Re: Complaint about #debian operator

[Michael Spang <mike@midgard.no-ip.org>]

Michael Banck wrote:

> > If josh got banned for his conduct, maybe deadcat should also get
> > banned?
> >    
>
> Well, maybe, yeah.  I am not a channel operator, though.  Also note that
> deadcat is AFAIK at least a semi-regular, i.e. he spends a considerable
> amount of time in #debian and might be helpful at other times.  I
> believe we should be much more cautious to ban (semi-)regulars not just
> on one or two bad occasions, the accusation that Debian Developers are
> power-hungry freaks who tend to ban regulars for no good reason has been
> voiced before, see this from the same log even:
>
> [01:38] PerfDave: azeem: No, it is true. Every now and again a bunch of
>        Debian people come along, get all shitty and ban all the
>        regulars for no reason, then they get bored and fuck off again
>        and things return to usual :)
>
> I don't think this is actually true, of course, but me should be very
> sensitive to this in order to avoid alienating the helpful and good
> regulars in #debian.
>  
Are regulars who are helpful only "some of the time" but who act like 
deadcat did at others really necessary? deadcat should have had, at the 
very least, a stern warning. I don't think allowing such conduct without 
so much as a word just because he might have been helpful at one time 
and because nobody wants to scare him away is a good idea. deadcat's 
messages might not offend other regulars, because they are used to that 
sort of thing, but newcomers will take them more seriously. I'm more in 
favor of being careful not to scare away the newcomers than being 
careful not to offend regulars who should know better.

Michael Spang