On Jan 18, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Devon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just because zoia has always been there (or panizzi) doesn't mean zoia
> ought to be there going forward. Karen's point I think deserves
> consideration. If zoia is in violation of the Code of Conduct, then
> remedial action is warranted. I think in this case, rather then getting rid
> of the bot, we can just remove the offending plugins.
To be fair (and I haven't had my coffee, yet), this is what I meant (and I was in the middle of another email trying to explain this more).
zoia is the product of nurture, not nature, so I agree. /zoia/ isn't the problem, because having a bot in an active channel with a (fairly) stable community is a useful addition.
The offensive and/or annoying plugins don't serve any real purpose besides entertainment value. I would much rather cut them away (we've done it plenty of times in the past: jive, markov, etc.) then ditch the bot altogether.
I guess that was what I was trying to get at. Focus on the messages rather than the messenger :)
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Karen, I don't think there's any way we could do that. zoia is just
>> another participant in the channel, just like you or I would be, so it's
>> exactly like interacting with another person.
>> And one thing that I think is *somewhat* important to note before we give
>> zoia the bum's rush or something before the conference, it's worth pointing
>> out that zoia (and zoia's predecessor, panizzi) predates the conference
>> and, in fact, presented at the first one:
>> I don't mind gagging some of the noisier plugins (or I really like the
>> idea of a @timeout plugin that shuts people off from zoia for a specified
>> time period), but zoia is a pretty central code4lib character.
>> Also, we generally ritually clear the karma database at the very end of
>> the conference, which would be weird if zoia wasn't invited.
>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Bill, I realize that. That's opt-out, and anyone new to IRC is not going
>> to know that. So I am asking for the opposite, which may not be a current
>> feature of IRC, but that those who wish to see Zoia's replies (and who
>> therefore know about Zoia) should opt-in.
>>> Another option is a separate channel for the conference, but that may
>> seem new and foreign to everyone, not just to new users.
>>> On 1/17/13 9:50 PM, William Denton wrote:
>>>> On 17 January 2013, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>> Is another possibility is for Zoia to be opt-in rather than opt-out?
>>>> If you say
>>>> /ignore zoia all
>>>> your IRC client will ignore everything she says. You still see what
>> other people say to her, which is a bit odd, but it really makes the
>> channel a lot clearer.
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet
> Sent from my GMail account.