general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave

[Lorenzo J. Lucchini]

On Monday 15 February 2010 08:51:59 Michael Lustfield wrote:
> Isn't there @mark in the Bantracker that would suffice perfectly for
> this? Not only inform other ops but also give detail in the ban logs if
> a ban does come up. That's what my impression of @mark was for.

Actually @mark was introduced to file bantracker comments for things that did 
NOT result in a ban. Specifically, I wanted it badly in order to mark 
discussions with banned people in #ubuntu-ops, so that other ops could look 
them up easily at the next appeal.

To comment on actual bans, you go to the bantracker website and comment on the 
ban entry directly (or I think there is also a function to do it from IRC 
now, but I don't know the syntax).

I know it's a little more work, but it's worthwhile doing, as simply @mark'ing 
with a comment of "The ban just above [...]" just makes things confusing, 
when it was introduced to make them *less* confusing...

by LjL
ljl at ubuntu.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20100215/6041dceb/attachment.pgp>