ubuntu-lgbt team mailing list archive

["Lorenzo J. Lucchini" <ljlbox@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am a regular user of #ubuntu-offtopic and one of its former operators.

I am not usually fond of "me too" posts, but in this case, I feel it is 
important for the people who actually spend a good portion of their time on 
#ubuntu-offtopic to voice their opinion.

So, I would like to say that I agree on all fronts with the analysis given by 
Anthony Yarusso and Robert Wall.

Whether it's appropriate and a good idea to ban certain topics from the 
channel "a priori" is debatable, but I can assure you that it has been 
debated, and the current state of things has been reached for practical as 
well as theoretical reasons, as Anthony also pointed out.
Being a former operator, I can say that careful thought has been given to 
these issues by the IRC Team.

But in any case, I strongly believe no discrimination ever took place, either 
in "law" (the guidelines don't discriminate), or in practice 
(#ubuntu-offtopic has always welcomed LGBT people, and I'm sure any of its 
regular users could confirm that).


To Jimmy, I would like to say: you are certainly not the only one I've seen 
who disagrees with the "family friendly" policy or its interpretations by the 
operators.
But a line has to be drawn somewhere, based on "on the field" experience, and 
I believe that's the job of the operators, who should have that experience.

One could argue (and several people have) that young people are often exposed 
to swearwords, and there is no reason while they shouldn't be, for instance - 
yet, swearwords are not allowed in #ubuntu-offtopic.

Also, you say "sexuality" isn't the same as "sexual", but aren't you perhaps 
linking "sexuality" to "sexual orientation" a bit too strongly than the term 
itself is generally meant to indicate?
Check Merriam-Webster's definition at 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexuality for example.


by LjL
ljl@xxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.