Start of frotz buffer: Thu Jun 02 22:21:35 2011 Session Ident: frotz (EFNet, Giltweasl) (~frotz@pool-71-185-168-203.phlapa.fios.verizon.net) 01[14:58] you there? - [20:07] Session Ident: frotz (EFNet, Giltweasl) (~frotz@pool-71-185-168-203.phlapa.fios.verizon.net) [20:07] i'm here. how are you? [20:08] oh wait, it's my turn now. [20:08] you there? 01[22:26] http://www.giltweasel.com/pics/mavo-log.txt Session Time: Thu Jun 02 00:00:01 2011 [08:00] you there now? [08:00] gee thanks for telling mavo that i mentioned in confidence that his meds werent batting 1000. [08:00] i'm sure that earned me some trust. [08:05] crissakes it's difficult to find a single person on irc who can act like an adult. [08:25] mavo might be acting out, but he's a longtime friend of ours and regardless of his current out of line behavior we have some obligation not to treat him so shabbily. the lack of formalized rules for the channel makes it a free for all in many cases and people are never clear on where the lines are. that makes situations like this even more personalized and less objective. [08:25] a lot of the strife here is completely unnecessary, and it's a bad way to treat one another. 01[13:24] If you're still here, mavo has been around long enough to know "the rules". and even if he didn't and if the policies aren't expressly written, he knows he was corrected in his excessive behavior within the last year. 01[13:25] if this had been the first time he was acting erratically it wouldn't have crossed my mind that action would need to be taken. 01[13:26] unfortunately he had the back history, and his actions on return to the channel were absolutely unacceptable. 01[13:27] and it wasn't just you who he was telling about his medication issues. trap and I both knew about the problems he had with his divorce and that he was geting some sort of intervention. 01[13:28] as far as dealing with problems on the channel, the last time this came up with mavo(and funkmob) it was handled in the open, on the channel in full public view. 01[13:29] neither of them appreciated that so this time it was taken care of from an administrative position. 01[13:29] if you guys don't trust halo and me to handle that sort of thing I'm afraid you're out of luck until or unless another solution presents itself. 01[13:30] I'm going to back halo on his decisions as I think he's mostly level-headed, fair, and consistent. I'd hope he has the same feelings about me. - [17:26:01] that's a cheap copout. halo lost an argument (a really stupid one) and took advantage of mavo's problems as an excuse to shitcan him in a very shabby way and you're making it sound like this was some reasoned and balanced way to handle the channel. [17:27:28] as far as trusting you and halo, you guys are running a star chamber that's arbitrary to the extreme and that structure just doesnt engender trust, so dont be surprised when one person after another has criticisms of the way it's set up. compare it to beige and there's simply no comparison. halo wont even answer direct questions half the time he's asked. [17:28:44] and if the place is so fair and consistent then why is it hemmoraging users and mostly idle nowadays? because of the seasoned management keeping it a fun place to be? [17:29:29] seriously, i'd agree with every single point you raised if this had been handled respectfully. instead what i saw looked more like a tantrum that you're justifying ex post facto. [20:40:41] if you haven't noticed the users we do have are quite different than the set we had 10 years ago. Things have changed in more than just management. [20:41:43] As for your star chamber, mavo is THE ONLY situation like this that has come up. It was handled in the open last fall. mavo failed to change what was then perceived as excessive behavior. [20:42:21] for his part, he could legitimately be blamed for any hemmorhage of users we've had in the last year. [20:44:03] I don't dispute the argument being stupid. What wasn't visible on channel is mavo sending a flood of insults to halo in /msg. While that's not something "adults" should have a problem dealing with, it's not exactly evidence of mavo's stability in the face of his ongoing behavior issues. [20:44:34] I'm for supporting mavo any way we can that doesn't put him in a position to continue with HIS arbitrary bans. [20:44:47] if you're not seeing his part in the problem, you're not looking. [20:45:05] i see his part in it, but what i saw was supposed adults acting not much better. [20:45:23] agreed [20:45:29] he wouldnt listen to reason, i know that and saw it. i urged him to come back and make amends and he threw insults instead. i saw all of that. [20:45:32] I wouldn't have handled it like halo. [20:45:34] dont think that this is about mavo. [20:45:40] in fact, the way I handled it didn't work. [20:45:47] which is why it got to this point. [20:46:21] either way, the arbitrary and behind closed doors response to the problem wasnt the way an organized channel (or group of any value in any setting) would work. [20:46:29] sure it is. [20:46:37] that's the way the channel has always been handled. [20:46:43] bullshit. [20:46:43] this is not without precedent. [20:46:55] you remember phunistle getting de-opped? [20:47:00] beige didnt do things like that, he consulted other ops and other regulars before taking this sort of acting. [20:47:03] er action. [20:47:03] how about moophisto, or whatever the fuck his name was. [20:47:14] arken is a better example. [20:47:29] how about Tempest? [20:47:43] how about it? kaye's star chamber was the model for the current one. [20:47:48] beige didnt do this. [20:47:58] just so you know I wasn't consulted by either beige or kaye. [20:48:10] so beige did do things like that. [20:48:25] beige consulted people about channel issues. if you asked him a question he responded, even if it wasnt any of your business. [20:48:44] look, if you don't like halo's management style that's fine. [20:48:54] you can dance around the issue all you like, but you know what i'm talking about. [20:49:11] I don't think there's really anything that can be done about it until something better comes along. [20:49:34] nothing better comes to a channel that's largely contracting to nothingness. [20:49:56] we're at a point now where there are 15-20 bots/idlers to every active member. [20:50:03] also, so you're not laboring under some delusion about halo's all-powerful status, there have been numerous opportunities to change the channel in a radical way. [20:50:19] I suspect that in the long-run you wouldn't like the results any better than what we have now. [20:50:31] i dont know what that means. [20:51:03] efnet in general is having gentrification issues. [20:51:11] that's not unique to #atheism. [20:51:13] i know i appreciated the way beige handled things a lot more. this is like a less responsive copy of kaye's management style, with copies of the tantrums as well. [20:51:54] beige had a very simple rule set for the ops. [20:52:04] what's the rule set for the ops right now? [20:52:05] don't remove other ops' bans and don't kickban other ops. [20:52:30] I think that's still pretty much how things are handled. [20:52:42] channel rules about bans and kicks are arbitrary. how can you critique mavo's work when halo has done the same and worse at times? [20:53:19] and if we're concerned about mavo's increasingly erratic behavior, is the best time to address it during a heated argument? [20:53:31] and without discussing it with any of the other ops? [20:53:45] mavo has been involved in long standing discussions about ops reserving the right to kick or ban users at their discretion, for any reason. BUT, the ops are better off not doing that as it is likely to cause disharmony. [20:53:50] mavo forgot the second part. [20:53:51] seriously, i dont know how you can sit there and create apologetics for this. [20:53:53] or disregarded it. [20:54:33] yeah, i get that mavo is off the reservation in his behavior. [20:54:42] I'll be honest about that. ultimately it's not up to the other ops. [20:54:48] you're not getting that my complaint is about how that's handled. [20:55:18] well ultimately that's a shit system that builds resentment and mistrust and you get what you sow if you're going to play it that way. [20:55:29] mavo's behavior has been an issue for going on a year now. [20:55:38] again, beige created at least the illusion of a democratic approach to things. [20:56:04] and yet you're holding beige up as the benevolent patriarch. [20:56:29] the reality is the channel has undergone many changes over the years. [20:56:45] beige wasn't always THE op. [20:56:46] i know that, but i think you also know what i'm talking about in terms of management style. [20:57:25] beige was rather laissez faire in his management. [20:57:31] yes and no. [20:57:41] tempest was otherwise. [20:57:52] DFC handled things differently as well. [20:57:56] but the point is that he didnt make it seem like he sat on a throne casting judgement about the goings on in the channel. [20:58:25] and not responding when questioned about his decisions. [20:59:39] the phunistle de-op was unilaterally beige. [20:59:53] the moophist(sp) was at the request of the females. [20:59:56] beige did both. [21:00:01] and lately that's what i've seen, a lot of "you're not part of this decision" being lorded over the people who actually contribute to the channel. any wonder that people are less and less enthusiastic about a system like that? [21:01:19] your "lot of" is one case. [21:01:38] i dont care what mavo did in /msg, i'm sure he was out of line. i saw him go out of line several times when i was urging him to make amends. the point is that the response was equally juvenile and then thrown down as a "i make the rules, dont question me and i wont answer if you do" style of ruling. how charming, dont you think? [21:01:38] you're rapidly approaching the absurd. [21:01:50] it's not just one case. [21:02:13] who else has been handled like mavo? [21:02:23] or what other decisions are being made in the star chamber? [21:02:32] oh come on. [21:03:22] look, i'm bringing up a valid observation and you're engaged in apologetics. i'm sure you can scan through logs as well as i can. thanks for your response, but it's pretty weaksauce. [21:03:52] here's the bottom line on mavo. He's currently erratic and wont be opped until he modifies his behavior. As a whole I think the channel supports this, even halo. [21:04:14] and thanks for breaking mavo's trust in me with a backchannel comment you should have known better than to throw out there. [21:04:18] well, if you're saying this star chamber attitude exists it should be easy to come up with some examples. [21:04:42] I've named precedent for de-opping ops. it's the least you could do to support your case with examples. [21:04:55] you're saying this happens "a lot". [21:05:01] the examples are out there. similar problems came up with trapezoid and other people in the channel over the past couple years. [21:05:02] As far as I can see this is the first time. [21:05:08] yes [21:05:13] trapezoid and funkmob. [21:05:20] they were chastized along with mavo. [21:05:26] in public [21:05:29] by suggestion. [21:05:40] funkmob changed completely. [21:05:42] trap less so. [21:05:52] mavo, as should be evident to all, did not. [21:05:56] that's how we got here with him. [21:06:13] it was handled in the open at the outset, both mavo and funkmob didn't appreciate that. [21:06:14] yes, the really mature way he was handled is a shining example to us all. [21:06:25] now it's been handled on the bots, and you're having issues with it. [21:07:05] you still dont get it. i dont disagree with deopping mavo at the moment. i disagree with the shabby way he was handled and that it came across as a tantrum from an unquestionable unresponsive tyrant. [21:07:19] he was handled as a result of an argument. [21:07:19] that's the public facing perception that was left. [21:07:24] yeah. [21:07:31] i agree it was inappropriate. [21:07:55] his behavior behind the scenes, whether it's visible to others or not, is perfectly relevant. [21:08:49] if it had happened with mavo and me, I probably would have asked halo to review the logs and request that a temporary -d be set on the bot until we got the situation settled. [21:08:49] then halo should have made that explicit by saying (without quoting) that the messages were the reason for his actions. isnt it weird how a rational adult not in the heat of an argument can come up with a decent way to handle things? [21:09:02] if halo wasn't around when I msg'ed him, I'd probably set the -d myself. [21:09:04] that's how it happened. [21:09:55] and to my recollection that's how arken was handled. [21:10:04] except it was with other ops who made the -d request. [21:10:06] yeah, that's how it happened, in a way that appeared to all to be arbitrary and petty. halo's not concerned because his attitude is such that he doesnt care about the appearance of his actions and we can all see the longterm results of that. [21:11:14] the appearance of his actions are what they are. but that's not going to be an objective, inarguable truth. [21:11:31] the people who need to know, know that there was other shit going on. [21:11:35] it's a matter of perceptions. everybody in the channel saw one thing. [21:11:59] that's basic management, managing people's perceptions is every bit as important as managing the reality. [21:12:42] well, halo could have managed people's perceptions by putting mavo on /ignore, waiting an hour or two, and then setting him -d [21:12:50] that wouldn't have made you any happier. [21:12:58] and your lame excuse for breaking my confidence and breaking mavo's trust in me is something i wont soon forget. [21:13:04] it was a decision that halo felt needed to be made at the moment. [21:13:15] because his ego was bruised? [21:13:26] that might be part of it. [21:13:40] let's be honest. there wasnt a pressing emergency that made that "the heat of the moment". [21:14:04] but I think the flood of insults in /msg indicated that mavo was degenerating in a rapid manner. [21:14:43] and technically I didn't break your confidence. that would be halo. [21:15:14] sorry, who went to mavo and told him i was discussing that? [21:15:19] and like I said earlier, whatever mavo told you he was also telling other people with more or less detail. [21:15:48] irrelevant. i saw what you said in the log and it's obvious how it would be taken. it was either thoughtless or intentionally malevolent. [21:16:11] yes, I singled you out as THE person discussing his mental health issues. [21:16:14] and it wasnt necessary. [21:16:45] there were tactful ways to raise the subject without throwing names around. [21:17:01] in case you hadn't noticed mavo was beyond tactful methods. [21:17:28] I've been employing tactful methods for months now. [21:17:31] right, naming me was the only method. [21:17:46] i get it. the frotz sanction is where people go when tact fails. [21:17:53] maybe ops should be considered mandatory reporters. [21:18:13] jesus, if i wanted to listen to this sort of excuse making i could talk to a child. thanks for nothing. [21:18:26] if you know another op is on anti-psychotics and isn't taking them as prescribed, that ought to be mentioned among those responsible for channel stability. [21:19:05] so perhaps you could have done more to help mavo before this blow up happened. [21:19:08] and you'll hand our names to the mentally ill person and say we said so. got it. thanks. that's very thoughtful. [21:19:30] that's how it's done. [21:19:53] well you can forget any candor from me in the future if that's your shitful response to what you did. [21:19:58] there's no better way to make a parnoiac more paranoid than by alluding to unnamed accusers. [21:20:24] I don't recall any particular candor from you in the past anyway. [21:20:43] just like you can't name any other cases where the star chamber has acted arbitrarily. [21:21:11] yeah, you couldnt have mentioned "hey, you were having mental health issues earlier this year, is this latest event maybe related"? that statement wasnt enough, you had to say that a close friend had brought it up, because betrayals like that are good for the mentally ill. [21:21:52] I could have. [21:21:57] I'll admit fault there. [21:22:02] what are you going to admit? [21:22:20] i can dig through logs and name other cases, but what would be the point? it's not taken seriously anyway, and you've got an excuse for anything including misusing my statements with another person. [21:22:41] the point would be you'd have proven your argument. [21:22:45] I'm disputing it. [21:23:21] i dont see that it's worthwhile but similar issues came up with trapezoid and with a few other bans used to settle arguments. [21:23:22] you're making hyperbolic statements about how these sorts of issues are handled and that's your basis for complaint. [21:23:33] if you can't pull some references, your complaint is bullshit. [21:23:38] yes [21:23:49] and that was handled in the open. [21:23:53] we've been through this. [21:24:02] what happened with trapezoid was part of what happened with mavo. [21:24:18] there were complaints about the way it was handled then as well. [21:24:39] I think it's a general truism that when someone is spanked, they don't like it. [21:24:44] i'm not being hyperbolic. the management style is autocratic and doesnt engender teamwork or even basic community or politeness. [21:25:01] you're using one example. [21:25:11] there are a lot of other examples that contradict your claim. [21:25:13] if you can't see it, you'll just make up excuses for every other example i point out anyway. [21:25:35] also, your example is a long-term situation that has been escalated over time. [21:25:59] you don't have any other examples. your claims that this happens "a lot" are bullshit. [21:26:12] whatever, you have an answer for everything. i guess it's going well and the channel is thriving. that's why i'm bringing up the arbitrary management style for the umpteenth time and getting the usual stonewall. [21:26:33] when's the last time you brought up the arbitrary management style? [21:26:39] was it umpteen days ago? [21:26:48] it's been a few months. i dont keep a list. [21:26:53] when have you ever mentioned it to me? [21:27:06] we can both answer that. never. [21:27:23] oh right, like you matter anyway. i got the stonewall from halo multiple times. [21:27:55] and we all know that what he says goes without exception, he throws that in our faces anytime anyone disagrees with his judgement. [21:28:32] and you're right there to back it up with every dodgy argument that points responsibility elsewhere. [21:29:25] ok, you don't like how halo handled mavo's deopping. you think it was done in the heat of argument without fair consideration for other ops' views, mavo's health issues, and a lot of other problems. [21:29:47] a friend of ours is clearly sick and he was kicked out with insults following him. i could give a shit if his behavior prompted it, that's just shabby and you can't make an excuse that makes it otherwise. [21:29:50] You don't like how I back halo up because that gives license for him to continue his dictatorial conduct? [21:29:53] is that it more or less? [21:31:01] a better structure for the channel would be one where ops consulted one another on larger issues and things were done with at least an appearance of community. good luck excusing your way around such a simple suggestion for another approach. [21:31:04] maybe mavo's self-worth is dependent on #atheism ops. I don't know. if that's the case, I don't think giving him ops is going to help him in his larger problems. [21:31:19] aside from mavo's needs, there's channel stability to take into account. [21:31:21] i think mavo should have been de-opped. [21:32:09] so do a lot of regulars he's been kicking for the past several months. [21:32:11] i think as a longtime friend he should have been treated accordingly and handled by an adult. perhaps we can hire one. [21:32:50] maybe they know what tact is and dont break confidences and throw other ops under the bus along the way too, just as a sample of what grownups might do. [21:33:01] getting the picture? [21:33:01] sure. you can be on the committee, but halo is ex-officio president you know. [21:33:13] i'm not asking for that. [21:33:18] and i dont want it. [21:33:52] i'm just telling you that lord of the flies style management is a real turnoff. i want no part of it based on the way this was done. [21:34:07] you don't want to exercise your plan for a community of ops either, otherwise you might have brought your concerns about mavo's mental health to the rest of us sooner. [21:34:28] i didnt have concerns until he blew up like that and wouldnt calm down. [21:34:42] and we privately discussed that he's having problems controlling his temper. [21:34:43] then you haven't been paying attention. [21:34:53] as I have said, this was a long-term problem. [21:35:08] i knew that, and i thought he had it on track. [21:35:22] this was a reversal of several weeks of better behavior. [21:36:22] i can't imagine a more petty or childish way to respond to it though. can you? [21:37:16] sure. Halo could have called him a nutcase on channel, told him his wife was right to divorce him, and set a permanent ban on the bots. [21:37:59] almost everybody on irc is either physically or mentally ill, that's a given for a chat network. the fact is that when somebody is falling apart like this, it's pretty shitty to call them names and kick them to the curb during a childish argument. [21:38:40] it doesnt give the appearance of objective or impartial handling. [21:39:12] appearances are based on the adequacy of information. [21:39:46] and a good manager can handle that appropriately. [21:39:59] ok [21:40:01] like putting some distance between the argument and the result. [21:40:17] so you've lodged your complaint and it will be taken into consideration the next time an op self-destructs. [21:40:34] or do you want broad policy changes now? [21:40:40] and not making every non-regular in the channel witness it as they did, looking like a tyrannical response to mild provocation. [21:41:23] i dont want anything at all. you're doing just great, thanks for all the personal responsibility and the lack of excuse-making. [21:41:43] later. this has been educational. [21:41:45] you want me to just accept your criticism without response? [21:42:06] what is it you want me to do about the management situation? [21:42:13] what is it you want me to do about the mavo situation? [21:42:21] no, please, dodge and weave in the most lawyerly fashion you can manage. that's how adults handle mistakes nowadays. [21:42:36] ok, now is your chance. what do you want me to do about it? [21:42:50] i dont see how you can un-say that i told people he was having medication issues. [21:42:55] halo and mavo were being dicks to each other. halo de-opped mavo as a result. [21:43:52] so you're just complaining with an impotent rage here? what do you want? [21:44:45] i think i was pretty clear about better ways to handle this. maybe you missed them while you were thinking up excuses, that's got to be tough in a situation like this. [21:44:57] if you want to discuss solutions, let's have it. if you want to continue berating me for my admittedly stupid handling of the drug information, feel free to continue. [21:45:39] you've mentioned "democratic" handling and "op consultation". can you word this in a way that makes sence at a policy level? [21:45:44] what's the point of berating you? it's not going to result in a genuine apology anyway, nor would i buy it at this point after watching the dodge and weave session so far. [21:46:44] well, I'm not going to apologize. I'm not really sorry for your loss of esteem. I can see how it might have affected mavo, but I tend to doubt it as he's pretty much blind to anything anyone else has been saying. [21:47:00] as far as how the channel is managed, i dont think it's a good idea to op and deop without getting some sort of consensus. it doesnt matter though, because halo obviously doesnt give two shits about anybody else's opinion and he's gone out of his way to make that clear over the course of several years. [21:48:17] yeah, this really has been revealing. your depth of character is certainly impressive. good to know things are in mature hands. [21:48:34] so you would rather halo had the ops have a break-out session to discuss ways to deal with mavo's erratic behavior? [21:49:01] honestly that would have been a lot better than insulting him and booting him out of here. [21:49:06] ok [21:49:28] were you here last fall when we had the discussion about how to handle the excessive banning that was going on? [21:49:43] yes, that was a better handling of the problem. [21:49:54] and it was temporarily effective. [21:50:35] it certainly didnt give the impression of a boy king on the throne handing down decrees. [21:50:50] so at this point though, halo made a unilateral on-the-spot decision, he then consulted me, and I backed him up. [21:50:55] and the impression that the rest of the channel gets is just as important as how the problem is handled. [21:50:58] and that's the problem? [21:51:20] yes, that's the problem. nice of you to paint out all the ugly details. [21:52:03] since you know them and chose to leave them out, i'll take it as a sign of honest engagement. [21:53:20] let me ask you this then, is there any circumstance that would legitimize the halo/gilt star chamber arrangement that you wouldn't have any complaints about? or is it completely unacceptable to you? [21:53:30] this appears to be a valueless discussion. i'm starting to think that halo's nonresponses are marginally better than this sort of kabuki play. [21:53:31] hey, give me a couple minutes, I have to hook up my dad. [21:56:12] the circumstance where a longterm member is treated this poorly and you're asking what would legitimize the management is just baffling to me. there's really nothing more to discuss if you're going to sit there acting like you can't understand the issue. i think it's disingenuous and i dont have time to parse it out while you pretend not to get it and whitewash the actual behaviors that i'm complaining about. [21:58:05] this has been very informative and not very impressive. i can completely understand the idea that mavo's behavior is out of line and needs to be addressed, but if this is how that's done then i want no part of it. good night. [22:00:15] ok, back. [22:00:15] No such nick/channel End of frotz buffer Thu Jun 02 22:21:35 2011