 |
 |
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 :) -Ross. > > /dev > > > 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: >> >> http://www.wallandbinkley.com/quaedam/2006/02_16_panizzi-speaks.html >> >> 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. >> >> -Ross. >> >> 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. >>> >>> kc >>> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> Bill >>> >>> -- >>> 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.