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.
