Talk:IRC Policy

1 conduct

• I suggest we forbid away nick changes.
• Is there a policy for off topic discussion?
• Perhaps point to freenode's catalyst page. [[1]]

2 bots

• Should we perhaps have som rules for bots?
• Do we allow them, and for what in that case?
• Should we have instructions on how to use the bots that are on there?

Leth (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really needed. We have a bot, it's called pbot and we treat him like a person (so the no abuse rule also applies for bots). About conduct, off topic was always allowed, also conversations in different languages and no one is bothered. And it makes the channel a great place to hang around, not just a support channel. Personally I don't care for nick changes, my IRC client filters them so I only see an endless stream of people participating :) --Fauno (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

3 general

i would just like to echo and unpack the "dont piss on the floor" policy

nearly every IRC user knows conventional "netiquette" - even for those newbs who do not, still the majority of them naturally behave appropriately as they would in any normal IRL conversation - it should be clear to anyone who has used internet chat services over that last 20 years that:

• there are (and always will be) "trolls" - and then there is "everyone else"
• only the trolls are a real practical problem
• the distinction is almost always blatantly obvious

to be clear i will elaborate - a troll joins a chat for one in the following limited set of purposes:

• to provoke an adverse reaction from individuals in the normal crowd (e.g. childish lewdness, name-calling, etc)
• to disrupt the conversation (e.g. by persistently going off topic)
• to make conversation impossible (e.g. flooding)
• drive-by spam

again it is rarely any doubt as to which of those has happened - if there is any doubt as to "is this person a troll?" then they probably are not - aside from those engaging in such clearly disruptive behavior, "everyone else" constituting the over-whelming majority should be granted totally uncensored free speech

the bottom line is (and has always been) that regardless of the presence or absence of specified rules, the only defense is alert admins - practically speaking, any set of explicit guidelines serve only as justification for disciplinary actions - but no such justifications are actually necessary and most chats get alone just fine without them - any intentions beyond justification are just self-righteous or pandering to prudes - IMHO i would remove this page entirely or if it remains then the only text i would put on this page would be something like this:

   "the #parabola IRC channel operators may decide to silence, kick, or ban from the channel anyone, at any time, and for any reason they see fit - the parabola project is not a democracy, nor a dictatorship, but an adhocracy - as such, there is no behavioral policy, no committee to hear nor adjudicate grievances , and no disciplinary policy - so there will be no justification required for any actions of the channel operators, nor any recourse be entertained, nor any remedy offered - deal with it"

but again, the main point is that no such disclaimer is necessary - everything in that statement above is true whether it is stated explicitly or not - that is the default for most every IRC network and users should know this already

--bill-auger (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

4 freenode policies

the existing link to freenode policies is 404 - the new URL is http://freenode.net/policies

but if you read that page it mentions absolutely nothing about specific behaviors in channels other than: "to act in good faith and in accordance with both their local laws and those applicable where freenode operates." - freenode has no special "codes of conduct" or any such thing - as such, this one simple rule "dont break the law" should be obvious to all and does not need to be mentioned here

so unless parabola wants to add some special "codes of conduct" of it's own then this page serves no purpose

noting that:

• the "Note: This is only a draft, it has not yet been "ratified" by the community." has been on this page since it was created four years ago
• there has been no activity on this "talk" page since then
• this IRC policy proposed four years ago still has not been "ratified"
• it is common knowledge that the authority of channel operators is total and their actions require no justification

all these points together strongly suggest that no such policy is needed or even desirable - so again i suggest deleting this page

--bill-auger (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)