+ Larger Font
| + Smaller Font
Page is dedicated for those who have questions about what dialog has
been going between myself (edub) and ops for #Scripture. This would
also be required reading for any new ops.
kick offensive nicks such as fagkiller? - Yes.. ask them (nicely of
course) to change the nick.. if not, then ban thru X is fine (which
will kick them).
This does not include philosophically offensive nicks.. like NAZI or Communist or whatever else nicks
foul language or vulgar behavior...
another "rule" which actually to me comes under the "no
foul language" rule is a rule against general vulgar behavior on
the channel. This rule was recently clarified to include sexually explicit
behavior on the channel, which caused a minor outrage from some channel
people's ham radio call signs...
is a federally issued ID, and that it does directly indicate the identity
of a person. Additionaly, the fraudulent use of a call sign can carry
federal penalties. Although federal law does not interfere with irc
nicks, perhaps the person using a person's call sign could be asked
to change the nick nicely?
who don't already know.
ahead and opened up #ScriptureHelp. It will have minimal rules. Basically
allowing people to get help who cannot get into #Scripture if it is set to +r for example. I am logging it similarly
to logging #Scripture, however I think people with complaints could
be directed over there to make personal
complaints or complaints about channel policies etc.
with rule violation...
on, whenever someone on channel is in violation of a rule, instead of
using the private message approach, what if the person's violation were
made a channel topic, by asking the person (or the channel) if they
see support for their offensive behavior in
if a person is insulting someone (calling them an XXX), then a topic
for discussion might be:
scripture support the idea that people will call others XXX's in heaven?
of attitude is expressed in referring to someone as an XXX? And what
does the scripture say about this attitude?
by opening up the behavior to a scriptural discussion, that this will
tend to diffuse it. If the person doesn't regard the scripture in the
first place, then maybe trying the cause effect argument might work,
you don't agree with the scriptures, then do you think the world would
be a better place if everyone referred to others as XXX's?"
the scriptures must be wrong, then it must be good for everyone to do
<offensive behavior>, right? What would the consequence be if
everyone did, or if nobody did <offensive behavior>?
attempting to discuss the topic from scripture, the person still refuses
to change, and it becomes an annoyance or disruption to civil discussion,
then the person should be either:
privately to stop (please), or
2) asked publicly to stop (please)
refuse at that point, then pete- should be used lastly. This approach
would obviously not be taken for people who are flooding the channel,
but most other issues I honestly believe can be examined from scripture
in one way or another.
improved the zap command to give the ops more "powers" to
shutdown REPEAT OFFENDERS. Please do not abuse this feature.
when you use the ZAP command you may *optionally* specify a
number first in order to set a minimum badlevel on the person.
zap nick 250 continual harassment
cause the person to be devoiced with a MINIMUM badlevel of 250 for "continual
harassment" --- please do not leave out the REASON part after the
don't specify a number then it defaults to 100. so
zap nick continual harassment
be the same as:
zap nick 100 continual harassment
MINIMUM means, is that if their badlevel is already higher than 250
it will simply be incremented (as normally), but if less than 250 it
will be set to 250.
I also said this before, but in the case that people come back immediately
after being banned, and then startup the same lame behavior that got
them banned, just zap them.
NOTE: This may be done, even if the person tries to leave
the channel after taking a potshot at someone.. in which case
their badlevel will be increased, but they may not be
pete- to flood...
response to people who are truly flooding with the bot(s) is to first
ask them to please stop flooding with the bot (assuming that pete-
doesn't pick up what they are doing on his own).
it is really a matter of determining if a person is REALLY using pete-
to flood, or is trying to support something they are saying with scripture...
if they just have a slew of texts that they feel the channel "needs"
and begin posting them one after the other, I think that would qualify
the policy here should be that the op who bans someone should be the
unbans the person.. It is very easy to check to see who that op is..
by either checking the op page or using the NWHOIS command (or NWHODCC).
condition where this situation could be bypassed, is if the op that
banned is not on the channel, and the person asks another op to be unbanned..
in that case I brought the issue to the channel openly BEFORE unbanning..
I did this because I wanted to see if there were any OTHERS on the channel
who knew why he was banned, and wanted
his ban to continue, in which case he could deal with those individuals..
who in my mind would pretty much have it clearer in their minds as to
WHY the person was banned than ME who was not on the channel when the
ban took place.. even though I DO have access to the logs, and can read
through them to see what the situation was .. I sometimes will do that
if I want to get the context of the situation to see if the op is placing
an unfair ban, in which case I will usually email the op as well.
like you guys have been handling the porn bots well enough.. and yeah
zap 'em is fine then kick (yourself or with X).
bots I've noticed just need a good kick.. and they move on their merry
way.. w/out rejoining.. but then that isn't always the case either I
are a few people that have been on the channel for quite a long time,
who have their own pet topics.. which really are relatively harmless
in and of themselves, but when the channel has a "scriptural"
topic going (and ONLY then), these pet topics can become more of a disruption
to what is taking place.. in that case I thought it might be a good
idea if an op said something like:
your pet topic is ok when the channel is relatively quiet, but when
there is a serious discussion, it gets old... so please hold on to that
topic for now.
that this could apply to other people's "pet" topics .. unless
they can somehow relate their topics to the scriptures.. there is no
rule forcing people to relate their topics to scripture, but they should
out of courtesy to an existing scriptural topic hold
their topic till that one has died down..
I've noticed that
This ban reason has been over-used in the recent years, so I would say at this point
the need for this ban-reason would be very rare!
if he someone wants to prove a point, and decides to insult someone
as an op reaction getter, then the following is one way I thought to
so and so is a vile and rotten person, this i have finally realized.
no one likes her. so i want to not like her too, and sling insults at
her. just like everyone else.
<nick> it's obvious that so and so has no feelings, and is less
than a human being. so why can't i insult her like everyone else does?
<op> <nick>, your point has been considered, now it would
be greatly appreciated if you would please stop the op-baiting.
in the vertical...
to please stop the "vertical cussing flood".
bogus personal info...
some channel members are posting "fake" personal information..
I guess when a member does that, and is zapped for the token week (or
2), and it is determined that the information was bogus.. then they
*could* be unbanned after one hour .. reason
being that this is probably an op-baiting issue... I probably don't
need to expound more on this, but people putting out BOGUS personal
information are just trying to get a reaction... so in that case we
are just obliging them.
first offense of posting personal information, I ban them for one week
at the address they are logged in at.. if they come back and circumvent
the ban.. that's fine (as others do), but if they THEN again post personal
information, then I ban them at all known addresses.. and if they circumvent
the ban.. I'll ban *as soon as I see it* the new address.. for 2 weeks.
not there, it may be harder to get pete- to do this since I haven't
enabled setting ban masks at the level ops are set in it.. so feel free
in such cases to send a *ban mask* to X with a 2 week ban... if you
don't know how to do this.. ask X for help :)
explain why I let the ban circumventors slide past (normally). The main
reason is that I really don't want ops to have to sit and watch and
always be "aware" if someone "sneaks" back into
the channel by changing their nick/user info.. I think an op should
be more concerned about the *behavior* exhibited on the channel.. so
if a person comes back after circumventing a ban, and *behaves* then
they are welcome to stay on... if they act up again though.. they don't
deserve to stay in that case, and can be treated as a repeat offender.
while posting a first name (only) may be an annoyance, and if objected
to, should be asked to stop, and treated as similar to "offensive
language" except that the person should only be warned ONE time,
and then zapped using lvl 368 (one week).
think posting a person's FIRST name is in the same class as posting
a person's FULL name. .. which to me warrants the 1 week followed by
2 week ban (on all addresses).
someone's full name doesn't warrant a warn.. but rather an immediate
2 week ban.
a first name.. on the other hand, if it is not appreciated by the one
being referred to should receive a warning first before banning (zapping)..
I'd say it could be done privately, however that is hard to see in the
logs.. so if the person complains I prefer
to see a warning done on channel openly first.
badlvls and quoting scripture...revised 07/08/2010
person has a badlevel above 300, they cannot use pete- to quote the
scriptures.. unfortunately, the punishment time, which increases each
time is mixed in with the access to the bot for quoting scriptures..
which I would like to fix at some point.. possibly separate these two
things out into separate levels.. one for using the bot to quote the
scriptures, and another for increasing a person's "timeout"
period with repeat infractions... but for the time being, they are mixed
reason really that a person should not be allowed to quote from the
bot is if they are a bot abuser.. so what I suggested as a way to deal
with this matter is that if a person gets a bad level above 300 then after they "serve their time" they may request that
the op who zapped them (or banned in the case where their level was
already over 300), can then unzap them.. just using unzap by itself resets
their level to 50, or you can use
it to 0...
whichever op placed a ban on someone has the option to "unzap"
them.. other ops cannot do that, I had programmed it to allow 3 ops
to unzap what another op zapped, but this probably is never really needed..
we always have the option to "rezap" them, I don't think it
is a big deal to go ahead and unzap them to allow them to use the bot..
for the purpose of harassment...
some ops have seen the use of other people's nicks on the channel lately..
have not made it an issue in the past on account of Undernet not having
though, I guess I see how a person's nick has been used to harass them..
so I'd say if someone comes on impersonating someone else, for the purpose
of harassing them.. which I guess is open to interpretation.. but just
using the nick is one thing, but using it
and then poking fun and making vulgar comments is just harassment..
so I'd think that should be banned.
thinking 24 hours was a reasonable time period to start with.
to mention that it isn't about an *op* nick being used, it's about anyone's
nick being used for the purpose of harassment.
if the person who's nick is being used is around, and they don't care
about their nick being used as it is, then in my opinion, nothing should
be done about the other person's use of the nick, but then if they are
breaking rules anyway, they should be banned ... I think that goes without
apply regardless of whether they are on the channel or not.. if they
indicate they don't care that their nick is being used, then it doesn't
matter if they are there or not.
just op up and set mode +r temporarily and that should do it.
I have already told most ops this, but I am not sure if I have *formally*
said this.. Ops on #Scripture need to be able to take the heat without
lashing back.. I've made it a standard that if a person insults people
they cannot become an op, so current existing ops should not insult
people. It should go without mentioning that ops should not use offensive
language or flood the channel.
thing.. nobody should be given +o on the channel without talking to
me first... This has happened a couple of times now so I wanted it to
be clear about it.
are the current ops...
some people have asked "who are the ops"... well *some* of
you have registered with X.. in which case you may see who they are
by sending to X in private message:
#Scripture -max 500
the list (of those who most know about)
Doxa, edub, pete, PeaceRoses, joey, Pipetobacco
There are also a few "secret ops" which will not have their identities revealed for personal protection reasons :)
and 'unban' commands should NOT be used UNLESS someone inadvertantly
got banned for flooding or whatever else when they WERE NOT REALLY FLOODING..
I personally would not use it at all for the most part but rather prefer
even that you just get X to unban the person, or get +o and -b the person
in some cases rather than reset a person's level when they are causing
time I EVER reset a person's bad level, is if they ask me first, and
then they promise me they will lighten up on whatever got them to that
bad level in the first place. So, here's what I think should be the
policy regarding resetting of bad levels:
the person if they will agree to stop doing whatever they were doing
to get the bad level, and explain step 3 to them so they know what they
are getting into...
they agree, then reset their bad level
they do the same thing anytime after their bad level is reset, then
I personally will see to it that their bad level is MANUALLY reset to
whatever it was before they got it reset, or to 100 (55 minute ban),
whichever.. in case I can't remember what it was before being reset.
mentioned this to a couple ops.. but now it will be official (at least
till this next experiment proves me wrong).
on the channel begins attacking (using verbal abuse) another individual
and continues to do *nothing but* attack one or more other individuals
on the channel (op or otherwise), an op may *choose* to ask them to
stop their *abuse*. If they do not stop, then use pete- to "warn"
them (which turns into a 5 minute ban after the 3rd time, or may instantly
ban if they are already registered with pete- as a repeat offender).
This would not include someone who "attacks" only when provoked
for whatever reason. These should be distinguished from the ones who
do nothing else but verbally attack others.
this is a deviation from the original idea of the channel where the
/ignore was advocated. However, I've gotten *many* requests to try this
recently. And also it seems that the original people who were such advocates
of the /ignore have decided to abandon the channel and start their own
channel proclaiming that #Scripture has become a cesspool (or maybe
accusing it of always being one). I find it interesting that all these
former advocates of free - speech and /ignore have used this as a reason
to leave #Scripture.
This has been against channel rules now for a while, but just so new ops understand.
pete- will detect many types of name-calling or other forms of personal attacks, however, if he doesn't
then an op may do the usual protocol of first asking the person something like:
Why the need for the personal attack?
If the person just ignores you or keeps it up, then you may use the "warn" command.
For particularly vile or blasphemous language, on the second offense, a "zap" would be in order.
Refining the "Insults" rule...
There has been some discussion on channel about "why" did I allow
certain insults to fly in the channel for so long and why and why and
why.. ad nauseum.
Ok.. I have to say that my position on insults is, and has always
been, that I don't see any reason why an insult should cause anyone
to be hurt. I HAVE however found over the past that insults tend to
disrupt the normal flow of conversation in the channel, if it becomes
a fight of words... it can go on indefinitely (as has been witnessed
Now, as I've thought about this.. some insults might actually be
acceptable at times.. at least insults against a person that might be
verifiable. Like "so-and-so is a jerk (or other non-vulgar title)"..
well .. why do you say that? "because he/she did x/y/z" .. ok..
that's fair.. if the x/y/z was something done ON CHANNEL #SCRIPTURE
(not in private message or on another channel, or "allegedly" in real
On the other hand if the answer is "because I said so..." then it is
on the level of trolling, and has no acceptable value (from my
Anything that is said on another channel, or in private message, or
even in real life (outside the channel) by or about someone who is or
has been on the channel, that could be taken in a negative light, has
no acceptable value on the channel, and so should be asked to stop
(from my perspective).
And ... as Byron Katie says.. if it weren't for the folks who would
have something bad to say about me, I would only think I am the best
person alive.. and I may not be unless someone wakes me up to my own
I'm sure someone will accuse me of saying that I think insults are a
good thing, and should be encouraged.. So before anyone says that,
I will say I am not saying that, but if someone has a *legitimate*
reason for being annoyed at someone else on the channel, then they
should be allowed to express that.. even if it is taken
as "insulting".. I do believe these things can be done in non-
insulting ways.. but that's another story.
However, calling a person a pervert, a pedophile, or anything that
cannot be verified and is just an attack on the person (in real
life).. doesn't seem to have any acceptable value.