|
Grex > Coop8 > #84: LOCAL ONLY irc server VS. Party -ryan1 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
giry
|
|
response 50 of 91:
| 
Jul 16 02:50 UTC 1996 |
Well jan, I had a problem with it. I did the :ignore joker666 and it
said now ignoring joker666 but he still showed up. I !teled brighn to ask him
if his was working and it was. I tried to :notice and then re :ignore but it
didn't work either. Just letting you know.
|
brighn
|
|
response 51 of 91:
|
Jul 16 03:04 UTC 1996 |
yeah, i tred all sorts of complicated things with :ignore and :notice,
and it seemed to work fine for me... poor giry. ={
|
giry
|
|
response 52 of 91:
|
Jul 16 03:17 UTC 1996 |
Nevermind:) <giggle> I had a major brain fart;) thanks Jan for doing
this, I was just being silly again, it DOES work fine:) I was doing :ignore
joker666 instead of :ignore j0ker666 <grin> that is why it didn't work:)
|
ryan1
|
|
response 53 of 91:
|
Jul 16 03:26 UTC 1996 |
I found a bug,
I typed :invite person
and it said that "person" invited me to the channel
|
pfv
|
|
response 54 of 91:
|
Jul 16 05:07 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, janc - those probs are completely due to being sorta' forced into
an external filter. Yer proposed upgrades are almost identical in
function to what I wrote for mnet and wanted to port to grex.
Never heard/saw ':set raw' before - might this terminator-tag all the
lines/output from a user? Also, when a twit floods party and it sorta'
kills party/cause it to brain-hemmorage, is this due to a buffer overrun?
(I never *did* find a sensible external-method to handle that case)
|
ryan1
|
|
response 55 of 91:
|
Jul 16 05:40 UTC 1996 |
Re: #53
Oopse, please disreguard what I said. I didn't read it
correctly.
|
janc
|
|
response 56 of 91:
|
Jul 16 05:54 UTC 1996 |
Re #50-52: yup, gotta spell the person's name right.
Re #53,55: yup, the messages have been reworded to make them easier to
filter. The change is confusing, but I think the messages are still clear.
Re #54: "set raw" didn't exist before today, so there's little wonder you
didn't know of it. The long line bug has been fixed. M-Net probably has an
older version of party.
|
brighn
|
|
response 57 of 91:
|
Jul 16 06:48 UTC 1996 |
is there a was to unset raw?
|
ryan1
|
|
response 58 of 91:
|
Jul 16 06:54 UTC 1996 |
I would assume :s noraw would work.
|
vedagiri
|
|
response 59 of 91:
|
Jul 16 13:26 UTC 1996 |
What a discussion this has been... ! Well, i havent used irc till date.. and
till i do it will be one of my favourites... Party does contribute to the Grex
community... i am entering something here just because i heard about this item
in party from ryan1.
Coming to the issue of twits.. what do people in grex feel about having
a vote feature incorporated in party.. What i mean is if *quite* a lot of
people in party vote for dismissing a person from party, kill that person's
party session. This should be done only after a significant number of partyers
vote for the dismissal. The exact number can be arrived upon consensus. If
a person has been dismissed from party session, it should not be possible for
himn to enter it again in atleast half an hour. ( forgive me for the gender
)
Ofcourse it is not fair to leave new users of grex suffer under twits
in party. I think the vote system will help in dealing with jerks and project
a better image of the grex community.
Well , the first time i encountered a twit, i didn't do any talking..
i quit after sometime. The second time , it was a street fight. The third
time , all other partyers switched over to a newq channel. I dont like any
of
the three approaches. But i certainly feel that if a sufficient number of
people in party feel that some one shouldn't be there, they must be able to
do it.
If i sound like Old Daddy, well.....
|
janc
|
|
response 60 of 91:
|
Jul 16 16:48 UTC 1996 |
Actually, I've been playing with an idea along those lines. In IRC, every
channel has one or more "Channel Operators" who among other things have the
power to boot people out of their channels. I really don't want to get into
the concept of having someone own a channel in party. But the idea of a
democratic boot-out process is interesting. Any user would be able to :gong
any other user, but it wouldn't have any effect other than to print
---- janc gongs remmers (Jul 16 12:41:05)
in the party channel. But if the same user is gonged by more than half of
the participants in the channel, he'd be booted out.
This has fairly significant technical difficulties. It would be hard to
implement in a sensible way for lots of reasons, but it it might be possible
to work out the technical problems.
But I'm wondering about the social consequences. It's a method of twit
control, but it's kind of nasty and seems like it would *really* tend to
promote clique building. I can see gang wars (gong wars?) developing in party
where each of two groups tries to gong out members of the other group.
OK, if done in good fun it could be hilarious, but if it gets serious (and
I think it would) it would be pretty ugly. I think the :ignore command solves
the same problem in a much more Grexian manner.
|
pfv
|
|
response 61 of 91:
|
Jul 16 16:57 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, janc is about right on this one...
It would be more realistic to apply a "9 of 10" rule than 50%+ (if you
can't get 9 of 10 agreements, it is not in the best interests of the whole.
However, it would also end up being a "toy" just like the shenanigans of
the roots and staff on April 1 - NOT very conducive to conversation.
OTOH, if this process would apply merely to the channel of the vote or
only to #party itself, *THEN* you are offering a "Democratic Kick" (with
overtones of /ban ;-)
Interesting, but I get the feeling it's a nontrivial task for Janc to
code it up... On the Gripping Hand, it would give the pre-voting agegroup
a taste of what that vote entails ;-)
Interesting idea, overall
|
tsty
|
|
response 62 of 91:
|
Jul 16 18:36 UTC 1996 |
#60 has some horrific overtones ...
|
draven
|
|
response 63 of 91:
|
Jul 16 18:37 UTC 1996 |
I think a democratic ban system would be a good idea, if done right.
Perhaps :ignore should add a filtered out tag to the log like
"draven ignores pfv" and, if more than half or so of the users are
ignoring a person, the person is banned. Since users wouldn't see the
votes (unless they had raw set), it wouldn't cause as many cliques.
|
draven
|
|
response 64 of 91:
|
Jul 16 18:37 UTC 1996 |
tsty slipped in.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 65 of 91:
|
Jul 16 18:55 UTC 1996 |
Good idea. If somebody joins party for the sole purpose
of annoying everybody in there, then there should be a way for the
users to decide to get rid of that person. But I do not think
that kicking them out of the entire party program would be good. Perhaps just
kicking them out of that channel for a while.
|
pfv
|
|
response 66 of 91:
|
Jul 16 20:08 UTC 1996 |
Ummm.. drave? The problem with applying 'ignore' to a vote is that there
are a LOT of cliques and agegroups... One of the NICE things about a
filter/ignore is you can wash out extraneous 'noise' - and the definition
of 'extraneous' is HIGHLY subjective - in fact, I'll often filter a few
folks for awhile to carry on a topic and then reinstate them as the topic
peters out.. Not that they were twits, but that the topic was getting
hard to follow.. Yeah, I know channels can be used, but there is no point
to entering another channel if you wanna rejoin a going topic at any time..
|
brighn
|
|
response 67 of 91:
|
Jul 16 21:28 UTC 1996 |
Well, if they're not talking to anyone AT ALL, then what's the point
of them being in party? If two people are friends and having a
convo between each other, and it's annoying everyone else, well, lump it.
If one person is annoying EVERYONE, OTOH...
so, if Jan really want to code it, I would say the only way it would be
anything but destructive would be if EVERY OTHER USER gongs the offender.
I'd be in favor of that sort of code.
Anything less would lead to clique-building.
|
ajax
|
|
response 68 of 91:
|
Jul 16 21:47 UTC 1996 |
Majority-controlled censorship is still censorship.
What if a couple twits get together, and start banning anyone else
as they try to enter party? Should KKK opponents be able to ban KKK
supporters for espousing their fringe viewpoint? What about Grexers
who object to the presence of users from India regardless of behavior?
I'm opposed to majority-controlled censorship in "public" areas here.
I don't have a problem with access controls in private channels.
|
brighn
|
|
response 69 of 91:
|
Jul 16 22:06 UTC 1996 |
Good point, Rob, i hadn't thought of that.
|
remmers
|
|
response 70 of 91:
|
Jul 16 23:02 UTC 1996 |
Agree 100% with #68. There is such a thing as the "tyranny of the
majority."
|
scg
|
|
response 71 of 91:
|
Jul 17 03:13 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Rob and John.
|
jenna
|
|
response 72 of 91:
|
Jul 17 03:48 UTC 1996 |
i think filtertration has to be a personal thing.
i have a question - can one filter a word that is not a login?
|
janc
|
|
response 73 of 91:
|
Jul 17 05:10 UTC 1996 |
I think the chances of me implementing a version :gong are nearer none than
slim. I'd be really curious to see what would happen, but I don't expect it
would be anything good, and anyway, it'd be too much work.
|
brighn
|
|
response 74 of 91:
|
Jul 17 07:13 UTC 1996 |
and if it doesn't do anything, we can achieve the same tweaking
through /is anyhow...
if the only purpose is to voice displeasure at someone...
or partyadm could add /gong as a noise, if anyone care enough to mail them
about it. =}
|