New IRC channels
#lesswrong on Freenode, which used to be the official unofficial LessWrong channel, has been re-designated as a private hangout reserved for, roughly, ggreer/AngryParsley, efm, realitygrill, rsaarelm, ksotala, gwern, Grognor, chelz, cwillu, Boxo, nshepperd, ivan, mstevens, and jandrog. You’re still welcome to speak there, but only if whatever you’re saying is interesting/important to one of them and the op.
For less constrained conversation, go to #lesswrong-alt (unregistered; recommended by #lesswrong’s op), also on Freenode.
EDIT: #lesswrong’s rules have been changed to “behave like decent human beings, give ops liberally to channel regulars, don’t ban without warning or if most people disagree”. This PSA is hereby retracted.
This kind of drama is an incredible waste of time, and absolutely should not be allowed to cross over into Less Wrong proper. Still, since this post exists, I guess I’ll contribute my position.
Whether the kick and ban was warranted should be the question for discussion. Not the concept of moderation itself. Moderation policy is and should be established by precedent and discussion, not operator fiat.
The discussion going on between Burninate and Anubhav C, as cited by Jach, was not spam, was mildly interesting, and certainly should not have warranted kicks for either of them. Anubhav_C insulting Peacebringer was even less deserving of any operator activity, especially because the entire point of having an anonymous mod-bot is presumably to prevent the interference of ego and reputation! I believe that will be the consensus position. If such a consensus is established, I suggest that the operator who kicked them back down, admit an error, and stop this whole set of nonsense before it gets any worse. If the opposite consensus is reached, I suggest Anubhav back down, and likewise stop this ridiculous affair.
How, exactly, is this discussion a “waste of time”? If it is worth having an IRC channel, it is worth taking the time to ensure that it functions smoothly.
I honestly can’t tell if this post is a snarky complaint, or a honest piece of information, or what. - though I think snark is slightly more likely.
It looked a little unclear to me as well, but the bit about there now existing a new channel without such rules implied that it’s probably snark.
This is a problem I frequently experience on LW and almost never experience elsewhere. I’m never sure if it’s because of the context or my perception of the typical LW user.
It sounds snarky… but perhaps not entirely unjustified. If I was inclined to spend time on IRC I find it highly unlikely that I’d be inclined to participate on those terms.
Replacing the former channel with a new one seems like the appropriate response—assuming there are people interested in that sort of thing who are not already part of the semi-private channel.
FTR I believe I am still the only person with the highest level of privileges on that channel. I have never heard of any of this.
You’d better go back there and /kick some folks. If you don’t use your power people will wrest it from you! They’ve already established a new government—constitution and all!
(ironic)
Can you strip privileges from users? Somebody’s anonymously operating the opped Peacebringer bot and IMO abusing their privileges by banning people without bothering to explain the reason and refusing to reconsider their decisions, even though most of the folks on the channel clearly disagree with it.
(active discussion between Logos01 and some channel participants)
10:50 -!- mode/#lesswrong [+b !@unaffiliated/logos01] by Peacebringer
10:50 <@Peacebringer> and that’s enough Logos01 for this century
10:50 < katydee> Uh, what?
10:53 <@Peacebringer> ban is not directly related to above, and may be undone. don’t feel like discussing it now, though. might be undone by someone tomorrow.
10:53 <@Peacebringer> or not
10:53 < katydee> This is sort of what people talk about when they complain about the moderation here. Again, no warning, was participating in a conversation that seemed fine, etc.
10:53 < rsaarelm> That’s not good. What the hell?
10:54 < ErikMesoy> And no explanation. “Don’t feel like discussing it now” from the equivalent of the government is horribly destructive to the equivalent of the rule of law.
10:55 < katydee> Yeah. Seriously.
10:55 -!- Logos01 [~irssi@unaffiliated/logos01] has left #lesswrong []
10:56 < katydee> Weren’t we talking about trying to avoid drama and be less unilateral?
10:59 <@Peacebringer> okay, the reason is: this channel sucked a lot less before Logos01 started flooding it with thousands of lines a week
10:59 <@Peacebringer> this requires being around all the time to understand, since oct 2011
10:59 < rsaarelm> Did you tell them you think there’s a problem and ask them if they could be more on-topic?
11:00 <@Peacebringer> yeah, he’s always back in full force
11:00 < rsaarelm> Right.
11:01 < katydee> I haven’t been around since then, so I don’t know if this is a correct decision
11:01 < katydee> But regardless of that, the way this was handled seems very bad
11:01 < rsaarelm> I’d really prefer some kind of “try to stay on topic” or “let’s move this to the -alt channel” suggestion before a quiet ban.
11:02 <@Peacebringer> didn’t work
11:03 -!- efm [~efm@vpn.tummy.com] has joined #lesswrong
11:05 < rsaarelm> The way I’d prefer it is going from “please OT this” (I see you did do that earlier) to “you seem to be constantly going OT on the channel, if you don’t stop you’ll be banned” to ban.
11:06 -!- Atreides [~Xaver@d207-6-196-119.bchsia.telus.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
11:08 -!- p-given-naught [~ian@ip68-2-49-141.ph.ph.cox.net] has joined #lesswrong
11:10 < katydee> Agreed. The fact that nobody knows who Peacebringer is does not help.
11:10 < rsaarelm> Read the backlog. Not agreeing on the call to ban Logos01 based on that. Haven’t followed the channel well enough to know further discovery.
11:11 < rsaarelm> Apparently several mods have access to it.
11:11 <@Peacebringer> grep Logos01 for the last 6 months
11:11 -!- tiki [~tikitikir@202.171.168.114] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
11:12 < rsaarelm> Problem with the thing is that a lot of people were engaged with Logos01 in the above discussion, if he’d been just throwing around non-sequiturs nobody is interested in, it’d be a much clearer call to just hit ban.
11:12 < rsaarelm> But grepping.
11:13 <@Peacebringer> sorry the ban was not timed at Logos01′s lowest points
11:20 < rsaarelm> So far not seeing any crazy shit, fighty shit, weird monologuing when skimming the log. And he seems to be getting plenty of seemingly positive engagement from channel regulars.
If you’re a participant in the channel I’d be very happy to give you founder privs—have been looking for a generally-trusted person to sort that out with who is a participant in the channel, so if you’re willing let me know.
Yeah, works for me.
This has now been done: Kaj_Sotala now has the highest privs on Freenode’s #lesswrong channel.
Thank you!
I took the libery of repealing the old rules and replacing them with the following: “behave like decent human beings, give ops liberally to channel regulars, don’t ban without warning or if most people disagree”. Any further rules changes will be only instated if that’s the consensus of the channel regulars.
I agree with the request.
Umm.
Just so everyone knows, I didn’t see those rules being drafted and don’t really agree with them. (The intent may be good, but they come off sounding as a little dictatorial. In general I feel that the channel has worked fine without explicit rules of that kind, and I get a bit of a “let’s make rules for the sake of making rules” vibe from the various rule variants that have been enacted at various times.)
I’m still not clear on exactly who wrote the rules and in particular why my name is included there as a part of the channel cabal. Beyond hanging out at the channel for a while now, I haven’t been involved in channel moderation in any way, and whoever wrote the rules text never asked me about including my name there.
As far as I can tell, the rules are a well-meaning attempt at keeping the signal-to-noise ratio up on the channel, but might be served better by having a bit more clarity at exactly who sees them necessary, who is authorized to enforce them, and what the rest of the channel regulars think of the whole thing. Like, y’know, the people whose names the rules-authoring person listed in the rules text as the implied backers of the rules without asking them anything.
Enter a comment here
You are having an overreaction. (But I would also say the ops are being overzealous and inefficient with their goal of having less people suck at IRC, which seems like a fine goal.)
A person who does not want to suck at IRC should not want to participate in this behavior: http://pastebin.com/yBw1iX1C
(Times are Pacific, my client does not always log every channel event.)
Here’s the follow-up log up until this moment, which includes various chatter and discussion on this “drama”: http://pastebin.com/8Rz9PFv4
Edit: to the downvoter, I’ll happily delete both these comments if you feel that context logs shouldn’t be linked to so that anyone else on this site has a clue what this discussion is about.
Your log doesn’t show join or leave events. It’s somewhat relevant that the starting point for the argument is when
Anubhav_CandBurninate_get kicked off the channel without comment byPeacebringer(and then both rejoin) just before the “Why the kicking?” line.Yes, it’s relevant, but also completely obvious from the logs so the full context is in there. However, the major part of “not sucking at IRC” is all the stuff that precedes the exact moment when they are kicked, not the arguments over being kicked.