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." kc 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". >>> >>> kc -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet