[ciscomgr] Re: possible new @'s

  • From: tlv <tlv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ciscomgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:41:02 -0700 (PDT)



On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 ruperts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
> The following names come to mind when talking about unactive/useless
> @'s (some of them i might be wrong
> about due to timezone issues so please correct me if i am wrong...):
> rickgid
> egami
> pomol
> serial1
> mikek (who is that ?)
> snapdad
>
> I think most of those were added because they were ircops, at least snapdad, 
> rickster, egami, and pomol.
> Serial1 somehow got added during the lucid/#cisco split when they was 
> recreating the X access for #ciscoSystems for the brief time it was the main 
> channel as near as I can tell from the logs. His was probably a mistake, 
> somebody thinking he was somebody else.

so since nobody really seems to understand why serial1 currently is an @
what do we do about it ?

> Mikek I have no idea who that is. Come to think of it, who is mirco?
>

another occurance of timezone issues... agreed mirco does not talk much
but when he does its prolly when you people are sleeping and us jewro
trashies are trying to wake the fuck up etc... he'd be a networking dude
working in switzerland with much more clue than your average #cisco @ ...

> p.s: who is buddgreen and why does he/it have level 269 which is clearly
> reserved to horny and/or sexxy females who deliver pr0n or sexual
> fantasies of some kind ?
>
> budgreen is r|p, so I certainly hope you are not having sexjewel fantasies 
> about him :c)
>

no way no... :) But uhmm is there a technical reason for needing 2 logins
nowaddays that X allows multiple logins etc ? eye am easily confused...

> usmc666 seems like a good choice for a probationary @ period at least - clued 
> more than average and active in the channel. Would just have to see how he 
> does before added to X.
>

cool... or maybe we need strictops again... why is he all the time @'ed
when he is not an @ ? I dont think i added him to ciscoops list yet but im
sure i would have if he had been awake when i asked @'s to tell me their
email addy...

> Or do we even need more ops? We have a pretty high ratio of ops to users 
> currently, more than most channels. As I am typing this there is 75 people in 
> the channel, 34 of them with ops (tho not all are separate ppl, u have nick1 
> and nick1work, and mpls, X)
>

if we have reached out maximum channel size for current undernet
population then i guess not... of course it is unfair to have clued people
remain @'less while at the same time having unclued nontalking people like
serial1 @'ed and telling those clued people that they cant be @ just
because of some ratio thing...

mornings suck...

*yawn*
> Xian > >
>
>


Other related posts: