[14:38] <pragmaticenigma> Good morning ops... there has been a individual that doesn't appear to understand the community guidelines and persists in using a bot to connect to the main channel. the bot in question is keyrcbot ... the user name is rudi9719 ... they are being very obstinate and not respecting the community guidelines or the code of conduct
[14:48] <Pricey> pragmaticenigma: What's annoying about it?
[14:49] <pragmaticenigma> Pricey: It's against the community guidelines for starters
[14:49] <Pricey> My scrollback shows you calling them a bot, them claiming they're not?
[14:49] <Pricey> pragmaticenigma: What is, sorry? Assume I've missed something obvious :-)
[14:49] <pragmaticenigma> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/Guidelines - states, Please don't bring bots
[14:49] <pragmaticenigma>     Ubuntu already provides bots for channel logging, for help, and factoid related queries - there really is no need for more bots. If you think another bot would be helpful, contact the channel operators first.
[14:49] <Pricey> Right understood.
[14:49] <Pricey> So why do you think they're a bot?
[14:50] <pragmaticenigma> I'm saying the usage of the bot in the channel is against the rules, nothing in regards to the person on the other end
[14:50] <Pricey> Is it a bot though?
[14:50] <PriceChild> I'm not a child. Am I behaving as such?
[14:50] <PriceChild> (This is my original nickserv nickname)
[14:51] <pragmaticenigma> Think of it this way... how do you, the ops, control an individual that is bridged in from a remote system when they abuse other policies?
[14:51] <PriceChild> It looks like they were being helpful and answering questions.
[14:52] <PriceChild> Is the only thing wrong, that they have "bot" in their nickname?
[14:52] <pragmaticenigma> No, it's not about "bot" being in the name
[14:52] <pragmaticenigma> By allowing a bot to provide a bridge, you welcome others to do the same. Eventually, you will have people abuse that system. It's better to prevent and stop it up front, before it gets to be that problem
[14:53] <PriceChild> I'm connected from a bridge righ tnow.
[14:53] <PriceChild> I think we need to take a step back and think about why that line is in the guidelines to begin with.
[14:53] <pragmaticenigma> It also makes it really hard to follow the conversations, when people aren't able to direct their response to a person, only the bot
[14:54] <PriceChild> I'm still having trouble seeing what about them is bot-like, other than having 'bot' in their nickname.
[14:55] <pragmaticenigma> you're too hung up on something
[14:55] <PriceChild> I want to understand the real probelm.
[14:56] <PriceChild> I don't like the idea of implementing rules without thought & consideration.
[14:56] <PriceChild> Implementing is the wrong word there, enforcing perhaps.
[14:57] <pragmaticenigma> The problem is they're proxying multiple people behind that ... users in the chat room cannot direct a response to a specific individual behind said bridge. If there are  multiple people behind that bridge, and they all come under the same handle, it becomes very confusing for those receiving help
[14:57] <PriceChild> Aha right, and there's a nugget I was missing :-)
[14:57] <PriceChild> Sorry, so that's what the [nick] prefix was.
[14:58] <pragmaticenigma> yes
[14:58] <PriceChild> Are there really multiple people behind it? I see one..
[14:58] <pragmaticenigma> The person we were interacting with claimed there were more people on the other end
[15:00] <PriceChild> I idle in #haproxy which has a Slack bridge which I find rather annoying.
[15:00] <PriceChild> It works for a lot of people though and I'm not sure I'd call it a bot.
[15:01] <PriceChild> I think when those guidelines were written, they were referring to bots as things which spoke without human prompting.
[15:02] <pragmaticenigma> yes, I understand that... What drove me to this point is the user on the other end is confrontational and began using troll like behavior when volunteers tried to politely ask them to stop
[15:03] <pragmaticenigma> perhaps we or I was too confrontational or poor tone to start. I can't tell. I do think this does warrent some examination on allowing such "bridges" or services to forward responses in from 3rd parties
[15:03] <pragmaticenigma> I get that not every user want's to be in IRC, and I know that there is more desire to use mobile devices which cannot persist a continuous connection to the channels
[15:04] <tomreyn> i'm using ZNC myself, and suspect others in #ubuntu do, too. the notable difference to keyrcbot / rudi9719 is really only that it's annoying to talk to them because you cannot autocomplete their real nickname, and the representation by this bridge is annoying, and feels a bit spammy to me. maybe this can just be improved upon by him, that would solve it for me.
[15:04] <pragmaticenigma> I agree... if I knew they were the only ones behind the usage of that handle, it would be far less of an issue for me
[15:05] <pragmaticenigma> and remove the bridged user tagging
[15:13] <pragmaticenigma> so I'll rephrase my request then... Can we get a review of the policies in usage of bots providing bridges into the channels and what is acceptable in the channels? Understanding that "bot" in this context is referring to the use of software that provides said bridge, with the indicators that display the forwarded user name from another platform.
[15:20] <pragmaticenigma> I will /part here, if you need me further, please feel free to reach out. I will look for updates in logs. Thanks for helping everyone
[15:25] <PriceChild> I think it might be easier to move on with our lives. I expect the users will find it annoying (if there are multiple) and gentle recommendations of alternative clients to them at that point will give the best outcome.