freenode / web-7.0

The freenode website, home to our blog, knowledge base and policies
https://freenode.net/
Other
116 stars 92 forks source link

policy update #513

Closed realrasengan closed 3 years ago

sonOfRa commented 3 years ago

Is this the kind of unannounced policy change Freenode users should generally expect now? You see a behaviour you dislike, announce that it is against Freenode policy, and then retroactively change Freenode policy in order to make that statement true?

dhjw commented 3 years ago

Is this the kind of unannounced policy change Freenode users should generally expect now? You see a behaviour you dislike, announce that it is against Freenode policy, and then retroactively change Freenode policy in order to make that statement true?

Pretty much every site works that way and often changes its terms & conditions. If you actually read the change you see it provides a benefit to users in one part and in the other it removes rather than imposes limits on conversations.

Superfreeze-automated commented 3 years ago

If you actually read the change you see it provides a benefit to users in one part and in the other it removes rather than imposes limits on conversations.

I would disagree, but it's not obvious why from the rule itself. Esp., read:

For abandoned project channels that have moved or are no longer available to the public, you may request the ownership of the channel be transferred to you.

Nothing against such a rule in general, but the problem is the context:

I believe that Andrew Lee (alias rasengan) is acting in good faith (also, Hanlon's razor, benefit of doubt and so on). And I understand that he doesn't want abandoned channels polluting the namespace. But, to use a service, I would like to be able trust in the operator's decisions, which I can't anymore here.

realrasengan commented 3 years ago

Please comment on issue #515 . Thank you.