From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: alt.irc
Subject: Re: extro.ucc.su.oz.au and problem users
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:20:54 GMT
Organization: insert anything here

dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren) writes:

	Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>doug@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes:
>>I caught a real ration of sh*t from an extro user yesterday evening.
>>"She" joined the channel.  I immediately /kick'd her and +b'd everyone
>>from that host.
>Hmmm ...

>>There was agreement that I did the right thing.

>The Mob Rules!

	No, not really, extro provides well over half of the irc.terrorism
on #gblf.  It is hacked, and it's commonplace to have someone come in
self-chanop (from the hacked server), de-op everyone else, /kick 
everyone else, and set the /mode to +isntpl1 with some /topic like
"kill all fags".

	At which point did it cross from "difference of opinion" to
ruining (on the average) 15-30 people's use of this resource?

	I cannot at this moment think of any IRCer from extro that
is a regular on #gblf.  I'm pretty sure there is one, and perhaps
someone will be able to provide a name.

>>I got a series of /msgs asking why, whining and complaining, etc.  I
>>explained that since people from extro were causing grief on our channel,
>>and that since they were using a client that masked the true user name, 
>>that I couldn't tell whether she was who she said she was, or not.
>>I also explained that someone using 'becky' as their userid at extro
>>was given chan-op status on our channel recently, and "she" de-opped
>>everyone.

>Oh No!  A mass deop!  The horror!

	See above.  IRC was not established for the immature to relive
their sandbox fantasies.  

>>She asked me to take the ban off, I said that if someone else could vouch
>>for her they could.  She said "you've poisoned my reputation already, so
>>if you don't do it they won't" or the like.  I said I wouldn't reverse
>>my decision, and she went off on an "it's not fair, you're mean, you
>>@$$hole" tirade, at which point I /ignore'd her.

	Apparently "she" hasn't read the manal to know that "she"
could set up another channel...

>>And I will continue to act like this until "she" or others at her site
>>get control of things there.  When there are more than a few users from

>How DOES one get control of other users at their site ?  Mail to root?
>Sending Guido to rough them up?  Telepathic suggestion?

	Were I in charge of a system I would damn well make sure my
users intended to use the resources appropriately.  That means,
reading the instructions, and conducting themselves in accordance
with the guidelines that are set up either locally, or as is traditional
for the medium under question.

	For example, under USENET, I would come down on someone who 
posted extraneous stuff to, say misc.jobs.offered, or anti-Semitic
stuff to soc.culture.jewish or homophobic stuff to soc.motss.  Is
this censorship?  No - there are other groups for extraneous topic,
controversial topics, and/or soapboxes to wax eloquently on one's
personal opinions.  I would completely ignore whines about my
users in groups like talk.politics.misc, alt.flame, etc. because those
groups are set up so that differing opinion can be aired, at (most) times
quite heatedly.  On the other hand, most groups have established
charter, and I would insist that those charters be respected.

	Same goes for IRC.  In fact moreso for IRC, since one
can create one's own channel.  If no one chooses to go and
listen to you, that's your own problem.  It is by no means a license
to abuse IRC in order score hits with another group of people.

>>a given host (extro, verdix.com, nova.gmi.edu, etc) that cause grief
>>to me, I've got no problems barring an entire host, and there are other
>>regulars on the channels I hang out that feel likewise.

>Hmmm ... well, one question: What if in fact she *was* innocent?  You just
>assumed that this person was a known mass kicker/deoper etc ...

	In general I would agree with you.  With extro, however,
there are too many infractions to think otherwise.  Had I been "she"
innocent and stuck with this, I would have formed my own channel,
/invited people to it, and hopefully convinced people that my intentions
were good.  If that hadn't worked, I would have said "go to hell",
and done something else - there's more to life than IRC.  ACtually
I would have found out how maintains IRC at extro and lodged a complaint
since it is obvious that some people there are ruining it for others,
and giving extro a bad rep (at least on IRC, with some spillover to
the e-community as a whole).

>Generally if somebody says that they are innocent of the above mentioned
>crimes, and says it's unfair to ban them, etc., quite often they are
>telling the truth.  Generally if somebody tells me they aren't the mass
>kicker/deopper/flooder in question, I let them in.  If I'm really unsure
>of their identity, I'll put them on automatic deop, just in case.  And
>if somebody hacks ops (thanks again Avalon ...) and proceeds to mass
>kick, well, I think a /kill is fully justified.  And ban that address.
>Fine.  They change user-id, come back, mass kick.  Ban the host.  For
>a little while.  Then remove the ban.

	Yeah, yeah, yeah...  OK - fine.  You're overlooking one
point.  In this case they're masking the userid's.  You can't tell
other than the user's word that it's not the person you just spent
15 minutes cleaning up after.  And forgive my pessimism, but I
don't recall in 4 years ever having someone say when asked "Oh, yeah
I'm the same guy who just caused trrouble and I'm going to do it again!"
Duh...... Of course people will sa y"No, I'm someone else", and in
my momentary gulibility, let them in only to have it happen again...

	[paragraph on mass bans]

	I prefer a 24-hour thing on bans.  For most channels,
it's likely they'll be empty once in 24 hours and this problem goes away.
Of course these days there are several channels that are continuous,
and I think it's up to the regulars to set policy.  Certainly this is
already done since we have bots on channels that auto-op regulars.
I've long suggested that these same bots allow registration of 
troublemakers, at the very least to give a warning, e.g.
"MyBot> nick XTroubleX (user@some.host.edu) has caused trouble here before"
Like anything relse, if htis person ends up being "OK" you remove the
message.  In the worst cases, the bots check for regular +b settings
to make sure that "user" doesn't get on...

	I see AttackCat's actions as a little drastic, but given
the circumstances, not unjustified.

BBC
Newsgroups: alt.irc