I-Lines for botlending services.

here you can make posts that do not belong in other forums
tia
Posts: 3

Post by tia »

Hi..

I've asked alot of people to provide me with ilines for my bots..

I know bot lending channels are banned but why? I cannot see the problem because i'm not doing anything wrong to deserve this kind of treathment.. And i have 2 fine and helpfull IRCops helping me with reops if they have time..

Many emails i've sent haven't even been answered by the server administrators. And i think this is rude? Because i wish to have a open dialog with Undernet and the users here, because i totally love Undernet and i couldn't do anything that could hurt Undernet unless line capacity.

Best regards,


Tone Irene Andersen

Sha
Posts: 6
Location: Laurentides, Quebec

Post by Sha »

Many botlending channels are managed by newbies and/or jerks... Many of them use their bots to take over channels or flood people. No wonder that Undernet representatives don't like botlending channels.

And, I dunno why botlending services should get particular status... why them and not other help channels? And how can Undernet find out who are the right guyz and the jerk ones? (:

Sha

tia
Posts: 3

Post by tia »

To find out whos jerk and whos not is not a big task as long as a user like me knows several irc ops and they know what i stand for.

So what would be the problem? Instead of having problems with bot lendings, why not make them apart of our lives, because they sure not going to get away.


Regards,


TIA

User avatar
Kahr
Posts: 167
Location: Svelvik, Norway

Post by Kahr »

If you are so carzy about it, why don't you just ask the Sever Administrators to add?
You said you knew some IRC Operators. Shouldn't be too hard then, should it?
[url=http://www.xr-s.com][img]http://www.solaris.as/kahr/sigs/kahr_mix_5.jpg[/img][/url]

User avatar
simba
Posts: 209
Location: UK, Cambridge

Post by simba »

Since undernet does not support bot lending channels, I would conclude that server admins will not provide I: lines for such a project.

There is a semi-official bot lending chan which you may wish to look at called #userservice which has some IRCop support.

Many thanks
[img]http://www.uk.eu.undernet.org/simba_sig.gif[/img]

Empus
Posts: 2

Post by Empus »

While UserService is very reputable, and supported by a vast number of people, we are *NOT* an Official Undernet Service, or supported in any official way, by the Undernet Network or CService.

Just thought I'd clarify that, to avoid any confusion =)
-----------------------------------------
Empus@IRC (Undernet)
UserService Senior Administrator & Coder
http://www.userservice.org
-----------------------------------------

Eenie
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Eenie »

Well, call me confused then!
According to CHANNEL SERVICE Acceptable Use Policy found at http://cservice.undernet.org/live/regproc/aup.php ...

We will no longer register any bot lending, shell or bnc (vhosts) channels. If we find these activities are predominant in your channel after registration, we will permanently remove X from the channel.


#userservice is clearly a bot lending channel, so why is it registered?

Their site is http://www.userservice.org/

I must be missing something here?!

Eenie
:)

User avatar
Razvanet
Posts: 406
Location: Toronto,Canada

Post by Razvanet »

Take a look at this Members. Maybe it will give you a hint...it gaved me one... :)

Regards,
Dream what you want to dream; go where you want to go; be what you want to be because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you want in life.

User avatar
\cpt\
Posts: 41

Post by \cpt\ »

Empus wrote:we are *NOT* an Official Undernet Service, or supported in any official way, by the Undernet Network or CService.

As i know you have the Special tag in your channel and i know "All special registrations must be approved by the special registrations group within the CSC." So you are supported by Channel Service Committee.

I really want to see if anyone from CService com. will post a reply and explain us why a "Bot lending Channel" (which should not be registered - please don`t understand that i have something with the channel) is supported by them?
captain me.

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

Actually, lemme get some things straight.
The rule that botlending channels cannot be registered was introduced by BobsKC around 2001 or 2002. He thought botlending channels would inflict damage on the hierachy of undernet. To remember his quotes: "I will do anything possible to put an end against botlendings, and the only way to stop me is to get rid of me." and "what you folks are attempting is to get power over users without the permission of undernet".

Despite the fact that bobs is missing from undernet for various reasons I will not mentiion here, officially he still is a cservice member and an irc operator. His wishes where heard and he managed to get his proposal through at cservice.
Before he did, he announced this idea in a conversation about me, and actually I kinda welcomed the idea in the way not to accept any more NEW botlending channels. Existing botlendings would be purged in case of repeating abuse. Bobs draft however included the purge of ALL botlendings (yes folks, INCLUDING #USERSERVICE).

Regarding what this post is about, I:Lines on servers for botlending bots. Despite the official view on how opers/admins/csa's think about them, there are still differences present. Some servers DO allow botlending bots on there server and give them I:Lines. It just depends on how they operate.

Now I have to say something about #UserService. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against them, when we used to do botlending for registered channels we often had requests for channels which where unregistered. And in those cases we sent the client to #userservice..USP is the only service capable of doing decent tempservice. Because of the fact that a couple of opers are supporting it giving them the opportunity to reop the bot whenever needed. Furthermore I know that inofficially cservice supports usp. Usp even has certain resources available regarding that I won't mention in here. And the fact that the channel is tagged Special just prooves it.

In fact the real madness against botlendings started after the sad fact Joyce died. Several botlending channels where actually supported by her. Even #key2peace. We had the agreement that as long as we sticked to our policy, there would be no problems.
And what happened after she died ? Cservice decided to push rules she would never have accepted in the time she was coordinator and they started a war against them by starting to suspend userid's and such.
Don't bother reading, I'm just the lame botlender, right ?

User avatar
Razvanet
Posts: 406
Location: Toronto,Canada

Post by Razvanet »

I have to say that the ideea of no botlending channels was not that bad after all, the "ones" who have this bots...obviosly have access to them...and they get power over channels... right ? And what for...CService is good enough...Sorry to say this but there is no need for other services...just my opinion on this !

Regards,
Dream what you want to dream; go where you want to go; be what you want to be because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you want in life.

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

Botlending does have some benefits, you gotta know that even despite X being a service, it's also deaf, thus limited in it's abilities to keep an eye on a channel. Especially chanfloods are an issue.
Another feature bots are in advantage compared to X are the additions they may contain. For example !seen, protection against spam, protection against CTCP floods targeted to the channel, chanvoice methods (autovoice all ppl on join), wellcome notices and other things the ppl want in there channel X does not offer.
(And I think that list can get quite a little larger). Also botlendings can be a great resource in addition to services when it's about tracking abuse/flooders. The bots do log, so when something happened the channel/service/network administration can easily request those logs. And I doubt any botlending would deny them giving those logs.
Other ppl chose not to get X in there channel for various reasons, perhaps because they already have a channel registered, or because they don't find enough supporters, or because the channel is small or cservice denying them X for various reasons on there site.

Do I need to go on or do you see my point ?
Don't bother reading, I'm just the lame botlender, right ?

Just_aGuy
Posts: 2
Location: Planet Earth

Post by Just_aGuy »

Decent inough OUTsider, i couldnt agree more. Botlendings are really needed in large channels that get massive floods. X can never and will never provide the protection such channels need.
My comments are so lame that they actually make since

mcengiz

Post by mcengiz »

Well, botlending is %100 useful in my opinion, like Outsider said
bots have many useful sides more then X and yeah that list is really a big
one, Undernet should give permission to botservice channels managed by
people who know what they do.

User avatar
wensu
Posts: 83
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by wensu »

Well, I don't know of any bot type channels apart from the one sanctioned #userservice, that have been behaving in accordance with the AUP of Undernet.

What I mean by this is that the majority don't have good enough controls in place to ensure the bots being lent out are being use appropriately. Like bots loaned to people that others have pending csc applications and the like.

In addition to this, some bot lending channels have compromised machines around the globe and these kids have tricked people into paying money for these bots on these hacked machines.

I'm not saying "your" bots/channels does this, but as the history shows, bot lending channels have been nothing but a pain in the royal butt to be blunt, so this would explain the non-replies to your request for i:lines.

One thing you also need to remember is that the servers that have been donated to this net are really for irc chatters, and I mean "humans", so a policy not to allow bots, can be expected.

- wensu
- wensu

Command, n.: Statement presented by a human and accepted by a computer in such a manner as to make the human feel as if he is in control.