Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: nick collide prevention ideas]]]

[m de`jour <b4y2k@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
***
> IRCNet (and the IRC Software these lists is about) has long
> ago decided to go with the "channels and nicknames are not
> owned" mantra.  (Bjørn's way of dealing with troublemakers
> fits this perfectly.)
> 
> May be it should be revisited, may be it is wrong, but you
> may not ignore it, and i may not allow features in the IRC
> servers which go against it.

I do not know the background or the intent of this often espoused "channels
and nicknames are not owned" policy.

As presented, it seems to represent some deep-seated anti-property political
view.  I don't know if that was the idea behind it but from several things I
have read, that is the impression I get.

I would not be judgemental and challenge such a philosophy.  But if in fact
that is the "official" intent, then don't be hypocritical about it.  Bring on
equality.  Remove +o modes.  Reduce all channels to +channel levels.  Powers
given to channel ops are de facto vestages of "ownership", the ability to
operate, control and dictate.

I have talked to many clan kids and have been told by some that they honestly
believe that IRCnet was created for them.  Created without channel
registration intentionally for them, to allow them to play their takeover
games, and keep them off of the nets that are more controlled.  When I asked
how they got that idea, it was "An IRCop told me that, when I lost my 1st
channel".  I doubt that was the message the IRCop intended to convey, but it
seems to be the understanding that resulted from whatever words the IRCop used
to explain things.

If infact that is the message you want to convey, and the policy you wish to
foster.  Fine.  Just give all fair notice.  Clearly state on all IRCnet motd's
that IRCnet was created for those who prefer a totally anarchial environment. 
Advise them not to waste their time and emotional resources trying establish
any form of community here, that their efforts will not be encouraged, let
alone supported.  Tell them plainly that IRCnet was created as a playground
for those who wish to play "King of the Mountain" type games.

Then they can decide if they want to stay and play or to go elsewhere for a
more stable atmosphere.

To reject out of hand several viable solutions to problems of chronic abuse
because they might actually be effective at stopping that abuse is mystifying
to say the least.

If infact the political concerns cause hesitancy in implementing what would
appear to be simply solutions to abuse, I would agree wholeheartedly with what
you suggest, that yes infact that policy may be wrong or misinterpreted and
should be revisited and clarified.

I would not ever judge the policy right or wrong.  That is not for me to
decide.  But users do deserve to know what the real policy is, in very clear
terms, before they invest time in socializing and building a community of
friends here.

____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com.