API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Sep 11th, 2010
90
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 6.14 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. May 26, 2010
  2.  
  3. [18:14:21] < Imants> would it be ok if I added a N.B. on the chat guide concerning the 1337speak and the like?
  4. [18:14:21] < MrUnimport> THANK YOU
  5. [18:14:32] < MrUnimport> Is that not in there already?
  6. [18:14:33] < Imants> specifically, i want to let people know that names with numbers are frowned upon.
  7. [18:14:41] < MrUnimport> Oh, I see.
  8. [18:14:46] <@pooryoric> do it
  9. [18:14:51] < MrUnimport> Go ahead.
  10. [18:14:53] < SophosBlitz> I don't know
  11. [18:15:08] < SophosBlitz> I honestly think it's one of those No-Particular-Reason-Nazi'isms
  12. [18:15:16] < Imants> Just like chatspeak?
  13. [18:15:19] < Break> Plus, people get DC'ed all the time.
  14. [18:15:34] < Imants> If someone can't be imaginative enough to make a name without numbers, do we want them to be here?
  15. [18:15:36] < SophosBlitz> Also, some people have numbers after their nicks for legitimate reasons
  16. [18:15:43] < Imants> Yeah, I was going to add that.
  17. [18:15:48] < MrUnimport> It is one of those, Blitz.
  18. [18:15:59] < MrUnimport> But oh well, we've got worse ones.
  19. [18:16:04] < SophosBlitz> Not just ``Somebody took my nick''
  20. [18:16:07] <@pooryoric> to me, a numbername says "I am either too young, too old, or too stupid to come up with an original name."
  21. [18:16:08] < Imants> The rule I follow is: "If it's a number, just because you had nothing better, or because it looks cool, then change your nick. Please."
  22. [18:16:29] < Imants> "If it has a special meaning to you, then it's cool. But by and large, no numbers please."
  23. [18:16:33] < MrUnimport> You know what, maybe it's better that we just look on with silent disapproval.
  24. [18:16:41] < Imants> But we don't.
  25. [18:16:44] < Imants> And that's why I want to add the rule.
  26. [18:16:55] <@pooryoric> I tend to persecute them
  27. [18:16:59] < Doc_Burns> :D
  28. [18:17:00] < SophosBlitz> Now the problem is, if it's the second case, nobody will care until about 3 to 5 kickbans later
  29. [18:17:00] < Imants> Because, and sorry Blitz, but however wrong it is, they get persecuted.
  30. [18:17:02] < Imants> And Bright does.
  31. [18:17:04] < Imants> And other does.
  32. [18:17:11] < Imants> other?
  33. [18:17:15] < Imants> why would I say that
  34. [18:17:21] < Imants> other people, whatever.
  35. [18:17:29] <@pooryoric> "others do"
  36. [18:17:38] < Imants> Anyway, the point of putting it in the chat guide is so they don't get griefed.
  37. [18:17:51] < Doc_Burns> D:
  38. [18:17:54] < Doc_Burns> Ruin all our fun.
  39. [18:17:59] <@pooryoric> and so they don't offend those of us with standards
  40. [18:18:06] < Doc_Burns> Damn you imants. With your sensibleness and your hat.
  41. [18:18:13] * Imants sensible hat.
  42. [18:18:57] < snorlison> It doesn't seem that sensible to me, and I'm not sure we need yet another rule, but I don't really care either way I guess.
  43. [18:19:09] < SophosBlitz> What if I was living with the username ``sblitz1''? Would I have been persecuted until I took off the 1? =/
  44. [18:20:10] < Imants> ...
  45. [18:20:22] < Imants> Who here do you think will answer no?
  46. [18:20:39] < Imants> I won't persecute. I ask nicely, explaining my reasoning.
  47. [18:20:39] *** Break is now known as Cassandra
  48. [18:20:45] < Imants> But the point is the same.
  49. [18:21:14] < SophosBlitz> I think it's a ridiculous standard. I mean, it's not something like ``Blitz123'' which you want to be removed
  50. [18:22:11] < SophosBlitz> And then because of the no-numbers rule, suddenly I'm ``Blitzzzzzz''
  51. [18:22:19] < SophosBlitz> Which of course is perfectly okay, amirite?
  52. [18:22:20] < Imants> If the standard is ridiculous then, I vote that we drop it
  53. [18:22:29] < Gnosis> xXxSoPhOsBlItZ420GoKu69xXx
  54. [18:22:41] < Imants> I also move that we allow chatspeak, and 1337speak in the chat.
  55. [18:22:51] <@pooryoric> seconding imants proposal
  56. [18:22:55] < snorlison> disallow you mean.
  57. [18:23:02] *** Gnosis is now known as xXxGnOsIs_SePhIrOtH_69420xXx
  58. [18:23:05] < xXxGnOsIs_SePhIrOtH_69420xXx> HEY GUYS WHAT'S GOING ON
  59. [18:23:07] <@pooryoric> it's sarcasm, snorlison
  60. [18:23:17] < snorlison> Ah, whoops!
  61. [18:23:29] < Imants> Unless the point you're trying to make is that we shouldn't allow dumb names
  62. [18:23:31] *** xXxGnOsIs_SePhIrOtH_69420xXx was kicked from #site67 by pooryoric [that shit is ridiculous]
  63. [18:23:32] *** xXxGnOsIs_SePhIrOtH_69420xXx [~Gnosis@synIRC-7519600A.mit.edu] has joined #site67
  64. [18:23:36] < Imants> in which case, I can get behind that.
  65. [18:23:37] < SophosBlitz> What was? Yoric's seconding, or Imants' proposal?
  66. [18:23:42] *** xXxGnOsIs_SePhIrOtH_69420xXx is now known as Gnosis
  67. [18:23:48] < Imants> regardless, I'm not going to make a rule.
  68. [18:24:03] < Imants> I might have said that hastily, or perhaps it was a misunderstanding.
  69. [18:24:20] <@pooryoric> here
  70. [18:24:47] < Imants> I'm going to post something down at the bottom saying 'in general, think about your nick before you make it. No numbers please, or cApItAlIzAtIoN lIkE tHiS
  71. [18:24:58] < Imants> no ridiculous XXXXXXXXX's
  72. [18:25:14] < Imants> Actually, I'm going to use gnosis as an example.
  73. [18:25:16] < Imants> thank you gnosis.
  74. [18:25:21] <@pooryoric> I suggest that the phrase "names with unnecissary numbers or alternative characters in them are discouraged. this is a community that encourages originality through proper writing."\
  75. [18:25:28] <@pooryoric> be added to the chat guide.
  76. [18:25:29] < Imants> that works.
  77. [18:25:33] < Imants> I'll get on that.
  78. [18:25:42] <@pooryoric> sound good, sophosblitz?
  79. [18:25:57] < Gnosis> thank god IRC usernames don't allow unicode
  80. [18:26:00] < SophosBlitz> Thta sounds more reasonable d_d
  81. [18:26:10] < SophosBlitz> Gnosis: I think that's just because the RFC is ooooooooold
  82. [18:26:16] < Gnosis> Well yeah
  83. [18:26:22] < Imants> That's what I meant, Sophos. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression :/
  84. [18:26:40] < Gnosis> but I think the spec also disallows upper ASCII and control characters
  85. [18:26:57] < SophosBlitz> Yeah, I thought you were suggesting an overly-general rule
  86. [18:27:12] < SophosBlitz> And I have seen people be repeatedly kicked for it, so I was a bit worried
  87. [18:27:58] <@pooryoric> neh, imants doesn't have the power to make rules :P
  88. [18:28:13] < Imants> That's what you think ^_^
  89. [18:28:21] < SophosBlitz> I said suggesting. d_d
  90. [18:28:21] * Imants is secretly admin
  91. [18:28:27] * Imants B&'s you all
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!