On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Michael Banck wrote: > Looking at the log, your question was being addressed for 10 minutes > before you were silenced (definetely more than "a word or two"), and > dondelecaro gave you useful input as well. When the discussion > seemed to drift away, you were advised to take it elsewhere, which > you declined. You were also warned several times that you were being > off-topic. Just to clarify for those following along at home, the first +q was put in place for ten minutes as a time out to stop the off topic discussion and ideally to get the participants to move to another channel. (A +q silences the individual in question, while allowing them to remain on the channel.) We've been using this more and more often to try to curtail things in the channel before they get out of hand; whether it's absolutely ideal in a specific situtation is mediated by the short term duration of +q. > I don't particularly agree with the second ban, though. The secondary +q was put in place because the user in question appeared to want to spend more time merely arguing about the ban in public instead of just getting on with life. [Clearly, #debian isn't the appropriate place for such a complaint; I'm not even convinced that -project is.] Since at the time, I was the only op around, and had other things to do, I couldn't leave the situtation unresolved. Silencing a user who has stopped contributing to the channel is the obvious solution. Don Armstrong -- "The question of whether computers can think is like the question of whether submarines can swim." -- Edsgar Dijkstra http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature