Channel PurposeRulesOps & Op FAQpete- helpScripture UsersMaxusersAttendeesHerghelia

+ Larger Font
| + Smaller Font

This Web Page is dedicated for those who have questions about what dialog has been going between myself (edub) and ops for #Scripture. This would also be required reading for any new ops.

Offensive nicks...

can we kick offensive nicks such as fagkiller? - Yes.. ask them (nicely of course) to change the nick.. if not, then ban thru X is fine (which will kick them).

This does not include philosophically offensive nicks.. like NAZI or Communist or whatever else nicks


No foul language or vulgar behavior...

Also, another "rule" which actually to me comes under the "no foul language" rule is a rule against general vulgar behavior on the channel. This rule was recently clarified to include sexually explicit behavior on the channel, which caused a minor outrage from some channel members...


Using people's ham radio call signs...

The callsign is a federally issued ID, and that it does directly indicate the identity of a person. Additionaly, the fraudulent use of a call sign can carry federal penalties. Although federal law does not interfere with irc nicks, perhaps the person using a person's call sign could be asked to change the nick nicely?



For those who don't already know.

I've gone ahead and opened up #ScriptureHelp. It will have minimal rules. Basically allowing people to get help who cannot get into #Scripture if it is set to +r for example. I am logging it similarly to logging #Scripture, however I think people with complaints could be directed over there to make personal
complaints or complaints about channel policies etc.


Dealing with rule violation...

From now on, whenever someone on channel is in violation of a rule, instead of using the private message approach, what if the person's violation were made a channel topic, by asking the person (or the channel) if they see support for their offensive behavior in

For example, if a person is insulting someone (calling them an XXX), then a topic for discussion might be:

Does the scripture support the idea that people will call others XXX's in heaven?


What kind of attitude is expressed in referring to someone as an XXX? And what does the scripture say about this attitude?

I think by opening up the behavior to a scriptural discussion, that this will tend to diffuse it. If the person doesn't regard the scripture in the first place, then maybe trying the cause effect argument might work, like:

"Ok, you don't agree with the scriptures, then do you think the world would be a better place if everyone referred to others as XXX's?"


Since the scriptures must be wrong, then it must be good for everyone to do <offensive behavior>, right? What would the consequence be if everyone did, or if nobody did <offensive behavior>?

If, after attempting to discuss the topic from scripture, the person still refuses to change, and it becomes an annoyance or disruption to civil discussion, then the person should be either:

1) asked privately to stop (please), or
2) asked publicly to stop (please)

If they refuse at that point, then pete- should be used lastly. This approach would obviously not be taken for people who are flooding the channel, but most other issues I honestly believe can be examined from scripture in one way or another.


Improved zap command...

Ok.. I've improved the zap command to give the ops more "powers" to shutdown REPEAT OFFENDERS. Please do not abuse this feature.

Now.. when you use the ZAP command you may *optionally* specify a
number first in order to set a minimum badlevel on the person.

For example:

/msg pete- zap nick 250 continual harassment

This will cause the person to be devoiced with a MINIMUM badlevel of 250 for "continual harassment" --- please do not leave out the REASON part after the number..

If you don't specify a number then it defaults to 100. so

/msg pete- zap nick continual harassment

would be the same as:

/msg pete- zap nick 100 continual harassment

What this MINIMUM means, is that if their badlevel is already higher than 250 it will simply be incremented (as normally), but if less than 250 it will be set to 250.

I think I also said this before, but in the case that people come back immediately after being banned, and then startup the same lame behavior that got them banned, just zap them.

NOTE: This may be done, even if the person tries to leave the channel after taking a potshot at someone.. in which case their badlevel will be increased, but they may not be immediately banned.


Using pete- to flood...

My usual response to people who are truly flooding with the bot(s) is to first ask them to please stop flooding with the bot (assuming that pete- doesn't pick up what they are doing on his own).

I guess it is really a matter of determining if a person is REALLY using pete- to flood, or is trying to support something they are saying with scripture... if they just have a slew of texts that they feel the channel "needs" and begin posting them one after the other, I think that would qualify as flooding.


Unbanning someone...

I guess the policy here should be that the op who bans someone should be the one who
unbans the person.. It is very easy to check to see who that op is.. by either checking the op page or using the NWHOIS command (or NWHODCC).

The only condition where this situation could be bypassed, is if the op that banned is not on the channel, and the person asks another op to be unbanned.. in that case I brought the issue to the channel openly BEFORE unbanning.. I did this because I wanted to see if there were any OTHERS on the channel who knew why he was banned, and wanted
his ban to continue, in which case he could deal with those individuals.. who in my mind would pretty much have it clearer in their minds as to WHY the person was banned than ME who was not on the channel when the ban took place.. even though I DO have access to the logs, and can read through them to see what the situation was .. I sometimes will do that if I want to get the context of the situation to see if the op is placing an unfair ban, in which case I will usually email the op as well.


Porn bots...

Seems like you guys have been handling the porn bots well enough.. and yeah zap 'em is fine then kick (yourself or with X).

Most porn bots I've noticed just need a good kick.. and they move on their merry way.. w/out rejoining.. but then that isn't always the case either I realize.


Disruptive topics...

There are a few people that have been on the channel for quite a long time, who have their own pet topics.. which really are relatively harmless in and of themselves, but when the channel has a "scriptural" topic going (and ONLY then), these pet topics can become more of a disruption to what is taking place.. in that case I thought it might be a good idea if an op said something like:

<nick>, your pet topic is ok when the channel is relatively quiet, but when there is a serious discussion, it gets old... so please hold on to that topic for now.

I suppose that this could apply to other people's "pet" topics .. unless they can somehow relate their topics to the scriptures.. there is no rule forcing people to relate their topics to scripture, but they should out of courtesy to an existing scriptural topic hold
their topic till that one has died down..


Op baiting...(revised 2/13/07)

I've noticed that This ban reason has been over-used in the recent years, so I would say at this point the need for this ban-reason would be very rare!

So... if he someone wants to prove a point, and decides to insult someone as an op reaction getter, then the following is one way I thought to address it:

<nick> so and so is a vile and rotten person, this i have finally realized. no one likes her. so i want to not like her too, and sling insults at her. just like everyone else.
<nick> it's obvious that so and so has no feelings, and is less than a human being. so why can't i insult her like everyone else does?
<op> <nick>, your point has been considered, now it would be greatly appreciated if you would please stop the op-baiting.


Cussing in the vertical...

<nick> b
<nick> i
<nick> t
<nick> c
<nick> h

Ask them to please stop the "vertical cussing flood".


Posting bogus personal info...

I guess some channel members are posting "fake" personal information.. I guess when a member does that, and is zapped for the token week (or 2), and it is determined that the information was bogus.. then they *could* be unbanned after one hour .. reason
being that this is probably an op-baiting issue... I probably don't need to expound more on this, but people putting out BOGUS personal information are just trying to get a reaction... so in that case we are just obliging them.

on the first offense of posting personal information, I ban them for one week at the address they are logged in at.. if they come back and circumvent the ban.. that's fine (as others do), but if they THEN again post personal information, then I ban them at all known addresses.. and if they circumvent the ban.. I'll ban *as soon as I see it* the new address.. for 2 weeks.

If I'm not there, it may be harder to get pete- to do this since I haven't enabled setting ban masks at the level ops are set in it.. so feel free in such cases to send a *ban mask* to X with a 2 week ban... if you don't know how to do this.. ask X for help :)

I should explain why I let the ban circumventors slide past (normally). The main reason is that I really don't want ops to have to sit and watch and always be "aware" if someone "sneaks" back into the channel by changing their nick/user info.. I think an op should be more concerned about the *behavior* exhibited on the channel.. so if a person comes back after circumventing a ban, and *behaves* then they are welcome to stay on... if they act up again though.. they don't deserve to stay in that case, and can be treated as a repeat offender.


Posting personal info...

I think while posting a first name (only) may be an annoyance, and if objected to, should be asked to stop, and treated as similar to "offensive language" except that the person should only be warned ONE time, and then zapped using lvl 368 (one week).

I don't think posting a person's FIRST name is in the same class as posting a person's FULL name. .. which to me warrants the 1 week followed by 2 week ban (on all addresses).

Posting someone's full name doesn't warrant a warn.. but rather an immediate 2 week ban.

Posting a first name.. on the other hand, if it is not appreciated by the one being referred to should receive a warning first before banning (zapping).. I'd say it could be done privately, however that is hard to see in the logs.. so if the person complains I prefer
to see a warning done on channel openly first.


High badlvls and quoting scripture...revised 07/08/2010

When a person has a badlevel above 300, they cannot use pete- to quote the scriptures.. unfortunately, the punishment time, which increases each time is mixed in with the access to the bot for quoting scriptures.. which I would like to fix at some point.. possibly separate these two things out into separate levels.. one for using the bot to quote the scriptures, and another for increasing a person's "timeout" period with repeat infractions... but for the time being, they are mixed together..

The only reason really that a person should not be allowed to quote from the bot is if they are a bot abuser.. so what I suggested as a way to deal with this matter is that if a person gets a bad level above 300 then after they "serve their time" they may request that the op who zapped them (or banned in the case where their level was already over 300), can then unzap them.. just using unzap by itself resets their level to 50, or you can use

unzap whoever 0

that resets it to 0...

In general, whichever op placed a ban on someone has the option to "unzap" them.. other ops cannot do that, I had programmed it to allow 3 ops to unzap what another op zapped, but this probably is never really needed..

since we always have the option to "rezap" them, I don't think it is a big deal to go ahead and unzap them to allow them to use the bot..


Impersonating for the purpose of harassment...

I guess some ops have seen the use of other people's nicks on the channel lately..

I personally have not made it an issue in the past on account of Undernet not having registered nicknames.

Lately though, I guess I see how a person's nick has been used to harass them.. so I'd say if someone comes on impersonating someone else, for the purpose of harassing them.. which I guess is open to interpretation.. but just using the nick is one thing, but using it
and then poking fun and making vulgar comments is just harassment.. so I'd think that should be banned.

I was thinking 24 hours was a reasonable time period to start with.

I wanted to mention that it isn't about an *op* nick being used, it's about anyone's nick being used for the purpose of harassment.

I guess if the person who's nick is being used is around, and they don't care about their nick being used as it is, then in my opinion, nothing should be done about the other person's use of the nick, but then if they are breaking rules anyway, they should be banned ... I think that goes without saying.

This would apply regardless of whether they are on the channel or not.. if they indicate they don't care that their nick is being used, then it doesn't matter if they are there or not.




For botnet's just op up and set mode +r temporarily and that should do it.


Op standards...

I think I have already told most ops this, but I am not sure if I have *formally* said this.. Ops on #Scripture need to be able to take the heat without lashing back.. I've made it a standard that if a person insults people they cannot become an op, so current existing ops should not insult people. It should go without mentioning that ops should not use offensive language or flood the channel.

The other thing.. nobody should be given +o on the channel without talking to me first... This has happened a couple of times now so I wanted it to be clear about it.


Who are the current ops...

Finally.. some people have asked "who are the ops"... well *some* of you have registered with X.. in which case you may see who they are by sending to X in private message:

access #Scripture -max 500

the list (of those who most know about) is now:

Doxa, edub, pete, PeaceRoses, joey, Pipetobacco

There are also a few "secret ops" which will not have their identities revealed for personal protection reasons :)


Resetting people's badlvls...

The 'unzap' and 'unban' commands should NOT be used UNLESS someone inadvertantly got banned for flooding or whatever else when they WERE NOT REALLY FLOODING.. I personally would not use it at all for the most part but rather prefer even that you just get X to unban the person, or get +o and -b the person in some cases rather than reset a person's level when they are causing trouble.

The only time I EVER reset a person's bad level, is if they ask me first, and then they promise me they will lighten up on whatever got them to that bad level in the first place. So, here's what I think should be the policy regarding resetting of bad levels:

1) ask the person if they will agree to stop doing whatever they were doing to get the bad level, and explain step 3 to them so they know what they are getting into...

2) if they agree, then reset their bad level

3) if they do the same thing anytime after their bad level is reset, then I personally will see to it that their bad level is MANUALLY reset to whatever it was before they got it reset, or to 100 (55 minute ban), whichever.. in case I can't remember what it was before being reset.



Obsessive abuse...

I've already mentioned this to a couple ops.. but now it will be official (at least till this next experiment proves me wrong).

If anyone on the channel begins attacking (using verbal abuse) another individual and continues to do *nothing but* attack one or more other individuals on the channel (op or otherwise), an op may *choose* to ask them to stop their *abuse*. If they do not stop, then use pete- to "warn" them (which turns into a 5 minute ban after the 3rd time, or may instantly ban if they are already registered with pete- as a repeat offender).

NOTE: This would not include someone who "attacks" only when provoked for whatever reason. These should be distinguished from the ones who do nothing else but verbally attack others.

I know this is a deviation from the original idea of the channel where the /ignore was advocated. However, I've gotten *many* requests to try this recently. And also it seems that the original people who were such advocates of the /ignore have decided to abandon the channel and start their own channel proclaiming that #Scripture has become a cesspool (or maybe accusing it of always being one). I find it interesting that all these former advocates of free - speech and /ignore have used this as a reason to leave #Scripture.

Personal Attacks...

This has been against channel rules now for a while, but just so new ops understand. pete- will detect many types of name-calling or other forms of personal attacks, however, if he doesn't then an op may do the usual protocol of first asking the person something like:

Why the need for the personal attack?

If the person just ignores you or keeps it up, then you may use the "warn" command.

For particularly vile or blasphemous language, on the second offense, a "zap" would be in order.

Refining the "Insults" rule...

There has been some discussion on channel about "why" did I allow certain insults to fly in the channel for so long and why and why and why.. ad nauseum.

Ok.. I have to say that my position on insults is, and has always been, that I don't see any reason why an insult should cause anyone to be hurt. I HAVE however found over the past that insults tend to disrupt the normal flow of conversation in the channel, if it becomes a fight of words... it can go on indefinitely (as has been witnessed on channel).

Now, as I've thought about this.. some insults might actually be acceptable at times.. at least insults against a person that might be verifiable. Like "so-and-so is a jerk (or other non-vulgar title)".. well .. why do you say that? "because he/she did x/y/z" .. ok.. that's fair.. if the x/y/z was something done ON CHANNEL #SCRIPTURE (not in private message or on another channel, or "allegedly" in real life).

On the other hand if the answer is "because I said so..." then it is on the level of trolling, and has no acceptable value (from my perspective).

Anything that is said on another channel, or in private message, or even in real life (outside the channel) by or about someone who is or has been on the channel, that could be taken in a negative light, has no acceptable value on the channel, and so should be asked to stop (from my perspective).

And ... as Byron Katie says.. if it weren't for the folks who would have something bad to say about me, I would only think I am the best person alive.. and I may not be unless someone wakes me up to my own delusion.

I'm sure someone will accuse me of saying that I think insults are a good thing, and should be encouraged.. So before anyone says that, I will say I am not saying that, but if someone has a *legitimate* reason for being annoyed at someone else on the channel, then they should be allowed to express that.. even if it is taken as "insulting".. I do believe these things can be done in non- insulting ways.. but that's another story.

However, calling a person a pervert, a pedophile, or anything that cannot be verified and is just an attack on the person (in real life).. doesn't seem to have any acceptable value.