RFC: #ubuntu op misuse or not?

Sat May 17 03:18:04 UTC 2014

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you, I promise to also reply with short answers then.
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Carl Karsten <carl at personnelware.com>
> wrote:
> > Others have given more in depth answers, I would like to give some very
> > short ones:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you everyone for your responses.
> >>
> >> Someone on the channel said that there is no way I can come out
> >> looking good in this whole discussion. Another person suggested that
> >> while I had a point earlier, it has now been diluted by the ensuing
> >> discussion.
> >> I agree with both of those verdicts. If the whole conversation is
> >> going to be coloured by that, I fear it will devolve into the same
> >> points that were hashed on IRC.
> >>
> >> To pare down my email, the things I felt distasteful were:
> >> * ops killing organic, non-insulting, non-inflammatory discussions by
> >> silencing people
> >
> >
> > #ubuntu is for tech support.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> * ops basing ban decisions based on personal prejudice (e.g. towards
> >> words like blitzkrieg and dictator, drawing conclusions of World War
> >> II and Hitler)
> >
> >
> > ops have to make judgment calls.  judgment comes from thinking, which
> will
> > be influenced by feelings.
> >
> >
>
> Judgement comes from evidence, not personal bias. Drawing implications
> that certain words are related to certain historical events is
> personal bias, not good judgement.
>
>
I disagree with your opinion of what judgment is, and  is and isn't good
judgment.

I also disagree with what you think is and isn't ok.  I suspect it is
because we have different ideas about what happens in the event that
something is not ok.

Neither of our opinions alone will dictate the final outcome, so I am
comfortable acting on my opinions knowing that if I make a decision that
others disagree with there is plenty of opportunity for things to be
rectified.

> >>
> >> * ops banning people in the main channel for discussions happening in
> >> a completely separate channel (and to be banned by the same op who I
> >> had the issue with is an obvious conflict of interest)
> >
> >
> > judgment also comes from observing behavior in other channels.
> >
>
> If so, judgement should be reserved to that other channel. Not spill
> over to #ubuntu, where there was no sign of misdoing by me.
>
> >>
> >> * general lack of responsibility towards IRC ops -- shown by an
> >> attitude of "puppies don't die" if there are mistakes in judgement
> >
> >
> > There are many policies and procedures in place to contend with mistakes.
> > You seem to think they are not appropriate because they allow for an op
> to
> > make a mistake in the first place.
> >
> >
>
> There are procedures, but it seems like both #ubuntu-ops and this list
> are not an effective way to bring them up. All I have seen up to this
> point is irrational behaviour excused under the catchphrase "judgement
> calls need to be made".
>
>
Your ban got removed.

You are welcome to propose changes do the documented procedures.

>  >>
> >> * overall hostility in #ubuntu-ops, mainly with people's insistence to
> >> leave the channel -- why is it so important to push people out of a
> >> channel?
> >
> >
> > When someone is speaking in #ubuntu-ops, ops notice it and stop what they
> > are doing to see what is going on.  If it isn't going to be productive,
> it
> > would be nice if it stopped.
> >
>
> Inviting people to leave the channel because the discussion does not
> go the way you want or because someone disagrees with you is not
> "would be nice". It's hostile. (you refers to the people in the irc
> channel, not you, Carl)
>
>
I think the requests to part the channel were done politely.

>  >>
> >>
> >> Happy to hear thoughts about this.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Rohan
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Rohan Dhruva <rohandhruva at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi ubuntu-irc,
> >> >
> >> > I hang on out #ubuntu as "rohan", generally a lurker -- once in a
> while
> >> > I
> >> > ask questions and answer things I know.
> >> >
> >> > Today, I encountered something I found disturbing. There was a
> >> > misunderstanding between two users, and an op decided to silence one
> of
> >> > them. The discussion was civil (no swearing or flooding), but also
> >> > off-topic. I feel silencing a user in this case is overreaching and
> rude
> >> > --
> >> > especially a user who might have been new to the IRC community (and
> >> > maybe
> >> > new to Ubuntu itself).
> >> >
> >> > On complaining about this in the channel, I was directed to to talk in
> >> > #ubuntu-ops, which I joined and then stopped talking on #ubuntu. On
> the
> >> > -ops
> >> > channel (which is logged), I had a few heated words exchanged with the
> >> > op
> >> > who originally took the wrong action (in my opinion). Eventually, it
> >> > boils
> >> > down to whether words like "blitzkrieg" and "dictator" are offensive
> or
> >> > not.
> >> >
> >> > Since the logs are public[1][2], I'll cut a long story short: the op
> >> > chose
> >> > to ban me from #ubuntu for a week. This was without me talking in
> >> > #ubuntu or
> >> > provoking drama in the main channel at all. The reason given was that
> I
> >> > was
> >> > likely to misbehave in #ubuntu, without there having been any evidence
> >> > of
> >> > having done so. As the logs will show, I tried to make my point in
> >> > various
> >> > ways, sometimes being drawn out. In interest of list readers' time, I
> >> > can
> >> > summarise the ensuing discussion as unfruitful and borderline hostile
> --
> >> > in
> >> > (large) part due to my own insistence of remaining in the channel. I
> was
> >> > unequivocally told to leave the channel at multiple times, with
> various
> >> > people suggesting I get a life, or my insistent complaining as
> pathetic.
> >> >
> >> > I apologise for an already long email (but as people in the channel
> will
> >> > tell you, it's much shorter than reading the whole scrollback!).. but
> >> > here
> >> > are the things I wanted to request members' views and comments on:
> >> >
> >> > * Is it ok to stifle discussion by silencing one person when an
> argument
> >> > seems to be happening in the channel, under the pretext of avoiding
> >> > drama?
> >> > ** This is also against the guidelines of when to ban/kick a person --
> >> > there
> >> > was no flooding, nor were there any swear words or unappealing
> language.
> >> >
> >> > * Is it ok for an op to ban someone in the main #ubuntu channel for
> >> > discussion happening in a completely separate channel?
> >> > ** Especially when the discussion was exactly about the op
> overreaching:
> >> > this seems like an obvious conflict of interest. Also, should an op's
> >> > personal bias towards words like blitzkrieg and dictator be allowed to
> >> > affect a user's ability to enter a channel?
> >> >
> >> > * What can be done to make #ubuntu-ops a more friendly place? The
> >> > discussion
> >> > was very obviously hostile, and I was penalised for speaking up
> against
> >> > the
> >> > very two ops I had a problem with, and in general the channel's
> attitude
> >> > was
> >> > "write an email and gtfo, you're just repeating the same things over
> and
> >> > over". I don't understand the insistence to leave the channel, nor the
> >> > very
> >> > obvious ganging up of the "ops vs. users" -- at least I felt that way
> >> > from
> >> > the get-go. After I left the channel, the logs show people suggesting
> >> > each
> >> > other to skip reading the scrollback and offer sympathies for people
> who
> >> > actually wanted to read it. If that can be written off as humour, I
> >> > would
> >> > like to ask why the same kind of humour leads to a ban in #ubuntu.
> >> > ** This is especially important, because #ubuntu-ops is the first
> forum
> >> > in
> >> > the appeals flow, and the experience there was extremely elitist and
> >> > hostile.
> >> >
> >> > * Why is it so bad to suggest an op be penalised? Why does doing that
> >> > instantly evoke allegations of being childish and immature (as opposed
> >> > to
> >> > people claiming they themselves are intelligent adults)? If an op can
> >> > ban
> >> > someone for a week in a completely unrelated channel for discussion in
> >> > another channel, why is it sacrilege that there should be at least
> some
> >> > kind
> >> > of disciplinary action?
> >> >
> >> > * Continuing from the previous question, the general feeling I got is
> >> > that
> >> > the accountability of ops in general is not up to the usual Ubuntu
> >> > standards. Whereas packages in the repo are vetted in several
> different
> >> > ways, there seems to be no similar vetting for the whole ops flow.
> >> > People
> >> > claiming that "puppies don't die" if an op makes mistakes shows that
> the
> >> > general feeling of responsibility seems low. Another way of thinking
> >> > about
> >> > this is if that puppies are not going to die anyway, why go out of
> your
> >> > way
> >> > to ban someone for a joke here and there?
> >> >
> >> > * Turning the tables onto myself, was I annoying? In short, yes.
> Could I
> >> > have done things differently? Yes. Feedback on my behaviour is as much
> >> > appreciated as the discussion on the above bullet points.
> >> >
> >> > If you actually made it this far -- thank you! I am looking forward to
> >> > hearing other points of view, and as someone on IRC suggested, I will
> >> > try my
> >> > best to ensure that this goes better than the discussion on IRC was :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Rohan
> >> >
> >> > [1]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/15/%23ubuntu-ops.html
> >> > [2]: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/05/16/%23ubuntu-ops.html
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Rohan Dhruva
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rohan Dhruva
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> >> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carl K
> >
> > --
> > Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> > Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rohan Dhruva
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>

-- 
Carl K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20140516/3974b77f/attachment.html>