[00:47] <KB1JWQ> He's missed.
[02:09] <Pici> jeeze
[02:48] <rww> What. on. Earth. Did someone really just say in -ot that gravity is just a theory and think that two balls not attracting each other is a counterexample to it. o.O
[02:49] <Jordan_U> rww: I think you've been troll'd.
[02:50] <rww> I hope so, but I don't think so :(
[02:56] <tonyyarusso> rww: well, it is just a theory, but as for the latter I suspect people really are that stupid.
[02:58] <rww> Although, on reflection, I have seen people in #ubuntu-offtopic who believe in perpetual motion.
[03:00] <tonyyarusso> I was arguing with some idiot about that just a few days ago.
[03:00] <tonyyarusso> possibly outside of #ubuntu* though
[03:02] <rww> what the platypus just happened in -ot
[03:02] <rww> ah, n0tix happened in -ot. I thought that nick sounded familiar.
[03:03] <Jordan_U> I thought floodbot was supposed to prevent that type of thing.
[03:03] <rww> only #ubuntu and #kubuntu are floodbotted
[03:03] <Jordan_U> Ahh.
[03:04] <Jordan_U> 19:04 < Exploiter> HI, GUYS, looking for tools like SENDBLASTER ( mass email sender ) for ubuntu, any suggestion or idea??
[03:05] <Jordan_U> Might be a reasonable request, but with a nick like "Exploiter"...
[06:05] <rww> "this is a check to ensure that you're human and not a spambot: Is P=NP?"
[06:05] <rww> oh lawd.
[06:05] <tonyyarusso> lol
[07:12] <h00k> rww: "Nobody knows" -- would that be acceptable
[07:12] <h00k> or "maybe"
[07:12] <rww> h00k: I suspect it's one of those ones that matches against /.*/
[07:17] <Jordan_U> h00k: I thought it was proven false recently.
[07:17] <Jordan_U> h00k: Clearly you are a bot.
[07:17] <h00k> Jordan_U: no, just not really proven at all ;)
[12:11] <bazhang> nash__ was asking earlier where to download OS X for free, so I'd take his questions with a grain of salt
[12:11] <LjL> heh
[12:16] <LjL> i say troll
[15:59] <Pici> whoa
[16:18] <jrib> ah ubottu how you bring back memories of 56k
[16:19] <jrib> tonyyarusso: note I have (had?) an exemption on kunwon1 I think because of kunwon* spamming
[16:20] <jrib> looks like that was already removed
[16:25] <tonyyarusso> jrib: Are you trying to tell me you think kunwon1 is a different person than kunwon*?
[16:26] <jrib> tonyyarusso: no, I just didn't want my ban exemption to get in the way of your ban.  I have no idea if kunwon1 was responsible for kunwon* but kunwon1 wasn't spamming on february 1st and replied in pm so I placed the exemption for that reason
[16:27] <jrib> I could have phrased my original statement better :)
[16:27] <tonyyarusso> gotcha
[16:29] <tonyyarusso> Well, I'm assuming they're the same for the moment - we'll see if that's wrong I guess.
[17:24] <xabrx_> hi, guys. can you please tell me the reason why Bshellz is banned from #ubuntu?
[17:25] <maco> repeated abuse by its members, and the owners being unwilling to fix it
[17:26] <maco> iirc, there's a lack of consistent naming for the same user so banning individual users just means they log off and back on and suddenly have a new host and ban evade
[17:26] <maco> (whereas like freenode's webchat shows the ip address in the host so you can ban a user for more than just "until they log out")
[17:27] <xabrx_> ok, I understand. So there's not going to be a remove of the ban any time soon then?
[17:27] <maco> genii-around: having problems?
[17:27] <maco> no, the recommendation is to find another shell provider
[17:27] <xabrx_> ok, thanks maco
[17:27] <maco> np
[17:28] <maco> necreo: same question as xabrx_ regarding bshellz ban?
[17:28] <xabrx_> probably
[17:29] <xabrx_> I saw him at bshellz =)
[17:29] <maco> copy-pasta:
[17:29] <maco> repeated abuse by its members, and the owners being unwilling to fix it
[17:29] <maco> iirc, there's a lack of consistent naming for the same user so banning individual users just means they log off and back on and suddenly have a new host and ban evade
[17:29] <maco> (whereas like freenode's webchat shows the ip address in the host so you can ban a user for more than just "until they log out")
[17:34] <tonyyarusso> xabrx_, necreo: You can of course avoid this by registering for a !cloak from Freenode.
[17:35] <maco> tonyyarusso: oh right! thanks for having your brain turned on :)
[17:37] <genii-around> maco: Yes. Konversation, Quassel, and XChat all want to segfault on me whenever I open certain pages in Firefox :(
[17:38] <maco> weird
[17:38] <genii-around> And extremely annoying
[17:39] <xabrx_> ok, thanks guys
[18:04] <necreo> tonyyarusso: I got a cloak
[18:04] <necreo> But the shell provider cloak overtakes it each time
[18:05] <necreo> When I start issi I see a message from freenode after I identified myself like: your (hidden) host is now ...unaffiliated..
[18:05] <necreo> And right after that it changes the cloak back to #bshellz one :(
[18:06] <necreo> I really would appreciate a solution
[18:06] <necreo> Maybe I should try #freenode
[18:07] <KB1JWQ> necreo: Right.
[18:07] <KB1JWQ> Gateway cloaks will override unaffiliated cloaks.
[18:07] <necreo> Indeed :(
[18:10]  * tonyyarusso didn't know that
[18:18] <Pici> Heads up on archive.canonical.com being unresponsive, Canonical is looking into it.
[18:38] <Tm_T> Pici: been rather unresponsive for 12 hours or so (:
[18:38] <Tm_T> unresponsive/slow
[19:28] <necreo> #freenode told me to ask you (#ubuntu-ops) for a ban exemption for my IRC account
[19:28] <necreo> Is that possible?
[19:30] <maco> i can try
[19:30] <maco> necreo: see if you can join now
[19:31] <necreo> maco: I'm afraid not : "[Freenode] ==> Cannot join to channel #ubuntu (You are banned)"
[19:32] <maco> hrmph
[19:32] <Pici> maco: What command did you try?
[19:32] <maco> /mode +e neocreo!*@*
[19:32] <maco> do
[19:32] <maco> i spelled it wrong!
[19:32] <maco> necreo: try again
[19:33] <necreo> Thank you!
[19:33] <maco> yay
[19:34] <necreo> :)) Finally now I can ask my question about libnotify-bin
[19:34] <necreo> Thanks a lot again!
[19:34] <maco> np
[20:42] <rww> maco: As far as I'm aware, we're supposed to be telling bshellz users to use another shell service, not exempting them.
[20:42] <rww> And setting +e's based on nick is not a good idea :\
[20:46] <maco> rww: i did say use another shell at first... then freenode people told them to tell us to +e so...
[20:47] <maco> their hosts are non-specific though. should i change it to nick/ident combo?
[20:47] <LjL> ident alone should do, it's running identd
[20:47] <rww> say "no" next time and point them to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/ShellPolicy
[20:48] <LjL> what is the reason bshellz is banned anyway, still not clear to me
[20:49] <rww> LjL: per IRCC, persistant abuse/use for ban-evading, and not having contactable staff to deal with such.
[20:49] <rww> personally, considering that we misspelled the ban for months and didn't notice, I'm not convinced, but w/e. :\
[20:50] <LjL> me neither
[20:51] <LjL> personally i think i'll set exemptions if a user seems legitimate to me, if that's not what i'm "supposed" to do i'll have the IRCC tell me that
[20:52] <rww> in which case, yeah, +e *!ident@host is the way to go
[20:53] <topyli> LjL: maybe you should let the ircc know though, and perhaps even make the case for unbanning them
[20:53] <rww> or +e $a:accountname if they have one, I guess.
[20:53] <ikonia> LjL: remove the ban
[20:54] <ikonia> just dump the network wide ban on bzshellz
[20:54] <tsimpson> there is an issue with setting +e, bans don't work
[20:54] <LjL> topyli: or maybe the fact that i've accepted to add this garbage freenode Webchat to the bots even after Mibbit was banned with no reason makes me feel entitled to just set a damned exempt on the bots
[20:54] <LjL> tsimpson: they do if you set the +e using the bots
[20:54] <rww> tsimpson: s/bans/extbans/?
[20:54] <tsimpson> rww: no
[20:54] <ikonia> LjL: just remove the ban
[20:54] <rww> oh, sorry. misparse.
[20:55] <tsimpson> I mean setting +e $:account
[20:55] <tsimpson> that means, unless someone checks and removes it, you can't ban them if they do become abusive
[20:55] <rww> well yeah, which is why I'm not a fan of exempting. but if people are planning to do so anyway, I'd rather they not base it on nick ;)
[20:58] <LjL> rww: again what's wrong with setting it with the bots?
[20:58] <rww> LjL: I wasn't specifically talking about the bots. The bots (theoretically) remove them. Operators tend to not.
[20:59] <rww> and there goes my oldest #ubuntu ban in BT :)
[20:59] <LjL> right, so just set exempt with the bots, that's why i put an exempt command there
[20:59] <ikonia> LjL: there should now be no ban in #ubuntu for the bzshell host mask
[20:59] <LjL> ikonia: maybe you should let the ircc know though
[21:00] <ikonia> I'll mail them
[21:00] <ikonia> and watch it black hole
[21:03] <ikonia> the council have been informed
[21:04] <ikonia> no point having a policy if no-one follows it
[21:04] <ikonia> may as well just remove it
[21:04] <LjL> the policy isn't that you can't set an exempt if someone looks sane to you
[21:04] <LjL> for god's sake don't stick to rules like there was glue
[21:05] <LjL> i'm sure exempts have been set for people here before, me included
[21:05] <ikonia> actually it was to tell them to contact their shell host and ask them to update the contact details or set a usage policy that was in line with the ubuntu requirements
[21:05] <LjL> when i was on mibbit before the bots exempted it for example - and same with other people
[21:05] <ikonia> I fully agree you can set excempts
[21:05] <LjL> ikonia: what's wrong with their contact details?
[21:05] <ikonia> they don't exist and they don't have an abuse policy and you can ban one account and sign up for another one 1 second later
[21:06] <ikonia> as was happening
[21:06] <rww> LjL: iirc, the contention is that they don't actually respond ever.
[21:06] <ikonia> feeding time
[21:06] <LjL> ikonia: they don't exist, or they don't respond? not the same thing
[21:06] <ikonia> both
[21:06] <LjL> http://www.bshellz.net/contact
[21:07] <ikonia> no official contacts, and the unofficial ones don't respond beyond "we dont care, we don't want to police it"
[21:07] <LjL> and there rules at http://www.bshellz.net/register
[21:07] <ikonia> anyway, feeding time
[21:07] <ikonia> yes, but they don't want to police them
[21:53] <topyli> so since the bshellz ban was removed, did anyone remove bshellz from the policy wiki page?
[21:53]  * topyli goes to look
[21:54] <topyli> no
[21:55] <LjL> i have a feeling it'll be readded anyway
[21:57] <topyli> why? should it be banned or not?
[21:57] <LjL> that depends on how much abuse you're willing to put up with
[21:57] <LjL> all i was really arguing for, though, was to feel free to add exempt (ideally with the bots) if someone comes forwards and asks niely
[21:57] <LjL> nicely*
[21:58] <LjL> (which to me is just a matter of common sense and good heartedness and not something that should be strictly regulated in the first place)
[21:59] <LjL> fwiw, i have had an indirect confirmation that the bshellz ops are probably not very responsive
[21:59] <LjL> about that, perhaps it would be a good idea to add the specific reasons why a shell is banned on the page itself? is there a reason why that was not done?
[22:00] <topyli> perhaps
[22:00] <rww> rww, creator of controversy :(
[22:01] <LjL> rww: nah this has been a pet peeve of mine for some time
[22:02] <topyli> i'll just watch tv and see how things stand tomorrow
[22:33] <elky> It's not like there's anyone reading the logs of here who is banned who will now go make use of the knowledge schooled to them by the past two hours of discussion.
[22:34] <elky> So yeah, it'll be back.
[23:07] <derp> Guest30213 is ~me@host-n2-73-24.telpol.net.pl * me
[23:07] <derp> spammer.
[23:07] <derp> [18:04] <Guest30213> Install gentoo.
[23:07] <derp> [18:06] <derp> y
[23:08] <ikonia> I'll look at it
[23:08] <ikonia> thanks
[23:09] <derp> np
[23:26] <Pici> I think we should be telling regulars in #ubuntu to stop pouncing on people with !ot when they just say 'hi' for the first time in #ubuntu. Thoughts?
[23:27] <ikonia> it was a little "quick" but I don't think that's the norm (from what I see)
[23:27] <popey> +1
[23:27] <Flannel> Pici: There's been a lot of premature factoiding recently, yes.  For a variety of subjects
[23:28] <Flannel> gentle nudging in private has always worked well!
[23:28] <Flannel> (except when it doesn't)
[23:28] <ikonia> wow, poor bo is confused
[23:29] <Pici> Yeah, and its not the first time I've seen that.
[23:29] <ikonia> I don't see it very often, hence why I didn't know it had become a problem
[23:29] <LjL> similarly to how some people (and i'm not at all referring to -ot here) give !u whenever there's so much as single innocuous abbreviation
[23:30] <LjL> i think it's not the first time i see Logan doing it
[23:30] <LjL> not sure though
[23:30] <Pici> Flannel: thanks, sometimes I'm just at a lack of words for things on IRC.
[23:30] <ikonia> oh really, I didn't see it as a regular thing, let alone a regular thing off one user
[23:30] <Pici> LjL: You're right, its not the first time that hes done it, but hes not the only person who does.
[23:31] <LjL> guess not
[23:31] <LjL> another thing for that matter is this "join #pitivi", while i'm at it
[23:31] <LjL> i mean, as a suggestion is fine
[23:31] <LjL> but why *absolutely insist* on people asking in another channel when something is about an Ubuntu package?
[23:32] <LjL> that's another thing that is also not the first time i see, and am not entirely comfortable with
[23:32] <ikonia> no-ones insisting he asks in there
[23:32] <ikonia> however as no-one knows the asnwer in #ubuntu, it's worth him asking
[23:32] <LjL> err
[23:33] <LjL> i see insisting
[23:33] <Pici> I usually do something like "You may want to try asking in #bash too"
[23:33] <Cydd> hi
[23:33] <LjL> Pici: yeah
[23:33] <Cydd> who banned me from #ubuntu-offtopic
[23:33] <ikonia> Cydd: you have an issue you'd like to disuuss
[23:33] <Cydd> and why do you hate m
[23:33] <Cydd> e
[23:33] <ikonia> Cydd: I'll have a look now
[23:34] <ikonia> one moment please.
[23:34] <LjL> Cydd: i don't see a ban on you
[23:34] <LjL> i suppose you've tried rejoining?
[23:34] <Cydd> :s
[23:34] <Cydd> okay it works now
[23:34] <ikonia> Cydd: where you using the nickname cydd ?
[23:34] <Cydd> yes
[23:34] <LjL> he was
[23:34] <ikonia> ? I thought there was no ban ?
[23:34] <tsimpson> there wan't
[23:35] <Cydd> i dont know im confusede
[23:35] <LjL> i do suspect he's referring to his kick
[23:35] <Cydd> oh a kick
[23:35] <ikonia> oh, I didn't even see him kicked
[23:35] <Pici> It was a remove.
[23:38] <Pricey> KB1JWQ: suck up *hugs*
[23:41] <Pici> So, I'm just curious if anyone has any suggestions on how to approach those who are overfactoiding.  Preferably in-channel, so that others know that its not okay.
[23:41] <Jordan_U> This obvioulsy needs a factoid.
[23:41] <Pici> Jordan_U: . . .
[23:41] <ikonia> ironic, a facotoid pointing a a guide on how to use the bot on the wiki ?
[23:41] <ikonia> \/window 4
[23:41] <Pici> But not in a way that makes it look like we're going after someone.
[23:42] <LjL> Pici: if i could be bothered myself, i'd just say like "come on, he just said hello, no need for a factoid, is there?", but that does run the risk of starting an offtopic argument in the channel i guess
[23:43] <LjL> it can also be a matter of factoid choice. could give !hello instead of !ot
[23:43] <LjL> !hello
[23:43] <LjL> or maybe !hi or something
[23:43] <LjL> !hi
[23:43] <LjL> or maybe both were removed, actually i think i wanted them removed :P
[23:43] <Pici> yah
[23:43] <LjL> they were abused
[23:43] <LjL> but they could be moderately useful when people seemed like going the "so, what's up everyone" route
[23:44] <LjL> less harsh than !ot anyway
[23:44] <LjL> still, i think i've seen !ot given once to a simple "hi everyone" - that's entirely overboard and no factoid at all is required, clearly
[23:44] <Pici> People were joining and doing it, and others were doing it whenever someone joined.  Its rather silly to have the bot say hi for you when you could just do it yourself.
[23:45] <Pici> LjL: Thats sort of what happened earlier, and what sparked my suggestion here.
[23:45] <LjL> Pici: earlier it was a "what's up", though, which in my mind is something in between "hi" (which is a greeting not asking for an answer) and "how are you doing" (which is a question). not sure how native speakers see it
[23:46] <LjL> to me it's a pointless phrase, but :P
[23:46] <LjL> seems like i'm splitting hair in two but words do count when you're watching for the reaction of 1500 people to something...
[23:51] <LjL> Pici: not an idea i'm entirely committed to, but maybe as a middle point between !hi and !ot, a !sup = Hi! Looking for conversation? Try #ubuntu-offtopic
[23:52] <LjL> i'm not trying to say there has to be a factoid, i appreciate the point of view that people should just stop overusing them
[23:52] <LjL> but