[00:01] <_Techie_> okay, i agree to follow the guidelines
[00:02] <IdleOne> _Techie_: much appreciated.
[00:02] <_Techie_> my away nick module has been disabled for freenode
[00:02] <IdleOne> you can now rejoin #ubuntu
[00:02] <_Techie_> please inform me if problems are still lingering and i will sort it out
[00:02] <Pici> _Techie_: Sounds good, then I'll go ahead and remove the ban in -server.
[00:05] <Flannel> Can we please stop being militant and overzealous regarding the "No Idling" policy?  It's to prevent people from having an audience and showing off among other things, not as a way to shoo people.
[00:06] <bazhang> I say let more idle, but that's just me
[00:06] <Flannel> I'm not talking about the policy itself, I'm talking about invoking it to get people to 'go away' when you don't want them to bother you anymore.
[00:07] <Pici> I feel that tonyyarusso's first comment on the idling policy was correct.
[00:07] <Flannel> There were two problems in -ot a few minutes ago, instead of resolving each of them, we let one spill into the other, and we've still got an issue.
[00:08] <Pici> Indeed.
[00:09] <Flannel> Pici: While the "if no one can help you, try again later" message may be reasonable, that in conjunction with the previously dismissive statements gave the entire interaction a dismissive flavor
[00:09] <tonyyarusso> Flannel: It seemed to me that this particular character was more interested in the "having an audience" aspect, ultimately.
[00:10] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Regardless of his goals, he deserved to talk to an actual person about them.
[00:10] <tonyyarusso> For one thing, we also have a general stance (if not a written policy) of not discussing bans (or lack thereof) with people other than the individual concerned, so it wasn't a particularly appropriate conversation from the start.
[00:10] <Flannel> You basically told him to "rtfm"
[00:11] <Flannel> No, and that's true.  I wouldn't want to have that discussion with him because it is inappropriate.  But you could've taken the time to explain that to him
[00:11] <tonyyarusso> I suppose.
[00:12] <Flannel> Whether we talk to person B in private, or whatever, it's not important to person A.  But person A feels better if they're assured it's being handled, instead of looking the other way.  (He may not realise that there's other avenues besides just +b)
[00:13] <rww> I 110% agree with Flannel about this, for what it's worth.
[00:13] <Pici> And may I add that self policing, i.e. cursing then quitting, isn't really 'handling the situation'. Especially for someone who should already know our rules.
[00:13] <Flannel> Also, it could've been a real handy time (He's already here, in private) to discuss the issue he was having, re: labelling people trolls, etc (and perhaps even straighten out his understanding of copyrights)
[00:13] <Flannel> Pici: Ive forwarded LjL here, and I expect to make that clear to him (if you didn't catch it)
[00:13] <Pici> Flannel: I know.
[00:14] <Pici> tonyyarusso: I'd also like to say that its hard dealing with former ops misbehaving, for all of us.
[00:14] <tonyyarusso> Pici: That part doesn't bother me - I just figured I wait for the rejoin (since there's a good chance I'd notice that without a banforward to here)
[00:15] <tonyyarusso> But yeah, Flannel's right - just has more energy left for the particularly annoying sorts than me I guess.
[00:15] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: That's valid.  But we (internally) need to communicate that better, since otherwise we'll have four people handling the situation, etc.
[00:16] <Flannel> And that's just a waste of three people's time :)
[00:16] <Pici> And the rest of us feeling confused.
[00:16] <tonyyarusso> Flannel: Perhaps being deluged with /msg from all of the ops would make a stronger poing ;)
[00:16] <tonyyarusso> gah, *point
[00:16] <Flannel> Haha
[00:16] <Pici> poing!
[00:17] <Flannel> !ping
[00:18] <bazhang> hehe
[00:18] <tonyyarusso> lol
[02:04] <IdleOne> I wonder
[02:04] <IdleOne> !sudo =~ s/Gnome, XFCE/GNOME, Xfce/
[02:04] <IdleOne> heh
[02:04] <IdleOne> guess not
[02:05]  * rww ponders which subset of channel ops to pick for a suggestion to IRCC about expanding editor privs
[02:06] <IdleOne> start at the bottom of the access list and work up
[02:06] <Flannel> rww: probaly jussi
[02:07] <rww> Flannel: I mean that I think it should be given automatically to people at some point. I'm just not sure what the point is. Maybe just all ops in a core channel that aren't on probation.
[02:08] <rww> The current situation, where some people have it, some don't, and we have way too few people with it (given how many edit requests slip through the cracks) is not optimal.
[02:09] <rww> and I'm having a hard time thinking of a reason to trust people with ops in a core channel and not trust them with ubottu edit privs, so I think that's a sane line.
[02:10] <Flannel> rww: I'm not aware of a policy change away from "all operators* have editor access" (* #u, -ot, etc, not more esoteric channels)
[02:10] <rww> Flannel: Last time I mentioned this, I was told that not all operators have edit access, and that that wasn't an oversight.
[02:11] <Flannel> The only reason factoid editing was restricted to editors in the first place was to cut back on spam factoids/malicious edits, so there shouldn't be any reason to impose additional restrictions beyond "we need some easy way to collect people into a bucket"
[02:29] <IdleOne> what is fleshwormx on about?
[02:29] <Flannel> no idea
[02:30] <IdleOne> I don't feel so bad in that case
[02:32] <rww> I asked, and ze answered, and I still don't know >.>
[02:33] <Flannel> Looks like they're from Puerto Rico
[02:33] <IdleOne> what is with the ze instead of he lately?
[02:33] <IdleOne> I think I am finally getting to old for interwebs
[02:34] <rww> IdleOne: I'm playing with maco's gender-neutral pronoun set instead of the one I usually use.
[02:34] <Flannel> IdleOne: ze/hir are neuter pr
[02:34] <Flannel> pronouns, even.
[02:34] <rww> I kinda like the zeds, it makes them less underused :)
[02:35] <IdleOne> I see
[02:35] <IdleOne> thanks again for making me feel so out of touch with anything useful :P
[02:36] <rww> IdleOne: See the smorgasbord at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Summary ;)
[02:36] <IdleOne> heh
[02:37] <IdleOne> why is there even a need for gender neutral pronouns...
[02:37] <IdleOne> </rhetorical?
[02:37] <IdleOne> >
[02:38] <Flannel> IdleOne: because one can't always determine the gender of someone (especially on the blagonets), and some folks take offense to being placed incorrectly into a bucket.
[02:38] <Flannel> Also, I've apparently been doing a lot of hash function work recently or something, everything seems to be a bucket.
[02:39] <IdleOne> People who take offense to it on the blagonets should either make it clearer or get over it
[02:39] <rww> and some folks think it's silly to load pronouns with gender
[02:40] <IdleOne> I can understand a woman being called he in real life (in person) situation or vice versa
[02:40] <IdleOne> but online....
[02:42] <rww> Still asking rhetorical questions, or would you like answers? ;)
[02:42] <IdleOne> sure, what the hell
[02:42] <IdleOne> I'll read it
[02:45] <rww> In short, there's no reason to do it, it's highly inconvenient when dealing with the Internet (where gender isn't known, and is often problematically assumed to be male), and it's increasingly likely to cause problems in an online culture where people are transgendered, genderqueer, or just don't want people to know their gender.
[02:45] <rww> s/known/easily known/
[02:46] <Flannel> Or a dog.
[02:46] <rww> or a dog.
[02:46] <IdleOne> ha
[02:49] <rww> Another POV on why gendered pronouns are bad in general (not just online) that maco linked me (and got from hypatia, iirc) is http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html . It rivels Johnathan Swift for sarcasm, though.
[02:49] <rww> rivals **
[02:50] <marienz> won't load for me
[02:51] <IdleOne> me either
[02:51] <rww> hrm, odd. it loaded a minute ago.
[02:51] <Flannel> rww: You single-handedly slashdotted a webpage!
[02:52] <marienz> personally I alternate between singular they and universal he, unless someone corrects me
[02:52] <marienz> other solutions seem forced (and this specific "ze" solution is extra weird as "ze" is the dutch word for "she")
[02:52] <rww> I broke the Univ. of Virginia's CS department just by looking at it. Yay me.
[02:53] <marienz> well done!
[02:55] <rww> Yeah, the various neutral pronoun solutions suffer from not sounding right. I suspect it's not possible to create one that sounds right to unaccustomed people, given how frequently used pronouns are.
[02:57] <marienz> nod
[02:58] <Pici> I like zeds. Americans don't use those enough.
[03:02] <rww> Pici: Perhaps we should start a linguistical revolution by adding it (and x!) to random common words.
[03:03] <Flannel> rww: If you add x, you just begin to speak French.
[03:04] <IdleOne> x is almost if not always silent in French
[03:04] <maco> i think ze gets by in speech just fine. as does the the 'e solution
[03:04] <IdleOne> so it would not change much
[03:04] <maco> as long as you dont say it like zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze went to the mall. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze bought a cd.
[03:04] <rww> its french name is approximately pronounced 'eeks', which I find amusing.
[03:05] <IdleOne> more like icks
[03:05] <maco> is x a pluraliser in french?
[03:05] <IdleOne> sometimes
[03:05] <maco> cuz i think the plural of beau is beaux right?
[03:05] <IdleOne> yes
[03:05] <marienz> maco: perhaps this is not actually a problem in practice, but I think in some accents "the" ends up pronounced a lot like I think you'd pronounce "ze"
[03:05] <maco> Pici: i would argue the english use zeds less often than americans. american spelling uses lots of -ize while british uses lots of -ise
[03:06] <Pici> maco: I was thinking of Canadians actually.
[03:06] <maco> do canadians spell american or british?
[03:06] <maco> i think oz spells british usually
[03:07] <IdleOne> maco: a little of both
[03:07] <IdleOne> more british I would say
[03:07] <IdleOne> depends with who we are speaking/writing to
[03:07] <maco> oh hey we have a convenient canadian here!
[03:08] <rww> now you need to find tonyyarusso a new area of expertise!
[03:08] <Flannel> As opposed to a regular canadian?
[03:08] <IdleOne> and depending where I am I might pronounce z zed or zee
[03:09] <Pici> I was particularly thinking of Rodney from Stargate, and his Zed-PMs.
[03:09] <IdleOne> Atlantis?
[03:09] <Pici> Yes.
[03:09] <IdleOne> don't watch it
[03:10] <Pici> Although he was in SG1 before that.
[03:10] <IdleOne> to many weird accents
[03:10] <IdleOne> heh
[03:10] <Pici> Thats the best part
[03:10] <IdleOne> actually, I'll watch it if there is nothing else on
[03:10] <IdleOne> but I don't really follow it
[03:11] <Pici> Well, its not on anymore.
[03:11] <IdleOne> still in reruns
[03:12] <IdleOne> I'm a big Spike tv fan
[03:30] <_Techie_> IdleOne, has the ban from #ubuntu been lifted?
[03:30] <IdleOne> it has
[03:30] <IdleOne> you unable to join?
[03:30] <_Techie_> still saying im banned
[03:31] <IdleOne> give me a moment
[03:32] <rww> ubottu and I don't see anything matching you in #ubuntu, for what it's worth.
[03:33] <IdleOne> _Techie_: what was the nick you used when I banned the second time?
[03:33] <_Techie_> AuGold
[03:34] <Flannel> I don't see anything.  _Techie_, we're talking about #ubuntu? or some other channel?
[03:34] <_Techie_> yes, #ubuntu
[03:34] <IdleOne> what is your ip?
[03:34] <IdleOne> I set a ip ban
[03:34] <_Techie_> 219.88.71.17
[03:34] <_Techie_> it resolves to technz.info
[03:35] <IdleOne> ok you should be good now
[03:35] <_Techie_> yep, thankyou IdleOne
[03:35] <IdleOne> sure thing
[03:35] <Flannel> IdleOne: Get rid of the gateway one too: 19:32 -!- 5 - #ubuntu: ban *!*@@gateway/web/freenode/ip.219.88.71.17 [by jrib!~jrib@upstream/dev/jrib, 188656 secs ago]
[03:35]  * rww adds to notebook
[03:36] <IdleOne> that should do it
[03:36] <IdleOne> thank s Flannel
[03:36] <IdleOne> -space
[03:36] <Flannel> IdleOne: No problem!
[03:42] <tonyyarusso> geez, scrollback to read
[03:47] <tonyyarusso> maco: Canadians use -ise and -our - I'm not sure what other major spelling diffs UK/US have, but generally CA uses UK way.  Unless of course they toss it out altogether and us an FR word.
[03:48] <IdleOne> quoi?
[03:49] <tonyyarusso> *use an
[03:50] <IdleOne> merci
[03:50] <IdleOne> I understand that mieux
[03:50] <tonyyarusso> In related news, 'quoi' has a great wiktionary page:  "(colloquial) you know, like, y'know. "
[05:43] <rww> Today I learned: webchat users stop being able to speak in #ubuntu if they /nick
[05:47] <tonyyarusso> rww: File about against the bots!
[05:53] <rww> I'll poke LjL about it when he's around and not being otherwise poked.
[05:55] <bazhang> that nick ok? highclasshole
[05:55] <tonyyarusso> rww: There is actually a launchpad project for the bots that you can file bugs against btw.
[05:55] <tonyyarusso> bazhang: I don't like it, but I think we've let it slide for some time now.
[05:55] <rww> tonyyarusso: I know. I prefer poking him ;P
[06:30] <_____________> hi
[06:30] <rww> _____________: hello
[06:31] <_____________> I am here regarding a ban that happened on #archlinux-offtopic
[06:31] <_____________> i was recently banned trom there
[06:31] <rww> _____________: This channel doesn't process #archlinux-offtopic bans. Speak to their ops.
[06:31] <IdleOne> go talk to the ops there about it. This is #ubuntu-ops
[06:32] <_____________> upon asking the ops there, they said I was banned from there upon request from this chan's OPs
[06:32] <_____________> i would like explanations on this issue
[06:32] <maco> We neither can nor do make such requests.
[06:32] <_____________> seems you can
[06:33] <_____________> want me to show you the logs as a proof?
[06:33] <_____________> wait a sec
[06:33] <IdleOne> _____________: if the archlinux-offtopic ops banned you, they can explain why. we don't know anything about it.
[06:33] <maco> Proof that we made that request, or proof that you were told we made that request?
[06:33] <maco> (these are two different things)
 and on what ground would I be banned
 if I may ask
 trolling #ubuntu-ops
[06:35] <IdleOne> I don't see a request from us in there
[06:35] <rww> or tigrmesh saying that there was one
[06:35] <maco> Yeah, I just see one of your ops making a discretionary call regarding what's acceptable in your community (and apparently trolling ain't)
[06:35] <_____________> so you are positive the ops in here never asked #archlinux-offtopic to ban me ?
[06:35] <_____________> all I want to know
[06:36] <IdleOne> We don't make such requests
[06:36] <_____________> answer this simple question please:
[06:36] <IdleOne> I just did
[06:36] <maco> _____________: you can see logs of this channel on irclogs.ubuntu.com if you want to look back a few days and check for yourself
[06:36] <_____________> Did the OPs in #ubuntu-ops asked the OPs to ban me from #archlinux-offtopic?
[06:36] <IdleOne> We don't make such requests
[06:36] <_____________> yes/no
[06:36] <rww> _____________: no
[06:37] <_____________> thank you
[06:37] <rww> you're welcome
[06:37] <_____________> have a nice evening
[06:37] <IdleOne> same to you
[06:37] <_____________> wait
[06:37] <_____________> wait
[06:37]  * IdleOne hits the breaks
[06:37] <rww> brakes **
[06:37] <IdleOne> breaks is what I meant
[06:37] <_____________> you say you don't make such requests
[06:37]  * rww hits the breaker on IdleOne's house
[06:37] <_____________> i believe that
[06:38] <_____________> BUT
[06:38] <IdleOne> Good thing I got UPS
[06:38] <rww> What can brown do for you?
[06:38] <_____________> since tigrmesh does no come here why would she ban me because of somthing that happened here exept if she got information from you guys?
[06:38] <IdleOne> that is what...ahh to easy
[06:39] <IdleOne> _____________: ask tigrmesh, perhaps they read logs from here.
[06:40] <_____________> that would be pretty unusual for an op to spend time reading logs from a random chan
[06:40] <_____________> pretty unusual
[06:41] <IdleOne> unuasual perhaps but not impossible
[06:41] <IdleOne> unusual*
[06:41] <_____________> i'd say unusual to the point of impossible
[06:41] <rww> _____________: Perhaps you should ask tigrmesh about it; I don't know what they do on their free time.
[06:41] <tonyyarusso> wow, eyes hurt
[06:42] <IdleOne> in any case there is nothing we can do about a ban in channels that are not in the ubuntu namespace
[06:42] <_____________> on the contrary, seems you can acheive to ban someone indirectly
[06:42] <IdleOne> _____________: we already told you we didn't
[06:43] <rww> I suggest we bring the idle speculation to a conclusion :)
[06:43] <_____________> evidence thends to prove the opposite
[06:43] <IdleOne> what evidence?
[06:43] <IdleOne> a paste from a log you provided
[06:43] <IdleOne> concrete.
[06:43] <tonyyarusso> Bans are set by people.  Those people know their reasons for the ban.  In order to find out why the ban was set therefore, you should talk to the people who actually set it, and only them.
[06:44] <tonyyarusso> I believe this has already been made clear, has it not?
[06:44] <IdleOne> it has
[06:44] <_____________> tonyyarusso: Yup. And I have shown, here, the result of this enquiry with the OP responsible for the ban
[06:44] <_____________> That, also, was made clear.
[06:44] <bilalakhtar> I didn't get it, people on #archlinux-offtopic banned you because you trolled here. I think some misunderstanding has happened, or the person there typed the wrong channel when he told you why you were banned
[06:44] <bilalakhtar> _____________: ^
[06:45] <tonyyarusso> _____________: So they answered your question.  Thus, there's nothing left to discuss.  Which leads me to wonder why we're still babbling.
[06:45] <bilalakhtar> tsimpson: there?
[06:46] <tonyyarusso> _____________: We have no control over other channels' ops.  If they want to ban you because you have a favorite color they don't like, they can.  If they want to ban you because your nick has too many underscore, they can.  If they want to ban you because of your behavior in Ubuntu channels, they can.  None of that has anything to do with the people in this channel.
[06:51] <IdleOne> _____________: if there is nothing else Ubuntu related we can help you with, please refer to the topic and the no idle policy.
[06:51] <_____________> omg
[06:52] <_____________> i'll check with the other OPs and come back
[06:52] <IdleOne> can't wait
[06:53]  * rww makes note to link tigrmesh to the -ops log
[06:54] <tonyyarusso> We have rather a lot of folks not seeming to understand what we tell them today, eh?
[06:55] <IdleOne> practicing your Canadian?
[06:56] <tonyyarusso> I....talked like that before going to Canada :S
[07:03] <bilalakhtar> Eyes hurn on seeing so many _s
[07:23] <mneptok> great. now my IRC logs are Mad Libs.
[08:04] <Flannel> mneptok: Do we pick nouns every time?
[10:53] <bilalakhtar> @comment 35313 Flooding, trolling, and violating the CoC
[10:53] <bilalakhtar> Does ubottu reply on that?
[10:54] <rww> bilalakhtar: @comment requires @login. Did you get that sorted out?
[10:54] <bilalakhtar> @login
[10:54] <bilalakhtar> bah
[10:54] <bilalakhtar> not yet
[10:54] <bilalakhtar> but I got a pm from ubottu when I banned a person
[10:54] <bilalakhtar> I tried poking tsimpson about it
[10:54] <rww> yeah, it PMs you even if you don't have access. I used to get them ;(
[10:55] <rww> @comment 35313 per bilalakhtar: Flooding, trolling, and violating the CoC
[10:55] <Jordan_U> @login
[10:55] <bilalakhtar> cool
[10:55] <bilalakhtar> thanks rww
[10:56] <tonyyarusso> Say you were thinking about contributing to an open source project.  Are there any OSI/DFSG-approved licenses that would make you hesitate about doing so if the project was under them?
[10:57] <Jordan_U> Licences which aren't GPL compatible can be a practical problem.
[11:58] <bilalakhtar> oops, it appears #ubuntu went too offtopic, with people discussing porn and 'whether hen came first or chicken'
[12:00] <bilalakhtar> good, with a little factoid-ing and some manual poking, the channel is back on track
[12:03] <bilalakhtar> s/hen/egg/
[12:04] <bazhang> I'd have kicked g__ after the first warning/comment about femaleware porn
[12:09] <bilalakhtar> I had just joined the channel
[12:09] <bilalakhtar> and it was shocking for me to see people talking all of this on #ubuntu
[12:09] <bilalakhtar> I thought that probably I was on -ot
[12:12] <bazhang> !scope > chaorhi
[13:20] <ikonia> I don't see any value in those aliases
[13:31] <topyli> agreed
[15:10] <jcastro> hi, I need to update the topic in #ayatana but I am told I need to use my canonical cloak for that, but I don't know how to do that
[15:35] <bilalakhtar> @login
[15:36] <ikonia> bilalakhtar: heads up, if people can't compile something, #ubuntu-devel and #ubuntu-app-devel isn't the right channels
[15:36] <bilalakhtar> ikonia: why?
[15:37] <ikonia> because they are not for that topic
[15:37] <bilalakhtar> #ubuntu-app-devel SHOULD be the proper one
[15:37] <bilalakhtar> it is for that topic only
[15:37] <ikonia> one is to talk about developing the ubuntu product
[15:37] <ikonia> application development
[15:37] <ikonia> not how do I compile an application
[15:37] <bilalakhtar> if the compilation is of an ubuntu package, then it would be #ubuntu-packaging or #ubuntu-devel
[15:37] <ikonia> it would be neither
[15:38] <bilalakhtar> or if its of an app, then #ubuntu-app-devel
[15:38] <ikonia> I'm sorry it's not
[15:38] <ikonia> #ubuntu-devel is development discussion of ubuntu
[15:38] <ikonia> #ubuntu-app-devel is application development
[15:38] <ikonia> #ubuntu-packaging is for packaging on ubuntu
[15:38] <ikonia> none of them are "how do I compile an application"
[15:38] <bilalakhtar> Compilation is a part of application development
[15:38] <ikonia> no it's not
[15:39] <ikonia> it's dicussing application development, not "how do I compile an application"
[15:39] <bilalakhtar> Ops: What do you think about this?
[15:39] <ikonia> or supporting application development, a guy trying to compile gcc and doesn't have a clue how, shouldn't be pointed to these channels
[15:39] <bilalakhtar> he was trying to compile something USING gcc
[15:39] <ikonia> no
[15:39] <ikonia> he was trying to build gcc-3.3.6 for a coding competition
[15:40] <bilalakhtar> *blush*
[15:40] <ikonia> had had done nothing but type "make"
[15:40] <ikonia> it's not a problem, hence why I said "heads up"
[15:40] <bilalakhtar> okay, noted
[15:46]  * bilalakhtar g2g
[16:33] <jayne> do you guys have any idea what chanfu is, why it's in #ubuntu, or who controls it?
[16:55] <ikonia> jayne: no idea, let me have a look
[16:55] <jayne> ikonia: I found the owner, so it's not an issue anymore
[16:55] <ikonia> jayne: mota an chanfu appear to be the same bot
[16:55] <ikonia> do you have any idea what the bot is ?
[16:55] <jayne> mota is the owner
[16:56] <jayne> the bot (chanfu) is nothing, yet, apparently. It's still in development.
[16:56] <ikonia> I may ask him to remove it while it's in development incase it starts doing mental things
[16:56] <ikonia> who is the owner ?
[16:56] <ikonia> I assume he seems pretty reasonable
[16:57] <jayne> I don't know him, but he seems reasonable enough
[17:04] <bilalakhtar> Can someone add me to !ops?
[17:04] <bilalakhtar> If I request it in ubottu pm, then I guess everyone over here will get pinged
[17:04] <bilalakhtar> which I don't want
[17:05] <bilalakhtar> so it would be better if someone with bot access makes that change
[17:05] <bilalakhtar> jussi, jussi01: ^
[17:05] <bilalakhtar> Oh, it seems I am in the !ops factoid! But my nick is spelt wrong..
[17:12] <IdleOne> !ops =~ /Bilalahktar/bilalakhtar/
[17:13] <ikonia> !ops =~ /Bilalahktar/bilalakhtar/
[17:13] <IdleOne> thank you ikonia
[17:13] <bilalakhtar> IdleOne: thanks, I never knew that syntax
[17:13] <bilalakhtar> Thanks ikonia
[17:14] <bilalakhtar> ikonia: Do you have the right to add people to the bot, so that I can @login ?
[17:14] <IdleOne> bilalakhtar: @login and @btlogin
[17:14] <bilalakhtar> @login
[17:14] <ikonia> bilalakhtar: hang on
[17:14] <IdleOne> ok you need an admin for that
[17:18] <bilalakhtar> ikonia: probably someone with the nick Bilalahktar is in there
[17:19] <IdleOne> works with hostname and not nick
[17:19] <IdleOne> so that you can change your nick and still be able to use the BT
[17:19] <ikonia> bilalakhtar: I'll check
[17:35] <IdleOne> !spam is <reply> What the channel has just experienced is called spam, Spam is bad and is meant to be disruptive and cause chaos. Please avoid commenting on spam and note that Ubuntu staff and freenode staff do not spam channels to inform it's users of policy changes. Spam is good with mustard and onions!
[17:35] <bilalakhtar> IdleOne: lol
[17:37] <IdleOne> needs some editing for proper spelling and grammar
[17:42] <marienz> insert mandatory plug of http://blog.freenode.net/2010/11/be-safe-out-there/ here
[17:42] <marienz> although I guess that's perhaps too unwieldy to fit in that factoid
[17:43] <bilalakhtar> @login
[17:43] <bilalakhtar> hmm
[17:43] <bilalakhtar> g2g
[17:43] <IdleOne> marienz: nope it's nice to have links with more info
[17:43] <ikonia> marienz: tiny url it
[17:45] <IdleOne> !spam is <reply> What the channel has just experienced is called spam, Spam is bad and is meant to be disruptive and cause chaos. Please avoid commenting on spam and note that Ubuntu staff and freenode staff do not spam channels to inform its users of policy changes. Spam is good with mustard and onions! See http://tinyurl.com/27pzyjl
[17:45] <IdleOne> there!
[17:45] <marienz> I meant the text behind the link more than the url :)
[17:45] <IdleOne> if they are busy reading the text they can't comment on the spam :)
[17:45] <IdleOne> heh
[18:43] <IdleOne> that was fun
[18:44] <ikonia_> what the devil is happening
[18:44] <ikonia_> what just happened ?
[18:45] <IdleOne> netsplit
[18:45] <IdleOne> a big one
[18:45] <rww> Personally, I don't call things netsplits unless they involve two servers splitting and users on either side not seeing each other.
[18:46] <rww> as far as I can tell, this is tl;dr: freenode lag
[18:46] <IdleOne> ok it was a netburp
[18:46] <IdleOne> freenode got heart burn and poofed us all
[18:47] <rww> Did someone deal with Martiini? The insanity hit right when I factoided them.
[18:47] <IdleOne> not sure, soon as I called ops my lag jumped to 30 seconds
[18:47] <IdleOne> seemed a little coincidental
[18:47] <rww> ircd-seven is scared of racial slurs.
[18:48] <topyli> i pm'd martiini, no reply. he later quit
[18:48] <topyli> based on his history, might as well ban him
[18:48] <rww> oh well, have fun with the serverfail, I'm going to work.
[18:49] <ikonia_> I tried but damn split killed me
[19:37] <Flannel> Something happening to the intertubes today? or just freenode?
[20:00] <rww> Thoughts on whether things are stable enough to clear out #ubuntu-unregged?
[20:01] <ikonia> I'd give it a little longer personally, thats why I've stayed +o so far
[20:01] <rww> okay
[21:22] <IdleOne> hello wqapol
[21:22] <IdleOne> How can we help you?
[22:34] <ikonia> what the devil is the channel #ubuntu-touch
[23:02] <popey> ikonia: the new utouch stuff?
[23:03] <Jordan_U> Is "clear trolling" a good enough description for AndrUser's ban?
[23:06] <IdleOne> looks about right
[23:08] <Jordan_U> The bot wants me to comment separately on the kick and the ban. Should I just say the same for both?
[23:08] <Flannel> Jordan_U: Just ignore the bot when it doesn't make sense.
[23:08] <IdleOne> next time perhaps just a +q and give them the !guidelines
[23:08] <IdleOne> Jordan_U: I never comment on the kicks
[23:09] <Jordan_U> IdleOne: Even though he mentioned that he was trying to break the guidelines before doing so?
[23:09] <IdleOne> he also mentioned being drunk
[23:10] <IdleOne> which was probably true
[23:10] <Jordan_U> OK.
[23:10] <IdleOne> Jordan_U: I was told that our goal is to keep users in the channel and to have them conform to the guidelines. often times a +q and a PM helps more then a ban
[23:11] <Flannel> Jordan_U: Sometimes in order to keep things tidier, I'll try just muting someone (because auto_bleh automatically removes quiets after X minutes).  Most of the time they'll get bored and go away, so a permanent ban isn't really required.
[23:11] <Flannel> IdleOne: I don't think a discussion with the guy right now would be useful at all
[23:11] <IdleOne> agreed
[23:12] <IdleOne> in this case a PM would of been less then useful
[23:12] <Jordan_U> @comment 35322 clear trolling
[23:12] <IdleOne> Jordan_U: I also always comment on bans in PM with the bot