I think this is ABUSE!

You can post in here ideas and comments on how you think we could improve things on undernet.
User avatar
gyll
Posts: 11

I think this is ABUSE!

Post by gyll »

I see it happening more and more often, and it's an *extremely* frustrating experience. The latest in the list is the #programming channel, that doesn't allow users to join unless they have a keyword from the channel ops (other high-profile-name channels such as #politics regularly ban entire domains based on some users behavior).
Guys, PLEASE, can't you just institute a common-sense law for channel registration that will ensure high-profile name channels to remain PUBLIC? If someone wants -what he believes to be- a "quiet" chatroom, they should be abliged to use a certain channel name format, for example between []. So, they can register and institute whatever restrictive policies they want on [politics] or [programming], but NOT on Politics or Programming which will remain truly public.
PLEASE, for the sake of what the UNDERNET stands for, PLEASE, institute this common-sense law and don't allow such *** to use the UNDERNET as their own private playground...
Last edited by gyll on Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

User avatar
Razvanet
Posts: 406
Location: Toronto,Canada

Post by Razvanet »

I have to disagree with you because if it's not an official undernet channel, the manager can do whatever he want with his channel (eg. ban whoever, set invite only...etc). Undernet or CService will have no right to involve as long as there are no ilegal action hapening in there.So if you got banned from a channel or you can't join because it's invite only then move on to another channel...Because some channel are locked (+i, +k) it also gives you a sign that in #programming you might not find programming but something else.So don't worry !

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
gyll
Posts: 11

Post by gyll »

Razvanet, i'm afraid you're missing my point here. I am talking about the spirit of free speach. Unless this spirit is saveguarded the UNDERNET will incementally be rendered useless.
Quote from you:"it also gives you a sign that in #programming you might not find programming but something else". *THIS* is exactly one aspect of my point, this should NOT be allowed to happen ON HIGH PROFILE CHANNELS. Let them do this on "[programming]", but NOT on "Programming", that's all i'm saying. Otherwise undernet will only loose its value as a free speach media (which actually is the current course), and i'm sure noone who voluntarily works HARD to keep this media alive would like to see that happen...
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

kid

Post by kid »

Sorry gyll, Razvanet is right there. A Channel Operator can kick or ban a user for any reason (or no reason at all). This is a FIRMLY enforced right of channel operators on Undernet. We will not interfere. When/if you are able to rejoin the channel, you may talk to the channel manager about the OP in question. Bear in mind that this may very well just end up with you being banned again. Channel managers are very likely to side with someone they've given ops to, instead of someone they don't know. You can be banned because of your nickname, your userid, your domain, idling, talking or simply because someone wants to close the channel. This is not considered to be abuse and no action will be taken from our side. It is something you will need to settle with the OP yourself.

User avatar
gyll
Posts: 11

Post by gyll »

Kid, I don't believe this... you also don't get my point. What's the topic of this forum? "How can we improve undernet". What i'm talking about in here is exactly *changing* the operation of the channel, i know very well what its *current* set of rules is.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

User avatar
gyll
Posts: 11

Post by gyll »

Better yet, let me conceptualize: what am i suggesting?

1) Current UNDERNET policies remain valid *only* for channels whith names encolsed in [] (or whatever).

2) A set of liberalism-enforcement policies to be set forth for the rest of the channels.
Examples (though this will definitely require some balanced thiking): no domain bans, no bans for more than 30 mins, no bans for expressed opinions, no bans without prior kicks, etc.

Well, the details should be carefully taken care of, but *this* is the conceptual bottom line: make UNDERNET more liberal.
The apparently paradoxical situation of starting with a very liberal set of rules (and a strong enforcement of property over a channel), and ending up with discretionary channel ops, at a closer look, is not that paradoxical after all: it happened in natzi Germany also. In my opinion, what the UNDERNET policy makers did not consider in the early days when they devised their policies is the fact that NAMES should be considered as public property, and a different set of ruels should be applied to them when compared to private properties. Thus, i believe a reasonable compromise is to allow "pseudo-names" (such as names enclosed in []) to be considered private property rather that public property, but the non-[]-encolsed names should remain PUBLIC and the regulations governing their use should differ from the regulation governing private []-names.
Last edited by gyll on Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

User avatar
Razvanet
Posts: 406
Location: Toronto,Canada

Post by Razvanet »

Let me try again...what youre saying is that Undernet should have some "power" over the channels that have a popular name and should be public...like #romania or #windowsXP ...whatever ! If someone joins the channel and finds it empty that channel is his/hers no matter what...it's not fear for services to interfere in channel buisnises in any way...Undernet did reserv some channels and those are the official channels like #zt #cservice you will find in there what the name sais...but if the network will take control over all the "public"channels and make the op's enforce a description they don't want, that's kind of abuse...

Regards,

P.S. Undernet is good the way it is...more liberalism i don't see that good.And by the way...who do you think will register channels like #[whatever] ? :-?
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 »

eww... you want moderation ? Image
Don't bother reading, I'm just the lame botlender, right ?

User avatar
Bay
Posts: 36
Location: Undisclosed

Post by Bay »

gyll, have you ever been in a 200+ user channel where there is an ethnical/religious/political/sports-related discussion? Do you know what it turns into? It turns into idiots going: COME ON MANCHESTER a hundred times before they flood themselves off.
Does that mean that if I make a channel called #milk&cookies and don't offer help on baking cookies I am abusing? It is my right and anyone else's to create any channel that is empty and run it as he pleases (just as long as no policies are violated, such as the ones in the MOTD).
After enforcing the rules you have stated, channels would become unmanageable. Lamers and idiots would be roaming free. 30 minute bans are stupid because that means that if some lamer is going to act like one in my channel now and I ban him, I have to be here in 30 minutes in case he comes back. How is that helpful? So that idiots can do what they want to a channel and then come back in 30 minutes?
Sometimes domain bans are the only way of getting rid of annoying abusers that keep changing their host one way or another.
No bans without prior kicks would mean that if a user is flooding the channel and has auto-rejoin set ON, I kick him (I assume you desire a pertinent kick message as well) and he comes back still flooding and then I have to ban him. It means it will take up to maybe 20 seconds to get rid of him the "right" way, 20 seconds of channel flooding/spamming or whatever.
Who would decide what channels are public and what channels are not? I am not at all a coder, but something in my gut tells me that implementing only 30 minute bans and no domanin bans and chaning all channel names but some to [] would take a huge amout of man hours, if at all possible.
This is the spirit of IRC gyll, the spirit of Undernet.
If someone makes their channel +k it means that they are not going to offer public help and then just use the /list command to look for help with your problem.
Think of your channel on Undernet as your apartment or house. Wouldn't it seem ridiculous not to be able to remove some stranger from it just because he is "saying his opinion"?

User avatar
gyll
Posts: 11

Post by gyll »

BAY, you either didn't read my previous post, or you didn't understand it.
My problem resides with the fact that *i believe* names *should remain public properties*, so why on earth do you keep comparing a channel with my private appartment? You want a private appartment, buy one in an appartment block, but you can't buy one in the city hall.
As for 200+ channels, if someone will want to register a channel like #romania or whatever, that someone should know, *from the start*, that he's assuming a heck of a responsibility when registering that name. He feels like that's too much for him to carry, fine, let him take #[romania].
As for, quote, "It is my right and anyone else's to create any channel that is empty and run it as he pleases", i know, and what i'm suggesting is to take that right away from you (you'll be left with the right to take #[milk&cookies] though, and police it as you please).
PS
Take a look inside #philosophy channel. That's (almost) a model of op behavior.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

OUTsider
Posts: 435
Location: Netherlands

Post by OUTsider »

sorry to say, but I completly agree with BAY here.. what you want is moderation, and moderation is something that suxs, you want the network to decide how ppl have to manage there channel.
Don't bother reading, I'm just the lame botlender, right ?

User avatar
gyll
Posts: 11

Post by gyll »

OUTsider, wonderful perspective over social issues you got there: "moderation sucks". Nice...
PS
Here's a tip: why don't you tell this to the moderator of this forum?
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

User avatar
JeepC77
Posts: 73
Location: Italy

Post by JeepC77 »

Topic already discussed. Look after some topic called like "Anal retentive ops" or something like that.
Or... lemme see...
here: http://www.undernet.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=582

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM d-- s+:- a- C++ UL P+ L++ E W++ N+ o-- K- w
O- M V PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t 5 X+ R tv-- b++ DI++ D+
G e++ h r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

User avatar
gyll
Posts: 11

Post by gyll »

Jeep,
first: the topic being discussed before does not preculde it from being re-discussed
second: look at this as re-addressing the topic, but this time a solution is suggested
third: don't point that thingy at me! you're too far away to reach me anyways.
fourth: this is the only reply you'll get from me. i don't like your bow.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

User avatar
JeepC77
Posts: 73
Location: Italy

Post by JeepC77 »

ROFL

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM d-- s+:- a- C++ UL P+ L++ E W++ N+ o-- K- w
O- M V PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t 5 X+ R tv-- b++ DI++ D+
G e++ h r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----