From: dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren)
Newsgroups: alt.irc
Subject: Re: extro.ucc.su.oz.au and problem users
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:02:16 GMT
Organization: Doug's House of Disco

In article <1992Sep28.132300.11814@news.ysu.edu> 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!

>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!


>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.
>
>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?

>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 ...

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.

Of course, this is me.  If you don't know, I generally am on #hottub and
#hotsex.  (Oh no!  It's those *bad* channels, Imelda!  He's going to *burn*!
Lake o' Fire for you!  He hacks ops!  Tons of Bots!  Lake o' Fire!  Thank
God almighty that we on #twilight_zone are above that ... petty conversation
... Everybody KNOWS if you aren't talking about world news, or server
routing, you don't even belong on the net ...)  A recent phenomenea that has
arisen lately is that of the mass ban ... certain people join the channel...
Get ops ... and start to ban!  20 ... 30 ... 40+ bans.  And when the person
themselves isn't there to do it, their bots do it for them.  I ask "Why
the *!*@*au ban?" "Aussies are assholes."  "Why a ban *!*@*.MIT.EDU*?"
"People from MIT are assholes." "Why *!dsklad@*?" "He has a bot that fools me
into thinking it's a human.  In fact, I think I'm going to go ban him on
EVERY channel I can think of ..." "Why *!steelie@*?" "I think he mass kicked
once, about four months ago ..."  "Why *!*@goonsquad.spies.com?" "Why not?"
etc ...

#hottub used to be an *open* channel ... why don't we just go all the way
and make it a permanent +i ?

I think bans need some work at the server level.  A few suggestions:
 - Have bans expire when the person who created them leaves the channel
   (doesn't sound easy to implement, though ...)
 - Limit wildcards in bands.  Not only is there no real reason to ever
   make a ban of *!*@* unless you're there to cause trouble, but I'm
   getting really tired of seeing 20 bans on ONE account, all with various
   letters replaced with '*'s ... (again, doesn't sound like too great of
   a solution ..) or ..
 - Allow an invite to get somebody through a ban.  I really like this idea,
   and it sounds very easy to implement... it would reduce the effectiveness
   of one person banning everybody in existence, yet not go so far as
   removing bans altogether ...
 - Or remove bans altogether.  But this sounds a bit drastic ...

  DemoN
-- 
The opinions stated above are mine (and quite possibly mine alone!)  However,
 for a brief time, and a nominal fee, they can be yours too.  Operators are 
standing by! Call Now! DouG McLareN, dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, DemoN on IRC.
Newsgroups: alt.irc