[00:42] the same pm spammer like yesterday. [00:59] LjL called the ops in #ubuntu (forense) [01:01] You know this would be a lot quicker if you had +o [01:02] not really, !ops is 4 characters, /mode #ubuntu +b *!*@whatever is like, many, and no, i've been too lazy to set up aliases for banning for the past 3 years [01:03] can't argue with that [01:03] Point to LjL [13:43] oi Myrtti [13:43] oi [13:43] there's a guy threatening with a DDoS attack. isn't that against freenode's policy? [13:44] d'ya want me to wag my finger at him? [13:45] then again what would he ddos? your website? [13:45] Myrtti, that'd be cool. [13:45] i suppose me in irc [13:45] mmmh [13:45] his nick is DJJeff, and he started the threats after i banned him. [13:46] hi DJJeff [13:46] don't be a dick [13:46] he decided to ban me cause I asked how to fix pulse audio [13:46] with skype [13:46] in xubuntu [13:46] and somehow that offended him [13:46] and how is threatening with DDoS supposed to help in getting yourself unbanned? [13:46] surely you understand that it wont [13:47] it just displays malevolence [13:47] I really would love to enjoy my skype in ubuntu [13:48] it did not need to get this way [13:48] i agree with that [13:48] however, you were told to fix your attitude multiple times [13:49] rather than listening what others suggested you (working fixes), you continued telling them to "fix it in the repo" and flaming against microsoft and skype [13:49] that's an unwanted attitude in the channel [13:49] working fixes help maybe 1 or 2 people [13:49] not everyone that uses ubuntu or skype [13:50] and i did give you the last warning; then you went on, and i banned you; then in PM you told me i'm a fag and threatened with DDoS attacks [13:50] how does that sound to you? [13:50] for me, it doesn't sound like you just wanted to fix your skype audio [13:51] I have joined #pulseaudio on freenode a few times they always tell me to join #ubuntu [13:51] and #ubuntu always tell me to join #pulseaudio [13:51] its frustrating [13:51] sure, i understand that, and i am not saying the bug isn't in ubuntu [13:51] nobody told you to join #pulseaudio [13:52] they offered you help, with fixes that should help you [13:52] why not offer the fix to everyone not just me [13:52] i appreciate you want the fix for everybody, but that kind of "do it for me" -attitude isn't constructive. [13:52] i haven't heard of that bug before. [13:52] it might have been just you [13:53] if we keep on getting reports for a single bug, sure, we will try to get them fixed [13:53] may I call your attention to [13:53] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bug/1219407 [13:53] Ubuntu bug 1219407 in skype (Ubuntu) "Pack Skype for Saucy with PULSE_LATENCY_MSEC=30" [Undecided,New] [13:54] anyway, this discussion is not what this channel is for; unless you want to resolve your ban, i would have to ask you leave this channel as we have a non-idling policy [13:54] oh it only affects 4 people sorry [13:56] DJJeff, if you are not willing to try to resolve your ban, please leave this channel [13:57] if ubuntu does not mean community (helping everyone) [13:57] why use it [13:58] w/e I have better things todo today like clean my room and eat [13:58] eating is good. === h00k_ is now known as h00k [14:40] i appear to have lost my ops status in #ubuntu-server . can someone assist? [14:40] pmatulis_: you aren't identified [14:41] is it the _ in my name? dunno [14:41] you can identify to your account no matter what your nickname is [14:42] /msg nickserv identify nickname password [15:23] ikonia, PM [15:23] always [15:23] hehe... Waiting for your response ;P [15:24] dddtest_ce2fe: hello [15:27] !idle > dddtest_ce2fe [15:27] dddtest_ce2fe, please see my private message === LjL is now known as LjL` === LjL` is now known as LjL [18:48] I would have sort of liked for some of these things to have come to normally uneventful IRCC meetings, but I'm glad that they were brought up. [18:57] what stuff ? [18:58] Check our mailing list [18:58] http://tsimpson.ubottu.com/blog/archives/32 [18:58] that ^ [18:58] or that [18:59] I'd feel a lot more "open" to it if it was from an operator who was active [19:00] I don't see how that make any difference [19:00] I do [19:00] as it's dealing with it on a personal level day to day [19:00] and I never did that? [19:00] maybe some operators are no longer so active because they can't stand to see some ugly things happening over and over [19:00] there appears to be some valid points, but there are others which seem to be an idealic world where everyone can be talked down rather than the spate of utter idiots trying to waste time [19:00] besides, it's hardly signed by just timpson [19:01] I'm not calling out tsimpson directly, [19:01] ikonia: the point you should extract from the letter is that we should *try* [19:01] tsimpson: I don't disagree [19:01] but there is the flip side of it where we should not have to waste months of abuse trying with some people and jumping through hoops [19:01] it needs a better balance, I fully agree [19:02] I know I am not as active as I used to be, but I think I am still active enough to see the shortcomings this team has been experiencing. [19:02] I think its perfectly fine that it came from people who aren't as active as they used to be. I'm actually glad that someone "on the outside" was able to make those sort of observations. [19:02] but it's sad to see "an open letter" rather than a discussion, and more so from two people who are not active in the core channels seeing the utter spate of idiots of late [19:03] and as opposed to "know one questioning" that's just nonsense [19:03] the letter is to provoke discussion, and it seem to be working [19:03] not really, I'm a bit dissapointed in it [19:03] I feel some points pretty insulting [19:03] such as "no-one questions" [19:03] when I've had to justify / explain core issues in detail over a period of months [19:03] becuase "it's been questioned" [19:04] I'm not surprised you feel that way, but please try and detach yourself from it personally and view it as a comment on the culture not individual actions [19:04] ikonia: the people who wrote that aren't IRCCers and are not part of some of the more recent discussions that have happened as a result of operator actions [19:04] Pici: they are still listed in the ops team [19:05] why are they not active, sharing the load [19:05] I don't disagree with some of the points I'm reading [19:05] ikonia: I said IRC Council, not IRC Op [19:05] I don't appreciate some of them either [19:05] Pici: this isn't recent [19:05] this is been a long time [19:05] I'm sorry but I find your comments here to be very insulting to me personally [19:05] I find a lot of things questioned / debated for months [19:06] IdleOne: why is that [19:06] I don't like to read them because they reflect poorly on my job as a council member, but I'm glad that someone had the courage to bring them up. [19:06] http://tsimpson.ubottu.com/blog/archives/32 [19:06] oops [19:06] sorry, slippage [19:06] because you seem to be focusing on jussi and tsimpson as the sole signatories. I think my activity in this team is enough that my opinion should carry some weight on the issues raised in the letter. [19:07] IdleOne: not at all [19:07] but like tsimpson I am not surprised at your reaction [19:07] why - it's an open letter [19:08] why have the people writing this letter not spoken to people when this happens [19:08] well I have [19:08] a few time [19:08] +s [19:08] i have, then i didn't sign this one, but hey [19:08] tsimpson: you have indeed. [19:09] sorry, I just find this poor that there is no discussion within the team/council it's straight to an open letter [19:09] internal discussion hasn't seemed to have gotten us anywhere [19:09] what "fear" is there that is being exposed [19:09] fear? [19:09] I've not seen any internal discussion [19:09] a more open discussion within the entire community may, hopefully [19:09] we.d like to expose that there.s a fear within the council of the vocal minority. [19:10] tsimpson has brought it up in this channel a few times. If I were him, I might want to bring it to the mailing list as a next step. [19:10] so this letter is stating there is a fear of a vocal minority I assume within the ops team [19:10] maybe you haven't looked, because seriously, a number of people have been unhappy with many things that have been going on, and they've pointed them out, more or less vigorously, to the people involved and/or ircc members [19:11] LjL: I try to look in as often as possible, but I'd be surprised if I've just missed every time this is raised [19:11] and I'd expect to be spoke to if someone had a problem with my own actions, [19:11] perhaps you just haven't thought there was a problem [19:12] not at all, I know I've spoken to you personally tsimpson about some issues [19:12] I've spoken out a number of times on actions I've seen as too harsh, and you were a part of the discussions on at least some of those times [19:12] I'm certainly not remembering any, but I'm not doubting you [19:15] do you have suggestions of what you want to see happen ? [19:15] (as in how to actually get what you want to see in place) [19:15] I would like to see us all, collectively, to put in a conscious effort when dealing with people [19:16] ok - in that case I'd like to see us "all" participate in the channels [19:16] I'm not suggesting some kind of policy, we tried that and it didn't work out [19:16] spreading the load so the volume of problem users is spread out more [19:16] we need to actually make the effort to try [19:17] I think that it would be good to let ourselves be okay with asking for and getting criticisms about how we're handling issues. [19:17] of course [19:18] And not needing to go to an IRCCer about an action that someone else disagreed with. [19:18] some context would help [19:18] bazhang: http://tsimpson.ubottu.com/blog/archives/32 [19:18] otherwise I will think it's all my fault [19:18] IdleOne, yes, read it [19:19] Goddard, and what else [19:19] uh, I get pm's every once in a while saying things like "Did you see that guy that IdleOne was dealing with? why did they get banned for 2 weeks/why did we let them off with just a warning/etc. Can you talk to them about that?" [19:20] "IdleOne" was just an random op I picked [19:21] I accept all the blame for my mistakes [19:21] Goddard, then the death threat guy, any others? [19:22] I'm not going to point to specific examples. [19:22] So, having been on hiatus for a while, an observation: We tend to cycle between extremes, and have a hard time finding the appropriate middle. The reason many people tend to go to the authoritative extreme is because the last round of softer approaches was ridiculously so, and did literally involve coddling known trolls for months on end, and that's both maddening and exhausting. So, in urging people to take the softer approach ... [19:22] so if we've been talked to, or not has no relation to being one of the overly harsh ops [19:22] ... (which I think is reasonable), you first have to convince them that you mean doing so within sane limitations - that you're actually asking for people to have the 60-second sort of conversations with disruptive users, not the 6-month battles. [19:27] when I was a IRCC member we tried to solve some of these issues by introducing policies, a whole bunch of them. I thought it was the right way to go at the time, but I've now come to the conclusion that we don't need more rules we just need to be more thoughtful about how we choose to enforce them [19:27] tsimpson: +10 [19:30] Policies are ok to a point, but at the end of the day, it comes down to common sense [19:31] is ldunn even part of Ubuntu project any longer? [19:33] enough that he cared to sign the letter [19:33] I don't think it matters who has signed that email or what their involvement is [19:34] that's not really what I was getting at [19:34] perhaps I should clarify [19:36] If somebody who was on the banned from UBuntu channels due past abuse had signed it, it should still be taken taken seriously (not to say tsimpson should be on the permaban list :) ) [19:37] if a freenode staffer agrees with it, I don't see a problem in letting them sign it [19:38] how would they know about it, and none of the rest of us were approached to sign it [19:38] I don't think it really matters [19:38] personally [19:38] bazhang: some people were [19:39] bazhang: Is somebody like HFSPlus had sent a similar email to the mailing list, it should still be looked at and considered on a current basis [19:39] Doesn't matter if the letter was sent anonymously. The point is not who signed or who didn't. The point is there is what seems to be a culture of shoot first. This is not what this community was built on and we need to get back to the fundamentals of what we were built on. [19:40] That was what I was trying to say [19:40] tsimpson, I was not, leading me to believe I am the one under discussion, even though you have *never* approached me/Pm'd /etc the entire time I have been an operator, stretching back nearly 6 some years now [19:41] If anyone feels this letter is directed at them personally, maybe it is because they see some of the issues raised in the letter in themselves. [19:41] I made it clear in the letter that it's not about any specific person [19:41] IdleOne, I dont feel that for a second [19:42] then don't worry about it. [19:42] ^ [19:42] the days of Seveas, was more of a total wild west approach [19:42] yee haw [19:42] and thats the roots [19:43] and that was changed [19:44] getting back to the roots seems like going back in time to the days of that [19:44] I didn't say we should go back to anything [19:45] "a culture of shoot first" [19:45] we have just become more and more rigid in enforcing rules by taking authoritative action [19:50] As ops, at times, we do need to step back, give a question a minute or two to discern the intent before removing what we think is a troll [19:51] yep [19:51] Spam/deliberate trolling excepted [19:51] if it's someone like llckfan who does it network wide, it's an easy call [19:52] Just because someone is calling someone else a troll in the channel, doesn't mean its really the case. [19:52] I've seen a lot of that lately. [19:53] Like for new users asking a lot of questions. [19:53] Thats not a nick I recognise, so network wide issues are diffulties [19:53] troll seems to have been twisted to "someone I dont like" [19:53] trolling *is* deliberate. if we think someone is a troll but after pondering an additional 10 seconds, we start suspecting maybe there's possibly a non-deliberate-trolling reason for what they're doing, then just kicking them out makes no sense. on the *other* hand, it *also* makes no sense to have to follow 12 policies and give someone 12 chances before leaving them out for a long time, when it *is* indeed clear they're a troll. tonyyarusso, you see, [19:54] working in extremes is the opposite of using common sense - sometimes you're too soft, sometimes you're too harsh, but both times you're being extreme [19:55] LjL: thats the right balance, but it's hard and a lot of what goes on is harder to see unless you actually ask [19:55] the ammount of times I ask politly "hey, could you please tone down the language" in ubuntu to try to be human and polite rather than fire a bot and then get a pm saying "fuck you" - at that point, what's the point [19:55] but that pm and "fuck you" response isn't seen as you try to do it politely and discreetly [19:55] then if you do it in the channel, you end up making a drama [19:56] then if you forward them to ops instead of doing it in the channel, it becomes agressive [19:56] so to minimise it if you send a clear direct message in channel - it's seen a authorative and that's bad [19:57] then you continue to talk to them in private, if things get worse set a +q etc [19:58] my point being, you don't have to reach straight for the ban-cannon [19:58] sometimes it's needed, sometimes not [19:58] And if one does end up setting a ban, putting a few words on the tracker is immensely helpful. [19:58] this is why I'm raising if people where more active they would see this more [19:59] tsimpson: also, THANK YOU for bringing up the "an operator can only remove their own bans" thing. [19:59] I've mentioned it a bunch of a times, but no one listens [19:59] it's easy to sit while not participating and say "we should be better" but unless your activly participating you don't see a lot of the first time abuse that is thrown at you [19:59] Pici: right, it's an old custom of ours, and it's time it went away [19:59] Pici: that was put to bed ages ago, anyone can remove anyone elses bans ? why is that being questioned [20:00] ikonia: because some people still say that here. [20:00] it went away a long time ago, I've not seen anyone use that for a long time [20:00] I've not seen it at all [20:00] Pici, well, if A is personally not comfortable with removing B's bans, i think that's their right. of course, if other ops C, D and E somehow come to the conclusion that they're bound by that, too... that's no good [20:00] really, you've never seen this channel be silent when someone comes in while an op is pinged in -team? [20:00] LjL: agreed. [20:00] really? [20:01] tsimpson: no, not unless that op knows the history and they would rather they dealt with it [20:01] which I don't see as a bad thing [20:01] that's what the bantracker is for, so you can document that history [20:01] that's just idealistic [20:01] not if we actually use it [20:01] i find it very practical [20:01] if someone knows the history it makes sense for them to be involved/discussed [20:01] For problem users, it makes more sense really. [20:02] ikonia: right, but when they aren't around and this channel remains silent because no one dares deal with another's ban does not make sense to me [20:02] I've never seen that at all [20:02] I have [20:02] I've not seen "Im not touching that, it's $A's ban" [20:02] the bantracker is a good, useful thing, and personally i'm VERY thankful to tsimpson in particular for working on it, and i've got to say, i honestly find it out of place to "accuse" him of not being around yet signing the open letter, because, he was around for a long time, he's still around behind the scenes, he works on things that matter, and he observes people's behaviors. what more could you ask for? [20:03] ikonia: no, it's a silent thing [20:03] LjL: I'm thankful for him also, the tools are superb, but that doesn't mean not being active in the channel is not valid or being aware of what's going on [20:04] So.. you agree? [20:04] agree with what [20:04] nm [20:04] * LjL throws some double negations at Pici [20:04] sorry, I worded that poor [20:05] It is a silent thing, there are times when I've seen a known problematic user join -ops to discuss issues that I've not know the background to, so I've not been prepared to get involved, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's done that [20:05] I meant because he's working on the tool doesn't mean he's active in the channels, and therefore not seeing/getting the number of issues that have been around recently. [20:05] the only reason I'm less active is because I really don't like the culture that has grown up in the IRC team [20:05] I never touch -offtopic bans, as I dont have access there. [20:05] but I do watch and I do notice [20:05] not being active in the channels doesn't necessarily mean he's not looking at them, either [20:05] that's an assumption you're making [20:05] LjL: no, of cours enot [20:05] LjL: I'm not making any assumption [20:05] but I am seeing him not deal with the users [20:05] maybe set an example [20:05] so? [20:06] but joinin gthe channel, participating in the channel and showing how to handle users pm;ing you saying I'll kill you muther you fucker [20:06] while you calmly try to catalyise [20:06] lead by example, [20:06] tsimpson, you seem to be suggesting that you yourself are not part of all this [20:07] Can we please stop sticking it on tsimpson. [20:07] Pici: do you mean i should remove that "kick me" sticker too? :( [20:07] I'm not the same goes for jussi too [20:08] bazhang: no I'm not, I even acknowledged fault in the letter [20:08] ikonia: What about IdleOne? [20:08] tsimpson: I'm genuinly sorry if it comes across as prodding at you, that's not the actual intent, I agree with a lot of what you are saying in the letter, but I don't agree with part of it and I feel you don't see parts of it by not participating in the hcannel [20:09] tsimpson, rather than step back as the culture repulses/sickens/saddens you , take a more active role to directly criticize our actions, perhaps in the -team channel [20:09] you have to remember that I've actually been around a long time, and I have a good experience in what you're saying [20:09] I've received horrible message, death threats, all that [20:09] I don't think you do [20:09] as it's got worse [20:09] why do you not think I do? [20:10] what is your rational? [20:10] it's hardly got worse. we had the GNAA doing daily attacks on #ubuntu. we don't now. we have odd trolls. [20:10] yes, sure, as have most of us here. you were stdin for a long time [20:10] bazhang: I am, that's what the letter is [20:10] Maybe its gotten easier for people to research people's names and addresses, but the same trolls existed way back when [20:11] I'm happy to say I'll make more of an effort, but I also expect the same in reverse to not have to waste time or jump thorugh 200 hoops [20:11] the common sense approach is good - but it needs to be applied in all ways [20:12] eg: if someone joins kubuntu and ubuntu shouting "fuck you" and then joins #xubuntu - we don't wait for it to happen there becuase of "process" [20:12] we mute them and speak to them [20:12] I think thats fine. [20:12] we apply common sense in both directions [20:12] I'm happy to make more of an effort in that spirit [20:13] if you govern by common sense and evaluate peoples intent, I'm all up for that [20:14] ikonia: honestly, that's part of the reason i didn't sign this letter, although i was approached about it (the other reason being sheer laziness at making myself heard back): it sounded too "slanted" towards the more-cautious approach, while on the other hand, it has to go both ways, more caution when needed (and a cautionary approach by default is good, because we're all liable to thiking the worst in people, when we don't have had time to think about it), [20:14] but less silly "process" when that makes no sense. [20:14] LjL: thats it, [20:14] I'm all for parts of the letter, disagree with parts of it [20:14] but I don't want to spend 3 weeks dealing with a user and then 3 weeks of debating with the council when the problem is clear [20:15] but at the same time, give users who slip up a bit more width [20:15] so by all means, if it's painfully clear someone should be banned immediately, and shouldn't come back for a while - i say ban them immediately and don't let them come back. but, a bantracker entry is due, a long comment with explanation perhaps (doesn't have to be done immediately), things like that. but i'm making trivial examples here... honestly, what i too often see is lack of a common-sense, no-nonsense but respectful-of-people approach [20:15] if the intent is common sense and judge the persons intent and ability to function in the channel, I'm all up for it [20:16] LjL: again it's a two way stree [20:16] Honestly, how involved people have been lately doesn't really matter here. I've been mostly away for quite some time, and the letter sounds exactly like the same discussions we had two or three times in past years when I was more active - the arguments have been valid on a rather ongoing, cyclical basis - we're just back at this stage of the cycle again. [20:16] street [20:16] At least we're consistant... [20:16] LjL: I also expect the same polite / respect as the person I'm talking to [20:16] bad spelers [20:17] ikonia: maybe you shouldn't expect that, even if you want it [20:17] why ? [20:17] the guidlines of all the channels say this [20:17] why should someone be excused it, more so if they are trying to discuss why they should be allowed to use the channel again [20:17] obviously there's a limit, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone who happens to join #ubuntu to embrace the code of conduct and guidelines automatically [20:18] tsimpson: not at all [20:18] tsimpson: people don't know / aren't aware [20:18] but I don't expect, "fuck off natzi" when asked not to [20:18] so it's reasonable to expect some hostility, some rudeness, some disrespect [20:18] oh i think you should expect manners (at least after you have informed the person about etiquette and everything). but you should understand if someone is a bit "sensitive" after maybe they've been mistreated, or *feel* like they've been mistreated anyway, or have been picked on by ops and/or users in a "gang-up" fashion [20:18] And people get frustrated when they're called out for things, remember that many of them are just trying to get their Ubuntu issue fixed. [20:18] and then I do'nt want 20 minutes of debate [20:19] people react like that, it's the internet age where people can (apparently) say anything they like with no consequences... [20:19] try, please [20:19] Pici: exactly and if they see people trying to help, that's fine, but I don't think I should be talked to like an idiot/dirt when trying to help, no matter how upset they are [20:19] they can't though [20:19] but I do accept there is a limit, and it's your personal limit [20:19] there are consiquences [20:19] yes, there is a limit to everything. [20:19] and the sooner they grasp that saying "fuck you" to a polite request the sooner they will either a.) change b.) not use the hcannel [20:20] agreed. [20:20] hopefully. [20:20] to be honest, I don't care either way [20:20] I don't use the channels to see that sort of langauge attitude [20:20] you should [20:20] not at all [20:20] it's not my position to change their view on things [20:20] you should care to bring people into the community where you can [20:20] help them, guide them, sure [20:20] why ? [20:20] I do'nt care if they are part of the community or not [20:21] if you don't care, then what's the motivation? [20:21] to help people, [20:21] I'm not trying to push people to use ubuntu or join the community [20:21] that's up to them if they like it and want to use it and feel comfortable with what it brings/expects [20:21] it's not pushing them for some kind of membership, each channel is its own community [20:22] right, and I'll help them be part of any channel I'm in [20:22] but I don't care if they don't want to [20:22] and that's not just ubuntu [20:22] that's any channel I'm in [20:22] #ubuntu should be a welcoming place, but if someone doesn't want to like Ubuntu for whatever reason, I don't think that we can really be expected to have to convince them otherwise. [20:23] right, [20:23] Educate: yes, convince: no. [20:23] I've often said "don't use ubuntu then" [20:23] well you obviously can't force someone to be a part of a community, and if they just aren't interested that's fine [20:23] because it's not right for them [20:23] but, as role models and mentors for the community, we should be willing to at least try [20:23] the same for the channel [20:23] try "X" because this channel isn't what you need [20:24] explain to them why we have the rules we have, what the ethos is a bout [20:24] if they don't care about that, it's up to them [20:24] tsimpson: it's pretty hard to say that without smirking though [20:24] when the company running ubuntu doesn't really play by the same ethos [20:24] yeah well... [20:24] good thing we aren't the Canonical community then [20:25] tsimpson: how, we're not? i was sure there had been a memo about that! [20:25] I'm not suggesting that, but a community the helps each other - apart from when it goes up to the top level seems pretty hard [20:25] to be honest, I raised this a few weeks ago in the secret channel [20:25] I looked at the fedora community / channel and it's much better [20:26] yet the ops / community are much more harsh/direct with people [20:26] they focus on the goals of the channel and don't allow it to slip [20:26] and it flows and works really well for getting users support [20:26] that's how they choose express their community, it's not the way we want to [20:27] sorry who are you speaking for [20:27] who is "we" [20:27] the silent majority who is to afraid or tired of this same old discussion [20:27] the Ubuntu community at large [20:27] too* [20:27] tsimpson: who says ? [20:28] says the code of conduct, says the IRC guidelines [20:28] tsimpson: really ? [20:28] says the Ubuntu philosophy [20:28] says the entire ethos of Ubuntu [20:28] sorry no it doesn't [20:28] what you described is not "showing humanity towards others" [20:28] not it's not [20:28] not? [20:29] it's being direct and to the point to share information clearly and focused [20:29] * LjL throws some more negatives at Pici in case he's out [20:29] my fault, typo [20:29] well it's the very core of the Ubuntu philosophy [20:29] I think we need to pause for a moment to help tomoks [20:29] hi tomoks [20:33] tomoks: are you there ? [20:34] it doesn't look like they're active right now [20:35] maybe we can kick them out on the grounds our process, despite their presence probably not causing any actual issue to us, just so they will be annoyed at us [20:35] oh, i'm way slow [20:35] not at all [20:35] change the process [20:35] * LjL rolls eyes [20:36] rigid enforcement of the rules [20:36] SmallR2002 has been here the entire time without being a problem. [20:36] right, so then lets change that rule than [20:36] the [20:36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules [20:36] then [20:37] specific rules aren't the problem, is how we choose to enforce them [20:37] ok - how do you enforce that then [20:37] eg: do nothing [20:37] in that case whats the point of having it [20:37] rather than put a polite message and pm to the user [20:37] I'm not talking about a specific rule, and I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about a specific rule [20:37]