[01:30] <genii> @comment 71460 Probably a liar
[01:30] <k1l> :)
[02:49] <SahibPrime> Hello
[02:49] <SahibPrime> A certian user 'diatigo' has been PM'ing me rude messages and doing private queries
[02:50] <chu> Hello SahibPrime. It has been dealt with to an extent. We, unfortunately, cannot prevent users from making private queries, all we can is ask that you ignore him now.
[02:50] <SahibPrime> chu: done that
[02:50] <chu> Thank you.
[11:45] <k1l_> done
[11:54] <k1l_> ~Phanes@unaffiliated/phanes   is a real issue. now going the "my ego is hurt and i justify all ban evasions and will do more of that"
[12:08] <Phanes> Hey there.  Please remove my ban in #ubuntu.  A user was acting abusively to another, I called him out (and called him a douche), and then was banned with no action taken towards the abuser.  I insist this be addressed.
[12:09] <k1l> see bantracker 71462 - 71468
[12:09] <k1l> i will step down from this, since the user phanes blackmailed to do more drama to #ubuntu in pm.
[12:10] <Phanes> The operator is unaware of what the word "blackmail" means and I am asking for someone who is more educated to intervene, I don't want any trouble.
[12:11] <Phanes> I'll give it about five minutes before I just ignore the ban completely and be on my way, and escalate through other channels, but I'd like to see it addressed.
[12:15] <niko> hi, Phanes this is how you are asking for ban removal ? i wonder if that work at all
[12:15] <Phanes> I can't see what your internal ban tracker says, but I'm not ingratiating myself to accomodate your operators' short tempers.
[12:16] <Phanes> You are entitled to reasonable discourse, not ingratiation.
[12:17] <Phanes> If there's an issue with something said in a channel, pm me and let me know, if I don't comply, the ban is justified, but a pre-emptive ban as a warning is much like kicking a dog and is not how you deal with things.
[12:17] <niko> i'm not an ubuntu op but i think you must deal with it with the operator who banned you
[12:17] <Phanes> He's made it clear he is unable to be worked with, I have no choice but to ignore the ban.
[12:18] <Phanes> Unless someone steps in to discuss it from their ircop team.
[12:19] <niko> as freenode staffer, i know ban evasion is something you should avoid at all
[12:19] <Phanes> You will tell me it is against freenode policy.  I will tell you I know but you'd not know I was doing it, and then we'll get into a 20 minute talk about what the consequences are in PM; I don't want any trouble here but this needs addressed by another ircop in #ubuntu
[12:20] <Phanes> Let their reasonableness define them and the path to resolution.
[12:23] <Phanes> Well, I asked for five minutes and waited for 11.  I will take all of the options available to me.
[12:24] <bazhang> does that include running emacs in vim mode
[12:49] <Phanes> I have been asked to come back to #ubuntu-ops and wait it out a little longer to try to deescalate this.  At this point the ban removal is a formality as I'm already back in on a VPS but I want to talk to someone about how to address the operator's behaviour.
[13:07] <Phanes> https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/fglrx-source/filelist
[13:08] <Phanes> So this is a very unusual breakdown from what im used to seeing, is /usr/share/../overrides/fglrx-source where patches would go there?
[13:12] <Phanes> Ack.  Wrong channel.
[13:26] <bazhang> Phanes, you dont appear to be in #ubuntu
[13:27] <Phanes> I know and you'll never know who I am in there because I only get burned once in the same way if I can.  My issue is with the operator and removing the ban is a gesture of goodwill at this point.
[13:28] <bazhang> Phanes, thats not how ban resolution is done on irc
[13:28] <Phanes> He is unable to be worked with and the logs show he banned with the purpose of enabling abusive behaviour of another member int he channel.
[13:28] <Phanes> In 2007 maybe, but the cloud stack has enabled users to not be under the boots like that anymore, it is important for administrative approaches on IRC to modernize, this requires working with users.
[13:29] <Phanes> Not just firing out bans every time there's an issue.
[13:29] <Phanes> Now listen, I'll work with you guys, next time there's an issue, instead of firing out bans, which never helps deescalate, just pm me and be like "hey, stop doing xyz or ill have to ban".  That's as far as that needed to go and now it's all blown up and I'm piping mad about it
[13:30] <bazhang> Phanes, this approach is just about the least effective imaginable way of effecting such change
[13:30] <Phanes> no, it is extremely effective, if i just ignore your bans i dont have to worry about being banned anymore.  it does hurt goodwill though, so i mean, that's going to take the participation of your ops
[13:31] <Phanes> its a two party process
[13:31] <bazhang> Phanes, my ops?
[13:32] <Phanes> the only difference between myself and other users affected by this is i have the audacity of telling you about it, almost a quarter of the users on this network are avoiding a ban somewhere or another
[13:32] <Phanes> its time to adapt the administrative approach
[13:32] <Phanes> this is involves talking to people
[13:32] <bazhang> Phanes, no idea what you hope to achieve here: you come in stating are already ban evading
[13:33] <Phanes> yup.  i want to address an operator's behaviour
[13:33] <Phanes> and im not going to stop asking until someone does
[13:34] <bazhang> Phanes, first step is not to evade while this process unfolds
[13:34] <Phanes> haha, right.  rely on their good natures after something like that
[13:35] <Phanes> no, ive dealt with that before, the only reason that guy can continue to exist here is if he's enabled, but I want to give them a chance first.  your input is interesting but ill wait for the operators.
[13:35] <bazhang> there is really nothing to be done as you have stated you don't follow channel and network policies regarding bans
[13:35] <Phanes> nah, you dont know what you're talking about
[13:35] <Phanes> sorry
[13:36] <Phanes> I'll wait.
[13:36] <bazhang> Phanes, I am an op here
[13:37] <Phanes> Great, so I'll make this really clear.  25% of the users on this network do this, I'm just telling you about it because I've watched channels like this exist in a circa 2000 IRC adminsitration model struggle to understand why people get so pissed off and attribute it to "well thats just IRC", but it's not -- these boil ups you see from all those users are the direct result of the nature of your approach to intervention to a channel issue.  Do not
[13:37] <Phanes> ban first and ask questions later
[13:39] <Phanes> A ban isn't what it used to be -- a hostmask and a channel mode, ban someone forever, everyone's at the mercy of the op.  That was 2000 except for socks surfers until the major networks started equipping socks scanners.  Since cloud fired up, though, that's no longer effective.  The proper administrative approach is to be reasonable and use bans as temporary disruption intervention that is always temporary.  And you need your operators adjusted
[13:39] <Phanes> to this because I'm on the nicer end of the spectrum of reactive users.
[13:40] <Phanes> I want that guy out, I want my ban lifted as a gesture, and I want assured that you're going to re-examine how you manage bans
[13:40] <Phanes> Furthermore, I want some procedure in place that keeps your operators from misusing your own policies to support abusive behaviour in channel
[13:41] <Phanes> These are reasonable requests.
[13:42] <bazhang> since you are already evading, there is not any way to continue at this time
[13:43] <bazhang> please exit the channel Phanes and come back when you are able to discuss in a calm manner, without an evasion in progress
[13:43] <Phanes> Well, okay, then I'll escalate any way I know how to and I'll never stop until it's addressed.
[13:43] <Phanes> I will
[13:43] <Phanes> never
[13:43] <Phanes> stop
[13:43] <Phanes> months
[13:43] <Phanes> years
[13:43] <Phanes> This is a chance to discuss it
[13:44] <Phanes> Like I said I don't want trouble
[13:44] <bazhang> so there is nothing pressing. thats good
[13:44] <bazhang> please exit and come back in the distant future
[13:44] <Phanes> I'm already back
[13:44] <Phanes> I'm not going anywhere, except out of #ubuntu-ops
[13:45] <bazhang> to discuss ban removal
[13:45] <Phanes> this is what I'm trying to explain to you, you have an issue with approach I'm trying to address
[13:45] <Phanes> I'm not talking about the ban
[13:45] <Phanes> I'm talking about your operator
[13:45] <bazhang> thats what this channel is for
[13:45] <Phanes> Yup
[13:45] <Phanes> So stop being obstinate and address it
[13:46] <bazhang> changing the very fabric if irc is not going to happen over a short weekend
[13:46] <Phanes> I want it addressed and I have to insist
[13:46] <Phanes> no, but you can commit to making these changes in approach
[13:46] <Phanes> and i want that operator's behaviour addressed by someone with authority to address it meaningfully
[13:47] <bazhang> under durress, thats not the approach to reach said lofty goals
[13:47] <bazhang> or is that duress
[13:47] <Phanes> its duress
[13:49] <Phanes> So listen, you can play big papa with a boot on the users' necks, and fail miserably while having a very very tiny issue that would have been resolved with a one line pm turn into a epic saga of escalation, wich I don't want but I feel needs to be done if you guys behave like this, or we can talk this out and we'll prevent it from happening again together.
[13:49] <Phanes> This is a call for reasonability
[13:49] <Phanes> Help me work with you
[13:49] <Phanes> I'm running out of patience with this
[13:50] <Phanes> you need to be able to be worked with to be worked with
[13:51] <Phanes> 1)  Address the operator behaviour.  2) Remove ban.  3)  Address changes in norms on approach with your peers at your next meeting.  4)  Next time there's a minor issue like that, just pm and I'll adjust to your request.
[13:51] <Phanes> These are fair compromises and only an unreasonable person would turn them down.
[13:57] <Phanes> ?  Are those agreeable for you?
[13:58] <bazhang> dont evade
[13:58] <bazhang> thats step one
[13:59] <Phanes> Ok, Puppet killed, but be aware I can be as many of me in as many variants as I want just by changing parameters in a command line prompt.
[13:59] <Phanes> So, done.
[14:00] <Phanes> and that's 5)  Kill existing puppets.
[14:04] <Phanes> And what about your part?
[14:04] <bazhang> which part is that
[14:04] <Phanes> 1-4
[14:05] <bazhang> you got  a ban
[14:05] <Phanes> That was #2 of 4 terms
[14:06] <Phanes> technically 5 as you wanted the zombies killed
[14:07] <bazhang> a simple 'my bad wont happen again' would have sufficed; but you are on the second hour of insisting , and say will spend years on this
[14:08] <Phanes> Your operator was a jerk and I want it addressed
[14:08] <Phanes> that was only 1 of the things I was talking about, you're uber focused on this ban
[14:08] <Phanes> the ban was the concession for not using puppets and a compromise to work with me before firing out random bans without trying to resolve it first
[14:08] <bazhang> this channel is for ban removal, not re-shaping the very nature of how irc runs
[14:09] <Phanes> no its not how irc runs, its how you run
[14:09] <Phanes> i want your committment to seek a better approach as a norm for your peers
[14:09] <Phanes> and i want that operator talked to cool off his approach
[14:09] <bazhang> regardless , this is not the place or the methodology to effect said change
[14:09] <Phanes> when you guys are feeling like that's necessary a oneline pm is just fine
[14:10] <Phanes> ok, so you're pulling out?  i will have to as well if you can't be worked with
[14:10] <Phanes> this was getting pretty reasonable, but you just want what you want without giving anything back, that's a parasitic arrangment
[14:11] <Phanes> I had 5 clearly defined terms, some of which you provided input on to create, if you need more to get your buy-in you should tell me what it is
[14:15] <Phanes> 1) Address the operator's behaviour.  2) Lift ban as good will gesture.  3) Address changes in approach with your peers at your next meeting.  4) Next time there's a minor issue like that, just pm and I'll adjust to the request.  5) No socks.
[14:16] <Phanes> It was 4 but you wanted the 5th.
[14:17] <Phanes> I have given you #5 to start the goodwill.
[14:18] <bazhang> I have checked the logs on what got you the ban
[14:18] <Phanes> Glad to hear it.  I'm sure you can why I was so upset with him.
[14:19] <bazhang> and the ban was fully warranted
[14:20] <Phanes> I disagree, as no conversation had taken place.  Ban first, talk shit later is not an approach that is remotely okay in 2016 in a major network channel.
[14:20] <Phanes> I'll concede that my reaction was a little overboard, I've just seen opers take stuff that far too many times over the years and it kind of boiled up.
[14:20] <bazhang> repeatedly calling someone douche is far from ok
[14:20] <Phanes> He was being a douche.
[14:21] <Phanes> Now if your contention is that I should have had an oper intervene to talk to him about treating newcomers better I think that's reasonable but that's not what I'm hearing, so please correct me there.
[14:22] <Phanes> Or are you scrambling around to spoil the good faith I've spent two hours trying to secure with you?
[14:22] <bazhang> you just never should try to address an issue by repeatedly calling someone douche
[14:22] <Phanes> As this is addressed by #4
[14:22] <Phanes> 4) Next time there's a minor issue like that, just pm and I'll adjust to the request.
[14:23] <bazhang> thats not how the channel is run
[14:23] <Phanes> That's addressed by item #3
[14:23] <Phanes> 3) Address changes in approach with your peers at your next meeting.
[14:23] <bazhang> so the ban stands, and is fully warranted
[14:24] <Phanes> Ok, then I'm retracting #5 and fully ignoring the ban
[14:24] <Phanes> and I'm not going away until its addressed taking any and every option I can find and research until progress is made in your community
[14:24] <bazhang> please exit this channel at this time Phanes
[14:24] <Phanes> This will end with a staffing change in your irc channel.
[14:25] <bazhang> !appeals
[14:25] <Phanes> No, you will own your decision and there are other means that are more effective escalations for me.
[14:25] <bazhang> you visited here
[14:25] <bazhang> thats step one
[14:25] <Phanes> You were given an EXTREMELY reasonable compromise
[14:26] <Phanes> and instead are playing "good ole boy", and this was a bad call
[14:26] <bazhang> follow the link above to get the rest of the appeal process going
[14:26] <Phanes> Instead of letting it die here and now and leaving with us all in good will, you want a boot on a user's neck, and I'm taking every option available
[14:27] <Phanes> I will never stop.
[14:27] <Phanes> I'm back in.
[14:27] <Phanes> You can't stop me.
[14:27] <Phanes> I'll always be here and I'll always be there.
[14:27] <bazhang> well, your stopping or not has no need to be in the ops channel
[14:27] <Phanes> I will stay and try to reason with the rest of your peers to give you guys every chance to be reasonable.
[14:29] <Phanes> What you have failed to understand is that while you may have policies, a policy for an organization is just like a policy for a person.  You have yours, I have mine.  If you want my policies to work with yours, which are just as valid as yours are, you must be reasonable.
[14:29] <Phanes> You must own your decisions as strongly as you require me to own mine.
[14:30] <Phanes> So breach the 4th wall a bit and look at what's happening here.
[14:32] <Phanes> What I have suggested is a compromise that is very little effort on both our parts, resolve the issue permanently, and is less energy spent than the alternatives.
[14:34] <Phanes> It is such a blown up thing for such small compromise.
[14:39] <Phanes> To reiterate, you have been asked to 1) Address the operator's behaviour.  2)  Remove the ban.  3)  Talk about changing approach at your next meeting with your peers 4) Get less trigger happy and more communicative with users for intervention approach; the fifth item was my own concession at your request which I'd be happy to bring back as well to cool it off, but I need minimal effort on your part.
[14:39] <Phanes> minimal
[14:39] <Phanes> Very little is being asked of you
[14:42] <Phanes> In the meantime all bets are off and I await a reasonable response.
[14:52] <bazhang> Phanes, time to follow up on the appeals process
[15:02] <Phanes> I have already explained to you that the issue will be escalated through more effective means involving the utilization of every and any option I have as the result of study and research.  Your process is designed to commit to public record your decisions while you lockstep someone's humilitian into a public lynching and I'll not be participating in that when you have declined a reasonable compromise.  I will be unreasonable if we cannot come to
[15:02] <Phanes> reasonable terms here.
[15:03] <Phanes> To reiterate, you have been asked to 1) Address the operator's behaviour.  2)  Remove the ban.  3)  Talk about changing approach at your next meeting with your peers 4) Get less trigger happy and more communicative with users for intervention approach; the fifth item was my own concession at your request which I'd be happy to bring back as well to cool it off, but I need minimal effort on your part.
[15:05] <Phanes> If you have other things you need to secure your buy in on my suggested compromise I'd be happy to accommodate, but that process you're suggesting is very obvious for what it is.
[15:11] <Phanes> I'll save the appeal for the next issue if there is one, but I am not expecting one if we work this out.
[15:16] <Phanes> No?  Very well, your bans are now completely disregarded ignored, and from hence forth so are your policies, channel rules, and my sense of propriety.  This is now my policy and you'll need to file an appeal by submitting a comment on my blog after 24 hours of violation of this policy.
[15:29] <bazhang> please exut the channel at this time Phanes
[15:29] <bazhang> exeunt too
[15:32] <Phanes> I have already explained to you that I will be trying to reason with your peers as they make an appearance in the channel.  You can remove me, but I'll just see them in channel too.  This isn't going away or I'd be enabling the behaviour.  Please compromise for such a small issue.
[15:33] <Phanes> This is my policy.
[15:33] <bazhang> so you said.
[15:33] <bazhang> repeatedly
[15:34] <bazhang> time to exit here
[15:34] <Phanes> Twice actually.
[15:34] <bazhang> theres nothing to discuss, you make demands and are already evading
[15:35] <Phanes> Albeit in liue of reasonable compromise offered.
[15:36] <Phanes> Understand that you are not the only one with power over their situation here.
[15:36] <bazhang> reasonable seems to be 'the answer I demand'
[15:36] <Phanes> no, i have repeatedly suggested you to provide input for other terms
[15:36] <Phanes> repeatedly as in "actually repeatedly" not just twice
[15:36] <bazhang> thats not how irc works, nor is it ever an approach to take as regards ban removal
[15:37] <Phanes> it is in many modern channels and it's a timeless approach
[15:37] <Phanes> My suggestion really is to work with me.
[15:37] <bazhang> steps are visit here, then follow the appeals process
[15:37] <Phanes> The steps?  Whose steps?
[15:38] <Phanes> Those aren't my steps.  I've given you my steps.  I will not follow your steps until you are reasonable with me.
[15:38] <Phanes> You have very little control over this that is not shared with me, we should come up with something that lets us work together for something so small.
[15:39] <bazhang> you re welcome to wait for that blogpost, but just not here
[15:40] <Phanes> As demonstrated, welcomeness is not a prerequisite to effective communication.  You know what is asked of you.  We are now doing the "policy" thing.
[15:40] <Phanes> I just want to ask -- "was it worth it?"
[15:47] <Phanes> Someone who will never stop over a minor event involving language correctable by a one line pm.
[16:57] <hggdh> Phanes: anything else we can do for you here? If not, please exit.
[16:59] <Phanes> Yes lift my ban and address the approach with users with your peers.
[17:01] <hggdh> Phanes. You the appeal process. Your orders are not acceptable as they are right now. Now, please /part
[17:01] <hggdh> s/You the/Use the/
[17:01] <Phanes> You have been advised that this is against my policy.  Please lift the ban to restore order.
[17:02] <Phanes> If you put your boot on me I'll come back after sleeping.  And then the next day.  And then the next.
[17:02] <Phanes> And then the next.
[17:02] <Phanes> And I'll never stop.
[17:02] <Phanes> I'll let it go on for years
[17:02] <Phanes> your process is designed to humiliate people and put their boots on their necks
[17:03] <Phanes> I won't do it
[17:03] <Phanes> I'll just join using socks
[17:03] <hggdh> @comment 71470 refusing advise to use the appeal process and to stop giving orders
[17:03] <Phanes> and if it goes that route you better abandon the idea of following channel rules
[17:04] <hggdh> @comment 71472 refusing advise to use the appeal process and to stop giving orders. See 71470 and others
[17:13] <hggdh> dialog with Phsnes keeps on in PM, same threats
[19:34] <brambo> Hi
[19:34] <msample> hi
[19:35] <brambo> eumm i live in a very strange vision lacking world. do you like testers with V model vision
[19:35] <brambo> I love to work at some compamy like that. I have some famaany problems at home but. in some mothns or so. I dont know where you work but..
[19:36] <brambo> and i have learned al IT stuff i know with irc. You can do loads of fun and education with this vision lacking chat evnoirment
[19:37] <brambo> #channels !bots chat
[19:38] <brambo> You know the social meaning of interacting in there for selected environments not bothering any one else
[19:38] <brambo> To understand the human concept of the world
[19:39] <brambo> 6 rules 1 guide line Vision Scope or else its well just chat
[19:39] <brambo> "Welcome to the home of the Ubuntu IRC Team operators"
[19:40] <brambo> question! What is your vision of irc?
[19:40] <brambo> #runbyshooting click
[19:40] <brambo> no just nothing....
[19:40] <msample> sorry, did you have actually an Ubuntu IRC related issue you needed help with, I'm having hard time following
[19:40] <brambo> Yes I know
[19:41] <brambo> you have some vision issue
[19:41] <brambo> are you an irc OP?
[19:41] <brambo> read your guide lines?
[19:41] <brambo> just the same rules
[19:41] <brambo> hello? read?
[19:41] <brambo> think! act?
[19:42] <brambo> or are you just trolling around?
[19:42] <wxl> brambo: perhaps you should explicitly state which particular guideline you feel isn't being followed and why.
[19:43] <wxl> brambo: but ultimately this channel is for "operator/abuse questions" which doesn't mean this is the place to question guidelines, per se.
[19:43] <brambo> Bot abuse
[19:43] <wxl> what in particular?
[19:43] <brambo> yours
[19:43] <wxl> i don't have a bot
[19:43] <wxl> that being said, please be more explicit and detailed
[19:44] <brambo> General channel guidelines
[19:44] <brambo> These guidelines do not cover every single aspect of the Ubuntu channels' etiquette. Specific practices are encouraged and discouraged, according to these guidelines' intent as well as to practical channel needs. Recommendations from channel operators, including those stored in the channel bots, should be followed.
[19:45] <brambo> Time to ask
[19:45] <brambo>     The time of day at which you ask will influence who reads the question. People may not have an answer to your question right away, so please be patient.
[19:45] <wxl> brambo: why don't you describe the events leading up to the abuse? what happened? with what bot? to who? and what's the issue?
[19:45] <brambo> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess
[19:45] <brambo> read again please
[19:46] <wxl> you mean say again, please?
[19:46] <brambo> say again, please?
[19:46] <brambo> well the whole world forgot about irc
[19:46] <wxl> maybe there's some sort of language issue, but i don't understand your problem at all. i have no clue what happened. i'm not sure i know how to help you out.
[19:46] <brambo> and just developers use it to type code and chat
[19:47] <brambo> maybe there's some sort of language issue the Babylonian one
[19:47] <brambo> it is freaking me out..
[19:47] <wxl> ok, well, if you'd like to explain yourself to the point that a clear problem is described, i'd be happy to help. beyond that, i am not going to be able to help at all. wish i could.
[19:47] <brambo> https://twitter.com/zigetier257
[19:48] <brambo> it was a long long long long hell
[19:48] <brambo> I want to do some work
[19:48] <brambo> africa he....
[19:48] <brambo> no....
[19:48] <brambo> o well welcome all over the world good bye
[19:48] <brambo> debian kde bla bla bla
[19:49] <Unit193> I understood a couple of those words, yes!
[19:49] <wxl> oh i thnk i understood the words
[19:49] <wxl> just not how any of them were related
[19:51] <wxl> yeah
[19:51] <wxl> meh
[23:54] <valorie> got a sometime user of #kubuntu nick: HardHornyBF
[23:54] <valorie> I've forgotten how to look them up in the bantracker
[23:55] <k1l> valorie: @btlogin
[23:55] <valorie> HardHornyBF_ (~HaveAsian@209.95.58.216) to be specific
[23:55] <valorie> @btlogin
[23:55] <valorie> @login
[23:55] <valorie> sigh
[23:56] <k1l> but i cant find something in BT for that user
[23:57] <k1l> but the nick is somewhat obvious :)
[23:57] <valorie> so I can just ban?
[23:59] <Flannel> valorie: Why not just ask them to change their nick?
[23:59] <valorie> they keep joining and quitting without saying anything