verix
to furnet-users
show details 1:18 PM
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM, <chanreg@furnet.org> wrote:
> Channel: #ZzzLastChannel
> Founder: Leve
> Successor: benvolio
> Description: A channel to consistently lay at the bottom of the list according to alphabetical room occupancy in which conversations will be held most likely on vague, ill regard subjects. Above all it will be known as ZE FRENCH CHANNEL *snooty laugh* AUH hauh hauh. Please tell me you at least smirked at this?
So with blatant white-noise channels like this not only being pushed
through your channel registration process but approved as well, would
you mind justifying why you don't simply re-activate chanserv's
automated registration process?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lymril
to verix, furnet-users
show details 1:37 PM
At 07:18 PM 8/7/2009, verix wrote:
>So with blatant white-noise channels like this not only being pushed
>through your channel registration process but approved as well, would
>you mind justifying why you don't simply re-activate chanserv's
>automated registration process?
Mostly to discourage non-furry channels and problem channels such as
#!!!!!!!!!!PreTeenSexPix!!!!!!!!!! or #HaxorzAttaxGovernmentServerz.
Having a channel that sits on the bottom of our /list isn't much of a
goal in life, but if we had a rule against users wasting their time
on IRC we'd have to take down the network.
Lymril
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Omii Cern
to furnet-users
show details 2:22 PM
Can we get a list of rejected channels, or can we assume there no
rejected channels?
-- OC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
verix
to furnet-users
show details 3:01 PM
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Lymril<lymril@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Mostly to discourage non-furry channels and problem channels such as
> #!!!!!!!!!!PreTeenSexPix!!!!!!!!!! or #HaxorzAttaxGovernmentServerz.
>
> Having a channel that sits on the bottom of our /list isn't much of a goal
> in life, but if we had a rule against users wasting their time on IRC we'd
> have to take down the network.
>
> Lymril
>
If the intent is to discourage the creation of those channels, then
the intent is entirely misplaced and shows a lack of grasp of how IRC
works. I can easily create both of those channels right now, start
sending horrifyingly abusive pornography bots or phishing bots to them
for communications and be on my merry way until the administrators of
whatever IRC server I'm on catch on. In fact, what's to stop me from
simply making a channel, setting it +spk secretsquirrelbotnet and then
phishing everybody for their FurAffinity passwords from that channel?
If the intent is to prevent the headache, then it simply-- and
objectively-- doesn't work. If I make these channels and you don't
want them on your network, regardless of the fact that I cannot
register them, you STILL need to clean them up at the end of the day.
The actual registration of the channel via chanserv is entirely
irrelevant to the process of creating a channel. All that's being
prevented are chanserv services from being used. Anyone who has ever
used EFnet knows this is easily circumvented and is simply
sugar-coating for the actual existence of the channel.
I can easily put an unregistered bot on this IRC network and have it
administrate my channel to circumvent the ridiculous chanserv policies
put in place. If you are trying to save yourself the headache of
having to clean up after the miscreants of the Internet, I'll simply
quote a fabulously annoying internet catchphrase: you're doing it
wrong. This chanserv policy is simply a re-enactment of the satirical
critique of bureaucracy presented in the movie Brazil.
In other words: that is not a justification. This policy has simply
made things more complicated than they should be.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
verix
to furnet-users
show details 3:28 PM
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Lymril<lymril@comcast.net> wrote:
> If I'd known your question was an invitation to an argument I wouldn't have
> responded. Sounds like you have entirely too much time on your hands.
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear in my original post that I objected to
the policies and wanted to very vividly describe why, in detail, why I
believe they're wrong.
My argument is logical (though frustrated) and my points are cogent.
The fact that you would rather ignore my argument and attack my
character rather than address it is not my problem.