[02:01] jmgk called the ops in #ubuntu () [02:01] fishscene called the ops in #ubuntu (^guapo^) [02:02] jmgk called the ops in #ubuntu () [02:13] no ops arount to calm #ubuntu ¿ [02:17] somsip called the ops in #ubuntu (guapo) [02:26] speaks Spanish, why didn't he speak to him [02:35] i can read Spanish, too... and i can tell you he wouldn't have listened [02:38] I know he wouldn't have listened, but he didn't even try. [12:50] LjL called the ops in #ubuntu (alumno_) [12:51] !guidelines > alumno_ [13:03] How do I get help? [13:04] wish i knew [17:53] 11:47 ::: netjoin/#ubuntu-offtopic cyberputz (~rg@fredphelps.jesusfucked.me) [17:53] ... [17:53] phunyguy: his vanity host is ugly, but he hasn't been an issue otherwise that I know of. If it offends you that much...seems h00k is bothered by it also. [17:54] personally don't think it is the worst host we have seen. [17:54] I don't care about the jesus part, just the f-bomb. [17:54] I'm going to look past it, I think. [17:54] meh. [17:55] it's just.... WHY? [17:56] successful troll is successful :( [17:56] because not everybody thinks that the combination of the F bomb and the name Jesus is a bad thing. [17:56] you dont have that host by accident [17:58] so i guess it's only right since we have some rules in our channels that aren't even so clearly well defined, to force everyone to adapt network-wide [17:59] +1, and we should all wear the same uniform too [17:59] network-wide? is anyone talking about users in #otherchannel than #ubuntu* [18:00] forcing a user to change his cloak so they can use #ubuntu* would be a network wide change for them [18:00] i think some people choose to misinterpret what other people say in a similar vein to how some people choose their hostnames [18:00] that's not a cloak, that's reverse DNS [18:00] jbroome: for simplicity I used cloak, should have said host perhaps? [18:00] cloak implies that we set it [18:01] host makes more sense [18:01] innapropriate behaviour, nicks or hosts need to stay out. thats it [18:02] jbroome: true, sorry. [18:02] if he wants to troll in #ubuntu-offtopic and is not allowed because of his inapproriate host, i can live with that [18:02] he wasn't trolling [18:02] he is actually trolling with that host [18:03] all he did was join the channel, for all we know he was going to just idle there and not say a word for the next year. [18:03] you even told he wanted attention. [18:03] np [18:04] so that is what a troll does. put something into the channel that starts some trouble. if its some words, a nick or a host. [18:04] choosing that host to me implies that he wanted attention, much like ubuntu members who ask for the @ubuntu/member cloak. [18:04] Huomio!!! :D [18:04] so we are discussing how offensive a ubuntu/member cloak is? really? [18:05] no what we are discussing is why are we freaking out over something that wasn't an issue until it was made an issue by us [18:05] I'm over it, I don't care about the host :( [18:05] It's a network wide change we'd enforce to get them to comply with our channel [18:05] but maybe I'm just getting lazy in my ops [18:05] no, I brought it up, mostly as a question [18:06] I didn't know if it had been seen before, much like the other nick in question the other week (LjL, remember? [lol]). Where...really...not a big deal and don't make it one... [18:06] what was it, niggerish or something? [18:06] anyway. [18:07] niggardly [18:07] That's just my $0.02. [18:07] ok. so when a user is allowed the nick "ubuntu_is_teh_sux" in #fedora he is allowed that nick in our channel? [18:08] or "k1l_is_an_asshole". [18:08] because it would be a network wide change to change a nick, too. [18:08] yes, as long as he doesn't say anything to disrupt the channel. As for the asshole nick, no. [18:09] rhetorical: is asshole then allowed as a host/mask? [18:09] k1l: I can be in my channel with as nasty nicks as you want. but if someone wants to participate in #ubuntu channels, the nick must comply with the CoC [18:09] jussi: so goes for the host [18:09] since normally, hosts/masks are only seen upon entrance and exit, and nicknames are for whenever they speak [18:09] so visibility is different, do different "rules" apply? [18:09] s/rules/guidelines/ [18:10] h00k: common sense applies [18:10] and lets face it, most users are not having joins/parts... [18:10] and the ones who do see the join/parts aren't really paying attention to them most of the time [18:10] I think leaving it until there is a complaint - if no one notices/has an issue, why botther the person? [18:10] jussi: i do see a intention in that host. you talk about that as if that is accidently missunderstandable [18:11] k1l: does it bother you? if so, ask him as a user to change it. if he wont, then its the ops turn [18:14] i see we have a problem with the big censor elephant. [18:14] hm? [18:15] I believe in censorship actually. I just don't think we need to censor everything. [18:15] i dont get where the network-wide is a factor to judging what is not appropriate in ubuntu channels [18:17] a nick is also network-wide and that is considered to be changeable to suit the channel guidelines. but when i intentionally take a host that can be offensive to others that is fine since it would apply to have been changed network-wide [18:23] I can see your point [18:29] I don't know what the 'answer' is [18:31] imho, if something is not appropriate (like against the CoC) it doesnt matter if its words, nick or host. you choose a nick the same way you choose the words you write or the host in that case. [21:43] hello zernia [21:45] ? [21:45] seems like bad karma :) [21:45] I wonder if he was someone we know under a differnt nick [21:46] I don't see anything similar in BT [21:47] is see other 91.210. receiving k-lines. [21:53] k1l: some bot net apparantly [21:53] seems staff are on it