It also sounds like our channel @helpers and the @help command could help
by spreading the word about /ignore. If you like the #code4lib experience
and find Zoia annoying, please do yourself a favor and /ignore zoia so you
don't have to miss out.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Jay Luker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> +1 for renaming @poledance to @rsinger.
> On Friday, January 18, 2013, Tim Donohue wrote:
> > FWIW, there are a few zoia commands I've noticed that could come across
> > 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
> > 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".
> >> kc