>> The log you have supplied does not include anywhere near the full conversation I apologise for not including the full log as I didn't see it necessary to my point. Please however do not assume there is some malicious reason behind it as you suggested. >> And before you argue that evading a +q does not warrant a ban, let me rebut: YES IT DOES. Forgive me for not knowing the specifics of IRC or what you did in the first place but here is what I saw before you banned him for "ban evasion" >> man_in_shack sets ban on %tsukasa!*@* tsukasa_ then dropped out the channel then joined back and says >> <tsukasa_> real mature tsukasa_ may have broken the channel rules but only after you reacted in an inappropriate manner. If you had asked him to wait then he would not have been banned and you or someone else in the channel would have eventually answered his question. Banning is not the standard way of making someone wait while you try and understand their question to help them. I'm happy you were able to resolve this however if his question was answered rather then being banned for a situation you created, the user would have left happy and satisfied rather then having to come to the mailing list to get unbanned so he could try and get his question answered a second time around. Again it's great that you sorted this out, but my concern is that if these situations continue to happen it is going to make the wine community look bad. It was only a few weeks ago that someone else was complaining on the mailing list that they were unfairly banned from the channel. Sorry if it looks like I am picking on you, my interests are in making users see the good wine community and not be burned by bad judgements. I'm glad you're helping out in the wine channel and I'm sure this is a rare incident. May I suggest in the future that if you want someone wait while you figure out what they're doing you ask them to wait instead of forcefully removing them from the channel. Doing such a thing means others can not help you to answer the questions and also kills a user's good mood. People can sometimes be difficult in describing their problems however you must remember to try and stay positive and work with them. On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2009/3/22 Andrew Fenn <andrewfenn@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Why did you ban/kick him in the first place instead of explain you >> can't help him? I don't see any reason for this behaviour as it was >> only you guys active in the channel at the time. >> >> I've attached the log to this email for people not there. Do you >> regularly ban people whose questions you can't answer or is this a >> special case? > > The log you have supplied does not include anywhere near the full > conversation, not that it's really relevant any more. If I didn't know > better, I'd say you've doctored it to make me look bad. > > After closely re-reading what he said in the channel and on > wine-users, I know what he was doing - two X server instances, one > with Twinview and both displays active, the other with only one > display active - but I still don't understand why he was doing it, nor > was it particularly clear at the time. (He seemed to be saying he was > using an X server on display 1 and an X server on display 2 working > both with and without Twinview at the same time.) > >>>> 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 think >> someone is wasting your time then just tell them you can't help them >> and/or go to a different channel. > > I did NOT kick him for contradicting himself. I imposed what was > intended to be a temporary +q while I tried to work out what he was > doing from his contradictory information, and give him the best advice > from that. He didn't give me the chance to do this, and instead evaded > the +q, which warrants instant ban (though not permanent ban). He then > got kicked by the resident bot. > > Let me put this in the simplest terms possible. He was banned for ban > evasion, not for any disagreement we had before that. The ban is now > lifted as it was never intended to be permanent. I have already > apologised for the length of time it took to lift the ban, as I had to > go out. What more could I have done? > > And before you argue that evading a +q does not warrant a ban, let me > rebut: YES IT DOES. >
