KickbanXahLeeFromEmacsChannel

The Facts

On the EmacsChannel, Xah frequently engages in the following (presumably undesirable) behaviours:

• derailing the conversation into flaming matches
• posting off-topic, NSFW links (“Not Safe/Suitable For Work”)
• flooding the channel with long, off-topic monologues
• deliberate abuse of language (e.g. “no unstand” instead of “I don't understand”)

Xah occasionally exhibits the following (presumably desirable) behaviours:

• asking on-topic questions
• answering newbie questions

The vast majority of Xah's activity in #emacs falls into the former category.

Xah has a long history (years, if not decades) of annoying the denizens of other technical forums, particularly Usenet groups under comp.lang.

Opinions

• Xah annoys the regulars.
  • Regulars can use /ignore.
• Xah gives newcomers a bad impression of #emacs and possibly discourages them from returning.
• Xah has not responded to requests from regulars to cease his negative behaviours (see above). A ban is the only message he will understand.
• Xah hasn't violated any agreed-upon behaviour guidelines (because there aren't any).
  • So Xah can do absolutely anything in #emacs?
• Xah's monologues are amusing and/or interesting.
  • If you feel that way, arrange with Xah to join a dedicated channel (e.g. #xahlee) for that purpose.

Comments

It is time for me to speak up. I propose the permanent removal and banning of a certain Mr. Xah Lee from the freenode.net #emacs channel.

Xah starts constant flamewars. He insults people. He contributes virtually nothing of positive value to the channel. Instead he is constantly flooding the screen with various diatribes.

I think the EmacsChannel is crucial to the Global Emacs Community due to its longstanding service to newbies and veterans alike: a place for communicating about emacs, sharing solutions to common problems, helping newbies, and generally being a community focal point. Xah is reducing its value by his endless spamflooding of the channel that has now been going on for months. I think questions from newbies go off the top of the screen before people see them, due to Xahflooding. I think Xah is a serious detriment to the emacs community by virtue of his actions, and should therefore be kickbanned.

Thank you.

— DavidOtoole

14:18 ＜forcer＞ dto: In what way do you see the channel degenerate when
               Xah is talking stuff even if you ignored him?
14:20 ＜dto＞ forcer: i can tell xah is around when i have /ignore on
            because it becomes quiet, and i can see some things about
            him that aren't matched by the ignore. I don't have
            conclusive proof, but i have been in here long enough
            without using /ignore, to know that this quietness is
            because Xah is where the channel's energy and attention
            are really going.

Xah Lee's first response

More comments

First banning

[00:30] *** Ban list for channel: #emacs
[00:30] ==============================================================================
[00:30] Ban Mask
          Banned By
[00:30] ==============================================================================
[00:30] *!n=jjjj@*
          sagan.freenode.net
[00:30] xah!*@*
          sagan.freenode.net
[00:30] xahlee!*@*
          sagan.freenode.net
[00:30] *** End of Ban list

 *** Ban list for channel: #emacs
 ==============================================================================
 Ban Mask                                                             Banned By
 ==============================================================================
 *!n=jjjj@*                                                  sagan.freenode.net
 *** End of Ban list

Second banning

＞ xahlee: even after a period of absence, you continue to write inflammatory
  remarks and troll the channel. even if we ignore obvious bating attempts
  like "c# is a functional language", comments like "＜xahlee＞ RMS is decidedly
  a crackpot" and "＜xahlee＞ RMS is decidedly a fuckhead." are not constructive
  and are a detriment to the channel. so i'm going to ban you again
＞ /msg chanserv op #emacs resolve
*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #emacs to +o resolve
＜xahlee＞ and these two people, both i've never encountered as i far know, are
         both forgivable but nevertheless fuckfaces.
＞ /mode #emacs +b xahlee!*@*
*** resolve (n=sync@ppp4634.hakata05.bbiq.jp) has changed mode for #emacs to
    +b xahlee!*@*
*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #emacs to +o shapr
*** shapr (n=user@83.250.112.153) has kicked xahlee off channel #emacs: Kicked
    by shapr
* shapr boings
＜fledermaus＞ huzzah.
＜fledermaus＞ and there was much rejoicing.
＜Cowmoo＞ does that settle the kickban xahlee debate then?
＜shapr＞ If you decide to let him come back, I won't come back.
＜Cowmoo＞ haha
＞ shapr: i feel the same way
＜Cowmoo＞ okey dokey
＜Sketch＞ there's always /ignore
＜shapr＞ I know that worthwhile ideas may hide behind difficult people, but
        it's not worth my time to look for them there.
＜Cowmoo＞ nah Sketch, I'm a newbie who when first joined this channel was
         confronted with many xahlee monologues
＜fledermaus＞ xah's just here to pick fights and annoy people
＞ the disadvantages of /ignore have been discussed on the wiki page ad
  nauseum, sketch
＜shapr＞ ignore doesn't solve anything.
＜Cowmoo＞ and it made me think less of this channel because I thought I was the
         only one who thought this guy should be booted
＜Cowmoo＞ it really is/was a distraction to when I wanted to ask questions

I am the psychotherapist.  Please, describe your problems.  Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.

RMS is decidedly a crackpot

Do you know Stallman?

RMS is decidedly a fuckhead

Tell me about your feelings about him.

＜shapr＞ If you decide to let him come back, I won't come back.
＜resolve＞ shapr: i feel the same way

Xah Lee's second response

I really have a ton of things to say. Sometimes during the week of 2006-07-12 on my trip in a hotel, i have wrote some 800 words essay that i didn't complete but intended to post here. After i finished my trip and arrived home, i thought about finishing that essay and post here but just didn't have the motivation. One thing funny about these things is that, if you post or do any activity, the very act of posting here is making a statement. So, if i actually came here, make corrections to my postings, correct people's real names instead of the nick they habitually hides under, or add in complete logs of various ban situations, it will appeal like making a statement. So, i did not do that. Ok, this is the story up to about 2006-07-24.

— Xah Lee, 2006-07-26

I will now, find and post that incomplete essay. As well as try to post each and every log that bans me on irc. Probably somewhere on my website, and any writings by me i hope will also be more organized and made into a coherent essay on my website XahLee ?.org, with a title something like Xah Lee's Ban Record or The Hate Record Of Males Online. All names will be real names, because i want to highlight one of the problem of tech geekers habitual and customary online practice of using “nick” names, which encourages irresponsible activities and behaviors.

You should not worry about your real names being shown on my site. Because, if you are good, you have nothing to worry. And if your behavior is in fact not that good in these instances or don't look good on your future employment or whoever searching you online, you needn't really worry neither, because, you have a situation where you are among tens of people that are somewhat “on your side” and i'm clearly the nut case here. Basically, except the Christopher Rhodes (xophe) whom i deem a fuckface, i'm attacking humanity, and the male part of it. Your records only serve as a supporting document.

(PS is case one day i actually have put together a document about these cases on my website and you wish your name taken off, chances are, all you have to do is ask. (in case you don't know, people have done rather not reputable deeds and have been recorded on my website, and they KINDLY ASKED me to remove it and i did.).)

— Xah Lee, 2006-07-26

Now, few words about the period 2005-07-17 to 2006-07-24.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FOR RETRIBUTION

Sometimes before this week, i got actually banned in emacs. This was funny, because i already declared on the 12th that i will take a break and not join emacs. Nevertheless, the ban is still put in as a gesture. This is funny because, this is a reflection of another example of such human behavior. Y'know, that criminals who are condemned to death, are actually actively prevented from committing suicide. Why? After all, functionally speaking, if one is to die, one is to die. After the guy suicided, the problem really ended physically, and the society actually saves the trouble of killing. But no. The human animals cannot allow such suicide, because that would miss the retribution element. Y'see, for human animals, there is a psychology need to cause pain to others. For example, if guy A killed your son and raped your daughter, and he got caught, and people decided to kill him. Then, it wouldn't give you much pleasure if A suddenly killed himself. Instead, you want A to die on Your hands. Although things ends the same, but psychologically there's a great difference.

Now, on IRC, this phenomenon can be observed frequently too. Often, there's some quarrel or some person A did said some bad thing, then some room leader L wants to ban A, but before L can ban, A already exited himself. Then, we'll often see a quick ban by L anyway, as if to say “ha, you can't escape the ban!! I hurt you now!”, even if the “problem” of discussion disruption already went away. Of course, if A is likely to come back and continue the quarrel or other annoying behavior, then the exited ban is logical. But more often than not, such existed ban is a reflex.

In my own case, this phenomenon applies: I declared my taking a break from #emacs for a few days to a week, and i think most people here would have trusted me on my words. However, people had to add-in a ban as a gesture, as to say, hey, “you are not here not because your voluntary withdraw, but because WE BANNED YOU”.

— Xah Lee, 2006-07-26

HOW EMACS ROOM FOLKS ARE NICE THRU A SUBTLE OBSERVATION

When we judge people in society, often, we can see people's true nature not by the official defenses and behaviors, but by looking at some subtleties, and also the statistics (past records) of their behavior and the circumstances they were in.

For example, when we look at leaders in history. Great many of them have caused thousands and millions of intentional deaths. Some of these leaders are hated by many, yet great many of them are adored and admired and respected… (ok, i'm digressing…)

Ok, the gist of matter is that: Ask yourself, when you have the power to do A (suppose A means banning a guy, to causing or killing thousands of people to die), AND suppose if you choose to do A you will still be loved by many, if not majority: Will you or will you not do A?

In other words: if you can kill or do anything you want and by some magical pre-ordinance that you know you can absolutely get away with it. What will your behavior be?

Y'see, it is from these perspectives, you will see the true nature of a person. For vast majority of people, their behavior is just a function of their personal benefits. You see, most people's behavior when it comes to controversial morality related issues, are not really based on reasons or what they think is right, but predominantly based on what choices he makes will benefit him more, all things considered.

So, in IRC, the behavior of some room leader L to ban A, is not truly how L feels about banning someone, but more about how all other people will react to L's ban and how A being banned by him will affect L. For example, let's put some concrete picture here. Suppose A is a millionaire and L knows it, and L is a poor student. A is so rich that he can cause many bad things to happen to L's life. (job, careers, even the continued room leader status). Will L ban A? L will suddenly think twice, think trice, think quadruple of times, before he commit. Now, let's say, all other people are also aware of A's rich power, and have actually kissed up his ass so that a ban on A do not have many supporters in the community, yet, suppose A's behavior is truely bad. Now the problem L faces is that: if he ban A, he will have to deal with potential personal damage, and he will lose popularity with the community, and in fact A probably will be back soon, but L will be doing the community good by this ban. If L do not ban A, so much better for L, but L is not fulfilling his room leader obligation. For most people in L's position, they simply won't ban. Their decision is not so much of a rational, conscious thought process, but rather somewhat natural following the flow of the crowd and instinctive self-preservation.

So, when you see IRC bans, you can analyze it in the above perspectives. Self-preservation versus one's real moral sense. You'll see that the self-interest aspect are always predominant. In fact, it is only nature. Human animals need to survive as the first rule in accords to evolution. Moral senses, is only a afterthought.

What i'm coming to in this section, is the subtle fact that showed that although emacs people “banned” me, things indicate that it is not vicious. This, can be seen in how they banned me. The way emacsers banned me is put in such way, probably very consciously, that the banned can come back to #emacs just with a different name. This way of banning is ban by name, with text pattern to the effect of “xahlee@*”. This is a very commendable behavior. It is commendable because, ban by nickname effectively does what the ban is supposed to do, yet giving the banned the possibly of coming back to the room if he chooses to do so, but that he must use a different nickname (and to a noble person, this would be a form of disgrace). It shows that the banner as far as banning is concerned has a touch of heart in crimes and punishment called leniency. May it be that the banned needed to use the forum, or perhaps even want to comlpaint to another room leader about how the ban is unfair, that chance is not obliterated.

This name-based ban is in constrast to the other type that is most often used by fucking tech geekers. That is, a ban by matching a block of ip address, and often without any indication who is actually banned. In this pattern of ban, we can see that the banner is vicious in that he wants some severe punishment as if to prevent all possible return of the banned, and, it also indicates that, he doesn't care much about accidently banning other people on the block of IP address, AND, such a ban pattern does not even indicate who is banned. (like a secret police making people disappear)

(by the way, i could came back to any room regardless how i was banned, if i wanted to, but i'm not doing that. I will talk about this in some other day or section)

(this section is rather badly written (content wise)… i will need to rework it on making the main point about judging human behavior more clear… this idea is a very fundamental and gravely important idea. I'll have to do a lot more research and spend time if i wanted to get it nice, but basically the thought that human moral behavior are mostly a function of selfishness and social tide is probably a well-known theory and may even have a name. ( This is overtly talked about in radios or TVs when analysts talk about politicians's moves in big political events such as big governmental office elections, you'll see the analysts openly discuss politicians as strategists, who's speeches and actions are to maximize their personal goals such as getting themselves liked and elected by the populace, but not necessarily what they actually believe or will do.))

—Xah Lee, 2006-07-26

HOW IRC BAN BEHAVIOR DECREASE IRC UTILITY IN THE LONG RUN

Gosh, this is another topic that i've tried to lecture about perhaps twice in irc, or here and there but never have come to write a coherent essay. (it takes a lot energy, but here's i'll just give a cursory markup. Later i might edit and elaborate on my website)

As i have said many times, the ban, kick, ignore, killfile, slew of activities are in fact detrimental to the communication media in the long run. The most painstaking example i've used to illustrate this is the email spammers versus the tech geekers.

(some about killfile aspect has been written here http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/kill_file_harmful.html )

The tech geekers, due to utter ignorance of society and their vicious nature of males, have long been fighting with the spammers in the very beginning, by tech battle. That is, the tech geekers device technological ways to thwart or defeat spammers. While, the spammers, do exactly the same: they use more technology to bypass the tech geeker's walls. (e.g. tech geekers have black lists, honey pots, web traps, bayesian filtering et al, while the spammers have email harvesters, spam bots, zombie farm, forged header, et al.)

Long story short, in mid 1990s spam is just a annoyance constitution perhaps 1% of email traffic, but today it is some 80% or 90% of email traffic. Personally, for the past year i'm getting tens of spams in my inbox, most of which are either entirely image based or have lots of plain texts that are very difficult to distinguish from a Joe Bloke's email. (i.e. today the spammers either sends a pure image file, of which technology is unable or costy to discern, or they have sampled average email contents and use that as their message body, while putting their payloard (often advertisements) thru some mis-spelling or rearangement so that computer programs don't recognize it while humans still get advertised.)

(note: i get tens of emails spams in my inbox, but i actually receive literally thousands of spams a day. As far as i know, i started to lose real emails since 2005.)

(about the spammer versus the tech geekers, my earliest writing of it is here: dated 2002-08-21 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/5ddebf2ca6ba53d3?dmode=source Excerpt:

«Recall that Spy vs Spy was a popular comic by Antonio Prohias that appears in Mad magazine.

Here's a few snap shots:

http://www.collectmad.com/britishcovers/pro_spy1.jpg http://www.collectmad.com/collectibles/bbsvsc.jpg

the theme being two archenemic spies, colored one white and one black, who better each other on schemes and technologies. One creates a voice-recognition missile, then the other invents a voice-exchanging device. The final frame of the comic would have the second spy shrieking with mirth and a victory pose over the mishaps of the other. Turn to the next installment and the winner ＆ loser are reversed: We see one spy excitedly plans a booby trap. When he enters the other spy's house to install the bomb, he got blown up because the other spy has spied on his scheme. Again the hilariously smug victory pose over the misfortune of the other.

Their fight is endless. Over and over we read with glee over the silly stratagems and incredible technologies they devices that befall on themselves.

As i sit here and read the technology geeking morons fighting with spammers. » )

Now, let's consider newsgroups. Every tech geeker knows about newsgroups. Now, newsgroups softwares have “kill file” feature from the very early beginning. Newsgroups have been around for what, 20 years? With each generation of newsgroup clients, the kill-file feature or otherwise various mark-up mark-down features get better and better all the time. But has any of these features abated the so-called “trolls” or “noise” in newsgroups? or, have they reduced or eased the fights and hostilities in newsgroups? Frankly, the noises, fights, troll-cryings only increased and in fact today you can not go by passing a few days without hearing a troll cry or fight broke out. What is wrong? Again, due to the tech geeker's total ignorance in sociology, they perceived wrong problems, and their actions only exacerbated the situation.

Likewise, on irc, we often see various bot attacks or other non-stoppable disruptions. Does any one think, that these have nothing to bo with the practice of bans and kicks across irc?

TOLERANCE VERSUS THE MALE NATURE

…

to Shae Erisson (shapr) right after he kicked me in emacs. 2006-07-26 (PST time)

7:19am xahlee

not cool.

7:19am xahlee

i get very tired of this…

7:20am xahlee

i've been msg to 3 people know, wrinig long explanations in each case

7:20am shapr

Emotional remarks like “fuckface” will get you banned from any channel on which I have ops.

7:20am xahlee

but really, i get tired to explain this or that.

7:20am xahlee

shapr: that's fine. But that is rather inane.

7:20am xahlee

there are million and billions of people around the globe,

7:21am shapr

Ok, go talk to them instead.

7:21am xahlee

quarreling about this or that little matters.

7:21am xahlee

what does it matter that i get banned or not??

7:21am xahlee

i'm a insignificante little being, like a ant in the billions of gazilions.

7:21am xahlee

you are a insignificante little being, like a ant in the billions of gazilions.

7:21am xahlee

what's with this little petty power games get you?

7:21am shapr

A better community.

7:21am xahlee

upholding some justice in humanity?

7:22am shapr

I want to pursue knowledge, I do not want to fight.

7:22am xahlee

shapr: no, in fact the opposite.

7:22am shapr

Wherever I see you on IRC you start a fight.

7:22am xahlee

you know about those bot attacks? and all sort of spams?

7:22am xahlee

where they came from?

7:22am shapr

Fights don't communicate knowledge.

7:22am xahlee

they don't appear for nothing.

7:22am shapr

You say things that sound like attacks, so people feel they have to defend themselves.

7:22am xahlee

they are caused, by this collective ban and ignorance of sociology.

7:23am xahlee

you and me and little quarrels doesn' matter.

7:23am xahlee

look at the big picture.

7:23am xahlee

what you are doing, and you are saying that we should do,

7:23am xahlee

is the same as the tech geeker has done to the spam.

7:23am xahlee

where, today, 90% of email traffic are spam.

7:23am xahlee

it's like spamer vs tech geekers,

7:24am xahlee

each thing they got better tech to kick the other.

7:24am shapr

I keep my communities clean.

7:24am xahlee

it gets worse and worse.

7:24am shapr

You're talking at me, you're not listening.

7:24am shapr

Nor are you having a conversation.

7:24am shapr

You're just saying things at me rather than interactin.

7:24am xahlee

shapr: so what do you want me to say or answer?

7:24am shapr

Each person in a conversation must step outside of themselves a bit to have real interaction.

7:25am shapr

I want you to understand that argument detracts from communities.

7:25am shapr

And when you visit a community, arguments happen.

7:25am shapr

And you are at the cause of those arguments.

7:25am shapr

So no matter what I think of you personally (nice site, I'm glad you write lots)

7:25am shapr

I still cannot allow you to detract from the communities that I maintain.

7:25am shapr

Do you understand that?

7:26am xahlee

yes.

7:26am shapr

So what do you want?

7:26am shapr

Do you want arguments? Or do you want knowledge?

7:26am xahlee

do you see a point i'm making?

7:26am xahlee

about the spammer vs tech geekers?

7:26am shapr

No, I don't. Can you make that point in one sentence?

7:26am xahlee

＜sigh＞

7:27am shapr

Hey man, I don't have to talk to you ☺

7:27am shapr

I'm trying to be nice.

7:27am shapr

I have paying work to do, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

7:27am xahlee

well… lol

7:27am shapr

I am hoping that by describing to you how you can become a productive member of communities like #emacs and #haskell, then maybe you'll figure out how to fit in.

7:28am xahlee

shapr: you are getting more and more ridiculous

7:28am xahlee

first, i listened to your points,

7:28am shapr

Ok, that's enough.

7:28am xahlee

and i thought maybe you didn't get my point.

7:28am shapr

I don't wish to continue this discussion.

7:28am xahlee

and indeed, you didn't, but you want me to put it in one setence

7:28am shapr

Either put it into one sentence or I'll ignore you.

7:28am xahlee

then, you started with some attitude, as if you are pitying me, as if you have a job and i don't.

7:28am xahlee

what's that attitude about?

7:29am shapr

No, none of that was meant to be implied.

7:29am xahlee

you are not pitying me, and i'm not pitying you neither.

7:29am shapr

I was only saying that I have other stuff I could be doing.

7:29am xahlee

you don't have to talk to me, and what make you think i need to beg to talk to you?

7:29am shapr

wtf?

7:29am xahlee

i talk to you, because i find you respectable.

7:29am shapr

k, bye

7:29am xahlee

and i try.

7:30am xahlee

yeah, you spend the past hours on #emacs. What makes you think i don't have other things to do?

7:30am xahlee

and, come to this: what is the point for you to tell me that you have other things to do??

7:30am xahlee

other than implicating a pity or belitteling?

7:30am xahlee

let me repeat, i talk to you, spending me time telling you about my point,

7:31am xahlee

because formost, i like you and respect you.

7:31am xahlee

And, you get more respect when you actually answered.

7:31am xahlee

while the other 2 today who kicked me did not.

7:31am xahlee

(and i don't even know them)

7:31am xahlee

and, i listened to what you have to say.

7:31am xahlee

and i agree.

7:32am xahlee

I see your point.

7:32am xahlee

but you refuse or put on a attitude about what i have to say.

7:32am xahlee

telling me to put in one sentence, then followed by a bunch of belitteling remarks about how you have other things to do and so on.

7:32am xahlee

that's not proper, if you meant to be proper.

7:33am xahlee

and more specifically, i don't think you kicked me in emacs is proper, because

7:33am xahlee

you are not a regular there, and

7:33am xahlee

since i was using irc since 2006 Jan and about every day in #emacs, i have hardly seen you there during this period.

7:34am xahlee

the reason you are quick to kick me in #emacs, is because (yes i know),

7:34am xahlee

because you wanted to make a point.

7:34am xahlee

and that point being,

7:35am xahlee

i got kicked in #haskell today, and you said you are the boss there and think it's proper, and you want to kicked me in #emacs right there at the moment so that you can show that your authority and decisiveness

7:35am xahlee

to all the others to see.

PS I think shapr is a nice guy. The above is more or less slacker's quarrel.

The reason Shae Erisson (shapr) is quick to spring to action, and decisive, and as one can see in other places to make a non-requested, proactive statement about permanent banning me: “＜shapr＞ If you decide to let him come back, I won't come back.” is a exhibition of MEANNESS.

I have in my life chatted to Shae no more than perhaps 4 times. (and as far as i know except this one time in #emacs, they all occured in #haskell). (the first time to my recollection he helped me in #Haskell, pointed to a Haskell cheatsheet that i was looking for) Let's analyze his statement: “＜shapr＞ If you decide to let him come back, I won't come back.”.

If me and Shae have run into each other in #emacs now and then, then there's a logical reason to his statement, that is: to prevent my presence while he is present. But, since we are almost never together in a room, his statement is there to showcase a male trait of decisiveness and meanness. From psychological-political perspective, the function of such statement is to establish leadership and authority.

Regarding what Shae had to say in the above chat, it is extremely reasonable and cool headed. I was even taken aback a bit by the calm tone. It presented his views, and in fact most other people's views in a cogent manner. However, it is marred by his “i'm holier than thou” attitude which he quickly followed up with. Regarding his message, i clearly understand it and see his point. I'm not perfect person, and i too, have my views i wish others to see. I'm aware of my disruptive nature, and my point is that, it is my personality and behavior that i raise issues. Put it this way, there are many great heros who are put to jail by the government and society for their social activities, but some nevertheless gained certain Hero status. (for example, Gandhi, Bertrand Russel, and to the WASP mind, Martin Lurther King, to name some chantable names.) So, the question here becomes, to what degree you allow or restrict dissenting views or disruptive behavior? I don't mean to say every thugs in society need to be heroically considered. But the problem pertaining me as you see are indeed some dissenting opinions in the software industry (from Microsoft Hatred to the Unix Pestilence to the tech geeker ignorance to the Open Source lies).

To further this point, for example, i'm not someone who disrupt by doing things like coming in and keep posting porno, or post spam or flood, or hide my name and pretend i'm someone else etc. My “disruptions”, is almost always about some issues related to the IT industry, together with my rampant use of fuck word and disrespect of the status quo. So, in this section, my point is that i'm not some “troll” or anti-social fuck as some tech geeking fuckfaces want to hat me. And i want people to consider the aspect of social disruption from the point of view of dissenting opinions.

For many Open Source or Free Software tech geeker themselves, are in fact a minority or dissenting voices with respect to most societies, and they often participate in some demonstrations or lobbying in public places against the status quo or social norms. (for example, against various laws about patents, commercial software, licensing, cryptology tech, and so on, in fact many are put to jail willy-nilly.) As most of you know, RMS himself has run into troubles with local police in various countries. (don't know if he ever actually been put to jail for his computing related behaviors)

So, if my behavior is social disruption, then to what degree you tech geeking fuckers are a disruption to society on the whole and viewed by majority as a problem?

(my behavior in #emacs and my person in general with respect to the computing world are sometimes condoned or even loved precisely because i'm in a sense one of them/you, just a more severe case.)

Also, let me here point out a very well written essay on the issue of trolling, named “To Catch a Troll” by Bill Palmer http://xahlee.org/Netiquette_dir/_/to_catch_a_troll.html

msg to Damien Elmes (Resolve) right after he banned me in #emacs. 2006-07-26 (PST time)

the statement by Damien right before he banned me is this:

“xahlee: even after a period of absence, you continue to write inflammatory remarks and troll the channel. even if we ignore obvious bating attempts like “c# is a functional language”, comments like “＜xahlee＞ RMS is decidedly a crackpot” and “＜xahlee＞ RMS is decidedly a fuckhead.” are not constructive and are a detriment to the channel. so i'm going to ban you again”

in which i refute by /msg him and typed quickly. He didn't make any response.

7:12am xahlee

huh?? C# is not a functional lang?

7:13am xahlee

and, about RMS, it is my rightful and honest opinion,

7:13am xahlee

i was watching the vid of RMS talk in Tawian,

7:13am xahlee

and if you put economiists or sociologists in the talk,

7:13am xahlee

say, 100 economists and 100 sociologists choosen randoms from around the world

7:14am xahlee

chances are, 90% will say RMS is motherfucking talking shit.

7:14am xahlee

no, i take that back. They will say, RMS is motherfucking bending the truth with words.

7:14am xahlee

So, just what the fuck is your statement?

7:15am xahlee

just because you are a tech geekers who are clouded inside a tech geeking cave,

7:15am xahlee

does not mean the world of people should follow your opinions and agree with your ideas.

7:15am xahlee

In fact, RMS himself, when looked in the context of all human animals,

7:16am xahlee

is in fact rather a weird person, and his opinions supported by a minority.

7:16am xahlee

AND, besides, RMS and other opensources openly said fuck Bill Gates and things like that

7:16am xahlee

and Bill Games has won many awards from around the world's most renowned and respected instutitions.

7:16am xahlee

So, what the fuck are you saying??

7:17am xahlee

you(s) little power games i'm really tired of.

7:17am xahlee

ban this ban that.

7:17am xahlee

can't you people have any conscience outside of your little group?

7:17am xahlee

i'm a little small insignificant being.

7:18am xahlee

you are a little small insignificant being.

7:18am xahlee

like a ant in the billions of gazilions.

7:18am xahlee

why is that, the little power games seems so important to you guys??

7:18am xahlee

what does it really matter, that i get banned or not?

7:18am xahlee

such little quarrel is going on around the world with millions of people here and there.

7:19am xahlee

yeah, i get tired.

PS I think Damien is a fine person. This ban, i condone. However, as indicated, he's got major ignorance, but not necessarily worse than most people. Later i realized, that C# is a typo, I meant F#. (due to Damien's ignorance of technology here, he is quick in his mind to attribute this typo as my “trolling”. Such mis-understanding happens a lot. Even though often they are intentionally perpetrated by me to raise a issue. In today's crowd of tech geeking moron's minds, there dwells the concept of “troll”. This term and concept, has done massive amount of damage to society by encourage unthinking. Their “troll/trolling” may mean raising a issue (as Ganhdi did), being a non-conformist, gadfly, or being a outsider, that it's so abused that one can almost attribute any thing one doesn't like online as “troll” without raising a eyebrow.

(more about trolling and its ignorance is here http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/troll_ignorance.html )

(the essence of the today's usage of “troll/trolling” is a subsconscious belief that there exist people who are pure evil. This mindset corresponds to today's WASP's mindset as perpetrated by their countless media (such as WASP Superheros or Star Wars, where the villains are often evil lords that don't have much motivation other than pure evilness) )

I condone this Damien ban because i started to rant about some personal issues as if i have some special status in #emacs. (i was announcing how i was banned in quick succession in #math and #haskell both i deem not justified) However, Damien's own reason for the ban (about his perception of me being “inflammatory remarks” i.e. my statement on RMS or C#/F# ) is due to his ignorance. It would be more pertinent, if he simply kicked me out. (and you will believe me when i say, in general, when i'm kicked out in a irc room i do not actively rejoin, unless the kick is clearly a prank, in which i rejoin as a etiquette to be amicable to the one who did the kicking. (i do rejoin usually when there's a wireless disruption and my client automatically rejoins me.))

But consider my foregoing problems with some #emacs regulars, i think it is reasonable for this to be a ban, and it should last no more than another week.

I think i spend 4 hours writing the above. I have yet to look for the some 800 words incomplete essay i wrote in my hotel, and yet to fetch and collect and post the various irc ban logs, have yet to begin to address the so many issues i have in my heart, have yet to prepare a page on my website for all these to go into… it will easily take another 10 hours… but i think i'l take a break now.

im not a normal person. There is so much pain in me… the ignorance in society, the hatred. Another section above i wanted to write is about Intolerance versus Hatred. It is curious, with all these bans and concerns about bans and kicking going on all over all types of online forums… has any one actually thought about the concept of forgiveness? I mean, we are all grave and serious about all the justice and community values, but where did tolerance and forgiveness go? Was it not in the bible, that Jesus is supposed to turn the other cheek?… too much to write…

Think less your righteousness and moral values. Live, and let live.

 — Xah Lee, 2006-07-26

lastly, i may or may not actually write more here. But in any case, after all's said and done, i hope people will go and make the following come tru in irc:

General IRC Policy • the banner should listed together with the banned. • a brief one-sentence message should be listed together with the banned, given by the banner. • a ban should expire in 3 days or a week. • a 1-month ban should be possible, but must have 3 banners cosign.

 —Xah Lee, 2006-07-26

The Decision

As it is a wiki, of course people are free to update the comments section with further discussion of this topic. But to sum up the current state of affairs: it was decided by several of the channel operators to ban Xah. Thus, as of July 26th, 2006, Xah Lee is banned from irc.freenode.net/#emacs.

Status as of 2006-08-30

Why am i still banned? —Xah Lee, 2006-08-30.

Status as of 2006-10-15

I've recently rejoined the EmacsChannel after a long hiatus, and have thus been confronted with this issue for the first time. Reading up on this wiki-page pretty much got me nowhere, unfortunately.

In the short time I've been on the channel I've seen hostility towards XahLee ? as well as hostility from him. The channel seems a mess, honestly. Many people are obviously ignoring XahLee ?, and many people seem to listen to him only in order to chastise everything he says, or advice newbies not to listen to him. The signal-to-noise ratio has diminished into the unknown.

Reading over this page to get a feel for the decision the community has made, while I was away, and comparing it with the status of the channel confuses me. XahLee ? is currently banned with three different banmasks, yet, he is still on the channel. Is he ban-evading, or should those old banmasks be removed?

One thing that confuses me the most is that the only person consistently against any kind of action is “Royce Gracie”. I must admit I have a hard time taking his comments serious, without an attachment to the channel and/or the wiki that consists of more than just the name of a professional wrestler. My own research has been unable to find any other link to Emacs from this pseudonym. An EmacsChannel nick to connect this name to, would be much appreciated.

A regular whose opinion seems against above is DavidHansen. Yet he mentions this only once, and very much in brief, in connection to the first ban. LuisFernandes makes a (good) point about the good nature and capabilities of human beings, yet his position is not clear to me. Deego has changed his opinion during the course of this discussion, but where do people stand now?

I don't want to come back into this community after such a long hiatus, and reawaken an old discussion you've all grown tired of, but I would like to get this issue cleared up. Is XahLee ? banned, or isn't he? And is there a consensus on something, or isn't there?

It seems that people are leaving the EmacsChannel based on this (and relating issues), and I'm sad to see that happen.

Some people have made it clear that they very much dislike the idea of any kind of banning from the EmacsChannel, but even some of those seem to think this case merits it.

I suggest the following. List your names under the category which you belong to, so we can get the overview of who stands where. I wish no further discussion of the topic, merely a listing of names to see where the community stands, summarized, so this page can give a clear picture of the situation. If I have missed a category that should be included, I apologize. My name is added to the list, so it should be clear where I stand, and my writing should of course be judged relative to this. In any case, in the hope of a cleared up situation, here goes. – TerryPatcher

For a permanent ban

TerryPatcher, AlexSchroeder, AadityaSood, KamenNedev, AlokSingh, LucasBonnet, DamienElmes, EdwardOConnor, DavidOtoole

For active "policing" (time-based bans, kicking each time justified)

Horst Burkhardt (PeanutHorst ?), DeanScarff, BrianTempleton

For "leave it to the discretion of the channel ops"

MichaelOlson, DeepakGoel, wolfbone, MathiasDahl, bpalmer

Against any kind of action towards XahLee

Royce Gracie

Against any kind of "policing" generally

Against This Page

Good grace, this must be one of the largest pages on this wiki. Please stop it.

StefanKamphausen

Status as of 2006-10-29

John Sullivan (Johnsu01) set a ban by a static IP on me on 2006-10-29. I will not try to come in. After a week, i hope all the bans can be lifted, and we can restart fresh. —Xah Lee, 2006-10-30.

Status as of 2006-12-13

Xah Lee is still banned in the forum. John Sullivan (aka johnsu01) has become vigilant about the ban. He kicks me whever he saw me in the forum, and put a new ban on my ISP's IP. This on-the-spot kick/ban happened at a frequency about once or twice a week.

Xah's 3rd Response

(note: I can change my IP address by rebooting my modem by pressing the power button twice. I also have access to other IP addresses such as google wifi, and am aware of onion routing and similar technologies))

btw, i want to make a official complaint to all the ops, about John Sullivan (aka johnsu01) 's continual vigil of banning me. I understand, possibly a majority of ops will support him. Nevertheless, it is my belief that this decision is wrong.

If we consider the #emacs channel on freenode.net to be merely communal group and without any serious laws and processed etc. And that if the ops decided to ban someone, and that is the end of the story. That is fine with me. But given this understanding, please also understand, i will use any (legal) means, if i desire, to come in despite the “official” ban. (So, in a sense, this become a cat/mouse or cops/robber conflict. see http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/tech_geekers_vs_spammers.html )

However, if the emacs ops or community, consider that the freednode.net's emacs channel is a certain formal polity, with strict processes, rules, and hierarchy of judicial body, then that point of view is fine with me too. In this case, i'm making a formal complaint about john sullivan. And, if emacs ops is on his side for the ban, i'm further making a formal complaint to irc controlling body about this ban. (or, the ops themselves can appeal to the higher power to resolve our conflict) If, the hierarchy of power continues upward, i am making a formal complaint or appeal to the United States legal system. (which i don't think this case is ever gonna be serious or big enough to become. But, if it becomes so, it is my intention do so (If the case ever comes that large, i woud of course have to have practical consideration on the time and money that would cost me, and the possible benefit i might receive.))

It is my belief, that one should act out of love and be guided by knowledge. (This is the principle belief expressed by Bertrand Russell.) I have spend several hours writing defenses and reasons in the flurries of bans and misguided hostilities against me. ( http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/KickbanXahLeeFromEmacsChannel )

i believe, some of my most important reasons, are ignored. (i.e. that i was actually the most helpful person in #emacs since the the discussion of banning me started, and have given a easily method to verify this by grepping logs for the number of occurrences of my name and expressions of gratitude. And the other thing is, how kicking and banning in irc should be limited in duration, and also suggested a loose legal structure how ops should work for everyone's fairness. (namely, make the ban publicly announced, with reasons and banner, and how to handle longer bans etc.))

Most of these are simply ignored.

Regarding the last ban and continual vigil by John Sullivan… i think John is the type of person which the enthusiasm for morality has cause him to do more harm than good. (in this regard, it is not unlike USA today and George W Bush, or the priests in the dark ages)

I may post log evidences if necessary, but the particular incidence that caused John to ban me is his sensibility about copyright and privacy issues. (it is caused by, when i lisp pasted some url posted in this channel, that is related to a discussion about a emacs logo. John was not a participant in that discussion, but he felt that i violated other's privacies and the loose policy of no log for this channel.

The very concept of the prohibition of publishing logs of Emacs channel is questionable in many aspects. (in its moral soundness, its praticality of enforcement, and the problems of propergation of the rule's existance) Which i have discussed in the past (somewhat with Taylor R. Campbell (aka Riastradh)). But this will be another topic.

 Nevertheless, a important issues here is that we should not use the existence of such prohibition to eliminate any evidence in criminal investment. For example, it is my “right”, to post or show logs, if others accuse me saying bad things or behavior which i deny. One cannot use the rule of no logs to eliminate the accused of proving himself innocent.

This issue of publishing logs and law, has come up before, and it has in my impression several times touched the sensibilities of this bleedingheartist John. Another bout of ban of me, is in fact started by John, because he thought my showing the emacs channel to my professor friends is some violation of privacy. And he later personally apologized to me about it. (i believe i have this logged)

This John Sullivan is a funny bleedingheart American-leftist-extreme moron. When the kick ban xah discussion appear on emacs wiki sometimes in 2006 July ( http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/KickbanXahLeeFromEmacsChannel ), John is of the opinion that that page shouldn't exist, because he believed it to be a form of persecution of me. (i don't agree here, but i do thank him for the support) Then, due to his bleeding heart sensibilities, he caused one of the ban that happened on me. (and which he later apologized. This is about me showing my math friends of emacs irc) Then, the last ban, is entirely singled handed and single sided sensibility of him. Feeling that i caused copyright or privacy violation because i posted the url of emacs logos discussed here to lisp paste. (in fairness, this incident is just the hair that broke the camel's back. The incidence caused him to kick ban me, with continual vigilance whenever he sees me in the room, in part i believe because the sum of all my alleged anti-social behaviors on #emacs in the past warranted this)

Note that, although our irc fights are insignificant in the world of affairs. But, i'm willing to defend it all the way to the US's highest court of justice, in multitudes of aspects. (e.g. the unfairness of the banning me as it is being carried out by John. My legality and ethical soundness of posting urls pasted here to lisp paste. My legality and ethical soundness of showing irc channel discussions to my friends. My legality of expressing controversial and offensive opinions with swearing. (Please note here, i accept bans and kicks when they are executed properly. In this regard, consider my actions civil dis-obediance.) However, i do not accept some such bans, and consider it a abuse of power. And, i consider John Sullivan, has done this. (even though he “tries to be a good man”) )

Well… ok the above is quickly written. I felt i should voice my own views about the situations, being unable to do so in #emacs.

Few words in summary. Love and Knowledge, Live, and Let Live.

The ultimate reason for kick ban me is that i cause bad things in the emacs community. But is that reality? Frankly, i believe i have contributed the growth of emacs comparable to many longtime regulars. My help to newbies, my popular tutorial http://xahlee.org/emacs/emacs.html and contribution to the thoughts (essays on emacs's keyboard shorctcut design, modernization of its docs etc), and entire HTML valid elisp documentation of 900+ pages nicely formatted.

To the ops: make your kick/ban one-week in duration (and try to base your judgement on love and knowledge, as oppose to rules and process). Do this, and you will have done a good thing humanity, in the context of being a op.

  Xah, 2006-12-13
  xah@xahlee.org∑
http://xahlee.org/