Undernet Management
From Callahan's Wiki
The #callahans Undernet Channel could not function without the hard work and dedication of its channel manager and operators. If you need any help or have a comment, feel free to contact any of them on IRC.
Contents |
Channel Manager
NOTE: Channel is currently registered with CService with MiB as 500. There are hopefully enough people in various time zones who log in at different times of day as level 100 ops to handle drive-by spammers. MiB has created a generic 'channel policy' guide to help avoid any unneccesary conflict. MiB is keeping the list of op'd folks below to keep himself sane, and for the list to be public w/o folks needing to log into X to ask.
Patron Expectations
People have asked me for an idea of what I 'expect' (read as, hope for) from patrons. The following is a log from channel one AM when I explained a basic idea of it.
BEGIN LOG
Here's my #1 objective:
People need to be civil to one another. I don't mind (and frequently enjoy) when channel discussions last for hours, even when they're argumentative. That's peachy. However, what I will not 'sit by' for, and have not sat for in the past without interceding, is for things to be uncivil and devolve to purely a sequence of repetition of the exact same points with increasing emotional impact. I've yet to see that turn out well, in 15 years.
What I *expect* people to do, as a generic Acceptable Patron policy *grin*, is to recognize when they're just screaming into the wind at each other, and to say "Hey, How about we come back to this later, after rethinking each other's position?" I'll tell you, I've never seen a 1-sided argument in my life, and if it's truly just 1 person ranting w/o any feedback and w/o respecting requests from people to let it go as everyone else has, then that person is clearly the one who might need the extra 'push to be civil' that a kick or kick/ban would bring.
Specifically, my point is, argue all ya want, no specific topic is to be considered off limits, 2 people or 20 can go on about something, BUT if it's devolved into purely emotional screaming, it'll be dealt with, preferably as nicely as possible to get folks to tone it down to continue it reasonably, but if not, then the 'channel will be saved from itself', so to speak.
As an aside, in terms of how often I think people need to be punted out of channel: Think of how many folks I have kicked or kick/banned over the years, VS the number of times I've MSG'd folks privately and in channel and said "Hey, I appreciate both the PoV's, but just let it sit a bit, and try coming back to it later, when the adrenaline is out of your system" and then enforcing that as needed.
That's about all I have to say on it, really, for the moment. Civility is pretty easy to define, honestly. If people are repeatedly feeling insulted, then odds are, they *are* being insulted, whether on purpose or not, and the folks involved should respect that fact, and should 'stand down' and come back to the topic later.
END LOG
Addendum: This has been an issue lately. REREAD the previous paragraph. If someone feels insulted, then they *are* most likely being insulted. So, if someone says "Let it go, this has gone into personal attacks" then LET IT GO. I've seen several cases of this. NO TOPIC is so important it simply *must* be hammered out right now.
Addendum to the Addendum: The above obviously didn't cut it. We've had some issues lately that I want to address.
There have been incidents where folks express (often vehemently or even possibly aggressively) to a channel operator that there will be some sort of ramifications if they haven't performed as I might expect in a specific situation. In other cases, channel operators have had to work thru an appeal where someone feels they need to argue a decision and refer to my 'rulings' and either quote back my in-channel comments or copy/paste from here and highlight specific words or phrases.
Let me be clear about a few things, wearing my 'channel dictator' hat for moment.
The first is, I'm a firm believer in the idea that you can't give someone the authority/responsibility of doing something without also backing up their reasoning for doing it, barring egregious violations of that trust. To date, I've not seen any event that I'd categorize in that way, so although I am expanding on my 'operator techniques and suggestions' below, I quite definitely don't want anyone to ever expect that I'm going to somehow 'come down on' an operator because of their decision or actions in a situation where they were the boots on ground at the time and acted accordingly. That doesn't mean I won't advise someone to act differently in a future incident or even remove someone's ops or if an action was outrageous even ban/permaban someone for an action taken while an operator, but the flip side is that operators need to know they are trusted and within reason their decisions will stand up, pending some major review. I don't expect many people need to 'fear' retribution from 'the channel manager'. Someone could be advised they are not going to have to deal with channel operation issues either for a while or at all. Really, ops isn't about status or importance, it's a volunteer position. *If* I do determine that it doesn't seem to be in the channel's best interests for a specific operator to maintain that position, it's not a judgement of the person, just a statement that for good or bad, I've had enough input to feel that it's not a good fit. So, there's no real 'threat' to an operator that I might disagree with their actions; an operator is no more or less 'visible' to me than anyone else, they just happen to have volunteered to help out and may or may not asked to continue to help out. Read the section on operators below, if you're wondering how the idea of 'anyone can be an op' works. It's my 'dictatorship thru a bit of democracy' in action.
The second is, I've made my opinion known for quite some time that "People have the ability in IRC to use /ignore and actually not see anything from someone, unless they try to evade it." I've been a HUGE proponent of /ignore. However, the result has been that it's become more of a distraction to channel as patrons attempt to keep up with portions of a flow of conversation, and has placed operators in the untenable position of being unable to use /ignore and still do what they've volunteered to do. Also, I've witnessed /ignore being used as an excuse for behavior that's not just beyond the bounds of civility, but into the range of directly and deliberately insulting. Now, that's a VERY subjective analysis, and I'm no more or less infallible than anyone else. That said, I've had enough requests to result in my reviewing my opinions (again with the democratic dictatorship!). I will *still* recommend that folks use /ignore as needed and will *still* ask that people be aware that there are folks in channel you simply will not be able to stand and who you just can't *stomach* the idea of seeing their drivel, and ask that /ignore be considered. To expand on this a bit, I will also state that "Someone can just /ignore me, no matter what I do" will no longer be able to be used as a justification for pushing buttons. I won't see channel turned into a place where "That topic is off limits", but I also know I've had requests from enough people that indicate there needs to be some firmer direction on what's 'reasonable'. If you're confused, read the entire page from the top down to this point again. Anyone who makes a statement of "I can get away with X because they can just ignore me" has crossed the line as they're now using that as a justification. Conversely, someone who says "I don't want to /ignore you, you must stop doing X" is doing something just as unreasonable.
How to handle these cases and issues? I think it's easy enough, actually. There have been few major issues in #C that haven't worked themselves out 'naturally'. The remaining issues are, I think, due to a lack of clarity earlier and I'm hoping that my commentary above helps. I don't *like* to wear a dictator hat, but honestly, I've read a LOT of westerns, and that means I'm known to be a fan of the lawman walking into town and saying "This much uncontrolled freedom seems to be too much for some people to handle without some assistance. A few hangings ought to get their attention and identify the lines." I'm very serious about this part. I *will* actively and directly (through in-channel commentary, posts here, and kicks or bans if necessary) or indirectly (through supporting operators who make determinations of proper actions) identify some of these lines 'empirically' if need be.
If you *think* you're crossing a line, you probably are. If you're *accused* of crossing a line, you *might be* and you need to take a minute, think about it, and determine if you are. If you have to cool off or let the topic die down and talk about it again later when you're more sure you're 'aware' of your position and the effects of defending that position are less visible, do so. See my original addendum above. I know every one of you know what it means to be 'civil' and 'decent' in the ways I'm using the words (don't play dictionary games with this sentence either). Feel free to debate, about a topic. Attack a position, not the proponent. Listen to the other side. Play nice. Enjoy each others' company. Share the pain. Share the Joy. *Be Excellent To Each Other*.
Level 100 Expectations
Read the 'X' how-to and documentation. I'm not writing a primer here as the Undernet doc on their website is pretty darned inclusive. Don't wear your @ unless you understand how to use it. If you want help or examples, snag another @ since they're listed above and ask :) As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has the technical capability and who wants to be an L100 operator can be, until and unless in my determination (dictator hat, sorry, I have to wear it from time to time) they're just unable to fill the position in such a way as to benefit the channel.
If you're a level 100, then you have the ability to kick, ban, and unban people from the channel. I expect this to be generally used for drive-by spammers, and less frequently for intra-channel issues. *IF* people will simply not achieve the simplest and most basic form of civil discourse, try to de-escalate, give plenty of notice that it's gotten to an actionable point, explain the action you are about to take if things continue, and then do so. Afterwards, please snag one of the 499's or myself if possible, so we know what's come up that was 'involved' enough to result in an kick, ban, etc.
The reason for this is simply to avoid any hard feelings from people who think that they're being targeted for whatever reason. Especially right now, everyone's going to be discussing a lot of reasons they want channel to look or feel one way or another, which is a good type of discussion to be having. Obviously, it'll probably be emotionally involved at times, which is also good, since many of us spend hours a day in channel, and have been friends or associated with people in channel for years.
It is very easy for things to 'get out of hand' and for an operator to feel that the easiest solution is a kick or a kick/ban. We're not going to do it the easy way. If there's a conflict, I want people to appeal to each others' sense of "We're all in this together" and to say "This is getting too much of *something*. It's time for PRIVMSG or to come back to it later." If you're a L100 op, please consider yourself as no more or no less responsible for civil behavior than any other patron, other than your willingness to deal with the effort of wearing the @. This is not a slight on any L100's. We could just have some 499's, and no other ops, and let X strictly handle who's allowed in channel, but I personally feel that the channel can generally handle itself the best, given the concept that we all are supposed to care about each other, and we're all adults. This is a bit too idealistic, so we need L100's, The flip side is, L100's aren't going to be help 'unaccountable'.
The short version is, as a L100, kicks and bans will commonly be for spammers, and appeals for civility should be enough to manage situations w/o taking direct action. If not, and the appeals for civility are well done, and there's still no reasonable reaction by the person or persons in questions, then when a L100 does take direct action, there shouldn't be any doubt in a reasonable person's mind that it's the right thing to have done. Ultimately, I'm the only 'reasonable' person.
Examples
This is a placeholder for some examples I'll possibly put in to 'disambiguate' the 'fluffy' stuff above.
Channel Operators
All Non-500 Ops interim status
(These can change at any time. Please note: if a user doesn't log into X regularly, X *will* delete your account, so what's listed here is a list as it was submitted to X. If a user has been deleted from X, then they may be on this list and not actually have the capabilities shown anymore. If you're on this list and want to *stay* on the list, you need to log into X regularly. If you find out you've been deleted by X and need to be re-added, contact MiB or one of the 499's.)
- ManinBlak (500)
- ArcMaster (499)
- Beki (499)
- Da5id (499)
- FreeTrav (499)
- PauAmma (499)
- RubyMeg (499)
- BassBone (100)
- CaptJosh (100)
- Confthulu (100)
- cygnata (100)
- DrWelby (100)
- femakita (100)
- Flaim (100)
- Jazzerat (100)
- Jubal (100)
- keemo (100)
- kuru (100)
- Linut (100)
- Nanassi (100)
- Necromancer (100)
- Nightshade (100)
- rain_man (100)
- shadocat (100)
- squirreli (100)
- Tamara (100)
- Solace (Bot, Retired until needed again)
- Callahan (Bot, Retired as op, retains code, and can be re-activated simply by opping him))
