[00:36] <h00k> gord: Do you happen to know a channel?
[00:36] <h00k> oh, I see discussion above.
[00:36] <h00k> Also, I'll volunteer to be an op.
[01:25] <phillw> #ubuntu-android ?  KISS :P
[01:34] <h00k> I'm pastebinning tis so it cna be logged
[01:34] <h00k> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/852109/
[01:34] <h00k> for full disclosure
[01:34] <pangolin> +1
[01:42] <h00k> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/852113/ for final discussion
[04:01] <bazhang> @mark #ubuntu very_sad cheering on floodbots
 whaddup hoes   <---- in -ot now
[04:07] <z3x334u> hello friends
[04:08] <pangolin> hello
[04:09] <pangolin> how can we help you?
[04:09] <z3x334u> i heard the Ubuntu is making an OS for smartphones that will work with existing OSes to make the phone be able to hae a desktop mode
[04:09] <pangolin> true
[04:10] <z3x334u> why isn't ubuntu making an optional OS replacement for Android, i personally would prefer that even better
[04:10] <pangolin> you can get more info at http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android/features-and-specs or try #ubuntu-phone
[04:11] <z3x334u> but, i heard you need to get a new for for that feature
[04:11] <bazhang> a new ?
[04:11] <pangolin> z3x334u: this is not a support channel and we don't have any more info than the link I just gave you
[04:11] <z3x334u> the hardware tech is not available yet
[04:11] <pangolin> evening dax
[04:12] <dax> evenin'
[04:12] <z3x334u> new = a new phone*
[04:12] <pangolin> z3x334u: again this isn't a support channel.
[04:12] <pangolin> the link i gave you does have a contact link
[04:13] <z3x334u> what is this channel about?
[04:13] <pangolin> mainly for resolving bans in the Ubuntu core channels
[04:13] <z3x334u> lol oh
[04:15] <pangolin> z3x334u: if there is nothing else, please /part this channel.
[04:15] <z3x334u> ok bye :(
[04:16] <pangolin> bye.
[05:29] <bazhang> * [incognegro] (~3Four@adsl-108-210-214-63.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net): Michael Brooks
[05:29] <bazhang> that seems suspicious
[05:29] <bazhang> incog and negro?
[05:53] <bazhang> a vbox of lubuntu on lubuntu livecd?
[05:54] <bazhang> helpmeASAP
 I'm going you all are confusing me
 Especially when I have Down Syndrome
[06:00] <bazhang> * lolyourmum (~anonymous@110.159.96.249)
[06:01] <bazhang> * [helpmeASAP] (~anonymous@110.159.96.249): purple
[06:03] <pangolin> now * sweetsugar
[06:03] <bazhang> yep
[06:03] <bazhang> < t-roll detected >
[13:25] <bazhang> ikonia, #defocus means he needs to read the topic and wait for voice
[13:26] <ikonia> ahhh yes
[13:26] <bazhang> kalimojo has been asking that same question in #ubuntu for at least a couple-three days now
[13:26] <ikonia> great
[13:38] <tjiggi_fo> I was invited here last night by hook to air my concerns
[13:38] <bazhang> tjiggi_fo, about?
[13:39] <tjiggi_fo> http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/852113/  about that
[13:40] <ikonia> tjiggi_fo: this has long been an issue for me, in that #ubuntu-offtopic is just random offtopic that people could spend the day just saying "moooo" in if they want
[13:41] <tjiggi_fo> heh, agreed
[13:41] <tjiggi_fo> time to change that
[13:41] <ikonia> it would be interesting if it was an "ubuntu discussion channel" but not support, but then people want a place in the ubuntu name space to just say "moooooooo" all day
[13:41] <ikonia> or "ubuntu woot !!!"
[13:41] <ikonia> tjiggi_fo: in honesty your flogging a dead horse on this one
[13:42] <tjiggi_fo> ikonia, well that may be but I'm going to flog it anyway
[13:42] <ikonia> it seems more important to have 4 fully offtopic channel #ubuntu-offtopic #kubuntu-offtopic #xubuntu-offtopic and #lubuntu-offtopic so that people can say "yay fishcakes" or what ever in the middle of peoples discussions, than to actually have a place to disacuss ubuntu (such as the direction it's going, ubuntu-tv, ubuntu-android etc)
[13:42] <LjL> what happened?
[13:42] <ikonia> tjiggi_fo: ok, I suggest you email the ubuntu IRC council expressing your concern
[13:43] <AlanBell> good suggestion
[13:43] <tjiggi_fo> here is my response to h00ks invite: http://pastebin.com/cweBGfTY
[13:44] <tjiggi_fo> and for those who don't have logs here it what sparked it:  http://pastebin.com/dqRk08UA
[13:44] <tjiggi_fo> I'm not at the computer all day but you can PM me if you need me to return
[13:47] <LjL> robinet irks me a lot too.
[13:47] <LjL> we should do something about it.
[13:47] <LjL> he's kind of my friend, but he trolls SO much.
[13:48] <ikonia> LjL: it's not just him in the channel though
[13:49] <ikonia> I can be having a discussion with you and some one just starts making random comments and it ruins the flow
[13:49] <LjL> well i don't see that as a problem
[13:49] <LjL> there's no "priority", if we're having a discussion someone else can have their own
[13:49] <ikonia> it's not a problem, it just makes it hard for a quality discussion
[13:49] <LjL> robinet's issue is different, he is constantly confrontational and accusatory
[13:49] <ikonia> multiple discussions I don't have an issue with, people just going "yay monkey food" and random comments just irk me
[13:49] <bazhang> such is the nature of a channel with no true purpose
[13:50] <ikonia> bazhang: I know but there seems little desire for a purpose for it or the other multiple offtopic channels
[13:50] <bazhang> #defocus is the same
[13:50] <ikonia> LjL: and I agree, it's a seperate issue
[13:51] <LjL> the purpose is chilling, ikonia, and i really don't agree with your dislike for "random" comments. they're part of what has always defined the channel, and i think that's fine.
[13:51] <LjL> when someone constantly trolls, though, that doesn't help chilling.
[13:51] <h00k> I'm unsure of the proper resolution, because as it was said, it's kind of beating a dead horse in 'how do we fix the channel'
[13:51] <h00k> oh, also, hi.
[13:52] <LjL> h00k: we fix it by going back a little to how it was before every action had to be strictly justified by the channel guidelines
[13:52] <LjL> once upon a time, the common sense was that when someone was trolling, they had to stop
[13:54] <h00k> to enforce, perhaps, the 'friendly' aspect more could definitely help
[13:54] <LjL> also perhaps in finding out "how to fix it" we should ponder "how did we break it", because while there were always complaints about it, it used to be a much friendlier place
[13:57] <AlanBell> as I understand it the purpose was a place for Ubuntu contributors to chill out
[13:57] <h00k> *is ?
[13:57] <bazhang> yep
[13:57] <jussi> I think thats pretty much how it has been broken, is in an "unfriendly" application of said guidelines, rather than the guidelines themselves. theres no need to be sharp when we are asking people to not do stuff.
[13:58] <bazhang> the "break room"
[13:58] <h00k> moar friendly we need.
[13:58] <AlanBell> moar contributors we need
[13:58] <bazhang> I totally disagree jussi
[13:59] <bazhang> the broke part came when all the silliness was effectively outlawed in there
[13:59] <LjL> jussi: so you say, too unfriendly when enforcing things. and i kind of agree. but at the same time, i think there's an aspect that's in a way opposite to that, i.e. we've tolerated too much in the name of "well, the guidelines don't forbid that". i say "opposite" but i don't really think they contradict each other, they're too complementary problems.
[13:59] <bazhang> ubottu plugins, fun factoids etc
[14:00] <h00k> The resolution that I had last night didn't involve kicking or banning anyone, I didn't feel that was appropriate to what was happening.
[14:00] <AlanBell> friendly and fun is ok
[14:00] <h00k> the particular situation was robinetd (Beezow) disagreeing and being a bit harsh in a conversation, and had !ops called on him
[14:00] <h00k> I more
[14:01] <bazhang> it was a welcoming place before the fun was legislated away. all stick and no carrot these days
[14:01] <h00k> I more/less wanted to be 'ladies/gentlemen, chill'
[14:03] <tsimpson> bazhang: which legislation did that?
[14:03] <h00k> that's why I wanted to bring it up in here, to see if that is really a bannable offense, perhaps I could have done something different, or somehow perhaps we need to attempt to change the tone of -offtopic
[14:03] <h00k> or...what.
[14:03] <bazhang> tsimpson, the removal of all silly factoids, the removal of all silly ubottu plugins
[14:04] <bazhang> lart etc etc etc
[14:04] <bazhang> fun break room became grim dungeon
[14:04] <h00k> I miss lart :/
[14:04] <tsimpson> I really don't think ubottu was the only, or even main, "fun thing" about -ot
[14:05] <LjL> h00k: you're not under inspection, you took the course of action you thought best, and i can't just say you should have done it differently like this or that. i'm just saying, the fact that !ops was called like that shows there *is* a general uneasiness, with robinetd in particular since it's hardly the first time.
[14:05] <bazhang> certainly not, but the "let's make this a serious discussion only room" did
[14:06] <jussi> I think lart is a horrible thing. its derrogatory, downputting and horrible.
[14:06] <bazhang> sometimes people have been helping for many many hours, and just want some place...silly
[14:06] <LjL> h00k: but if i had to say how i would have done it, maybe i wouldn't have placed too much emphasis on the inappropriateness of calling !ops (well, the second time i would have), and i would have asked robinetd to chill out
[14:06] <tsimpson> bazhang: I don't know what part made it "a serious discussion only room", that's what I'm confused about
[14:06] <h00k> LjL: which, in conversation, he did immediately
[14:07] <h00k> the conversation turned to 'maple syrup' as a topic
[14:07] <bazhang> tsimpson, I'm not aware of how much time you have spent in that channel over the last several years
[14:07] <h00k> syrup is an odd word. that is all.
[14:08] <tsimpson> bazhang: I may not be too active there, but I idle in there and keep an eye on it most of the time
[14:08] <AlanBell> "<+bazhang> sometimes people have been helping for many many hours, and just want some place...silly" how many of them are helpers?
[14:09] <bazhang> AlanBell, currently? a small handful. that was not the case in the past.
[14:09] <AlanBell> indeed
[14:09] <LjL> well no doubt people who want a friendly atmosphere get scared away nowadays
[14:09] <bazhang> now it's just another channel that needs to watched with a hawk's eye for possible guideline infringements
[14:09] <bazhang> LjL, exactly
[14:10] <LjL> ftr i also didn't like the removal of the "fun" factoids, quite at all, sometimes i really think some of u ppl r 2 srs bsns.
[14:10] <LjL> at the same time, i don't think that was the core problem.
[14:10] <tsimpson> I don't think there has been any "legislation" to make ops strictly enforce the guidelines to the letter in -ot, in fact the previous council was rather resistant to that idea
[14:11] <bazhang> it was a chipping away on a number of fronts. thats only one example
[14:12] <tsimpson> in fact, the biggest contention about -ot was always regarding "support questions in -ot"
[14:12] <Myrtti> I didn't know fun factoids were removed
[14:12] <Myrtti> all I know was that the ones that referenced directly to a person were
[14:12] <bazhang> all of them, just about. perhaps !hammertime still exists, along with !love
[14:12] <Myrtti> ie. !nickname
[14:12] <tsimpson> which we didn't really want to legislate on, because -ot is not always strictly black and white
[14:12] <jussi> fun factoids arent remioved, only personal ones-
[14:12] <Myrtti> !coffee
[14:13] <Myrtti> !coffee-#ubuntu-offtopic
[14:13] <bazhang> I was personally told not to say "fun has been outlawed here"
[14:15] <AlanBell> does anyone have any proposals on how to get from where we are now, to a fun and relaxing place for Ubuntu contributors to chill out?
[14:15] <ikonia> AlanBell: you raise an intereting point, it's for ubuntu contributors to chill out, yet a big chunk of the channel are just people who have no interest in ubuntu, nothing to do with it and just use it as a place to spout randomness
[14:15] <jussi> remove robinetd, atomicspark, and afew others permanently? :P :P :P
[14:15]  * jussi laughs evilly
[14:16] <bazhang> that ship has sailed. you cannot unring that bell
[14:16] <LjL> jussi: it's no laughing matter, laughing is against the guidelines
[14:16] <knome> jussi, especially chipmunk laughter.
[14:16] <h00k> Or just tell them to lighten up a bit, mostly robinetd
[14:17] <jussi> meh, I cant find an appropriate insult at this time
[14:17] <beuno> o
[14:17] <h00k> jussi: I bet !lart would have worked ;)
[14:17] <bazhang> too fun. cannot.
[14:17] <jussi> h00k: nah, lart doesnt come with an inbuilt ":P"
[14:17] <LjL> AlanBell: two proposals. 1) ops should be less afraid of intervening when something is not going "right", even if there's nothing specifically against the guidelines 2) at the same time, when they're doing that (or even when they're actually enforcing things) ops should try to be friendly, and encourage users to be the same.
[14:18] <h00k> jussi: you can do !lart | bazhang :p
[14:18] <LjL> i hate it when i see things like !u thrown gratuitously, for instance
[14:18] <ikonia> LjL: I also hate seeing people type "u"
[14:18] <jussi> I think !u shouldnt beapplied in #u-ot tbh
[14:18] <LjL> jussi: i think it should
[14:18] <ikonia> I don't want to have to translate what I'm reading
[14:18] <LjL> but with a grain of salt
[14:18] <LjL> one thing is consistently mangling one's english
[14:18] <ikonia> i sud not have 2 work out wat is beeng sed
[14:18] <LjL> another thing is saying "no u" for fun
[14:18] <h00k> less afraid if intervening, but we don't want to give the overbearing 'no fun, we watch everything
[14:19] <h00k> '
[14:19] <tsimpson> I think it may be better to actually ask the person to type proper English, rather than just shoving a bot command at them
[14:19] <jussi> the factoid is a recomendation for support channels so people can actually seriously help
[14:19] <LjL> tsimpson: that, too
[14:19] <bazhang> which is where it is now
[14:19] <ikonia> tsimpson: yes, I'm all for that
[14:19] <LjL> jussi: don't agree. that factoid, together with some of the stricter application of the "swearing" guidelines (like not allowing obscure acronyms), help indirectly to keep the channel conversation level "intelligent", like the topic says.
[14:19] <ikonia> LjL: has the basic concept right of common sense
[14:20] <jussi> the whole lolspeak is a culture thing, and lets face it, we are all a little old for it (well most of us).
[14:20] <h00k> no u
[14:20] <ikonia> jussi: no, it's not
[14:20] <ikonia> jussi: it's a communication thing
[14:20] <ikonia> jussi: people chose to do it
[14:20] <tsimpson> in #u, where there is usually more scroll, a bot command can be a quick way to get the point across without too much channel disruption. but in -ot, there are usually fewer conversations going on, so there isn't so much need for it
[14:20] <jussi> yeah, and people grow up with different ways of speaking, or would you like me to speak 1800's style?
[14:21] <ikonia> jussi: sorry no
[14:21] <LjL> well jussi, i know young people who don't use "lolspeak" unless they're making a point of using it, and sparingly at that. and let's not deny that we already are, and cannot avoid, enforcing our own idea of "culture" in the channels we run.
[14:21] <ikonia> jussi: would you type a letter like that, or write to a job interview like that ?
[14:21] <ikonia> jussi: would you put that sort of content in a changefile or a README
[14:21] <ikonia> no, because it's not easy to read
[14:21] <jussi> absolutely no, but is -ot any of those? or even close? no, its a social area.
[14:22] <ikonia> jussi: that people need to be able to read and understand
[14:22] <LjL> a social area that i'd like to have a different fingerprint from any other random uneducated social area on the internet.
[14:22] <ikonia> LjL: I think most people would agree with that
[14:22] <LjL> otherwise let's just +f #defocus or some other channel, if we're going to be like everyone else
[14:22] <ikonia> it is currently defocus
[14:23] <jussi> LjL: you are correct of course, but what Im trying to say, is we need to be a little more easy on it and not be authoratarian about it.
[14:23] <LjL> jussi: yes with that i agree
[14:23] <ikonia> that's what tsimpson said, just ask people rather than hit the bot over and over
[14:23] <ikonia> which I think is pretty reasonable, human interaction
[14:23] <jussi> no, not even just ask people, but ask people *as a user* NOT *as an op*
[14:23] <LjL> jussi: i just don't agree that we should drop the idea that you shouldn't talk in lolspeak riddles. because i think you shouldn't. *unless* you're doing it for comedic effect or something, and that has to be judged with common sense, *while* still being friendly in case your common sense fails and you end up giving a warning that everyone disagrees with
[14:24] <bazhang> "do no harm"
[14:24] <ikonia> LjL: the issue (despite what jussi is aying) was half brough on by the previous council in that ops couldn't use common sense and where constantly held accountable to process
[14:25] <ikonia> that helped take it to a pit in that you had to wait for someone to do something bad 5 times with clear warnings before you could take action
[14:25] <ikonia> or you had to have a line in the guidelines they had cross before you could speak to them
[14:25] <ikonia> rather than common sense
[14:25] <tsimpson> ikonia: which rule did that though? I really can't think of an action that we implemented that did what you suggest
[14:25] <LjL> tsimpson: it's not all about explicit rules decided at meetings.
[14:25] <ikonia> tsimpson: I pre-emptivly banned bacta after he trolled 6 ubuntu channels
[14:25] <ikonia> tsimpson: I was told that was wrong as he'd not broken a rule in #ubuntu-offtopic
[14:26] <ikonia> so he was allowed to sit in there making stupid comments enough times for him to be removed
[14:26] <tsimpson> ikonia: but how does that extend to what we're on about now?
[14:26] <ikonia> (as an obvious clear example)
[14:26] <ikonia> tsimpson: because part of the reason it's so rigid now is because you couldn't use common sense
[14:26] <ikonia> tsimpson: if you used common sense you where moaned at and advised to "let them break a rule"
[14:27] <tsimpson> it's one case, pre-emptive banning leads to more bad things than good
[14:27] <ikonia> tsimpson: no, I'm using it as an example, it's not one case
[14:27] <ikonia> tsimpson: how many times in irc meetings did I call for "common sense rather than procedure"
[14:28] <tsimpson> I'm just asking what rule we implemented made it so you can't use common sense?
[14:28] <ikonia> it wasn't a rule
[14:28] <ikonia> as I've just said
[14:28] <tsimpson> in the specific case of pre-emptive banning, we made a judgement, but not about every other cultural thing that happens in -ot
[14:28] <ikonia> it was one example
[14:29] <ikonia> as I've said there are many more
[14:29] <tsimpson> well lets get them out in the open, so they can be fixed
[14:29] <ikonia> I called many times in the meetings that we moderated by stupid robotic policy rather than common sense
[14:29] <tsimpson> if the current council don't know the issues, they can't  help
[14:29] <ikonia> tsimpson: please !!!! I used to bring example after examples to the meetings
[14:29] <ikonia> I gave up
[14:30] <tsimpson> well here's your chance ikonia, a new council with different people. if you have problems with how the previous council ran things, speak up and let the new council know how you want them to change things
[14:31] <ikonia> I've expressed how pleased I am with the new council, even stuff I don't agree with them on
[14:31] <ikonia> I think they are quite aware
[14:31] <ikonia> I'm not looking to bring up old issues, but I am stating that part of the reason it's so unfriendly in moderation is because the previous council pushed such process driven moderation
[14:31] <ikonia> rather than common sense
[14:31] <tsimpson> I wouldn't be so surprised that the previous council (including me) was resistant to you. you can come across a bit confrontational
[14:32] <bazhang> heh
[14:32] <ikonia> possibly because it was the only way to get things done
[14:32] <tsimpson>  that's why I just want a calm, just the facts, conversation about how things can be better
[14:32] <tsimpson> ikonia: it's a poor, demotivating, approach
[14:32] <ikonia> tsimpson: tell me about it,
[14:33] <ikonia> tsimpson: that's why I gave up
[14:33] <tsimpson> that's why the council gave up on listening to you
[14:33] <ikonia> really, so you are saying the council activly ignored my issues ?
[14:33] <tsimpson> it was not a good state to be in
[14:33] <ikonia> just confirm that
[14:33] <h00k> how can we move forward?
[14:34] <ikonia> no, I'd like that clarified
[14:34] <tsimpson> well, after a while of you just screaming "NO YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!11-eleventy-one", yeah, I stopped listening to it
[14:34] <ikonia> that you are stating the previous council ignored the issues I raised
[14:34] <ikonia> tsimpson: please show me where I did that - you just wanted a conversation with the facts
[14:34] <ikonia> I'd like to see that
[14:34] <ikonia> I remember sending 25 emails on topics, posting wiki pages with new info, writing documents to help improve things
[14:35] <tsimpson> look back on the logs of meetings, in here, on the agenda
[14:35] <ikonia> I don't remember screaming that
[14:35] <tsimpson> and the emails, yes
[14:35] <ikonia> what emails ? there where polite and constructive
[14:35] <ikonia> or they where onces chasing why I'd not had a response in 6 months
[14:35] <ikonia> please show where I was not constructive or helpful and tried to find a way forward
[14:36] <tsimpson> I'd rather not get into an argument here, I'm just expressing how I felt at the time
[14:37] <tsimpson> and suggesting that there is a better approach
[14:37] <h00k> I know you two may have your differences, and with previous councils there were differences, but let's try to work forward :(
[14:37]  * h00k scurries away
[14:37] <ikonia> tsimpson: yes, there is a better approach, you could have listened, and reponed to things, rather than ignore them and let people get conrontational after being ignored for 9 months
[14:39] <tsimpson> we didn't ignore them at first, we tried talking to you. personally, I got the impression you didn't want to listen, unless we were agreeing with you
[14:39] <ikonia> really ?
[14:39] <ikonia> that's why I took all the feedback away, produced documents and "processes" in line with the councils requests
[14:39] <ikonia> to try to comply more with what you wanted
[14:39] <ikonia> thats why I chased issues that you HAD agreed with for months and months
[14:39] <bazhang> well there's nothing that can be done about that now
[14:40] <ikonia> there is
[14:40] <ikonia> I'm not going to be blamed for the councils non-action
[14:40] <ikonia> "we ignored you as you where confrontational"
[14:40] <tsimpson> if you mean the whole core-ops thing, then I've explained that to you too many times for me to try again
[14:40] <h00k> who is the channel owner of #ubuntu-phone ?
[14:40] <bazhang> no one blames you
[14:40] <ikonia> tsimpson: no, not at all
[14:40] <popey> h00k: I created it
[14:40] <h00k> popey: thanks :)
[14:40] <tsimpson> we did a lot in our term, inducing getting issues tracked so they aren't lost
[14:40] <ikonia> tsimpson: the many other issues and improvements/changes I raised
[14:40] <popey> and -tablet and -tv
[14:41] <bazhang> hehe
[14:41] <tsimpson> I agree that some of what we tried to do may have been too much at times, but we were on a learning curve too
[14:41] <ikonia> tsimpson: and no-one can fault that, I have zero issue with that at all
[14:46] <h00k> LjL: I'm with you on the actionable item on being friendly, and to perhaps 'confront' more on people (robineted/Beezow/nicknameoftheweek) who aren't being as such.
[14:47] <h00k> without "BE FRIENDLY OR I BAN YOU" because that won't do the community any good.
[14:49] <LjL> yeah although i don't know how to tackle robinetd because i've already told him a number of time his attitude was bleh, and he hardly seemed to care
[14:50] <ikonia> I go back to the point AlanBell raised, it's a supposed to be a channel for ubuntu contributors
[14:50] <tsimpson> no, to the community
[14:50] <h00k> with varying definitions of 'contribution'
[14:50] <tsimpson> no need to contribute
[14:51] <h00k> it could be argued that being a part of the community in -offtopic is contribution to the community
[14:51] <ikonia> tsimpson: ok, that's still a fair example, there are ton of people who have no ties to the community at all
[14:51] <h00k> therefore, everyone (not banned)
[14:51] <ikonia> tsimpson: the word contributor isn't probably the most current definition of the channel, it's a fair point
[14:52] <tsimpson> there is no need for people who use -ot to be in any other channel of ours, it's just an open space for people to discuss things they have common interests in
[14:52] <ikonia> ok - so why is it #ubuntu-offtopic ?
[14:52] <ikonia> why not just #offtopic
[14:52] <ikonia> there is nothing "ubuntu" about it ?
[14:52] <h00k> It says Ubuntu in the topic </lame humor>
[14:52] <tsimpson> as long as the CoC is kept in mind, and there is a general adherence to the guidelines, it should be an unrestricted as possible
[14:52] <LjL> ikonia, common sense kicks in again.
[14:53] <ikonia> tsimpson: also I wasn't suggesting they had to be in any other channel, more " a community participant"
[14:53] <LjL> people from #ubuntu are redirected there, so that's a tie.
[14:53] <LjL> discussions about Ubuntu will happen (even though you say they get discouraged), so that's a tie
[14:53] <LjL> it's in the "spirit of Ubuntu", so that's a tie
[14:53] <tsimpson> it's obviously #ubuntu-offtopic because #ubuntu- is in our namespace
[14:53] <ikonia> LjL: there isn't a bad point on that, if they are in #ubuntu, they are using ubuntu (hence why their client got them there)
[14:53] <tsimpson> we don't own "#offtopic"
[14:53] <h00k> Spirit of Ubuntu as a philosophy, also as a topic of a GNU/Linux distribution?
[14:53] <h00k> ^ to clarify
[14:54] <LjL> h00k: what
[14:54] <bazhang> heh
[14:54] <h00k> LjL: in the spirit of Ubuntu, meaning the philosophy?
[14:54] <h00k> or the distro.
[14:54] <h00k> or both
[14:54] <h00k> Sup.
[14:54] <tsimpson> it's not required to use Ubuntu to talk in -ot, and the discussion there is not restricted to Ubuntu
[14:54] <bazhang> philosophy
[14:54] <tsimpson> it's just a safe/friendly space for people to hang out, basically
[14:54] <bazhang> humanity towards all
[14:55] <LjL> h00k: mu
[14:55] <bazhang> "don't harsh me, dude"
[14:55] <ikonia> tsimpson: so as you see it, it's just one of a multitude of Ubuntu names offtopic channels that has no criteria for usage beyond the ubuntu code of conduct ?
[14:55] <ikonia> "named"
[14:55] <h00k> LjL: I donno what that means :(
[14:55] <bazhang> moo
[14:55] <tsimpson> ikonia: pretty much, exactly yes
[14:55] <ikonia> ok,
[14:55] <tsimpson> it's just there for whatever, unlike the other channels which have a specific purpose
[14:56] <ikonia> so why don't we point people to defocus ?
[14:56] <ikonia> (just for example - maybe not the best one I grant you ) ?
[14:56] <tsimpson> because #defocus is neither safe or friendly, for a start
[14:56] <ikonia> ok #offtopic (again just an example, but you get the idea)
[14:57] <tsimpson> the channel still has the spirit of Ubuntu, it's just not a single-purpose channel
[14:57] <ikonia> tsimpson: so would it be fair to summerise to say the COC is the key thing there
[14:57] <tsimpson> we still keep the CoC at the heart of it, and the guidelines to ensure it's safe and friendly for everyone
[14:57] <bazhang> yoiks huge ubottu flood
[14:57] <h00k> sweet.
[14:57] <tsimpson> in Ubuntu in general, the CoC is at the heart of it all
[14:58] <tsimpson> the IRC Guidelines is really just an IRC-specific extension to the CoC
[14:58] <bazhang> CVE-2012-0830.html
[14:58] <ikonia> would it be fair to maybe get an agreed definition of the channels use then before deciding how to improve it ?
[14:58] <ikonia> as the scroll in here suggests many people have different views of what it is and what it was and what it should be
[14:58]  * h00k blinks
[14:58] <tsimpson> ikonia: that's my point though, it doesn't have _a_ use
[14:59] <tsimpson> it's just for general talk/chat
[14:59] <LjL> tbh ikonia, i think you're the only one really disagreeing about its use :P
[14:59] <h00k> it has a uses.
[14:59] <ikonia> LjL: fair enough, I was actually under the impression as AlanBell said that it was supposed to be for the community, not be it's own community
[14:59] <tsimpson> h00k: I meant, doesn't have only one use, not that it's useless ;)
[14:59] <ikonia> I'd just not heard that for a while, so thought it worth asking
[14:59] <h00k> tsimpson: :D
[15:00] <LjL> ikonia: i'm pretty sure AlanBell, by saying "for contributors", didn't mean people who're not Ubuntu contributors shouldn't be allowed in... but maybe he can elaborate.
[15:00] <ikonia> LjL: I wasn't saying that either
[15:00] <ikonia> and as I said contributors was the wrong word, tsimpson had it better with community
[15:00] <tsimpson> using Ubuntu does not mean you're in the Ubuntu community. and not using Ubuntu doesn't mean you're not in the community
[15:01] <tsimpson> if you're involvement in Ubuntu is that you talk to people in -ot, then that's you're involvement
[15:01] <ikonia> tsimpson: no not at all, but you still are in the community in some way, if it's a community channel, I'd like to know what that community is ?
[15:01] <tsimpson> maybe it will lead to them trying Ubuntu, maybe not. it's not really the point
[15:01] <ikonia> tsimpson: I don't see the point in trying to lead them to use ubuntu, I don't care if people use it or not
[15:02] <h00k> world domination, etc
[15:02] <tsimpson> that's what I said, it's not the point
[15:03] <ikonia> tsimpson: no, I know that.
[15:03] <ikonia> it was simply a comment that I didn't think it was important to use ubuntu or push them to use uubntu in offtopic
[15:03] <ikonia> didn't mean to suggest you implied it as a requirement or recruiting post
[15:04] <tsimpson> ok :)
[15:04] <AlanBell> LjL: I don't think it is about being allowed in or not, but I think the point of it (fairly sure it is documented somewhere) is that it is for contributors, so the opinions of contributors matter more than those who are not contributors
[15:07] <AlanBell> though I might have been thinking about the original purpose of the sounder list :)
[15:07] <LjL> AlanBell: opinions on what matters?
[15:08] <AlanBell> well if we should make any changes to the way -offtopic operates then I would be in favour of things that contributors want over things that non-contributors want
[15:09] <bazhang> there are people who only hang out there, yet still got ubuntu member cloaks, and even ircc posts
[15:09] <Flannel> (sorry, I haven't read 99% of the scrollback, but)
[15:09] <AlanBell> I don't really have any proposals to make on the matter
[15:10] <LjL> AlanBell: hmm, well, i'd personally say i'd be in favor of what the offtopic regulars want, regardless of their other contributions, but i guess yours is also a valid point of view.
[15:10] <Flannel> If people are having /conversations/ in -ot, that's fine.  If someone is essentially monologuing, we have asked them to stop in the past.
[15:11] <LjL> yeah and i found that without too much basis
[15:11] <LjL> if someone's monologuing, fix it by making a dialogue
[15:11] <LjL> and if no one has anything worth saying, might as well keep it a monologue
[15:12]  * AlanBell wonders if "trialogue" is a word
[15:12] <h00k> it is now. quick, patent it.
[15:12] <LjL> seriously, if people can be asked to stop "monologuing", then i don't see how people who are *trolling* shouldn't be asked to stop
[15:12] <h00k> er, (C) it.
[15:12] <Flannel> LjL: Some people refuse to engage, or won't take the hint when you start up a conversation on a different topic.
[15:13] <h00k> I have to pack, traveling for work. Peace, all.
[15:14] <Flannel> If you want an example (not that I'm picking on said user, but it comes to mind easily): someone has a fixation with flashlights, and works the conversation towards it at every chance (I don't think this has happened in a while, not trying to call people out, just giving an example).
[15:16] <Flannel> Or another example (different user, etc): Someone is reading slashdot/youtube/one-of-those-image-sites/whatever, and feels the need to post every second link to the channel.
[15:17]  * AlanBell likes to talk about chickens
[15:19] <popey> \o/ marmite
[15:19] <popey> oh, nobody said marmite
[15:20] <popey> hey, I love marmite!
[15:44] <Myrtti> I like pink
[19:50] <HFSPLUS> My penis is stuck in my 40oz budweiser (don't ask) how can i get it out?
[19:50] <HFSPLUS> alright ljl ban me
[19:50] <HFSPLUS> ty