Posted: 28 Nov 2003 15:21
ChrisCF (chirho) is probably going to ban me from #tycoon again for posting this, but who cares?
I think enough is enough - if we are going to have an 'official' channel for the forums, we need sensible operators. I'm fed up of chirho banning people (including me) for minor things.
For example, earlier today a few of us were having a little fun communicating only via /me messages (it describes what someone is doing - eg *dominionspy goes and checks his diary). There were no other conversations going on at the time and nobody in the channel seemed to mind. Then chirho came along and started saying that we should all stop it. When we didn't he banned us all (not permanently).
Now chirho set up the channel, and that's great, but he shouldn't use that as an excuse to do whatever he wants. When asked what his good reason for banning us, he answered that it was annoying him and since he was the channel creator he could do whatever he wanted and make all the rules.
Is it just me or is that not a very good attitude for an operator?
Another instance fairly soon after, while we were 'discussing' his attitude we had this conversation:
<chirho> What I'm disputing was your having a laugh at my expense
<chirho> More accurately,
<chirho> being annoying and having a laugh at my expense.
<chirho> And then expecting to still be in this channel![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
<dominionspy> You had a laugh at my expense so why shouldn't I
<dominionspy> ?
<chirho> Because I have an @ by my name, whereas you're powerless to stop me![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
<chirho> j/k
[Ed - you'd think he was actually j/k-ing, wouldn't you?]
<dominionspy> There was no real reason to ban me - you were just abusing your powers
<broodje> I can only agree with dominionspy, but what would chirho care?
<broodje> as long as he is hapy
<chirho> Rule #1. Do not argue wiht operators over the rules.
..
<chirho> Rule #2. What the operators say, goes.
<broodje> chirho bit easy to hide behind that isnt it?
<chirho> That pretty much sums up IRC
<dominionspy> not on a channel like this - you are answerable to the members
<chirho> Why am I answerable ot the members?
<dominionspy> because of the nature of the channel - it is the official tt-forums channel
<chirho> And?
<dominionspy> if you abuse the op powers, people can complain
<chirho> I founded this channel. I'm not answerable to anyone that doesn't have an @
<chirho> End of story.
...
[More exchanges over his 'policy']
...
<chirho> And enough arguing over my policy.
<dominionspy> chirho: any way - you are now not welcome in my channels
* chirho sets mode +b *!*@dominionspy.users.quakenet.org
* You have been kicked by chirho ([12:03:24] <chirho> And enough arguing over my policy.)
I personally don't think I was still arguing over his policy, but any way.
If he takes this stance, then why not just create a new channel where we can all converse without being banned for stupid things like that?
I think enough is enough - if we are going to have an 'official' channel for the forums, we need sensible operators. I'm fed up of chirho banning people (including me) for minor things.
For example, earlier today a few of us were having a little fun communicating only via /me messages (it describes what someone is doing - eg *dominionspy goes and checks his diary). There were no other conversations going on at the time and nobody in the channel seemed to mind. Then chirho came along and started saying that we should all stop it. When we didn't he banned us all (not permanently).
Now chirho set up the channel, and that's great, but he shouldn't use that as an excuse to do whatever he wants. When asked what his good reason for banning us, he answered that it was annoying him and since he was the channel creator he could do whatever he wanted and make all the rules.
Is it just me or is that not a very good attitude for an operator?
Another instance fairly soon after, while we were 'discussing' his attitude we had this conversation:
<chirho> What I'm disputing was your having a laugh at my expense
<chirho> More accurately,
<chirho> being annoying and having a laugh at my expense.
<chirho> And then expecting to still be in this channel
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
<dominionspy> You had a laugh at my expense so why shouldn't I
<dominionspy> ?
<chirho> Because I have an @ by my name, whereas you're powerless to stop me
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
<chirho> j/k
[Ed - you'd think he was actually j/k-ing, wouldn't you?]
<dominionspy> There was no real reason to ban me - you were just abusing your powers
<broodje> I can only agree with dominionspy, but what would chirho care?
<broodje> as long as he is hapy
<chirho> Rule #1. Do not argue wiht operators over the rules.
..
<chirho> Rule #2. What the operators say, goes.
<broodje> chirho bit easy to hide behind that isnt it?
<chirho> That pretty much sums up IRC
<dominionspy> not on a channel like this - you are answerable to the members
<chirho> Why am I answerable ot the members?
<dominionspy> because of the nature of the channel - it is the official tt-forums channel
<chirho> And?
<dominionspy> if you abuse the op powers, people can complain
<chirho> I founded this channel. I'm not answerable to anyone that doesn't have an @
<chirho> End of story.
...
[More exchanges over his 'policy']
...
<chirho> And enough arguing over my policy.
<dominionspy> chirho: any way - you are now not welcome in my channels
* chirho sets mode +b *!*@dominionspy.users.quakenet.org
* You have been kicked by chirho ([12:03:24] <chirho> And enough arguing over my policy.)
I personally don't think I was still arguing over his policy, but any way.
If he takes this stance, then why not just create a new channel where we can all converse without being banned for stupid things like that?