Why did you ban/kick him in the first place instead of explain youcan't help him? I don't see any reason for this behaviour as it wasonly you guys active in the channel at the time. I've attached the log to this email for people not there. Do youregularly ban people whose questions you can't answer or is this aspecial case? >> You were *quietted* (a +q or % ban) because you appeared to be contradicting yourself. That's a poor excuse to kick someone from the channel. If you thinksomeone is wasting your time then just tell them you can't help themand/or go to a different channel. On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> -- Sun Mar 22 00:38:45 CDT 2009, tsukasa1105 said:>> man_in_shack banned me during a casual conversation where i>> was explaining my dual x server wine setup, saying I was>> contradicting myself. I obviously wasn't trying to contradict myself,>>if I did, and I don't see how this is ban-worthy under any circumstance.>> man_in_shack here.>> You were *quietted* (a +q or % ban) because you appeared to be> contradicting yourself. While I was going over what you said and> trying to work out the best way to respond, you parted and rejoined> with a nick that was not covered by the % ban. This is ban evasion,> and this is the reason why you were banned. I have a zero-tolerance> policy for any ban evader.>> Also note, there is no such thing as a "casual conversation" in> #winehq (or if there is, it should be moved to #winehq-social).> #winehq is a support channel.>> The ban is lifted, and I apologise for the length of time it took. I> had an event to attend and removed the ban as soon as I got back home.>>-------------- next part --------------A non-text attachment was scrubbed...Name: wine.logType: application/octet-streamSize: 1579 bytesDesc: not availableURL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20090322/7b204178/attachment.obj>
