Took place on 2016-04-13 15:00

The time is in UTC. Click the link to see your local time.


  1. Old Business
  2. Rules Modifications
    • Possibly change wording on “You may ask your question without a preamble” and “You do not need to ask if it’s okay to ask a question.” so users don’t wiggle out of it by saying “I MAY, but I choose not to”
    • Add a “no solicitation” rule?
  3. Locking The Room - Allowing users to talk once they’ve agreed to the rules and signed The Contract.
  4. Message us to add your topic.
  5. AOB

Room owner topic discussion - This private room is for the ROs to discuss anything sensitive that might need to go on the agenda. Of course, we’re still open to suggestions from non-ROs :) . Message a room owner in the room or email us at and we will add your topic to the agenda.

Why do we hold these meetings?

We like to be open with what we do in the sopython community and with what plans we have for the future.

As such we like to hold these open-house meetings every once in a while for the development team to let everyone know what they’re up to, as well as letting anyone voice any opinions they have to the community at large (be they positive or negative). If you cannot attend the meeting but would like to be involved within sopython then you are of course welcome to bring this up with one of the room owners at a more convenient time.

I can start if you're busy standing up?
Please do
Okay so first item of business - how do we handle the fallout of sopython being caught in the Panama Papers leak Old business!
Our last meeting was August which was a while ago.
Nothing is on fire so I presume all our previous rulings haven't been disastrous
We meant to have one during Winter but there wasn't much demand for it, so it was left out.
Looking at the old minutes there was some conversation but either it seems to have been sorted out of we're bringing it up already today
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:01
…hides the bonfire behind his back
Old minutes
Does anyone have anything they'd like to raise re. the old minutes?
You have the time it takes me to finish this BBC article to speak.
are we starting? I just finished a phone interview, and haven't been following along...
We never got around to re-writing the rules page. I am a master procrastinator. :-(
But we're bringing up rules again today! Hooray!
So we can not re-write it and discuss it next meeting.
@MattDMo Yeah we started. We're at the tail-end of item 1, "old business"
@MattDMo We just started. Right on time.
Okay BBC article finished - turns out a minister in the Government is a human being, go figure.
Anything else?
No, fine, cool.
Starting with: Possibly change wording on “You may ask your question without a preamble” and “You do not need to ask if it’s okay to ask a question.” so users don’t wiggle out of it by saying “I MAY, but I choose not to”
I vote we do that.
I've got an opinion on this one that might be controversial: remove "Asking a question" rules 1 & 2 entirely.
Let's see, where's my prepared statement...
IMO, "does anyone know..." is useless noise and the only reason the rule exists is because we want to cut down on useless noise. If linking the rules to each "does anyone know..." violator causes 99% of them to go "ok, I won't have a preamble in the future", and causes 1% of them to start a multiparagraph argument about enforcement of cultural norms, then the rule is working against the goal it was supposed to achieve.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:06
Yeah, we already say “Don’t ask to ask” in chat all the time, so let’s make that the offiical wording.
All links on friday MUST point to rebecca black
@PeeHaa :-| bring it up in other business at the end
When those two rules first appeared, I never imagined that we'd actually enforce them with kicking and such.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:08
Okay, yes, in that case, I’m with Kevin on this one.
Shall we just change them to: "There is no need for a preamble. Please just ask your question, don't ask to ask." or just drop them entirely?
@Kevin I actually agree. If someone asks to ask and no one wants to deal with a general question, they can just not identify themselves.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:08
It shouldn’t be a “rule” as in becoming an offense if you choose not to do it.
Yeah, I've had the same feeling that those rules aren't actually accomplishing anything.
Although they are a good indicator that people didn't read that page.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:09
It should be something we encourage, so more like “guidelines on asking a question”
If they ask their question directly, Someone else who comes in later will see their question and ping them back.
@BhargavRao In theory, sure.
@BhargavRao if they don't then nothing lost, they weren't really contributing anyway
Are we still going to say "You don't need to ask to ask" to people directly when they do?
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino it does actually happen, late at night (American East Coast time)
I'd rather just not engage them at all until they ask a real question, but that's obviously unenforceable.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:09
Well, if someone asks “Can I ask a question about X”, then yes, a proper response would be “Yes, you can ask that question; you don’t need to ask whether you can ask a question”
@MattDMo Huh, I hadn't seen it happen, but I'm also not online much outside of 9am-5pm EST.
@Ffisegydd fine with me. I'm not even against keeping them on the wiki if we're not quite so stringent about them.
Imo, Educate the users once. Ignore, if they again start with a preamble.
@Kevin yeah, split up guidelines vs rules
Having some kind of "guidelines" or cultural norms section or something, separate from the rules proper, is what I imagine.
So, what davidism said.
me too
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:11
Seeing that that ask to ask stuff is actually not under the heading “Rules”, it’s not a rule, so I think we’re fine with the current situation?
Agree with that
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:11
@poke: yeah, but that's basically code for "Is there anyone here who knows X and would be interested in hearing about a question I have?" IMHO that's actually a reasonable question to ask, although one which in this context needs to accept a silent response.
I try to engage with them because I don't want some user to come along and say "Sure I could maybe help you, just ask." and then get asked a horrendous question that is way beyond their timelimit. So I generally engage first to get the question out there so people can decide to speak up or not.
@poke maybe the issue is that people interpret that page as all rules
And a few times I've had "So Ffiseg9eriwgn can you help me?" to which I reply "No."
it is linked with the description "room rules"
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:11
@davidism Then we probably need to redesign the page so that becomes more clear
so, is python good at asynchronously awaiting messages, and is it easy to build simple reactive interfaces?
yep to both questions
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:12
which brings us back to the rewrite the rules thingy
Actually Rules is <h2> and the others are <h3> so technically they're subheadings under Rules.
I'd say "asking a question" 3 4 and 5 are actual rules we should actually enforce. Trashing long code, canceling "thank you" stars, etc
I think the actual design would be good to discus under a PR on sopython-site
My OLD suggestion again. Make the subheadings linkable, then it is simple to point users to a part of the rule.
So there isn't yet a super-clean delineation between rules and norms
rather than during this meeting
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:13
@Ffisegydd wow you’re right. In that case, we should fix that
Agreed. We don't need to re-design the site now, but if we agree on the general high-level requirements that we need at the end.
Let's open an initial issue based on the full discussion here.
I'm assuming we wanted to discuss other changes/additions/removals.
can we remove you?
The other change is "Add a “no solicitation” rule?"
Can we get a link to the issue in the chat room once it's open?
Yes, I'll pin it.
I can open it now if you want.
I'm literally on the page.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:15
issue as in github?
I could find it somewhere on github, but I'm super lazy.
Second on no solicitation
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:15
@Kevin: solicitation to help on OS projects or for employees or all kinds?
I imagined anything involving exchanging money for labor.
solicitation of recent questions, I'm hiring, vote on my area51 proposal
I was mainly thinking of Area 51 solicitations
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:15
The “no solicitation” thing irritates me a bit: Do we have such a problem here? I’ve never seen such a thing
I don't hate the idea of occasional "Hey, I have this OS project that needs some Python devs, anyone interested?".
So "hey guys come check out my cool project and maybe make a pull request?" is ok
sopython rules redesign
But yeah, everything else should be gone.
@poke I've seen it quite a few times.
@poke yeah, it happens occasionally
@poke An Area51 soliciation just happened the other day
@poke It comes up infrequently. Maybe twice this year.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:16
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:16
@poke I’ve seen it too
And sometimes they just don't take a hint - periodically spamming the room
obviously the rule wouldn't prevent it, but it would give us something to point to when we strongly say "no"
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:16
aww, I can’t ping myself without an id!
One issue that we've had is people saying "But it's not in the rules"
How many people have actually said that, though?
A few.
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:17
I think I remember at least two offhand.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:17
I honestly don’t like adding things to the rules for every little thing
I only remember the one a week or so back
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:17
this would just make our rules explode, making them really unlikely to be ever read
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:17
and that defeats the purpose
Yeah true, but then we should add "If someone asks you not to do something they probably have a reason, please respect that." to the rules too.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:18
I would rather add some general discretion to the ROs to give them the ability to decide what’s right and what isn’t
I agree in theory, but I don't think that "No solicitation" is going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back about reading the rules.
Then we can say "Well THAT is in the rules, and I'm asking you not to solicit people for your new startup tristan!"
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:18
But then, some random person comes a long and says “ROs, please don’t kick me”, and then they have a free ticket to do whatever they want
@Ffisegydd Should we specify something about how if a room owner requests it should be taken a bit more seriously, as well?
I would personally rather have more extensive rules that no one reads in stead of our current situation, short rules that no one reads. :P
FYI starring that for hilarity, not because I agree.
@poke That's fine... If we can dodge accusations of tyranny. "Those darn Python ROs keep kicking people for things not even in the rules!!!", say our hypothetical future antagonists.
And real past antagonists.
I don't want to get too legalistic, though
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:20
Quite honestly, if I was a new member and saw the current rules page, I wouldn’t really want to read that either.
Maybe we could call them "Expectations"
I think the rules page could be cut down, maybe with links to other pages (like a page entirely on asking questions that we could link to directly)
So we take out the "Asking a question" and just have a link to it instead.
I'm not opposed to that idea.
Eh, are people really going to click through?
Are they really going to read in the first place if they won't click through?
Plus it gives us a dedicated page to link to for people who need to just specifically see how to ask a Q.
  • Undo
  • 2016-04-13 15:22
@poke I don't really feel like reading them, if that's a datapoint.
Nobody reads the rules anyway, so engagement can't get any worse due to our changes :-P
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:22
Well, clicking is a bigger barrier than just looking down 100 pixels.
I think the desire is that we're specific enough that we can kick and safely say "you could have avoided that if you read the rules" rather than the more ambiguous situation we're in now.
  • Wes
  • 2016-04-13 15:22
@PeeHaa what are we doing here
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:23
Let’s just take a look at our five core rules and look at the essence:
So up in the right corner it says "The productive programming cabbage. Room rules:" Could we maybe put the "Room rules" sentence on another line to emphasize it a bit more?
Kicking in general I think we should tone down but yes I agree.
@MattDMo I don't think it supports newlines, but I might be wrong.
@Ffisegydd Agreed.
It doesn't support new lines
I just tried.
Thinking about it again, "asking a question" 3 4 and 5 aren't rules in the sense that we kick people for violating. It's more like "if you do this, we reserve the right to alter the transcript for cleanliness purposes". Violators aren't evil, merely messy.
I wasn't sure, that's why I asked
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:23
1. Be Nice // 2. Don’t spam // 3. Don’t spam notifications // 4. Use notifications for continuing discussions // 5. Post rabbits
(Also, I wish SO Chat supported emoji reactions ala slack/github).
s/rabbits/cute animals/
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:24
if we now added a “6. don’t post solicitations” to that, that would really feel out of place.
@poke I actually like how concise that is :)
I have an idea
@poke spam seems to cover that already too
Based on what poke said. Why not keep the rules really short, but provide links on certain keywords
to expand the definition of what we are implying
Ooooo, I like that.
I agree about the solicitations not being needed. I think we should add a "If someone/RO/mod asks you to..." though. Maybe not as a rule but as an ending.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:25
Yeah, I think we should design it in a way that the key parts are quick to grasp, with proving additional help in case someone requires more explanation
Maybe with a quick pointer on how to identify a RO. It won't be obvious to those new to chat
oooh oooh, tooltips!
So Rule 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as normal. With keywords to more detail either in tooltips or dedicated pages.
ROs are those weird guys with names in italics
I'd be up for quoting that word for word ;)
@IntrepidBrit Yeah, I get the feeling that most rules lawyers think they're debating with ordinary users. They might be less confrontational if they knew of our many powers.
What about adding something about vampires? I think that's the main thing we kick for still.
I agree with something that is not that serious in the rules to help advertise the fun part of being in this room
As opposed to us weird guys without italicized names...
@davidism We can discuss this in the Issue on GH as time goes on, but are we happy with that as a general direction to go in?
at least we are all monospaced :D
(Asking everyone, pinging davidism)
Sounds good to me.
Is it worth saying that ROs self-regulate as a group, so people can rest assured that any issues with ROs are dealt with internally?
I like it
@Wes Resolving the rebecca issue
@RobertGrant I think a page on ROs would tidy that up.
@Ffisegydd yeah, I think we have a good picture of what people want now, the details can be worked out in the issue
With a keyword link to it.
Locking The Room - Allowing users to talk once they’ve agreed to the rules and signed The Contract.
@Intrepid, go for it.
Is that too strict?
room stares expectantly at Intrepid
Intrepid drops his notes
Intrepid cries under pressure
Intrepid wets his pants
room laughs
Lock eyes from across the room
Pretty much what it says in the tin. Spent some time in the Android room and they seem to have less of a problem with vampires and people throwing strops when they are retroactively ruled.
inb4 room is locked
So how would/does it work?
On the flip side, it might discourage users from joining simply because it's a bit of a faff
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:30
Oh, we already moved on.
Discouraging new users? Sounds like Heaven.
Basically, the room is locked to all comers until they ping a RO to say that they've read the rules.
I don't love the idea. I'd rather be too inclusionary as opposed to exclusionary.
@Ffisegydd you set the room to gallery, they see a button that pings owners, who add them to the write access list.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:31
I’m generally against locking the room.
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino absolutely
@poke Same here, it's against the idea of helping all
Which also puts extra responsibility and faffing for the ROs
Agree with @poke I'd rather the room be open and we tell them if they're not doing well, than adding a barrier to entry.
Yeah it's not webscale
(Joke and also seriously)
I'm against locking the room as well.
Also, from my experience, I tend to be on late at night as well, and there aren't any RO around
the room would be pretty much locked out unless at least one room owner is around to accept them
Well, that's pretty clear cut then :)
FYI I was also not a fan but apparently we're a "democracy" and so I had to add his stupid idea to the agenda.
It would cut down on noise, but I just don't think we've reached the scale where it's needed.
I don't think we're a democracy.
If "sign contract -> get granted access" was completely automatic, I'd be in favor. But I don't want to burden myself the ROs with bureaucratic work.
That's why I used the quotation marks.
Android has a lot more issues with newbies and scale.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:33
Yeah, Android is a mess on its own :P
I suggested it when we had a spate of new users causing trouble
People are way less scared of phone than snakes.
Android has a lot more issues than Python in general.
so. On to issue 3?
Yeah to be fair this was after Black Thursday when he suggested it.
People spam a lot there (Android) See my awesome app <link>
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:33
I believe that, while we had some difficult times in the last few months, that we can handle the new people pretty well in here.
Is Lounge<C++> locked? I consider them our evil twin so I nominate we do the opposite of whatever they're doing.
If that's that then we're actually onto AOB now.
No, even though they actually do concurrency
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:34
"any other business"
Any other business
Any Other Business.
Any Other Business, I presume
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:34
Any Other Business
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:34
Hey, rule 2, don’t spam!
That which we say five times is true.
All Owls are Birds
Read the rules, poke
All Owls are Birds
What is bread is sometimes rye
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:35
But I really liked how those four lines appeared pretty much at the exact same time
Any Other Business.
yes, I have some
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:35
I should ask more stupid questions
floor please
Go for it.
@tripleee has been doing some great work adding new items to the canon
but there's no real guidelines on what a canon page looks like
throws davidism slightly damp and suspiciously smelling floor
Should the description be detailed? Should there be more than one canonical link?
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:35
On the topic of canon pages..
I think more than one is fine if they both cover the same area in possibly different ways. For e.g. a 5 line solution and a @PM2Ring solution.
And also, I want to add some notification/review workflow so that we see when people are contributing.
What's the canon?
My fanfiction.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:37
So I got access to the documentation beta the other day.. I haven’t really done anything there, but from the looks of it, it seems to do a lot of what our canon pages do. So I kind of fear that with the release of the documentations, we end up migrating all our content over there..
@davidism I mean, I would certainly say yes. The input dupe page is what I would love to have all of them look like.
@poke Surely our canon is more about links to Qs, the docs beta didn't look that much like that to me.
(I also have access)
I'd be willing to contribute, but my name breaks the login. :P
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino yeah, that's next on aob
Also, documentation might go the way of SO TV or teams.
I'm fine with any level of description, from zero to "encyclopedic". I like having multiple links so I can carpet bomb OPs with potential dupe targets.
@davidism Cool.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:38
@Ffisegydd Yes, that’s obviously true, our main purpose is to get canonical dupes and having links to questions. But recent development of our canon articles made them more into stand-alone things which can be consumed on their own to understand certain topics.
One idea I had was one canonical link and multiple "see also" links, to emphasize which should be used as a dupe target and which are just good information.
Also, on the subject of the cannon, I can never find the variable variables one.
So maybe some better keywords?
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:38
I doubt whether there's always only one best, but a distinction between canon targets and see-also makes sense.
We should have a graph database of topics that are connected so we can make recommendations. If only we had some kind of machine learning project...
@poke I could probably work out a way to sync canon pages with docs, if docs become viable for the examples in the future.
And assuming there will be an api for docs.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:39
@poke OIC I've not seen the latest dev. I thought we always just did links and a mini description/example.
Er, wait, it was a different one that I can't remember now, but my point stands. :P
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino Yeah I have the same problem.
definitely need better keywords
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:41
@Ffisegydd Well, we had some that expanded a bit on that:
The tags can be whatever you want, it doesn't follow the same rules as SO tags.
My white whale is "flatten a list" which I'm sure exists but has no search results
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:41
(I am at “fault” for this as well)
I d like an explicit rule in Asking Questions:"Please don't target your question to an individual unless you are continuing a previous discussion with them. Just ask your question and let whoever wants to answer do so". Hopefully, that will help prevent HVs from latching onto a victim.
@Kevin nested sequence*
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:42
I actually generally like this, turning this more into a collection of things that can live on their own.
But again, Kevin's search should've returned that.
3 mins ago, by davidism
One idea I had was one canonical link and multiple "see also" links, to emphasize which should be used as a dupe target and which are just good information.
any comment on this idea?
Seems sensible.
@davidism Aye, fine with me.
Sounds good to me.
@davidism agree
I think we need the possibility of multiple links at least.
ok, I'll be adding some tickets to sopython-site
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:43
So basically split up the questions into “dupe target questions” and “interesting related questions”?
One dupe target, multiple related links.
The related links could answer the same Q but in much more detail for e.g.
Even for the "if a = b or c or d" question, even though we have three targets two of them are duped to the third.
@davidism That's the one I can never find!
Ah ha!
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:44
I’m not too sure on the single dupe target. Sometimes, there are two good targets for the same question; and it depends on the question which to choose
Are they really the same question? Or could we have two canon pages?
Depends on the OP.
New programmer needs one A, 10 year veteran having a bad day needs another.
I agree with whatever opinion gets my "a == b or c or d" question more views/upvotes. Just kidding... Or am I???
with "if a = b or c or d" each link targets a different form of it, but the problem boils down to the same thing either way
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:45
It’s often the same topic so there would be only one canon page
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:45
Anyway, I’m just saying that we should technically allow specifying more than a single dupe target for canon articles
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:45
We don’t need to use this, and we should try to only have one, but just for those rare exceptions, we would have the ability.
Hmm, I think I agree
Multiple dupe targets, but if there's more than one each needs a "use this target when" description.
Yeah sure
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:47
Works for me
And still have a related section for things that are not targets.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:47
Makes for a more complicated UI, but that’s a good idea I think
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:47
Good idea in theory, I doubt whether people are going to invest much time purely to distinguish them.
@DSM that goes into the other thing I said, a workflow for notifying and reviewing new canon items
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:48
@DSM those people are mostly us anyway :P
but that's further down the road
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:48
@Ffisegydd: I have an issue to raise.
Sometimes when I submit a message my avatar doesn't show up all the way and it looks like there's a V where it's supposed to go. Does anyone know what the deal is with that?
@Ffisegydd I have another one, but @DSM can go first
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:48
oh yes, some changelog would be nice for the canon, so we can see what’s new
throws DSM the mic to drop
DSM misses, mic drops
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:48
(I was going to say, if he didn’t catch it by now, it dropped..)
They're on different continents, give it time...
It's rolling down the hill now
We're actually doing the "pass it to someone you know" and it's got to reach Canada.
Hopefully it'll only take 6 or so steps.
The mic is labeled "please take me to DSM" and we're depending on the kindness of strangers
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:50
Short version: I think we've been a little quick with the kick-banning lately. In the real world, of course, being kicked for a minute is absolutely trivial, and not worth even blinking an eye about. But I don't think that's how some users see it. I think we need to restrict the use of the kick to respond to room-affecting behaviours.
@DSM yeah, I think this goes hand in hand with cleaning up and clarifying the rules
As this is a RO issue only ROs may have an opinion I kid please chime in, we just won't listen.
As the wussiest RO, my heart twinges a little every time anyone gets kicked.
As the bast*** RO, I cackle.
I'm not an RO, but I definitely agree. I think it needs to be something that's used for truly disruptive behavior.
But yes I agree.
The two things that should be kicked for are persistent vampires and people obviously kicking up trouble.
I believe I've never kicked anyone
I do also think that occasionally, some ROs get a little too temperamental, and need to calm down a bit before kicking...
Challenge accepted.
Every time you want to kick someone, roll 1d20 and fail on a five or lower.
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:52
I do that in the real world too!
I'm not going to say who, because I can't remember
i've kicked people and sometimes it sucks because it's dealing with some bs that's been happening for days, but others don't know the history/pattern
If we get a 20 though, does that count as a crit?
what @tristan said
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:53
@Kevin You’re wrong, that’s the ping from chat you hear, not your heart.
Yes, on a 20 you get a cookie. You have to buy it from the store yourself though.
the issue then compounds because others don't know this context
What if the ROs had a private, locked area they could highlight potential issues to one another?
Yeah that's one issue that is worth bringing up, we have a secret diary where we keep track of persistent troublemakers.
@Intrepid we do.
... uh oh.
We have a slack and a trello.
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 15:54
In a case like that, I think a comment like "This has now been going on for [period of time]" would suffice to let everyone know it's not just a response to the recent event.
Maybe the issue is that there needs to be more transparency.
It just looks worse to follow up a message with insulting a user. "I kicked him, but trust me, he's garbage"
Yeah, even that would be helpful as a normie.
Anw I hate the kick sound... So could we have a virtual kick first
@tristan I don't think it's unreasonable to link to an example of the user's past bad behavior.
At the danger of suggesting it's thoughtcrime, it's also relatively obvious when a user is going to go down the path of terrible.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:54
@IntrepidBrit The problems is less our internal communication, but communicating that to the other users.
It can easily be done as a "Hey, this is the behavior that's a problem. This is what you need to fix". Plus, it reads much better to those of us who can't see the RO notes.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:56
I.e. communicating that we act kind of as a group.
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino Time consuming and often it's a blue-to-orange thing -- there's often not a definitive time in which the line has been crossed, but it's frequent
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino this is harder than it sounds in some cases. There are users who's any one action is innocuous, but overall they are a pain.
Maybe communicate to the about-to-be-kicked user and give them a chance to mend their ways, in case they're not aware of previous problems in the room?
too bad this can't happen. But a PM from a RO to the user being disruptive to warn them that they might get kicked if they keep up their behaviour
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:56
I agree with that we should give a final word of warning before a kick happens.
Yeah I can try to give more explicit warnings.
Aye, works for me
@davidism See, that's exactly the kind of thing that worries me. I don't know that any of the current ROs do this, but it can very easily become "I don't like this person". If there's really NO examples of them breaking the rules, it's a little weird.
The problem is that we give lots of implicit warnings :P
If you make room moderation take more time than it currently does, the room won't be moderated. Example being today when Fizzy did moderation for the room meeting because real life came up.
And if you have notes on the person, can't you keep the link there?
(ack, brb. promise I'm not crying after all the comments attacking my character and/or bladder control)
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino The issue isn't typically other ROs not knowing why a user was kicked and I don't think it's polite to share history with the room in general.
We try to keep links to past behaviour, but at the same time you're just adding more work to it of "now I have to document every single time someone is a HV"
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:57
And on the other side, I think we should highlight somewhere that a kick on SO chat is not like a kick on other platforms. It’s a short time thing which does not mean much on its own. It’s mostly a “hey, wake up, and behave” thing.
Yes, ROs shouldn't be under the obligation to share the reasoning with the general public, but at least to the offending user
Adding that to the rules page would be useful
I'm not saying every time, just that it would be nice to have AN example.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:58
As I wrote the other day:
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 15:58
Mar 31 at 15:02, by poke
PSA: A kick on Stack Exchange Chat rooms is not a “we don’t want you here, go away”. It is a “Hey, please pay attention: We don’t like your behavior, so please do something about it when you come back.”
Users that are kicked don't read the rules anyway
I think we need a page on ROs really.
Does mentioning "garlic" really help the help vampire know that he is a HV?
@BhargavRao not at all, it lets others know though.
@BhargavRao It's not meant to benefit the .. what fizzy said
Ah fine. Got it
I'm happy to try and kick less, and to also be more explicit in my warnings beforehand.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 16:00
I think this all boils down to communicating issues clearer
and make an RO/how does the room moderation work page
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 16:00
We could steal from some Meta posts (I think Kevin did one on elections, etc.)
@poke Yup. That's what I'd like.
Technical question: if we kick someone and then ping them with "we kicked you because...", is that actually visible to them?
They will get a ping when they come back into the room.
They'll also get a notification in SO.
Sometimes when they come back in I get the impression that they didn't see any notifications in the intervening time.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 16:00
It should probably be the other way around though.
But maybe that's just the phenomenon of nobody reading anything ever.
Would be cool if we could kick with a message.
@Kevin Sounds about right.
Oh god yes.
Then you could say in private to the kickee.
@tristan we can only dream
"Hey listen dude you need to calm down. I know you like to lift tristan but you can't greet every new user with "SO BRAH, LIFT MUCH?""
Yeah, it's not going to happen
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 16:01
  • 6
You guys do nothing but complain. We have Teams! What more do we need?
Teams rule.
I am my own team.
Our team rules because we are the biggest.
Annnnnnnnnnnnd a new record set in the "Time to 3 stars" time bracket!
  • DSM
  • 2016-04-13 16:02
Anyway, that was my two cents on the banning.
Cool, so meeting done?
yes, I have another
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 16:03
  • 2
meh davidism, meh.
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 16:03
(I want to go home xD)
I recently looked at
And realized that I haven't done anything in at least a year. :-(
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 16:03
Yeah, we’re terrible
Oh boy 25 open bugs
As the laziest regular, I'm not inclined to throw stones.
Just wanted to put this out there that I am aware of it, I want to keep developing it, but I just need to find the time.
I've actually been on a big "programming at home" bit for a while, I could maybe pitch in some.
@davidism even I've made a commit in that time! :p
@davidism is this where you suggest they're all closed and people open them again as necessary? :)
Because stones are very heavy and they're just fine where they are, thank you
I would be interested in helping, I just don't know anything about Flask. :P I'd really like to learn though.
@idjaw see that there that Bobby did? Referencing old jokes! It's funny! Don't knock it! I'M DOING IT RIGHT NOW!
@Morgan pull down the code, have a play!
Right now I'm working on the Flask org projects a lot, but sopython-site is next on my list.
@Ffisegydd ............FINE
@Morgan'Venti'Thrappuccino once I get back into it, I'll get it organized and see what I can do about getting more of us involved.
It'd be Llanfair to penalise people for referencing old jokes!
I would be interested in helping, I just don't know anything about Python.
@JonClements I have a little, and I should do it more.
@MattDMo Nor do we - and we're doing fine! :p
I would be interested in helping, I just don't know anything about Github except that xkcd
It's just that without even the basic level of knowledge, I don't know where to even start looking for the bugs.
In cool news though, I did get our site on the (really lacking) "powered by flask" page.
I'm not interested in helping, and I know a fair bit about Flask.
ok, that's all from me I think
  • poke
  • 2016-04-13 16:08
Are we done with the meeting? Or are there AOAOAOBs?
ban tristan repeatedly
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd DONE.
Thank you for attending. Please leave.