Goobla whining again (Doesnt he ever STFU?)

[Joel Fagin]

We have plenty of threads to mug.

But gently, please! We don't want things to get ugly.

'Coz then, you know, they'd be ugly mugs.

Um. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

- Joel Fagin

[Risky]

...pun.

[TheGoobla]

Who... cares?

The person who got banned. Haven't you been paying attention?!

Actually, I wasn't terribly concerned because of the kickban. It just primarily bothered me for some reason that the prevailing current of thought apparently blames the topic for any rudeness rather then the individuals discussing the topic.

Okay, that may be a strange thing to obsess over. But even so, as I've written in my posted dissertation above, it's still nothing but gibberish! Pure gibberish I tells ya!! And I still stand by my accusations of gibberish and irresponsibility.

[Dotty]

I wasn't there.

That being said, sorry that you got kick/banned for having a discussion with someone else about a political topic. I dunno if it got heated, or what, but I figure with it being 20-30 minutes, if that estimate is correct, it probably did.

I'm down with you battling for the principle and all, but I do have a solution. Next time, if you find you're annoying some people, ask the guy/gal you're debating with to either take it to PM or to take it to another channel, like #keenpolitics or something.

That way you make everybody happy.

Again, sorry you feel you were mistreated.

[Jackhass]

Your rants really could use some Cliff-notes.

[Beyonder_alpha]

A user controlled comic genesis channel will always lead to trouble.
Only give the admins of the board @ status, the rest should only have + status.
Simple as that.


No more juvenile ban-wars.

[Sam_Charette]

Dude... just because YOU like it doesn't mean the majority of others there do as well. In fact, I'd be surprised if even half of the people there are interested in your conversation.

The problem isn't just that they are uninterested, though. The problem is that in a heated debate you and your opponent are going back and forth, a lot, and pushing the text that everyone else is trying to read off of the screen making their conversations more difficult to follow.

To make everyone happy, just move it to another channel, or take it to PM. You still get your debate, and everyone else who wants nothing to do with it can go on with the regular keenchat and not be forced to sift through your discussion.

I wasn't there, but assuming you were asked to take it off-chanel repeatedly I would have supported a temporary kick/ban because by not taking it elsewhere you were imposing your interest in the subject on everyone else. That's plain rude, and expecting that to NOT get you banned is both silly and terribly misguided.

[Rkolter]

What Sam said.

[VileTerror]

I have a habit of this, so let's not break tradition by leaving my nostril cavity out of somebody else's business.

I wasn't there, but banishment is akin to suicide in that it is never "The Answer".

Now . . . everybody get on their knees and apologize to Gooby. *pulls out the Kneeling Bludgeon*

[McDuffies]

I don't see why chatroom would be much different than the common conversation. When you're sitting with your friend and chatting, politics conversation might come up. Some who are present in the room at the time might be uninterested in a conversation you're having with someone else too. You might decide to stop the conversation for his sake but then again, you have the same rights on the room as he does.
It's not a matter of rules, it's a matter of good manners. See, when you start making rules like "no politics" or "no religion", you are on the way of ruining friendly chat atmosphere by making people consider whether what they're discussing is allowed or not. If something should stop you from discussing something most of people aren't interested in, it shouldn't be rules, and it shouldn't be the fear of kickban, it should be good manners and consideration for other people.
Now, of course, some people have more tact, some have less, some people take care of good manners, some forget about them. Some people use napkin, others use tablecloth. But then again, everyone has his bad moments besides his good moments. Everyone tends to forget manners for some reason, once in a while. For instance, lots of people forget good manners when other person's political opinion irritates them.
But then again, look at this option: If I'm in a room where political discussion is held, I will often vate into a semi-private talk with someone who also isn't part of the discussion. Human hearing has a nice option of singling out an important voice out of the bunch, so I can hear him and he can hear me even if we're at oposite sides of the room. I tend to do that with chatroom too, when the main talk is something not interesting to me and I don't feel like idling, I make a sort of sub-chat with someone. As with hearing, I pay attention only to posts that concern my talk. And for the record, to me, conversations about anime, online games or films currently in theatre are no more interesting to me than politics (even less) but I don't think I have right to complain about it because once in a while, I too hoard the chatroom with the conversation someone else isn't interested in.

To Sam: But on chatroom, you never know whether people are idling because of your conversation or because they have other business - you know as well how sometimes chatroom can go quiet even though a bunch of people are logged on - so you can't really say if there's a bunch of people waiting for you to stop unless they tell you so.

[K-Dawg]

A user controlled comic genesis channel will always lead to trouble.
Only give the admins of the board @ status, the rest should only have + status.
Simple as that.


No more juvenile ban-wars.

And yet it was one of the actual admins who did the kickban. And there has never been any ban-wars before that i've ever seen.

[Sam_Charette]

Human hearing has a nice option of singling out an important voice out of the bunch

We're not talking about hearing here. We're talking about reading, and some of us aren't as good at singling out certain voices as you may be. More importantly, if the debate is heated, you may not be FAST enough to read the rest of the stuff. You may have to scroll up, and then will have lost your place where you were, and it becomes REALLY annoying.

Yeah, this has happened to me in the past.

To Sam: But on chatroom, you never know whether people are idling because of your conversation or because they have other business - you know as well how sometimes chatroom can go quiet even though a bunch of people are logged on - so you can't really say if there's a bunch of people waiting for you to stop unless they tell you so.

You're absolutely right, and so there's no reason not to talk politics with someone if you two are the only ones in the room. If, however, you're not and people ask you to move it elsewhere, you should. If the majority doesn't want to have to sift through your conversation, then you should take your conversation to a place where only those interested can partake. It's not like this is a new concept here.

And it doesn't really matter what the subject is. What's important is that if you have a very vocal conversation going on that no one else cares about, then you're making the IRC difficult for many other people unnecessarily. Again, if no one's complaining, then go ahead. If a lot of people are, though, because no one but you and one other person wants to discuss it, move it elsewhere.

If something should stop you from discussing something most of people aren't interested in, it shouldn't be rules, and it shouldn't be the fear of kickban, it should be good manners and consideration for other people.

Precisely, but unfortunately not everyone has a proper set of manners, and when they ignore what the majority is saying (i.e. "Please take this elsewhere because only you two want to discuss it and you're making life difficult for us here") then they are being rude and deserve any kick/ban they get.

Rules are there to guide those with little common sense of their own.

[-Fanny pack]

This is somewhat offtopic but related in a very (very, very, very) tenuous way. It comes from the episode of Red vs Blue entitled "Real Life vs the Internet" and was copy and pasted from this transcript of that episode.

* Black screen with words: Discussing Politics - Real Life *

* Church standing in front of Sarge *

Church: Look, that's just the way I feel about it.

Sarge: Well I disagree, but I respect your opinion.

* Black screen with words: Discussing Politics - Internet *

* A full fledged firefight *

Church: You deserve to DIE! Die, and go to hell and burn!

Sarge: Oh yeah!? Well I hope you get raped! Twice! Maybe then you'll feel different! Jerk!

Grif: We don't need to find any weapons of mass destruction! We just need to want to find 'em. That's the way it works!

Simmons: I voted for Nader! I hate everyone!

Doc: Would you like to change your homepage to moveon.org?

Donut: Politics makes me soooooo horny. Check out my webcam pic at PresidentialSluts.com!

I love Red vs Blue.

[ShineDog]

its the fact that you went on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. long after the entire channel was sick of it.

it wasnt anyone trying to censor your debate, just people who had tired of it and wanted you to take that debate elsewhere, if i remember rightly, you were asked to take it to PM, then you started getting holier than thou about it, and pretty damn hostile i think.

so, it wasnt so much youre talking about politics, it was your talking about politics after it was a dead subject, and your being obnoxious about it. :/

[STrRedWolf]

I was about to say it, but Sam said it best. Alot of folks don't like it when you spam or flood a chatroom with something THEY object to. It drowns out the other conversation, and War was correct in kick/banning goobla (if only for five minutes.

War isn't an admin. He's a forum wrangler. The only admins here are me and Kisai, with Phalanx helping here and on the listserv (yes! The old KeenSpace mail list is being despammed and is now moderated by me and Phalanx! Come on back!).

Now most of the time I'm idle on IRC, but don't get me wrong -- I'll try to read the scrollback if something goes wrong and I will exersize my right to kick/ban someone who's abusing then channel. If the actions become repeated, or flow into the forums, they will be delt with in totality, including the removal of the user's comic (something I DO NOT want to have to do).

Ugh. I'm locking this thread.

[STrRedWolf]

Oh, and before you start arguing what's objectionable and what is not, I'd like to point you to an actual case in California which is just wrapping up. The case is Pallorium Vs. Jared (docket# 03cc12794) involving publishing advisory lists of IP addresses known to be spammers or support spamming activities. While not binding (until Pallorium does the stupid thing and appeals), a worthwhile quote is:

The Communications Decency Act, [Section]230(c)(2)(A), also provides immunity for the provider or user of an interactive computer service for any action volutarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availabiliy of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lews, lascivious, filthy, exessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...

Further, the Court heard evidence that unsolicited e-mails are a burden on individual internet users and burden ISP's who must use bandwidth to deliver those messages. They can also be destructive, as shown by the denial of service attack on Jared. For these reasons, the Court concludes that [Unsolicitated Bulk Emails], by their virtue of their mere volume and regardless of it's content, are harassing and objectionable. Under Federal law, any good faith attempt to restrict access to spam would be protected.

The full ruling is quite a good read for the layperson. I would recommend folks do read the full ruling.