Luke Bratch wrote:
Technically, he's spot on. It's his bedside manner that is broken. We really don't want him on the front line of support, somebody else should do that. But once the newbies are filtered out, he's great. - Dan
This thread has become rather long and I don't have time to catch up completely on it though I'd like to add weight to those commenting on how Vitamin deals with the channel.
Being one of the many users to suffer his wrath when I first joined the wine community I can comment on just how off putting he can be. Having helped extensively in debian and several other channels I however understand how painful it can be. I wander in and help in winehq as often as I can these days and I notice the users we tend to get are worse than those of other channels, they rarely google, they do their best not to understand, and they expect far to much. Though at the end of the day these are the people we need to be changing and adding to the community.
Furthermore, I'd like to add the comment that the majority of the time Vitamin is perfectly calm and collected in his moderating, I'd like to stress this. Though some times he acts far outside what is required of him, no user in need should be banned, _ever_, and kicking should be reserved for real pains. Patience is really what is needed here and it is some thing Vitamin lacks at least some of the time.
While I don't mind the snide attitudes of those helping in the channel, as they are result of users being dealt with (and I am guilty of it myself), I would like to see a reduction in the ability to moderate those users so that they are not abused beyond reason.
At the end of the day you can use words far more effectively to deal with a nuisance than a ban and this is some thing any one with OP power needs to understand.
Edward
On Nov 6, 2007 7:27 AM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Actually, Dan, I disagree. I don't think he needs to be taken off the 'frontlines' at all. I don't even think his ops permissions need to be taken away, at least not yet. I think it's #winehq which needs to be taken care of. We could ban Vitamin off the face of the internet, but that's not going to fix anything. However, adding rules and conditions to the channel might. First of all, if there are rules in place for how admins should act, it is fairer for everyone. Admins don't get banned or de@'d for things they didn't think were a problem, and users don't get banned or kicked for things they didn't think were problems. In addition, a set of rules would increase efficiency, as it could get better answers from users, and quicker, more accurate replies from others; which apart from being nicer on users, would also be less stressful for people supporting them. Lastly, and I think the best benefit to rules, is that they somewhat 'dehumanize' the banning process, if they're made correctly. Admins would know precisely when they can or cannot ban someone, so they do not have to worry about getting in trouble over it, and users have no one to be angry at but themselves when they are removed by force.
Even simple rules could help. For example, add the following to the IRC page of appdb, and link to that instead of the FAQ in the channel topic:
Rules for #winehq: 1. Before you do anything, read the FAQ. 2. After that, check the appdb and google to see if anyone has already had your problem. 3. If you find nothing after an honest effort of searching, try #winehq, and ask your question as follows: a. Phrase your question in the best English you can (no chtspk, please), and describe the problem as thoroughly as possible. b. Include any information that may be of help, such as OS/distro, wine --version, things you've already tried, <other thelpful info here> 4. After you have asked, be patient. #winehq is made up entirely of volunteers, and even if someone who wants to help might not know what to do in your case. On the other hand, someone who does might get annoyed by your antics, and ignore you anyway. 5. Again, remember #winehq is made up of volunteers. Please do not mistreat them, or you may be kicked at an admin's discretion. 6. If an admin asks you to stop doing something, please stop doing it. If you do not, you may be kicked.
That would be simple and quick enough for any user who is going to get a reply anyway. The admin rules would need to be a bit more complex (how to try to treat people, what they can't ask people to stop doing, when they can break out the banhammer), but not very much so.
This also has the benefit of any action taken against @s being purely a 'you broke the rules' decision, instead of a 'convicted in the court of public opinion' covering-of-#winehq's-ass.
This thread has made me nothing but sick...... Chris suggest we ban Vitamin, Jeremy suggested he not use his OP privileges for a time. others bitch and cry that there being treated mean... But as the song goes, one should never spit into the wind. So with that said until Vitamin is asked to be a OP and is allowed to use those privileges as he sees fit I will no longer be in #winehq
Tom Wickline
On Nov 7, 2007 9:42 PM, Edward Savage epssyis@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. Maybe Vitaliy should simply walk away from the keyboard whenever he runs into a user who was too annoying. I once asked him to do something similar with Bugzilla replies, and it helped for a while. - Dan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
There's something many people are missing here and something that the "noobs" enforce. They come in, know little about wine, then attempt to "help" other people, of course they don't because their information and suggestions are wrong and either a) do nothing, b) make more work for other people or c) make it considerably worse. It's an annoying trend and becomes infuriating for anyone (especially when they start insulting you as well). I'm pretty sure Ghandi would have KO'ed someone with his keyboard by now.
So remember kids, bad advice is worse than no advice.
-
Ben Hodgetts (Enverex) -
Dan Kegel -
Edward Savage -
feba thatl -
Tom Wickline