdleOne> it won't be dealt with tonight.
[03:03] <tonyyarusso> sanddbox: If you have anything relevant to address still we can do that, but I haven't seen one yet, so you'll want to get to it quick.
[03:03] <tonyyarusso> !appeals
[03:03] <tonyyarusso> ^^ there's the process from here.
[03:03] <maco> thats already been given
[03:04] <tonyyarusso> Yeah, well.
[03:04] <sanddbox> this environment feels hostile
[03:04] <IdleOne> been there done that. this ban will not be lifted by me anytime soon. IRCC is his next step.
[03:06] <bazhang> he wanted clippy?
[03:06] <maco> bazhang: it started there
[03:06] <bazhang> maco, I just read up on it
[03:07] <maco> then some "read things in the most inflammatory way possible" when we got to what a "bot" is
[03:07] <maco> (saying "yes theres a virus in the channel" was so so so tempting at that point)
[03:08] <bazhang> perhaps a vm with win? to get clippy
[03:09] <maco> i said ms office
[03:09] <maco> and then ze ewwww'd at it
[03:11] <bazhang> he's trying to get a cloak now to get around the ban
[03:12] <maco> oh dear
[03:12] <IdleOne> won't work
[03:12] <maco> mmm you did set it on host not nick
[03:13] <IdleOne> I set it on host, his attitude in that channel now won't get him a cloak
[03:13] <maco> ah
[03:13] <IdleOne> least I doubt it will
[03:13] <bazhang> or no, just trolling
[03:13] <maco> "why do you want a cloak?" "to get around a ban"
[03:18] <IdleOne> you know when jordan finally gets ops, we will probably have to remind him to join here :)
[03:18] <IdleOne> heh
[03:18] <bazhang> hehe
[03:18] <IdleOne> :)
[03:19] <maco> hang on.. rww should be allowed in here
[03:19] <maco> i was allowed here when i was just a #u-w op
[03:19] <bazhang> new rules in town
[03:20] <IdleOne> maco: rules got changed since then
[03:20] <maco> oh confusing
[03:20] <IdleOne> but he will be allowed soon enough (I hope)
[03:20] <IdleOne> rww and jordan_u +9000
[08:07] <Tm_T> ooh, free speech -card!
[08:07]  * Tm_T is reading logs
[08:27] <topyli> elky: there is the occasional random "join this team" clicker but it's not that bad. about the same level with the number requests for technical support through my individual launchpad page
[09:09] <elky> topyli, that's dropped a lot. we used to have almost daily
[09:33] <jussi> almost daily is a bit over the top - maybe weekly. but yeah, it has dropped significantly.
[09:37] <elky> it was more than weekly less than daily.
[09:38] <elky> but yeah, i'm not convinced you've managed to filter them out of the shortlist anyway.
[09:38] <jussi> I dont think we edited the list (unless someone did before I got to it)
[09:39] <elky> jussi, well... if topyli is telling the truth and you get some drive-by applicants, it must have been shortlisted.
[09:40] <topyli> no need, it wasn't that long. obviously we dropped some from the list that you saw, elky
[09:40] <elky> what list that I saw?
[09:40] <elky> i'm referring to the list I responded to yesterday
[09:40] <topyli> yes that one
[09:41] <elky> so you've dropped the one who didn't even bother to make a wiki page?
[09:41] <topyli> obviously not, since you saw that one :)
[10:28] <jussi> Ladies and gents, still waiting on more IRCC nominations, so if you think youve got something to bring to the table, lets have your nominations!
[10:33] <elky> how many seats are we needing to fill?
[10:35] <jussi> 2
[10:36] <elky> and how many nominations have been made?
[10:37] <ikonia> secret
[10:37] <elky> clearly
[10:37] <ikonia> no it is
[10:38] <elky> because sekrit hush hush election processes are apparently how we get the ircc to be more trusted...?
[10:38] <topyli> "too few". essentially, how many candidates we have and who they are should not affect your decision to run. we will know the names when it's time to vote
[10:38] <elky> topyli, oh, it's not going to affect /my/ decision to run. I've already signed up to the race
[10:38] <topyli> yep
[10:38] <elky> Oooh, unless i wasn't suppsoed to say that.
[10:39] <jussi> no, you are welcome to say, of course, just that we will not make comments on who is running until the time is up.
[10:39] <topyli> oh i'm sure you're allowed to talk about your own decisons
[10:39] <elky> i didn't ask /who/. I asked how many.
[10:42] <topyli> there might be a reason later to break down the number of candidates by "those who nominated on time," "those who eventually nominated during the extension," and "those on CC's eventual shortlist," but i don't see why we would do that. it's pretty much the CC's decision since they're the ones who appoint the ircc in the first place
[10:42] <elky> this ridiculous secrecy and back-room dealing culture is going to end.
[10:43] <topyli> ok
[10:43] <elky> the ircc now is less trustworthy than the ircc I was on which was accused as being untrustworthy.
[10:45] <elky> The ircc now doesn't treat ops as people, it treats them as numbers to allocate to boxes for micromanaging. it's not healthy.
[10:49] <topyli> you don't trust the ircc because it holds the election according to the charter set by the cc
[10:49] <elky> not true. I don't trust the ircc because "we can't tell you" is the default answer to everything.
[10:50] <elky> i don't trust the ircc because it doesn't listen to the ops anymore
[10:50] <topyli> that's not true either. we have told you many things
[10:51] <elky> i don't trust the ircc because of how i've seen it behave, and how i've seen it neglect the actions that would let it know what the ops feel about their roles.
[10:51] <elky> i don't trust the ircc because the ircc hasn't given me any reason to trust it.
[10:52] <elky> but it's taken plenty of them away.
[10:52] <jussi> elky: Im at work so answers are slow in coming, but care to be specific?
[10:53] <elky> jussi, when is the last time you put yourself in a position where you could witness ops candidly discuss what being an op is like?
[10:54] <jussi> elky: hrm?
[10:54] <elky> where do you interact with operators of channels in a manner in which they can express how they /really/ feel about things?
[10:55] <jussi> elky: If you are asking about the "alt channel" -Ive already proposed that, and its on the next meeting agenda... ?
[10:56] <topyli> mailing list, #ubuntu-irc-council, meetings, offhand. i'm not sure what you want
[10:56] <elky> topyli, how on earth can one be candid while knowing they're being watched?
[10:57] <topyli> the channel is private. pm is supported too
[10:58] <elky> topyli, nobody adhereing to the code of conduct can be truely candid there.
[10:58] <topyli> oh
[10:58] <elky> and to know what ops are feeling, you need to remove the code of conduct from the equation.
[10:59] <topyli> uh, no
[10:59] <elky> uh, yes.
[11:01] <elky> There is no way to know how an op is feeling if they're forbidden from expressing it.
[11:02] <jussi> elky: but ops are eloquent enough to express it within the CoC.
[11:03] <elky> You're fooling yourself if you really think that.
[11:03] <Tm_T> I slightly agree with elky, when expressing feelings, sstrong enforcing coc might be limiting
[11:03] <Tm_T> might, could, in some cases is
[11:04] <elky> jussi, it's like asking a child to be honest while the child knows that what is said will be relayed to the parents.
[11:05] <topyli> i'd prefer the child doesn't try to be civil just because s/he's afraid of parents
[11:05] <elky> topyli, that's what the CoC does to conversations.
[11:05] <elky> it forces the op to be civil for fear of the big bad CC
[11:06] <elky> it's been demonstrated to do so.
[11:06] <topyli> the metaphor is not very good though, children can't be fired if they're naughty. upholding the coc on the other hand is the ops' *job*
[11:06] <elky> topyli, no, it's the ops *HOBBY*
[11:06] <topyli> that said, i don't mind if you slip from the coc while in pm with me
[11:07] <topyli> or maybe even in the ircc's private channel
[11:07] <elky> the IRCC shouldn't be treating staff like the ops owe the ircc. that's another thing the ircc is doing to lose my trust
[11:07] <jussi> elky: some more info on that one also?
[11:08] <elky> er, ops like the ops. See! you make us think as though we're bound to this place to the point we call ourselves staff.
[11:08] <elky> jussi, your micromanaging. your grand "report your away days" thing.
[11:09] <elky> and if any of this is news to you, then that's a whole new reason for me to lose trust.
[11:10] <topyli> elky: sure, we're volunteers. upholding the coc on irc channels is a job we've taken upon ourselves because we want to, so it's different from wage labor. still i don't get why i should express my feelings in a rude way even if i'm unhappy
[11:11] <topyli> which, btw, i am atm :)
[11:11] <elky> topyli, maybe i should have scarequoted "civil" then. The coc enforces a pretty restrictive standard.
[11:11] <popey> elky: People are unable to express themselves within the CoC?
[11:12] <elky> there is no way one can fully express themselves and not be screamed down over coc. mentioning names is so frowned upon that we can't trust that we can say things about people.
[11:12] <topyli> not really. i like jdub's "don't be an asshat" definition of the coc, even if breaks the coc, strictly speaking
[11:12] <elky> popey, i cannot, for example, say an op is deficient in carrying out their role without being yelled at for personal attacks.
[11:12] <popey> You can.
[11:13] <topyli> sure you can
[11:13] <elky> popey, i've done it before and got screamed at, so no, i cannot.
[11:13] <jussi> elky: absolutely you can
[11:13] <jussi> elky: we have #ubuntu-irc-council expressly for items like that.
[11:13] <elky> jussi, which i dont visit anymore since i get kicked out of before getting a response
[11:13] <popey> The CC gets people complaining about other peoples conduct, and we take those seriously, we don't accuse the accuser of being in breach of the CoC
[11:14] <elky> popey, i must get special treatment then.
[11:14] <popey> I don't know (or have forgotten or mislaid the memory) of the specifics of what you're talking about, sorry.
[11:14] <elky> i'm serious. i've never been able to criticise someone and not get yelled at for it.
[11:15] <popey> Of course there's ways and means of doing that. But as I say, I don't know the specifics.
[11:16] <topyli> i don't remember yelling at anyone, but maybe my memory is selective
[11:16] <popey> "Joe is an asshat, and can't manage an irc channel because he sucks" vs "Joe has consistently shows an inability to control channel #x [citation] [citation]"
[11:16] <popey> (I am not pointing a finger at you elky, just stating the bleeding obvious)
[11:23] <Tm_T> it's breaching coc, but merely the fear of doing so that restricts, I can see
[11:23] <Tm_T> ...scroll <3
[14:47] <ikonia> hmmm, that didn't set a ban forward
[16:56] <IdleOne> morning
[16:58] <Tm_T> evening (:
[19:36] <rww> ^^ that could probably be worded better, but I keep seeing this mistake made in #ubuntu, so it might be nice to factoid it.
[19:38] <Pici> rww: I agree.
[19:39] <rww> Pici: I'll get to that floodbot doc today, btw. Apologies for the delay
[19:40] <charlie-tca> heh, but it does work to upgrade easily with modifying files from 10.04 to 10.10
[19:42] <rww> until someone who's actually running 10.10 runs it and ends up on natty. and then we all cry.
[19:42] <Pici> Well, we won't cry, they will.
[19:42] <rww> best to just stick to The Right Way To Do It, imho. same reason we don't recommend modifying sources.list and aptitude dist-upgrade
[19:43] <rww> Pici: the all-caps ranting about how Ubuntu sucks is painful to my ears :(
[19:43] <Pici> oh :(
[20:45] <ikonia> what's going on tonigth in #u ?
[20:52] <Pici> Its a full moon ;)
[20:54] <ikonia> RottNKorpse's attitude stunk in pm
[20:54] <ikonia> he feels it appropriate to mock users because "he's right" and won't follow guidelines as it's supressing his freedom of speach
[20:54] <mneptok> IMO, behavior in a PM without commensurate behavior on-channel does not warrant a removal
[20:55] <ikonia> mneptok: his behaviour in #ubuntu was unacceptable, so he was quieted, his follow up in pm making it clear he would not follow the channels guideslines, got him removed
[20:56] <ikonia> I'm hopeful that now he realises his attitude won't be tollerated, it will change and I can lift the ban
[20:56] <mneptok> well, it is a rotten corpse
[20:56] <mneptok> IME, zombies are not fast learners
[21:08] <Pici> Can someone keep an eye on -server for a few minutes, I need to drive home.
[21:08] <ikonia> yes
[21:08] <ikonia> although I don't have ops there
[21:08] <Pici> Hm, I thought you did.
[21:08] <ikonia> I've been trying to be more active in -server after urseuls comments
[21:08] <ikonia> Pici: it got lost with the launchpad re-shuffle/mess around
[21:09] <Pici> You should be active there, you know more about server stuff than I do ;)
[21:09] <ikonia> ha ha
[21:09] <ikonia> I'm trying to be more after it was pointed out we are not helping new users out well
[21:11] <mneptok> i think i used to have ops there, but i don't now.
[21:11] <ikonia> mneptok: there was a messing around with the groups on launchpad
[21:11] <ikonia> I just don't think it's been tidied up
[21:12] <mneptok> start the job with the full intention of finishing it completely, or don't start. ;)
[21:12] <ikonia> it will be fine, most stuff can be sorted out any way, drive home
[21:12] <mneptok> heh. soren has +o in -server, and has not worked for Canonical in months
[21:13] <ikonia> you don't have to work there to get +o
[21:13] <ikonia> he's pretty active i nthe server group
[21:13] <mneptok> because he's working for Rackspace. poached by Rick Clark. :)
[22:22] <tsimpson|n800> ikonia: there was no messing with regards to the LP teams and access lists, we only imported the access lists to LP. nothing in the reverse direction
[22:22] <ikonia> tsimpson|n800: I wonder what went wrong
[22:22] <ikonia> tsimpson|n800: (not with what you did)
[22:23] <ikonia> I'll just re-apply to the team, seems the simplest way
[22:25] <tsimpson|n800> I don't know, we havent done any "automatic" access management
[22:25] <ikonia> just re-applied, seems easy way to resolve it
[22:27] <IdleOne> if you need more eyes in -server I'd be happy to idle there, in fact I was idling there till znc got restarted
[22:59] <Pici> <.<
[22:59] <ikonia> ?
[23:21] <h00k> Congrats to the new ops.
[23:22] <Tm_T> wut 'appened?
[23:24] <popey> ooo yes, congrats to the new ops!
[23:26] <elky> Oh yay, an open invitation for all and any to apply to be ops of here.
[23:26]  * elky headdesks.
[23:26] <Tm_T> elky: ?
[23:27] <elky> "... and seeing lots of applications
[23:27] <elky> for the positions in #ubuntu-ops"
[23:27] <elky> I can't imagine how that's going to end well.
[23:27] <Pici> Uh. You need to be an operator before you can apply to be an Ubuntu op.
[23:27] <Tm_T> elky: wasn't any issue last time, considering just one applied
[23:27] <Pici> er, I mean you need to be an operator somewhere before you can be an #ubuntu-ops op.
[23:28] <elky> That's ridiculously vague. We could have the Palin greeter be op here now.
[23:28] <Tm_T> oh, nice names in new ops list, congrats all
[23:34] <Tm_T> elky: if IRCC choose so, yes
[23:35] <elky> Tm_T, and considering the ircc decided that someone who greets sarahs with "hi palin" is suitible for ops anywhere... wow, the trust I can get from /that/ is astounding.
[23:36] <Pici> elky: I suggest you calm down.
[23:36]  * elky raises an eyebrow.
[23:55]  * h00k offers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hj9H4Ku9sQ
[23:58]  * mneptok offers up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbOjxU6OpoM