IRC Issues [From Stepping Down]

[Jussi Schultink]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Michael Lustfield <mtecknology at ubuntu.com>wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Just a short note before I head to bed.
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 19:20:03 +0200
> Lasse Havelund <lasse at havelund.org> wrote:
>
> > > I also think any resolutions to these issues should be documented. This
> > > could allow us to have a precedence for further issues. We already have
> > > a list for how operators should behave. This could be just an addition.
> > > I could set up a nice page for this that would have categories for
> > > resolved, not resolved, and being resolved. Just like how the BBB works
> > > except in a public manner. Of course some of these issues will need to
> > > move to IRCC for a multitude of reasons. It would still be nice if a
> > > generic result could move to this.
> > I think we need to be careful about creating a list with instruction on
> > exactly how to deal with a problem. In my experience, most of them are
> > better dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Guidelines I can see the idea
> of,
> > but actually creating an 'answer booklet' is not the way to go. Let the
> > person dealing with the issue handle it - after all, there is a reason we
> > were appointed ops in the first place.
> The point was that some ops handle things entirely different from
> another. Some ops will take offense to a person saying "holy crap" and
> issue a kick where others don't flinch at swearing. I keep referring to
> language since it's an easy one to associate with.  I never said it
> needs to be a list of "instruction on exactly how to deal with a
> problem" but rather a set pf precedents. "precedent - an example that is
> used to justify similar occurrences at a later time" For example, user
> kicked for "holy cow." Issue appealed and it's decided this is fully
> acceptable. Next step is to clarify for current and future ops that
> this has been deemed acceptable. If this is questioned, a detailed
> explanation why this is acceptable would be readily available. There's
> no reason it should cover every situation. Indeed some situations do
> call for a judgment call from an experienced op. In these situations
> the resolution shouldn't be recorded in a generic sense. However, I see
> a set like this helping in some of the common mistakes. This list would
> be readily available for anyone that wold like to appeal a decision
> where the decision would have been in the 'maybe/maybe not' category.
> In this situation, the op would have that precedent to back up the
> decision they made. This such as an excessive flooding ban, those are
> generally either cut and dry or a judgment call. No reason for that to
> be on this list. Arguing [not trolling] between two different users
> should find it's way to that list.
>
In my understanding we already have such a thing - its called the ban
tracker. Unfortunately its not scalable enough right now to ope to the
public, but you can add to the blueprint on LP (Bantracker two).

> >
> >
> > > One interesting thing I learned from my segway into Gentoo (which was
> > > really fun) is how they handle bad language. They define bad language
> > > as ${EXPLETIVE}. This includes "hell" as well as other words that are
> > > generally considered acceptable unless overused. They follow a pretty
> > > specific policy. If it falls into this category, there's warn, ban, ban
> > > long time. They don't draw a grey line. It either is, or it isn't. This
> > > is a policy that I feel we should adopt. Perhaps not at the 'long time'
> > > length they hand out however.
> >
> > Absolutely not a good idea. I'm going to have to say I agree entirely
> with
> > Lorenzo on this one.
> What I said wasn't in relation to the specific actions used. It was
> pertaining to the language used. It's already pretty clearly defined
> what to do with a !language violation. What is very much not clearly
> defined is what constitutes a violation. This is what I was trying to
> get at on this subject. I do agree that I didn't make my point clear
> here and I'm sorry it came across as such.
>
>
> > /Lasse Havelund [MenZa]
>
> Hopefully this clears up everything I was leading into.
> - --
> Michael Lustfield
> Kalliki Software
>
Thats All Ill say for the min as I need to go to bed.

Jussi Schultink. (jussi01)

>
> Network and Systems Administrator
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrGP+oACgkQ3y7Nst6YLGUMAgCfXTcUbqL2RaEYETkuQUPtyj/u
> scMAoJdudeLVo5sEfx2OQZP/R3Eb3T69
> =LG3X
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20091002/3e61ce47/attachment.html>