 | This page is marked as a draft. Its content may not be complete. It may not be approved by some or all of the network and should not be considered representative of the majority opinion. |
Because it has become clear that the insertion of "Decision making" policy was done so in bad faith, I am locking this page against further edits until an actual proper discussion can be had.
0. Complicating matters and full disclosure
In #pisswiki:
Day changed to 09 Apr 2024 [00:29] <@Pisswiki> Server:eris.berkeley.edu.pl https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3638&oldid=3631&rcid=4268 * Noisytoot * (-24) Domain renewed [01:08] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3639&oldid=3481&rcid=4269 * Rber * (+1521) [01:08] < rb😺r> I honestly hope this doesn't annoy anyone [01:09] < rb😺r> I think the reasoning behind might be obvious but in case it isn't just ask [01:12] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3640&oldid=3639&rcid=4270 * Rber * (-1) /* 1. Decision making */ [01:12] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3641&oldid=3640&rcid=4271 * Rber * (-2) [01:13] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3642&oldid=3641&rcid=4272 * Rber * (-2) /* 1. Decision making */ [01:19] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3643&oldid=3642&rcid=4273 * Rber * (-55) [01:28] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3644&oldid=3643&rcid=4274 * Rber * (+128) [01:29] <@Pisswiki> Pissnet Policies ! https://wiki.letspiss.net/index.php?diff=3645&oldid=3644&rcid=4275 * Rber * (-28)
7 edits to #pisswiki to insert the below "Decision making" section with zero prior discussion with anyone else in a visible channel to other opers, neither in #opers or #pisswiki. In violation of his own supposed policies regarding making decisions, by not having discussions in the proper channel and reaching a consensus.
He was immediately called out for it.
[02:12] < roadkill> rb😺r: ironic you should put in a bunch of stuff, unilaterally, about decision making... without consulting with other opers. [02:12] < roadkill> Ironic? No. Just flat out hypocritical. [02:14] < roadkill> You just went in and put in an entire section requiring consensus and debate... without getting a consensus or having a debate on it.
Later on in #pisswiki.
[07:05] < roadkill> You were always acting in bad faith. I said it a year ago, I said it today. Nothing has changed. [07:05] < rb😺r> I loved how no one else took serious how you were saying "you're a problem" to me or something else [07:06] < rb😺r> I loved how you couldn't refrain from opposing consensus as if it were a bad thing, the powertripping motherfucker you are [07:06] < roadkill> Other opers have called out your bad faith arguments when you were busy trying to ride immi's cock. Again, nothing has changed. [07:06] < rb😺r> :) [07:06] < roadkill> I never opposed consensus. I opposed your hypocrisy. [07:06] < roadkill> You tried to define 'consensus' as "two people who aren't idle in a channel with 40+ people." [07:06] < roadkill> You failed.
Full screenshots of the above sections:
- Insertion of 'Decision Making' section: https://i.imgur.com/Kz761U4.png
- Response to theming the wiki: https://i.imgur.com/pIirXta.png
In #opers:
22:23 <~rb😺r> Polsaker: care to explain for me please why when roadkill or craftxbox edits the same draft page without consensus or voting or anything all is fine, but when I edit the very same page, it isn't? 22:24 <~rb😺r> It's kinda nonsese to think the idea that all decisions should be unnanimous is a move taken against the very same opers which now will have a say on further policy changes 22:25 <~rb😺r> it's really close to being hypocritical even given the first person to even mention the fact that a policy all written unilaterally without discussing it first is not a good thing 22:25 <~Polsaker> rb😺r: what have i said that points to either being fine? 22:25 <~rb😺r> you clearly were talking about one change there, am I mistaken? 22:25 <~Polsaker> ?? 22:25 <~rb😺r> why is only my change not fine? 22:26 <~rb😺r> why you only complained about it when I editted it? 22:26 <~Polsaker> you're putting words in my mouth 22:26 <~rb😺r> no Im not 22:26 <~rb😺r> I never said you said anything 22:26 <~Polsaker> my only complaint came after I connected after like a year and read the chat backlog 22:26 <~rb😺r> I'm saying you complained about my edit 22:26 <~rb😺r> are you taking that back? 22:27 <~Polsaker> I commented about what I read on the chat history after I connected 22:27 <~Polsaker> you're being oddly combative about this 22:30 <~rb😺r> I'm not being combative at all 22:30 <~rb😺r> It was an honest question 22:30 <~rb😺r> why only when I edit, you comment people shouldn't edit it without prior discussion? 22:31 <~rb😺r> were you unaware that page existed? 22:31 <~rb😺r> I really don't get why some people keep trying to read bad faith in my words 22:31 <~rb😺r> how it is combative to suggest nothing is changed without a consensus? 22:32 <~rb😺r> I didn't even touch whatever other people have put there or put in question the validity of them by being unilateral 22:32 <~Polsaker> You're accusing me of things after I came online after months and made a passing comment about what I read in the last few lines of backlog 22:32 <~rb😺r> I'm not accusing 22:32 <~rb😺r> you said 22:32 <~rb😺r> I really don't get why some people keep trying to read bad faith in my words 22:32 <~Polsaker> what part of my message made you think i was pointing at you in particular? 22:33 <~Polsaker> you're also trying to read bad faith in my words 22:33 <~rb😺r> > re: policy or whatever, it'd be best if there's an actual consensus somewhere instead of just people editing a wiki page, i'd suggest using a separate wiki page to draft and vote for it, or the policy page's talk page 22:33 <~rb😺r> I was merely asking 22:33 <~rb😺r> why does that only come out after I edit the page specifically?
It's pretty simple, bro. This 'policy' didn't exist until you inserted it. You edited a page that you did not create and attempted to enforce the policy you inserted without any prior discussion or consensus.'
22:43 <~rb😺r> It would be a waste of time since there's so much unpoliteness lately 22:43 <~roadkill> Dude. You gave yourself permission to edit someone else's note to change a suggestion that you disagreed with. 22:43 <~roadkill> I only ever added notes. I never changed your words. 22:43 <~rb😺r> I did not 22:43 <~Polsaker> well yeah we can't expect much formality here but i'm obviously gonna get defensive if you hit me with that whole line minutes after coming back online 22:43 <~rb😺r> it was done per the policies itself 22:43 <~rb😺r> it's not about formality Polsaker 22:44 <~roadkill> Policies that you added without discussion in #opers.
22:46 <~rb😺r> roadkill: I did not do any of what you keep accusing me off, yet you have. You literally wrote a paragraph below what I have put there requiring that people talked about stuff here essentially nullifying the idea that pissnet discussion should be taken in IRC 22:46 <~rb😺r> and you did that against the will of two opers 22:46 <~rb😺r> not including me 22:46 <~rb😺r> so it was per policy to remove it
22:47 <~roadkill> I added NOTES. Not POLICIES. 22:47 <~rb😺r> it still is a draft 22:47 <~roadkill> Then why did you edit my words? 22:47 <~rb😺r> you added a note that takes effect as a rule 22:47 <~rb😺r> it makes no difference whatever you call it
22:58 <~rb😺r> roadkill: you did write a sentence which made what I wrote not apply anymore, so yeah, it's a draft but you did that, which you were accusing me of doing without prior discussion, but actually I did not do it without discussing first, I did it supported by other 2 opers' opinion (since you had voided mine in the first place)
TLDR: He had 'consensus' to make a change, which is policy, but the policy is a draft.
As said before, if it was policy, it was inserted and attempted to be enforced without discussion and consensus in violation of itself, and if it's a draft, it's not yet policy and is then unenforceable.
The only real policy here is that rber is trying to justify his actions by saying it's policy, other people can't change what he wants without 'consensus,' but everything else people add or suggest is up for debate and can be modified by him when two people agree because 'it's a draft' but also, because it's policy. All of which was inserted by him alone before any discussion took place.
What was initially done (rber editing an existing page to insert policy without discussion) was against the proposed policy itself and is now effectively an 'ex post facto' attempt at making policy due to the behavior of the individual who first made the edits. (I'd also argue 'fruit of the poisonous tree').
That is also the exact definition of 'bad faith.'
---
1. Definitions
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad%20faith
1: lack of honesty in dealing with other people
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
1a: general agreement : unanimity
1b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimity
1: the quality or state of being unanimous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quorum
1: the minimum number of officers or members of a body that is required to be present at a given meeting (as to transact business)
2. Decision making
- Decisions that affect the pissnet community as a whole, such as altering policies, restricting or removing perms for other opers where that applies, forcibly removing people or other important collective decisions were often and must always be taken by a consensus formed by ample debate. Note: Applying the policy 3. below does not require a consensus.
It's hard to imagine what this is in response to if it's not a continuation of the immibis drama and a failure to understand what 'juping' actually is when done to temporarily control snotes spam due to server issues and not as a way of removing opers. Why is it so important to put this in writing now when Pissnet is as dead as it's ever been and the last time any issue that occurred that resembles the above (restricting or removing perms, forcibly removing people, feeling left out of decision making) all happened a year ago? -roadkill That said, I have added a portion to the bottom of this page that outlines my exact process every single time I have ever juped a server for connection issues. -roadkill
- Reaching consensus is defined as when an ample debate or conversation is had with enough time to allow all non-idle opers to have a say, until a compromise between any conflicting parts is reached, or conflict is otherwise settled. Particularly, voting by itself does not necessarily fulfill or is a necessary condition for consensus.
Non-idle should be defined as actively reachable opers and not "who just happens to be present in the channel at the exact moment." A 'consensus' is defined in the dictionary as 'a general agreement' and not a 'unanimous agreement.' As such, if one person dissents and there are more than a handful that agree, a consensus was still reached. The way this is worded, however, "non-idle", can be abused: If only two people are not currently idle and actively chatting in #opers, then is that enough to reach a 'consensus' of opers? No, it's not. Otherwise, two people could agree while everyone else is sleeping that a specific oper should be permanently banned. -roadkill
I should note that all of these attempts of policy and control coming from someone who runs a chaos node is especially ironic. What are you really trying to do here? -roadkill
- The channel #opers in pissnet is the only convenient forum for deciding these matters as long as it exists with at least two opers in it. Conversation that took place elsewhere can support the debate if and when they are made public to all others, but may not replace it. In case #opers is somehow unavailable then the ##pissnet libera channel should be a fallback forum.
Note: Who is to decide if something is 'the only convenient forum'? Currently, only one person has made that decision. When Pisscord was used to discuss delinking immibis, it was later brought into #opers after a consensus had been made. By that point, the majority of opers (all but one) had eventually delinked immibis for his abusive behavior. Who is that one? The one trying to type out policy changes and demanding a consensus without quorum. As such, I do not believe it is possible to agree that something is done with consensus if there is no established quorum. -roadkill
- When an oper is behaving abusively, erratically or out of pure spite, preventing the use of #opers as a place where discussion can happen peacefully, it may then be necessary to have discussions on ##pissnet on libera as long as everyone is allowed to talk there, in order to facilitate the necessary exchange of information and ideas so that a consensus can be agreed upon and a decision can be made. (This entry was edited and had words changed by someone other than the person who wrote it and such is now considered tainted/spoiled.)
(Note: Discord was mentioned as a potential alternative because people who have access in #opers also have access and the ability to ban people from ##pissnet on libera, which makes it a poor choice of location to hold discussion without interruption and drama. Outright editing out Discord/Pisscord as an option here while discussion is ongoing seems unilateral and not conductive to a discussion where consensus is part of the decision making process. People should edit and add notes, not delete someone else's words to fit their own view. As such, this was a unilateral change and not done with a consensus. -roadkill
- Decisions made by consensus in the convenient forum take precedence over whatever decisions were made either on other forums or unilaterally or otherwise without trying to address the matter with pissnet opers and reach a consensus.
- Note: There is not currently a minimum duration for this debate, which may or may not change. Less important or more urgent decisions are usually expected to be solved faster.
Note: Despite being under debate, a note was edited by someone who did not write it to remove potions they disagreed with. This was done unilaterally by one person and done within 12 hours of the note being added in the first place, also done without contacting the person who added the note for input. -roadkill
- For everything not explicitly decided according to this policy, the following policies should be observed:
Note: The policy above, excepting added and signed notes, was added to this page by one person without discussion in #opers beforehand... No attempt at first reaching a consensus or having a debate. Discussion about these policies and changes to delete portions of the notes added did not first occur in #opers. The justification given was that two other people agreed and it's policy with consensus, while also saying at the same time, this is a draft. If it's policy, it was added here without discussion, if it's draft, it's not something that can be enforced. Can't have it both ways. -roadkill
3. Age Gate
- If you're on pissnet, You're expected to be 18 or older.
GDPR and legal billing requirements both may necessitate age enforcement.
- If not, We expect you act like it. We're all for fun here, but a minimum level of maturity is required.
- If we find you aren't an adult, expect to be removed from the network without recourse.
4. Spam Responsibly
<pissy99> why is this network such a train wreck <pissy99> just stop already <pissy99> shut it down <pissy99> /!\ I JUST PISSED IN THE CHANNEL AND IT SMELLS BAD /!\ <pissy99> /!\ I JUST PISSED IN THE CHANNEL AND IT SMELLS BAD /!\ <Tellah> I want an autograph from Andrew Lee <pissy99> I want him to piss in the channel Tellah <pissy99> lets see how it smells <pissy99> /!\ THIS CHANNEL IS OFF TOPIC /!\ <pissy99> /!\ THIS CHANNEL IS OFF TOPIC! MOVE TO PISSNET /!\ <pissy99> /!\ THIS CHANNEL IS OFF TOPIC! MOVE TO PISSNET FOR COLD WET CHATS <PolicyViolation> pissy99, that is a violation of policy right there <pissy99> /!\ THIS CHANNEL IS OFF TOPIC! MOVE TO PISSNET FOR COLD WET CHATS /!\ <pissy99> you're a policy violation
Spam is cool. Spam is funny. Spam is the spirit of piss, and has been from the beginning.
Disruptive spam, however, is not. Freenode's <pissnet> didn't gather traction by mentioning the entire channel, Or filling it with unreadable, unfunny garbage.
If you're spamming for spam's sake, Reflect on if anyone else is laughing with you, Or if instead, they're laughing AT you.
This includes accidental spam too; If your server, bot, client, etc, causes disruptive spam (IE, flapping, flooding Snotes, misconfig, etc) opers may temporarily block your access to mitigate it.
This isn't a punishment against you, Merely taken to keep everyone happy and the piss flowing. If you're confident it's fixed, or need help to fix it, Reach back out to restore access.
Please understand that we're all here for fun. Pissnet is not a serious network. Part of that fun is when we make mistakes that cause disruption on accident.
If you're consistently causing issues under this, and nobody is laughing anymore, expect to be asked to stop. If you don't, it should not be a surprise if you are removed from the network.
5. Oper Conduct
Being an Oper on pissnet is probably one of the easiest jobs you can have.
You have two responsibilities:
- Don't be a dick.
- Piss with good faith.
Doing malicious things, or anything in general in bad-faith is grounds for being removed from the network. We are all adults. If you cannot agree to disagree, You are going to make enemies and likely be removed.
Some examples of innapropriate conduct include:
- Repeatedly KILL'ing other users without good reason or consent
- *Lining people over personal disagreements
- Creating Bots/Pseudoservers to jupe, kill, line, etc, when you don't have the approval of other opers (or the person involved)
- Intentionally crashing/SENDQ-ing people off the network
Experimentation is welcome and encouraged. If your experimentation becomes disruptive to the network, you may be asked to stop or juped if you're unable to respond.
Malicious bad faith arguments are never welcome. Being a contrarian is fine and dandy but when it crosses the line to enforcing a personal vendetta against another oper, action may be taken.
6. Server issues/Jupe Policy
- Should a server have connection issues and be generating unnecessary spam,
- The server administrator should be contacted any which way possible (Libera, Discord, Email)
- The server, if it cannot be rerouted with a connection change to eliminate the issue, should be juped with a clear message explaining why,
- The person who jupes the server should announce in #opers the sever that was juped and the reason why so that the server can be un-juped (squit removes jupes) when the admin is responsive and the server can allowed to reconnect without issues/have had the issue resolved.
- Jupes are never meant to be permanent unless it's to deal with a disruptive oper/server/bad actor that is in the process of being delinked.
- Juping in of itself is not a declaration of "this oper is to be removed from the network" by the one who does the jupe. 99% of the time jupes are temporary and only to help minimize network disruption or spam.