Is it the plugins themselves or the content? I suspect that some plugins
lend themselves to more joking around and possible inappropriateness,
but I'm not sure that it's "plugin" problem, perhaps its a "user error."
On 1/18/13 10:17 AM, Kevin S. Clarke wrote:
> I think there has been general consensus that there are some offensive
> plugins and that the bot should be held to the same level we expect
> from a person, but noone (yet) has stepped up to volunteer to go
> through all that's available and make an effort at cleaning things up.
> As we all know, things don't get done in Code4Lib without someone
> doing the work. Anyone want to step up and volunteer to go through
> what's there and take a stab at it? Even a first pass might advance
> us to the next level of discussion... or a list of plugins in question
> could be farmed out to individuals interested in making the changes?
> Kevin (taking a step backwards)
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Tim Donohue <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> FWIW, there are a few zoia commands I've noticed that could come across as
>> sexist (especially if you see Zoia as being a "female" bot).
>> I don't think they are used that frequently, but I have seen:
>> @poledance (have zoia display a poledancer)
>> @euph (have zoia respond in a euphemism)
>> This isn't meant to spoil any of the fun of having zoia around. For the most
>> part, I don't take offense to zoia. But, I do find zoia annoying / noisy
>> (which is why I'm rarely in code4lib IRC). Though there are some useful /
>> helpful zoia commands in there.
>> I like Jon Gorman's suggestion of having a friendly, helpful bot and a
>> wise-cracking one. That way, those of us annoyed by the ongoing
>> wise-cracking can ignore it, while still having access to the helpful stuff.
>> (And it may be easier to turn off the wise-cracking parts during the
>> conference if desired.)
>> - Tim
>> On 1/18/2013 10:26 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> Actually, I find the "playing" with Zoia itself offensive. As per my
>>> response to my own message.
>>> It objectifies women. Treats them as play-things. Makes me very
>>> uncomfortable. If we want to have an information bot, perhaps like the
>>> one used by W3C which takes minutes for meetings (Zakim, I believe it
>>> is), that seems reasonable. But to have a "play-thing" that is gendered
>>> is a really, really bad idea. In fact, to have a "play-thing" of any
>>> kind on the channel might not be a good idea. I know that some folks
>>> find it fun, but it is akin to the locker-room shenanigans (at least as
>>> I experience it), and it's a HUGE in-joke that makes it obvious to
>>> anyone new that they aren't "in".
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net