was: "I hate you" ;-).

Sun May 8 17:57:32 UTC 2016

Still there is ways to discuss bans. Not by whining on the mailing list. Do
you know hoe many people sees this? Please take it to #ubuntu-irc and or
#ubuntu-ops
On May 8, 2016 1:55 PM, "Clay Weber" <clay at claydoh.com> wrote:

> I think we are forgetting that the OP here has historically been
> belligerent
> not only in irc but on forums as well.  We are basically feeding the
> beast, so
> to speak.
>
>
> On Saturday, May 7, 2016 11:12:38 PM EDT Patrick Hixenbaugh wrote:
> > I think a fundamental disagreement here is that the role of the ops
> > absolutely is to help "moderate" the tone of discussion to align with the
> > values in the code of conduct.
> >
> > If someone has a disagreement with anyone in the channel, op or not, the
> > mods have a responsibility to keep it civil, and move it to a more
> > appropriate channel if necessary to keep the channel from going off
> topic.
> > In a support channel of over 1000 people, it absolutely is necessary to
> > moderate the behavior and tone of users. I have even had disagreements
> with
> > ops before, but there are systems in place to resolve them peacefully,
> and
> > no one need be banned unless they are truly being unrelentingly
> disruptive.
> >
> > Productive, civil discussions can absolutely result from technical
> > disagreements, provided everyone respects each other, op or not.
> >
> > On May 7, 2016 7:52 PM, "Matthew Lye" <matthew.lye at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > If you had started with this you may have been at least listened to, in
> > > spite of the childish and incredibly immature views on how things
> should
> > > be
> > > run. Your argument is basically efficiency should be sacrificed to
> ensure
> > > everything is done correctly.
> > >
> > > In a real world situation where someone is being disruptive and
> abusive in
> > > a privately owned space police can remove you, detain you pending
> charges,
> > > and ultimately another person decides your fate. In this situation the
> > > same
> > > occurs, mods can remove you, prevent you from returning for a period,
> and
> > > if you were banned and you think it was done incorrectly you could have
> > > posted the snipet here and given reasons you though the action was
> wrong
> > > and if it was wrong the ban would be removed. This has happened before
> but
> > > is very very unlikely in this case. The system you argue for does
> actually
> > > exist, just not in the way you think it should. The fact that you
> managed
> > > to send emails here means you could have done the right thing and
> resolved
> > > the situation the way you say you think it should be done.
> > >
> > > You need to take responsibility for your own choices and your own
> > > behaviour rather than blaming what occurs to you on others. I have very
> > > little doubt you took action that resulted in your removal and it had
> > > nothing to do with you disagreeing with a mod, but that the way you
> > > disagreed was well outside the rules governing behaviour in our
> channels.
> > >
> > > Take this as a learning opportunity to reflect. I think you have wasted
> > > enough of peoples time.
> > >
> > > -Matthew Lye
> > >
> > >  Leadership is responsibility, not privilege, Action, not position,
> > >
> > > Guidance, not knowledge, and outcome, not disposition.
> > >
> > > "Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action,
> where
> > > it often substitutes for both." - John Andrew Holmes
> > >
> > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Xen <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
> > >> In public places where there is recognised authority, they have to
> comply
> > >> with certain rules.
> > >>
> > >> One of those rules is that they can only exert their normal powers
> that
> > >> they have by way of their function, when they are recognisable as
> part of
> > >> that function. In other words, they must wear a uniform or in some
> other
> > >> way be distinguisable from other people.
> > >>
> > >> The reason for this is explained by the simple fact that otherwise
> people
> > >> could mask as police officers and demand anything from anyone, while
> > >> claiming to be in the authority of law. And this can never happen.
> This
> > >> is
> > >> why there are laws and rules against that.
> > >>
> > >> What you do in the IRC channels is throw away that distinction and
> that
> > >> knowledge and that rule, and assume both roles at once, obfuscating
> what
> > >> needs to happen.
> > >>
> > >> What I see you doing is acting as user first, and moderator after, in
> the
> > >> same discussion.
> > >>
> > >> Because communication in good manners can only happen between equals,
> > >> this is called the SNAFU principle, explained as precisely that --
> > >> because
> > >> of that if you mix roles as a moderator, and assume both user status
> and
> > >> mod status at the same time, you are guaranteed to mess up any debate
> you
> > >> are having with your superior access to tools to guarantee that you
> win
> > >> any
> > >> factual disagreement.
> > >>
> > >> I am sure you understand this. But let me explain a little.
> > >>
> > >> If there is factual disagreement and one of them, precisely the
> > >> moderator, has any ego surrounding the issue, that person might get
> > >> offended by the disagreement.
> > >>
> > >> People who get offended by disagreement typically try to force the
> other
> > >> to shut up in whatever way. Normally, people have very little
> recourse to
> > >> do so. In a technical system like this, when one party has these
> powers
> > >> to
> > >> silence another, this power will be used to win arguments of a factual
> > >> matter.
> > >>
> > >> The same happens when you are locked up in e.g. psychiatry or even a
> real
> > >> prison. The one with the stick wins the debate. Always. I haven't
> been to
> > >> real prison, but I have been locked up in a psychiatric establishment
> for
> > >> a
> > >> long time.
> > >>
> > >> I now expect personal attacks from you based on that admission.
> > >>
> > >> What you see happening in your channels is that disagreeing with a
> > >> moderator who was acting in the capacity of a regular user, leads to a
> > >> ban.
> > >>
> > >> The only way to avoid it is to suck up to the moderator and say "oh
> yeah,
> > >> sorry, you are right". Then the mod is happy and you are allowed to
> stay.
> > >>
> > >> They call this power abuse. They call this power corrupts. They call
> this
> > >> might is right. You really think you are impervious to that?
> > >>
> > >> In police terms. They have different terms for "question" and
> "request".
> > >> By law, a person is allowed to reject compliance with a question. By
> law,
> > >> a
> > >> person is compelled to agree with a request.
> > >>
> > >> When police says "Would you like to step out of the car?" that is a
> > >> question and has a different legal status from "Sir, I order you to
> step
> > >> out of the car."
> > >>
> > >> What you do as moderators is make these question-like non-obligatory
> > >> statements and then when a person says "No, I would not like to do
> that"
> > >> you silence or ban them when they speak again.
> > >>
> > >> This IS power abuse.
> > >>
> > >> No matter how much you can say it isn't, if ANY lawyer or attorney,
> judge
> > >> or person of wisdom would look at this from regular society? They
> would
> > >> agree with these sentiments because they are encoded in law and have
> been
> > >> for a long time.
> > >>
> > >> And then you say "You were asked to do this thing."
> > >>
> > >> Pardon me? If it was just a question, I was allowed to say no. That is
> > >> the basis of human conduct.
> > >>
> > >> And now you make it appear as if the opposite is true. That if any
> person
> > >> asks you to do a certain thing, you have to comply.
> > >>
> > >> And why? Because, and here it comes: "your conduct should not change
> > >> depending on whether a moderator was around". So it is no longer about
> > >> authority. Now it is about morality. These moderators do not just
> claim
> > >> authority over the channel. (Which actually they don't). They now
> claim
> > >> authority over the morality of all people residing in the channel.
> > >>
> > >> As such they do not perform the function of keeping order. They
> perform
> > >> the function of keeping people in line with what they think people
> should
> > >> act and behave as.
> > >>
> > >> Note particularly the word behave. They are moderating behaviour, but
> not
> > >> keeping order. Not as such.
> > >>
> > >> They are not moderating acts. They are moderating behaviour, and this
> is
> > >> a distinction.
> > >>
> > >> Call me primitive again now, please. I beg of you.
> > >>
> > >> They are not responding to deeds. They are responding to questionable
> > >> behaviour.
> > >>
> > >> According to them, of course.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> By now you may wonder why I am saying this because there seems to be a
> > >> disconnect between my previous communication and my present one.
> > >>
> > >> If police were to act the way you do, and of course they often do
> > >> especially in lesser developed countries, but in my country there
> would
> > >> be
> > >> public hearings about it. "Sir, you were asked to step out of the car,
> > >> you
> > >> didn't, and now you're arrested."
> > >>
> > >> That sort of thing is illegal but it is what you do.
> > >>
> > >> I am going to keep this short now, I think I have spent enough time on
> > >> this. This is about my third or fourth rewrite. Yes I have trouble
> > >> writing
> > >> and being clear.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> I will just repeat the following with an example to show what I am
> > >> talking about:
> > >>
> > >> A #debian moderator tells me not to use "service networking restart"
> or
> > >> "systemctl restart networking" because: networking is not a daemon
> and as
> > >> such it cannot actually be restarted.
> > >>
> > >> A completely pretentious distinction without practical relevance.
> > >>
> > >> That moderator subsequently went on to ban me when I disagreed.
> > >>
> > >> "service networking restart" does its job the way it is intended, and
> > >> moreover, there is no other way to do it (that I know of).
> > >>
> > >> So I questioned his statements the way I would do with any normal
> person.
> > >> I said "Well apparently it does something, doesn't it?" "It kills my
> > >> network link" (I actually had an error in my interfaces file,
> apparently
> > >> resulting from a Debian upgrade). I said "Maybe it does something."
> > >>
> > >> Because why on earth would someone feel the need to tell me not to
> use a
> > >> certain feature only out of principle?
> > >>
> > >> It happens more. In a recent thread on SystemD someone told me not to
> use
> > >> ifconfig to acquire network device status.
> > >>
> > >> He told me to use "ip -o a" which gives a vastly reduced set of
> > >> information and is not useful to be parsed by a human.
> > >>
> > >> And he said "I hate that distributions have not deprecated it yet"
> > >> (ifconfig).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Linux people often have this habit of telling you what to do.
> > >>
> > >> They are also telling you how to do a certain thing, as if there is
> only
> > >> one correct way.
> > >>
> > >> The English phrase applies. There is more than one way to kill a cat.
> But
> > >> to many this thought is not acceptable. No, you will use THE way that
> we
> > >> have all agreed on is the only way that should be used.
> > >>
> > >> I consider this deeply offensive. I am not to be told by random
> strangers
> > >> how to live my life.
> > >>
> > >> Yet when I make an issue ouf of this in any IRC channel manned by
> Linux
> > >> people, I get into a fight with a moderator, because it is most often
> > >> moderators (that you cannot identify) making such statements.
> > >>
> > >> And even if you could identify them, the way it is (because of past
> > >> experience for example) -- this is not acceptable human conduct.
> Telling
> > >> people how to behave, what to do, is not acceptable human conduct.
> > >>
> > >> I was going to say "how to act" but they don't actually tell you what
> > >> choices to make. You are right about that. They leave you free in your
> > >> choice, but they still try to curtail what you /DO/. You are allowed
> to
> > >> make the choice to pursue a certain route, as long as you don't use
> the
> > >> commands that are necessary for it, so to speak. Useless distinction?
> Not
> > >> so.
> > >>
> > >> When I first got into trouble in #ubuntu it was with a person called
> > >> Ikonia. She would remember. I am a 1000% sure it is a woman, because
> no
> > >> man
> > >> would behave like that.
> > >>
> > >> Some have identity disorders though, but that aside.
> > >>
> > >> First I didn't know she was a moderator, but that shouldn't have
> > >> mattered. She was aggressively pursuing a path of dissuading a person
> to
> > >> do
> > >> a certain thing that she considered the "wrong" thing to do. "Do it
> > >> right."
> > >> she said. She said "I disagree. Do it right."
> > >>
> > >> The person was relaxed about it and toyed with it a little. He said
> > >> "Well, the more objections you give, the more stuff I think of I need
> to
> > >> do
> > >> before I reboot". She was complaining that he was still talking about
> the
> > >> issue she thought she had cut short.
> > >>
> > >> She had said "Maybe technically it is possible, but it is not
> > >> acceptable."
> > >>
> > >> "The risks are not acceptable."
> > >>
> > >> Pardon me? You can decide for another what risks are acceptable for
> him?
> > >>
> > >> The issue, namely, was a choice between driving a few hours to a
> remote
> > >> server location and doing things at site, and performing a risky
> > >> operation
> > >> that, if it failed, would end up him having to drive there anyway. So
> the
> > >> worst case scenario would be him having to drive there anyway, which
> he
> > >> would need to do regardless if he didn't attempt it. There was no
> risk.
> > >> There was no loss. There was no danger.
> > >>
> > >> I am trying to find my IRC log of it (yours). Thus far, check out this
> > >> one if you will:
> > >>
> > >> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2016/01/01/%23ubuntu.html
> > >>
> > >> And search "Ikonia". Exact same behaviour. Different person. Exact
> same
> > >> behaviour. In Dutch we call that "schofferen". It appears to
> translate to
> > >> "violate, desecrate". She is ordering that person around, the other
> > >> person
> > >> chimes in and also starts ordering him around to avoid a discussion.
> That
> > >> person was not hostile like I may have been. That person was patient
> and
> > >> at
> > >> first said polite things such as "You realize you are not helping me?"
> > >> And
> > >> Ikonia responds "Your attitude is not acceptable to me."
> > >>
> > >> I am reminded of "In order to be a master, you first have to serve."
> And
> > >> Ikonia is not serving here, she is just ordering around.
> > >>
> > >> This person is a terror.
> > >>
> > >> And I know for a fact people are going to belittle this now the way I
> > >> have written it.
> > >>
> > >> In the end that person posted the requested fdisk output after which
> > >> Ikonia immediately lost interest. By complying with her demands, the
> > >> momentum was lost and everyone lost interest.
> > >>
> > >> Apparently they coudln't solve it. But they also did not try. They
> just
> > >> tried to achieve the system they wanted without actually being
> interested
> > >> in his question.
> > >>
> > >> By my standards this current document is a horrible email as I have
> > >> suppressed most of my emotion to begin with, which is why it will seem
> > >> extremely disconnected.
> > >>
> > >> You may not understand why I am writing this at all, and I understand
> > >> that. I am tempted to delete the whole thing.
> > >>
> > >> Yet I am going to send this now and say "fuck it, fuck everything".
> > >>
> > >> Sometimes you have to not care, right?
> > >>
> > >> Maybe in the end something will come out of it, but don't expect it of
> > >> me, please.
> > >>
> > >> Oh yes and I was going to say I apologize for not having put in a
> header.
> > >> That could be considered a misconfigured email client.
> > >>
> > >> I mean a subject header. See ya, and ruin my day if you can.
> > >>
> > >> You people are good at it anyway.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> > >> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> > >> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> > > Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
>
> --
> Clay Weber
>
> --
> 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/20160508/ce56c37b/attachment.html>