DALnet: Not what it used to be
Mike Hoff
tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) wrote:
>This has been on the web for months now, but recent conversations about
>DALnet make it somewhat apropos...
>
>From www.ultraviolet.org/dalnet :
>
great page, Tracy! As the recipient of numerous name calling tirades
by Dal, I appreciate someone telling the story behind it all.
Mike
***************************************************************
Mike Hoff bisc...@NOSPAM.neosoft.com
NewIRCusers--> http://www.neosoft.com/~biscuits/
Remove "NOSPAM" to reply by email
***************************************************************
Jim
you see this on any irc net, not just dalnet, and there's nothing secret
about this attitude.
and it won't change, so be like exactly like me, and just ignore it,
there's more important things to do, then worry about.
My two cents.
> But since then, DALnet has fallen a long way from those lofty ideals.
> People are akilled for no good reason. Servers suddenly disappear with no
> reason other than "You don't need to know". Secret lists of people
> forbidden from having O lines on DALnet are created and when they are
> found out we are told that isn't their purpose at all and we don't need
to
> know the real purpose. IRCops with very long lists of substantiated
> complaints retain their status because they are friends with those in
> power while those who disagree with those in power are banned.
>
>
> The Friendly Net?
>
> The "CEO" is supposed to be the leader. It only follows that the "CEO"
> should set the example for others to follow. Let's have a look at that
> example, from IRC and emails:
>
>
> <dalvenjah> I've surrounded myself with fools.
>
> <dalvenjah> now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to work. I
> just came in here to note that gnarph is a fuckwit.
>
> <dalvenjah> ayukawa, fuck you and the penis you rode in on.
>
> <dalvenjah> you don't know what's good for anything, can't finish
> anything you start, and are an idiot.
>
> "I'm tired of looking like an ass because of peoples' assumptions."
> -dalvenjah
>
> "Do the words 'dumbass', 'idiotic', 'whiner', or 'blowing something out
of
> proportion' mean anything to you?"
> -dalvenjah
>
> "Unlike some moronically myopic people here seem to want to believe,
> I have a very good reason for what I do."
> -dalvenjah
>
> "Idiot."
> -dalvenjah
>
Dalvenjah FoxFire
>>>>> "chaomage" == Ð ê ß å § ê R <chao...@sprintmail.com> writes:
chaomage> On 22 Oct 1997 00:54:08 GMT,
chaomage> tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) wrote:
>> This has been on the web for months now, but recent
>> conversations about<snipped>
chaomage> Are you still an IRCop on DAL? What is your nick?
No. He's been out of the loop for months, and was removed from the
network a couple of months ago. He decided he had to make up his own
stories about DALnet because he didn't know what was going on. Pity,
really.
-dalvenjah
--
Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) "Hanging is too good for a man who makes
Founder, the DALnet IRC Network puns; he should be drawn and quoted."
e-mail: dalv...@dal.net WWW: http://www.dal.net/~dalvenjah/
whois: SN90 Try DALnet! http://www.dal.net/
Ð ê ß å § ê R
On 22 Oct 1997 00:54:08 GMT, tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R
Reed) wrote:
>This has been on the web for months now, but recent conversations about<snipped>
Tracy R Reed
On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 04:16:00 GMT, Ð ê ß å § ê R <chao...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Are you still an IRCop on DAL? What is your nick?
Nope. dalvenjah forced my admin to remove my O line even though my admin did
not want to. :( He told my admin that if my O line weren't removed, he would
akill me. The admin removed my O line, and dalvenjah akilled me anyway. :(
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Love is blindness. I don't wanna see."
Ryan Tucker
On 24 Oct 1997 23:23:40 -0700, Dalvenjah FoxFire <*dalv...@dal.net*> spewed:
>No. He's been out of the loop for months, and was removed from the
>network a couple of months ago. He decided he had to make up his own
>stories about DALnet because he didn't know what was going on. Pity,
>really.
Must be a mass hallucination, then. -rt
--
Ryan Tucker <rtu...@ttgcitn.com> http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/
.sig down for maintenance yo down wit TCP? yeah, you know me
Tracy R Reed
On 24 Oct 1997 23:23:40 -0700, Dalvenjah FoxFire <*dalv...@dal.net*> wrote:
>No. He's been out of the loop for months, and was removed from the
>network a couple of months ago. He decided he had to make up his own
>stories about DALnet because he didn't know what was going on. Pity,
>really.
I have not made a thing up. Any of the things I have ever said about DALnet
can be corroborated by my previous admin who is still in very good standing
with DALnet. Anyone who wants to check these facts can email me for his
address.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Tracy R Reed
On 27 Oct 97 19:28:56 GMT, Aaron Colman <aco...@nospam.umr.edu> wrote:
>it as a valid method of logic) with one of those quotes. I'm just wondering
>why those quotes weren't put in also? This is pure speculation, but I'm
>thinking it was meant to make dal seem "The evil dictator" which I
>personally don't believe to be true.
Those quotes were not put in because they don't really matter. There is no
proper context in which the leader of an organisation which claims to be
friendly and professionally run can say such things. Do you agree it is ok
for dal to force my admin to do his bidding against his wishes and then go
back on his word once it has been done? And that was only the most recent
(involving myself, there may be more I am unaware of) in a long string of
abuses of power which I am sure you are familiar with.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
David Schwartz
There are a lot of people out there who seem to enjoy hating an IRC
network. Tracy Reed, AKA Maelcum, is one of those people. His choice of nets
to hate is DALnet, mostly because the network didn't take a stance against
software piracy and child pornography that was strong enough for his tastes.
The main reason for our 'weak' stance is legal. Simply put, if person A
alleges that person B is distributing pirated software or child pornography,
we can't act without investigating. Otherwise such allegations would be made
falsely all the time.
The only reasonable way to investigate is to access the fserve, ftp
site, web site or whatever and confirm the presence of warez or child
pornography. That would, of course, put us in possession of those materials,
which is a violation of US law.
We also have no way to verify the age of our IRCops, many of which are
under the age age of 18. As such, asking them to investigate or deal with
child pornography in any way could put us at significant legal risk. We have
had 11 year old IRCops.
We are also concerned about possible liability from our passing such a
policy but being unable to perfectly enforce it. As a result, our policy is
primarily one of cooperating with law enforcement. DALnet has an excellent
record of cooperating with law enforcement.
But we are not the police and we will not be. This is very similar to
Undernet's policy, and for very similar reasons.
So now that you have some background, on to the diatribe:
>Why DALnet isn't what it used to be
>
>Back when DALnet started, we decided we were going to be different from
>EFnet. I know this because I was there. I've been a constant user of
>DALnet since day 1. I have also been an IRCop for most of DALnet's
>history. We decided it was going to be free of the chaos and fascist IRC
>operators so common on EFnet. Users would have protection from takeovers
>through the user of nickserv and chanserv. We would not censor anyone and
>we would respect their privacy. It would be a democracy and all admins
>would vote on policies and server additions. Nobody would be banned from
>the network without very good cause.
Since I gave you your first O-line, I guess I have been an Admin for
most of DALnet's history.
The only thing that has changed is the procedures for voting on
policies. It's strange that you see this as fundamental. Both systems allow
some people to vote and not others.
Whether you call it a democracy or not is usually based upon how close
you feel to those who you think hold power. Users could claim DALnet was
never a democracy since users never had a 'vote' and there are more users
than members of any other group.
There has always been some group of people who ran DALnet. The problem
is, a 'democracy' is a form of _government_ and DALnet is not, does not
have, and has never been a government. So this is all really completely
meaningless.
>But since then, DALnet has fallen a long way from those lofty ideals.
It's funny, people usually use the phrase 'lofty ideals' to insult
something. Are you saying you agree with the ideals or not?
>People are akilled for no good reason.
In other words, in your opinion, the reason for the akill was not good.
Or maybe nobody told you the reason for the akill. People are akilled from
DALnet without Mr. Reed's personal approval.
>Servers suddenly disappear with no
>reason other than "You don't need to know".
There are lots of situations that result in the loss of a server that
just don't merit public discussion. Some things are private and should stay
that way. Tough. Quit whining about it already.
>Secret lists of people
>forbidden from having O lines on DALnet are created and when they are
>found out we are told that isn't their purpose at all and we don't need to
>know the real purpose.
Mostly because no one decided what their purpose was. It was a proposal
that was being discussed (with all of DALnet's Admins) and was later
abandoned. You want details about a policy that were never decided upon,
they don't exist.
All of these complaints share a common theme, 'someone did X and didn't
explain why to _my_satisfaction_'. Sorry, we don't revolve around you.
>IRCops with very long lists of substantiated
>complaints retain their status because they are friends with those in
>power while those who disagree with those in power are banned.
Actually, the time sequence is precisely the reverse. It's kind of like
how people who are found not guilty tend to wind up liking their judges and
not those who are punished.
Yes, some in DALnet's administration have stood up for people despite
"lists of substantiated complaints". The funny thing is, when you look at
the complaints closely, you see that they are actually the same complaint,
just repeated over and over by any sympathetic ear the complainer could
find.
And then there's people's amazing ability to reconstruct the past in the
light of later prejudicial information. This is called scapegoating, and it
is a natural human tendency. And when you get a sudden flood of 'discovered
complaints' about the same person at the same time, you start to wonder, and
then you investigate.
Consider your post. It could result in dozens of 'substantiated
complaints' against Dalvenjah. But they would all be the same complaint and
they'd all be equally unsubstantiated since they relied upon the same
questionable evidence and argumentation.
Suppose someone publically suggested that I was generally very rude to
users. What would happen? Every user who had some reason to not like a
decision I made would tell you how I was rude to them. And you'd see this
flood of 'substantiated complaints'. Some of them might even have logs of me
saying, "Go away" or "Leave me alone, dammit". The problem is, by going out
and soliciting complaints of a specific type, you get a bunch of people who
share a view that seem to legitimize each other even though there is no real
basis for the original complaint.
There is no penalty for disagreement on DALnet. WatchMan has disagreed
with many things, and he hasn't been banned. The point at which banning
becomes a consideration is when there is an open call for the destruction of
the network. For example, the reason for your publicity seeking.
There is a difference between disagreeing and bitching. There is a
difference between constructive criticism and seeking as wide and public an
audience as possible for a whine session.
>The root of the problem appears to have been, in hindsight, allowing one
>person to assume the leadership role. dalvenjah (Sven Nielsen) did NOT
>found DALnet. There were many people involved in the creation of DALnet.
>dalvenjah and Morpher were the admins of the first two DALnet servers.
>Someone tossed out the name "DALnet" as a joke. Nobody knew any better
>then, so it stuck.
I won't argue the history with you because it is irrelevent.
>dalvenjah did not write services and has done very
>minimal coding on ircd.
That's just wacky. DALnet is not and will never be a technocracy.
Dalvenjah is an administrator. He tells coders what to code. Does it matter
to Microsoft's administation whether Bill Gates is a good coder or not?
>He registered the dal.net domain and we used it
>exclusively to tell people about DALnet servers. Nobody realized his sole
>ownership of the domain and control of the DNS would be a problem until it
>was too late.
Translation: The administration isn't doing what I want them to do and
there's nothing I can do about it. Wah!
>The real decline seems to have started as soon as someone thought of the
>idea of DALnet making money. Approximately two years ago, someone claiming
>to be from Netscape approached dalvenjah and started feeding him ideas
>about how DALnet could make money by selling channels and advertising
>space to commercial entities like Netscape. Numbers like $10,000 per month
>for a channel were tossed about. dalvenjah was quite excited about all of
>this. Someone pointed out that companies like Netscape would find it
>difficult to do business with a non-incorporated organisation and
>dalvenjah incorporated DALnet, spending a significant sum of his own
>personal money. However, it was ultimately found that dalvenjah had been
>taken in "hook, line, sinker, and copy of angling times" by some schmuck
>who had absolutely nothing to do with Netscape and had no money to spend.
Actually, although this person was a fraud, he may be right. We won't
know because DALnet has not chosen to take that path. it might have worked,
it might not have.
>DALnet was incorporated on March 11, 1996 in the state of Delaware. The
>corporation file number is 2600952. Total authorized stock is 100 shares
>valued at $0 per share. Anyone can incorporate anything, especially so in
>Delaware. There are practically no rules other than the person doing the
>incorporating needing to have a name and an address.
>
>When it was pointed out that as CEO of the corporation, dalvenjah was
>professionally liable for the actions of the company, he stated that
>DALnet was not actually operating
>under that incorporation.
Actually, Dalvenjah just incorporated to protect the name and to provide
an infrastructure to allow DALnet to sell T-shirts and accept donations.
Again, however, nothing really came of this as DALnet did not choose to
follow this path.
>Then WebMaster came along. WebMaster runs a company which writes
>commercial IRC server software for Windows NT. WebMaster has probably been
>feeding dalvenjah ideas about making money off of DALnet as well, although
>none of this conversation has been made available to me.
It has been discussed, but again, DALnet has not chosen to follow that
path.
Why do you keep bringing this up again and again to anyone who will
listen? Dalvenjah has considered ways to commercialize DALnet and has never
done so. This is not a secret, not part of a conspiracy, it's not even
interesting.
>It is known that
>WebMaster is commercially profiting from his involvment in DALnet through
>his development and testing of his DALnet compatible IRC server software.
Many people commerically profit from their involvment in DALnet. There's
nothing wrong with that. Did I wake up in the wrong country?
Everybody who volunteers their time, effort, and money for DALnet does
so for their own reasons. Maybe they think it will look good on a resume.
Maybe they think it will draw attention to themselves or their company.
Maybe they hope to make business connections. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with that. If we rejected every server or IRCop or donation that
didn't pass some sort of 'sacrificial purity test', we'd have no network.
But I will tell you right now, I don't want anyone to sacrifice for
DALnet. If you feel you are not getting more out of the network then you are
putting in (whether financial, personal, warm fuzzies, whatever), you should
reexamine your association.
>It is clear that WebMaster has been granted a special position above all
>else. He runs an inordinate amount of DALnet servers, including services.
He has chosen to donate an enormous number of resources to DALnet. He
doesn't have a 'special position'. Any Admin can run as many servers as they
want.
This type of accusation is the kind that I find the sickest. As if
helping DALnet was supposed to be painful drudgery and enjoying or
benefiting from it was wrong. Let me repeat what Tracy said above because it
deserves to be looked at and thought about. It reveals an awful lot about
his motives and how he thinks:
"It is clear that WebMaster has been granted a special position above
all else. He runs an inordinate amount of DALnet servers, including
services."
Examine the standards of good and bad that Tracy is using here. Running
lots of servers for DALnet is bad. Donating a PPro-200 with 192Mb of RAM on
a T3 for DALnet's exclusive use is bad. One wonders what he thinks is good
for DALnet.
Imagine how horrible DALnet would be if we had 20 WebMasters?
>For the first time in the history of IRC, the admins of a large IRC
>network are 100% powerless. The entire dal.net domain is controlled by one
>person. Anyone who doesn't cooperate fully with dalvenjah gets their names
>in the DNS redirected to another server and is delinked from the network.
>It has been seen again and again. An admin who vehemently opposes
>something will soon change their tune when they realize their server is at
>stake. Principles are traded for power daily on DALnet.
If that's "principles" being traded for "power" then that goes on every
day in every organization when some bitchy whiner doesn't have a decision go
his way but ultimately realizes that every decision won't go his way and
he'll have to live with it.
If you want to run a server that is part of DALnet, you have to do what the
administration decides. If you don't like that, go find an IRC network that
lets their server administrators do whatever they hell they each
individually want.
>At one time, DALnet had a charter which detailed the rules of the net and
>how operations were to be conducted. Once the charter got in the way of
>what the CEO wanted to do, the CEO singlehandedly threw out the charter
>without even so much as a vote from the admins who ratified the charter.
Yep. Rules that get in the way should be removed as expediently as
possible. I have always believed that that was part of good administrative
hygiene.
>The admins voted in a policy which would allow the removal of those who
>conduct illegal activities on DALnet. When he saw his precious user count
>dropping, the CEO singlehandedly overturned it.
I'm not sure dropping user count had anything to do with the overturning
of that policy. Personally, I'd love to have our user count drop from all
the warez people and kiddy porn people leaving. I really doubt I'm alone in
that feeling.
>Users are equivalent to
>power. This has been seen constantly throughout the history of DALnet.
>Whenever anyone proposed anything which might affect the user count in a
>negative way, it was immediately shot down.
Users are a measure of whether people find our service useful. The more
users, the more people think our network is giving them what they want.
>Because the vast majority of DALnet admins cannot be bothered to
>participate in votes, discussion of issues, etc. an Executive Board was
>formed to take their place. This executive board was hand picked by
>dalvenjah and one of the conditions of the existance of the executive
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>board is that dalvenjah can veto any action they decide upon. This
>arrangement ultimately relieves dalvenjah of work and decisions, while
>retaining his ability to do whatever he wants should an issue he feels to
>be important arise.
That's just plain good administration. They even have a word for it,
it's called delegation'. Look it up if you don't believe me.
The underlined phrase below baffles me. While that is the way the EB was
set up, what do you mean by "one of the conditions of the existance"?
>On top of everything else, DALnet still allows software piracy and child
>pornography to be distributed on it's network despite tremendous efforts
>to have it removed. There has been no official policy preventing this. The
>only policy in place to date is one which prevents the use of services on
>channels involved in illegal activities. If a kiddie porn trader is
>sitting in an unregistered channel, DALnet won't touch them.
See my reasoning above. Our hands are tied. If you want to lobby for
legislation permitting us to deal with these problems, more power to you.
I'm just curious -- how do you know they are a kiddie porn trader? Do
you request copies of the porn from them?
> The Friendly Net?
>
>The "CEO" is supposed to be the leader. It only follows that the "CEO"
>should set the example for others to follow. Let's have a look at that
>example, from IRC and emails:
Dalvenjah tells it like it is. And it takes a special kind of bitchy
whiner to make private comments public. In fact, your inclusion of those
comments is a perfect example of the whining that Dalvenjah was so upset
about in those very same comments.
JoelKatz
Proud Member of DALnet's Executive Board
Dalvenjah FoxFire
I normally don't give kooks like this the benefit of a response. However,
I felt that it might be a good idea to put some of these rumors to rest
with the truth once and for all. If you read all the way to the end, I
applaud your effort and persistence.
Mr Tracy Reed writes:
> But since then, DALnet has fallen a long way from those lofty ideals.
> People are akilled for no good reason. Servers suddenly disappear with no
> reason other than "You don't need to know". Secret lists of people
> forbidden from having O lines on DALnet are created and when they are
> found out we are told that isn't their purpose at all and we don't need to
> know the real purpose. IRCops with very long lists of substantiated
> complaints retain their status because they are friends with those in
> power while those who disagree with those in power are banned.
Not true. This is your skewed perception. As I will show below, your
arguments are based entirely on speculation and conjecture, and have no
valid basis in fact. Therefore, your entire argument is entirely invalid.
[much commentary about me being starry-eyed from claims of money to be made]
> Then WebMaster came along. WebMaster runs a company which writes
> commercial IRC server software for Windows NT. WebMaster has probably been
> feeding dalvenjah ideas about making money off of DALnet as well, although
> none of this conversation has been made available to me. It is known that
> WebMaster is commercially profiting from his involvment in DALnet through
> his development and testing of his DALnet compatible IRC server software.
> It is clear that WebMaster has been granted a special position above all
> else. He runs an inordinate amount of DALnet servers, including services.
Please explain why private conversation between friends should be made
available to you. You have proven yourself to come up with ideas about how
DALnet should be run. You have also proven yourself to be stubborn and
carry through with your ideas even if it's decided by the rest of DALnet
not to do things that way. You leave no room for compromise, and say we're
fools when we don't follow through what you want. If we try and compromise
to what you want, you say sure, you'll carry through and display something
as to your progress later on. However, you've always proven yourself
unable to finish what you've started. You'd accepted the responsibility
of coding up a web-based K-line system so that e-mailed complaints can
be responded to automatically, making the life of the K:line team much
easier. Nothing ever came of it. You kept harping on your idea to require
people to register before using DALnet, and how it would be the solution
to all problems on DALnet, despite the fact that it was discussed
and decided to be unworkable. And any other variation on your idea is
automatically not good enough, because you didn't think it up.
Your continual inability to work with others and stubborn desire to
do your own thing, even if that directly conflicts with the direction DALnet
as a whole takes is the entire reason you were kicked out of DALnet. Your
continual adherence to these inane claims of a conspiracy and of nazism,
and your continued tirades against DALnet online, on your web page, and on
USEnet simply further proves my point. You even quote me in your .sigs;
tell me that's not obsessive-compulsive behavior.
As for the suggestions that I'm secretly making money from DALnet - if
this is true, Mr. Reed, where is the money? I doubt that I would be working
60 hours a week at two different jobs, in addition to being a full time
college student, and in addition to running DALnet, if I were making any
money from DALnet. Once again, your conjecture gets the better of you.
(It has been speculated that the only reason Mr. Reed went off like this
is that he believes that I'm making money and he wants 'his cut.')
Yes, I would like DALnet to be able to support itself someday. However,
that is not and never has been the driving force behind DALnet. The driving
force is, has been, and always will be to provide a safe, sane place for
users to chat without having to worry about incidentals like running a
bot to keep their channel open or some moron taking over their channel or
flooding them. Chat is the whole point of IRC, remember? It's not about
petty power struggles.
> For the first time in the history of IRC, the admins of a large IRC
> network are 100% powerless. The entire dal.net domain is controlled by one
> person. Anyone who doesn't cooperate fully with dalvenjah gets their names
> in the DNS redirected to another server and is delinked from the network.
> It has been seen again and again. An admin who vehemently opposes
> something will soon change their tune when they realize their server is at
> stake. Principles are traded for power daily on DALnet.
Please explain why this is a bad thing. DALnet is not a government. It is
not a democracy. It is an organization that needs stability in order to
function well. Those who use DALnet and those who staff it all have the
choice to stay with DALnet or to go elsewhere. We are not strapping anyone
to a table and beating them senseless until they pledge to forever remain
on DALnet. You used to be on EFnet; the sort of problems that crop up there
should make it obvious that while anarchy and distributed power can work,
it doesn't necessarily work well.
> At one time, DALnet had a charter which detailed the rules of the net and
> how operations were to be conducted. Once the charter got in the way of
> what the CEO wanted to do, the CEO singlehandedly threw out the charter
> without even so much as a vote from the admins who ratified the charter.
Yep. It's a real pity that you can't see why, as well.
My reasoning for throwing out the charter was simple. DALnet was stagnating,
nothing was getting done, and it was falling apart. It is obvious that you
wouldn't have minded if DALnet fell apart and went away late last year, as
long as we followed the ever so precious charter. I, on the other hand,
actually care about DALnet, and want to see it make it. So instead of
adhering to a set of rules that were constraining us, I did what I
thought was necessary to break us out of that slump. Guess what -
it worked. We're doing much better now than we were a year ago, despite
the efforts of people like you to sabotage the network.
> The admins voted in a policy which would allow the removal of those who
> conduct illegal activities on DALnet. When he saw his precious user count
> dropping, the CEO singlehandedly overturned it. Users are equivalent to
> power. This has been seen constantly throughout the history of DALnet.
> Whenever anyone proposed anything which might affect the user count in a
> negative way, it was immediately shot down.
> On top of everything else, DALnet still allows software piracy and child
> pornography to be distributed on it's network despite tremendous efforts
> to have it removed. There has been no official policy preventing this. The
> only policy in place to date is one which prevents the use of services on
> channels involved in illegal activities. If a kiddie porn trader is
> sitting in an unregistered channel, DALnet won't touch them.
Here's where it gets good. DALnet, in fact, has been quite active in taking
action against kiddie porn and software pirates. We simply haven't
publicized the efforts.
DALnet has formed a relationship with an agent at the San Diego FBI
Office, so that we can more easily turn over logs of child porn and
software pirate activity. DALnet has been helping US Attorneys' and
the US Customs in successfully prosecuting several child pornography
cases. DALnet has always been and will always be committed to following
the law and helping law enforcement eradicate this stuff from the face
of the Internet.
The policy you mention above, which you spearheaded and fought for,
proved to be unworkable after having it implemented for a few months.
So, we went with something different. Again, though, since it's not
YOUR solution, Mr. Reed, you deem it not to be a good solution. Because
we chose to do something else to solve this problem rather than use
the solution you like, you have falsely decided that we aren't doing
anything about it. You couldn't be more wrong. Your arguments are
based on false conjecture, Mr. Reed, and your ego gets the better of you.
> Because the vast majority of DALnet admins cannot be bothered to
> participate in votes, discussion of issues, etc. an Executive Board was
> formed to take their place. This executive board was hand picked by
> dalvenjah and one of the conditions of the existance of the executive
> board is that dalvenjah can veto any action they decide upon. This
> arrangement ultimately relieves dalvenjah of work and decisions, while
> retaining his ability to do whatever he wants should an issue he feels to
> be important arise.
The idea that the only body that has any influence over decisions on DALnet
is the EB is completely and entirely false. Anyone, from admin to IRCop to
user, may approach me if they feel they have a concern or problem. The
reason many haven't - the image that I will autokill them from the net or
worse if they disagree with me - is that they have been fed these lies by
people such as you, Mr. Reed.
People are always free to /msg me or e-mail me if they have a question,
problem, or concern. I do not always answer right away, because I'm
most likely busy doing something else. But I will answer.
Yes, I have a pattern of autokilling people that I'm tired of putting up
with. What you fail to realize is that I only autokill these folks as a
last resort, after having put up with their crap for months, or a year or
more.
Mr. Reed, I have put up with your crap for over two years. I have continually
asked you to try and resolve your differences with DALnet and to stop
complaining about its administration if you are to continue to be an IRCop
on DALnet. Instead, you simply ignored me. I can name several occasions,
in person, over the phone, over IRC, via e-mail, and by proxy, that
I have requested you stop defaming DALnet and resolve your differences. You
still ignored me. You recently started spreading your crap to other IRCops
and staffmembers on DALnet and trying to turn them against DALnet.
After more than a year of putting up with your lies and rumormongering,
Mr. Reed, I have finally chosen to autokill you. After giving you
literally tens of second chances, I have decided that you simply won't
be changed. If I didn't autokill you, you would still be around,
preaching to users how DALnet sucks, that I'm Hitler reincarnated, and
other such crap. Who knows; some unsuspecting new admin might even
make the mistake of giving you another O:line.
If anyone thinks I'm a fool for firing someone who's hurting the
organization, then I must ask what planet are you from?
> The Friendly Net?
> The "CEO" is supposed to be the leader. It only follows that the "CEO"
> should set the example for others to follow. Let's have a look at that
> example, from IRC and emails:
> <dalvenjah> I've surrounded myself with fools.
> <dalvenjah> now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to work. I
> just came in here to note that gnarph is a fuckwit.
> <dalvenjah> ayukawa, fuck you and the penis you rode in on.
> <dalvenjah> you don't know what's good for anything, can't finish
> anything you start, and are an idiot.
> "I'm tired of looking like an ass because of peoples' assumptions."
> -dalvenjah
> "Do the words 'dumbass', 'idiotic', 'whiner', or 'blowing something out of
> proportion' mean anything to you?"
> -dalvenjah
> "Unlike some moronically myopic people here seem to want to believe,
> I have a very good reason for what I do."
> -dalvenjah
> "Idiot."
> -dalvenjah
What you seem to fail to realize, Mr. Reed, is that all of these comments
were directed at people like you. People who don't care about what happens
to DALnet, but are intent on damaging its reputation simply to satisfy their
own personal egos, no matter what happens to the rest of the network and
the people who actually care about DALnet. People who have, for some reason
or other, decided that I am the devil incarnate and will bring DALnet to its
knees.
The network seems to be doing pretty well without you, Mr. Reed. Could it
be that you were wrong? Imagine that, Mr. Reed. You were wrong.
-dalvenjah
Proud founder and CEO of the best IRC network on the planet.
--
Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) In cyberspace, noone knows you're
Founder, the DALnet IRC Network wearing pointy ears.
Ashley Penney
My computer reckons that Dalvenjah FoxFire <*dalv...@dal.net*> said the
following:
:
:> The admins voted in a policy which would allow the removal of those who
This is true, I have witnessed a 'warez' channel by shut down by Dalnet. I then
investigated further and found all the 'warez' channels had been shut down, you
should have seen how hopping mad all the user's were.
--
Ashley Penney | (as...@utopia.meganet.co.uk) | Twilight Dragon
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and go
well with Ketchup!"
Steve Lamb
ashp@.meganet.co.uk in <<3455e3ae...@193.164.171.3>> wrote:
>This is true, I have witnessed a 'warez' channel by shut down by Dalnet. I
>then investigated further and found all the 'warez' channels had been shut
>down, you should have seen how hopping mad all the user's were.
Then why is it I still get people in the channels I visit hawking porn
and warez on dal.net? Ooooh, yeah, they were real pissed. So pissed that I
think they hardly noticed.
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
CC: from news not wanted or appreciated| skills and labor, not my opinions!
---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Tracy R Reed
On 27 Oct 1997 22:11:01 -0800, Dalvenjah FoxFire <*dalv...@dal.net*> wrote:
>I normally don't give kooks like this the benefit of a response. However,
Yet more name calling from a member of the "professionally run"
organisation.
>Please explain why private conversation between friends should be made
>available to you. You have proven yourself to come up with ideas about how
I never said that it should be made available to me...
>DALnet should be run. You have also proven yourself to be stubborn and
>carry through with your ideas even if it's decided by the rest of DALnet
>not to do things that way. You leave no room for compromise, and say we're
>fools when we don't follow through what you want. If we try and compromise
I think I leave plenty of room for compromise. When Max offered his
version of the AUP, I took it. That was a huge compromise. It was nothing
like I originally proposed. All of the admins voted for it. It was decided
by the rest of DALnet to do it Max's way and I went along with it. YOU
decided that you didn't want it that way and overturned it hours after
implementation. I have compromised on things too numerous to list. You
don't know when I compromise because I don't complain about it.
>to what you want, you say sure, you'll carry through and display something
>as to your progress later on. However, you've always proven yourself
>unable to finish what you've started. You'd accepted the responsibility
>of coding up a web-based K-line system so that e-mailed complaints can
>be responded to automatically, making the life of the K:line team much
I *never* accepted this responsibility. Show me the email where I did. I
bugged kline about it for ages and never heard back from anyone one way or
the other. I think someone else was eventually picked to do it, although I
don't recall who.
>easier. Nothing ever came of it. You kept harping on your idea to require
>people to register before using DALnet, and how it would be the solution
>to all problems on DALnet, despite the fact that it was discussed
>and decided to be unworkable. And any other variation on your idea is
>automatically not good enough, because you didn't think it up.
Who decided it was unworkable? I ran it by a LOT of admins. Including
JoelKatz. They each thought that it was workable. I didn't hear back from
a single person who thought it was unworkable. I didn't hear back from you
at all on the idea.
>continual adherence to these inane claims of a conspiracy and of nazism,
>and your continued tirades against DALnet online, on your web page, and on
>USEnet simply further proves my point. You even quote me in your .sigs;
>tell me that's not obsessive-compulsive behavior.
I have never used the words conspiracy or nazi anywhere. It's not a
conspiracy at all. It is all out in the open, with the exception of the
black list. Quoting you in my sigs is not obessive-compulsive. If that
were the case, your constant dragon motif would be an example of
obsessive-compulsive disorder.
>As for the suggestions that I'm secretly making money from DALnet - if
>this is true, Mr. Reed, where is the money? I doubt that I would be working
>60 hours a week at two different jobs, in addition to being a full time
>college student, and in addition to running DALnet, if I were making any
>money from DALnet. Once again, your conjecture gets the better of you.
I never suggested that you are secretly making money from DALnet. Please
show me where I say this.
>flooding them. Chat is the whole point of IRC, remember? It's not about
>petty power struggles.
That's funny, you've done quite a lot to ensure your place at the top of
DALnet if it's not about power struggles. I find the rule giving you power
to overrule the EB on anythinhg, giving you absolute power, and your hold
on the DNS to be rather indicative of a power struggle. When FlameMage was
advocating your removal from power, he was akilled. That sure looked like
a power struggle as well.
>Please explain why this is a bad thing. DALnet is not a government. It is
>not a democracy. It is an organization that needs stability in order to
>function well. Those who use DALnet and those who staff it all have the
>choice to stay with DALnet or to go elsewhere. We are not strapping anyone
>to a table and beating them senseless until they pledge to forever remain
>on DALnet. You used to be on EFnet; the sort of problems that crop up there
>should make it obvious that while anarchy and distributed power can work,
>it doesn't necessarily work well.
Not a democracy anymore. But it claimed to be a democracy in the
beginning. It gave the admins the illusion of having a vote in how things
were run and that it would always be that way. There was some pretty high
talk when DALnet began and I was very pleased to see it. But as the users
began to show up, those ideals were lost. All of my friends are on DALnet
and probably always will be. In a way, I must remain loyal to DALnet. I am
not saying this is your fault, because it isn't.
>Yep. It's a real pity that you can't see why, as well.
>
>My reasoning for throwing out the charter was simple. DALnet was stagnating,
>nothing was getting done, and it was falling apart. It is obvious that you
>wouldn't have minded if DALnet fell apart and went away late last year, as
I agree with your reasoning for throwing it out. I disagree with the way
you did it. But that's old news to you. That's been my problem with many
things on DALnet. The reason was fine, but the way it was done was
entirely inappropriate. You should have put this to a vote before the
admins. If it's what DALnet really wanted, it would have passed the vote
easily. Yes, votes were taking too long. But this would have been the last
vote which would have taken so long before things could proceded more
quickly. I do not want DALnet to fall apart. I do care about DALnet. I
want DALnet to play by its own rules and let the admins determine its
direction.
>Here's where it gets good. DALnet, in fact, has been quite active in taking
>action against kiddie porn and software pirates. We simply haven't
>publicized the efforts.
I am glad to hear that. Why not publicize the efforts? It seems that it
would serve to draw more people to DALnet. And why *isn't* there a rule
prohibiting illegal activities, rather than just letting it happen? Unless
you intend for DALnet to be some sort of kiddie porn trap where you want
to attract and turn in as many pedophiles as you can just to get them
behind bars. I can see why one would be tempted by that viewpoint, but
the point of IRC is to chat, not sting operations.
>DALnet has formed a relationship with an agent at the San Diego FBI
>Office, so that we can more easily turn over logs of child porn and
>software pirate activity. DALnet has been helping US Attorneys' and
This is all quite excellent and I am glad to hear that an active stance is
being taken.
>The policy you mention above, which you spearheaded and fought for,
>proved to be unworkable after having it implemented for a few months.
How did it prove to be unworkable? And if it was so unworkable, why wasn't
it removed in the same way it was put into place: by a vote of the admins?
You could have used emergency situation powers granted to you by the
admins to temporarily anull the policy and then call a vote to have it
removed.
>So, we went with something different. Again, though, since it's not
>YOUR solution, Mr. Reed, you deem it not to be a good solution. Because
This is not true at all. I have supported many solutions to many problems
on DALnet which were not mine. After you threw out the policy, there was
no solution in place whatsoever until the closers went into effect.
>The idea that the only body that has any influence over decisions on DALnet
>is the EB is completely and entirely false. Anyone, from admin to IRCop to
>user, may approach me if they feel they have a concern or problem. The
>reason many haven't - the image that I will autokill them from the net or
>worse if they disagree with me - is that they have been fed these lies by
>people such as you, Mr. Reed.
I disagreed with you. I'm autokilled. Hmm... Why not just put me on
/ignore? Put me in your killfile? That would have solved your problem.
>Yes, I have a pattern of autokilling people that I'm tired of putting up
>with. What you fail to realize is that I only autokill these folks as a
>last resort, after having put up with their crap for months, or a year or
>more.
It was decided long ago that autokills were ONLY for people causing
technical problems with the network. Flooding, etc. DALnet is and always
has been ticking along just fine with me online.
>Mr. Reed, I have put up with your crap for over two years. I have continually
>asked you to try and resolve your differences with DALnet and to stop
>complaining about its administration if you are to continue to be an IRCop
>on DALnet. Instead, you simply ignored me. I can name several occasions,
>in person, over the phone, over IRC, via e-mail, and by proxy, that
>I have requested you stop defaming DALnet and resolve your differences. You
>still ignored me. You recently started spreading your crap to other IRCops
>and staffmembers on DALnet and trying to turn them against DALnet.
I am not trying to turn anyone against DALnet. I simply want DALnet to
live up to it's promise. No matter how much rhetoric a user posts to
Usenet or their web pages, they should not be autokilled. The admins
should have a vote. There should be NO secret measures or policies. Users
should be kept informed. This is what the people who founded DALnet agreed
upon.
>What you seem to fail to realize, Mr. Reed, is that all of these comments
>were directed at people like you. People who don't care about what happens
It is entirely inappropriate to resort to name calling or personal
insults. Period. There is no excuse for that.
>The network seems to be doing pretty well without you, Mr. Reed. Could it
>be that you were wrong? Imagine that, Mr. Reed. You were wrong.
DALnet is not at all without me and never has been. I will be on DALnet
from the beginning to the end. I'm in #linux right now and have been every
day since you "akilled" me.
>Proud founder and CEO of the best IRC network on the planet.
I agree that DALnet is the best IRC network on the planet and that you are
the CEO. But you are not the founder. The list of DALnet founders is too
long to list. Sadly, many of them have left us for other things.
Tutor
I've just recently picked up on the "string" going on. There seems to be
a few ppl that are getting mad over something that is rather trival. Now
don't get me wrong. I've been on DALnet as long, if not longer than most
of the ppl posting in this string and until about 45 days ago I was on
DALnet between 8 and 14 hours a day.
DALnet has changed ALOT in the last couple years. Both good and bad. I
see comments about IRCops under the age of 18 and think of some of the
good under the age of 18 IRCops there are. Key word is "good". I
personally can't think of one that I've had too much of a problem with.
It's normally the older "think I know so much" ones that always gave me
a hard time, both while I was just a user or founder or while I was a
IRCop.
The friendly feeling has left many of the good channels. I've meantioned
that a few times in postings here, but my sig line always has DALnet
listed as where to go for irc.
When I came to DALnet it wasn't hard to get a quick answer from a
"smiling face", nor was it too hard to have someone /kill'd that was
flooding. There was always (normally) someone that would spend the time
to assist you in setting up a channel or helping with nickserv. Many
times it's hard to get a good answer from a smiling person, many of the
help channels seem rushed and many of the ops act as if they are in "god
mode".
Often #dr is absent of users and ops as if ppl don't go there due to
network "lack of particapation". A user today asked me about the new r
and +R modes in r/l, I informed her what they were suppose to be and
told the to go to #dr and ask one of the ops, she then started laughing
and told me that going to #dr was totally useless. We both were laughing
and talking about how DALnet has changed and she finally went to #dr
anyway... we were both shocked when one of the ops there informed her
that the r mode was being worked on and some channels had it etc etc.
The shock was that one of the ops actually commented.
I'm not trying to talk down about DALnet and the IRCops, just that for
along time the "Team effort" seemed to have departed. I started getting
so pissed at idiots that were either IRCops, dragonrealm ops, or
dalnethelp ops or want to be's that I finally had to take a break or the
last month.
When you go into the "Offical help channel" (#dalnethelp) because a user
is needing help with a lost password and you know there is a CSOP there
so being a good person your going to hit up the CSOP to assist the user.
And while there some simple "how do you register a nick" question arises
that is being ignored by the current ops (proubley busy in msg helping
someone). So you answer the simple question and immediatly get jumped on
in msg by some rodent that has +v just kinds of gets my goat. Mainly
when the geek starts informing me that their +v makes them a op with
exception of kicking powers and I'd better not answer any other
questions in channel or they were going to msg one of the IRCops to kill
me.
Sorry last straw on DALnet for awhile. Stupid little worm didn't
understand that 3 weeks after #dalnethelp was registered I was a op
there nor that I was the stupid person that started all the silly bs
about using +v as a channel helper symbol on newbies or ircnewbies a few
years back.
DALnet isn't one person ie. it isn't Dalvenjah. Yes, Dal has control of
it (I think). As he should. But, like I tell ppl that are making or run
a channel... it's the ops that can make or break a channel.
I was really happy to see the op in #dr answer the question on the r
mode and although the answer wasn't any help (due to the mode was new
and not fully implemented) so the op gave all the proper answer to the
question.
DALnet has changed the small town feeling has grown into a large city
hustle and bustle "no time to explain... whats the next question"
feeling. Maybe it'll revert to the good times. We can always hope.
btw the kiddy poron and warez comes and goes... we proubly need some
full time staffers to really nail it.
-- Tutor
#wasteland,#dalnethelp,#newbies,#mirc4dummies
hebron.in.us.dal.net...port: 7000
http://www.wwn.net/tutor/index.html
Kevin Swan
M. D. Yesowitch (yeso...@rocza.kei.com) wrote:
: ke...@kombat.acadiau.ca (Kevin Swan) writes:
: DALnet does not advocate, encourage or permit opers to snoop on
: private messages. If what you're implying with this paranthetical
: notation is that they do, please reevaluate.
/join #exceed, or #warez, or #warez4you, or any of the other channels.
No sooner do you join than you're flooded with auto-messages from people
enticing you to access their fserv. There's nothing private about this.
This is not immoral, simply going into a channel and seeing what is openly
being traded. No where did I say anything about "snooping" on private
conversations.
Kev.
--
Kevin Swan BCSH
My university broke my email. If you want to email me, please send it to
013...@dragon.acadiau.ca Acadia University
How's my posting? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
** Fatal Error [1]: 'Win95' virus detected on /dev/hda1; Formatting ...
Tracy R Reed
On 28 Oct 1997 23:06:35 GMT, Tutor <tu...@pcis.net> wrote:
>DALnet isn't one person ie. it isn't Dalvenjah. Yes, Dal has control of
>it (I think). As he should. But, like I tell ppl that are making or run
Just out of curiosity, why do you say this?
Kevin Swan
David Schwartz (dj...@gate.net) wrote:
: There are a lot of people out there who seem to enjoy hating an IRC
: network. Tracy Reed, AKA Maelcum, is one of those people. His choice of nets
: to hate is DALnet, mostly because the network didn't take a stance against
: software piracy and child pornography that was strong enough for his tastes.
On the issue of child pornography and software piracy: both of these are
illegal. What *should* the stance of an IRC network be on these issues? I
would welcome a zero-tolerance policy, but I'm not running dalnet. Do you
have any idea how much illegal material passes through an IRC net in a
single day? (Of course you do, you're running it. :) But, for the
benefit of those reading ...) We're talking several dozen gigabytes, all
of it completely illegal. I don't think a 'net should be tolerant of
these activities at all. Any leeway is too "soft" for my tastes, and
should be for the admin of the network too.
: The main reason for our 'weak' stance is legal. Simply put, if person A
: alleges that person B is distributing pirated software or child pornography,
: we can't act without investigating. Otherwise such allegations would be made
: falsely all the time.
Why not? You can ban a person from the net completely whenever you want.
Is your net! You don't even need a reason. Even the slightest suspicion
should warrant a full, permanent ban. You are under absolutely no
obligation to let anyone use your service. They sign no contracts, pay no
fees. You can withdraw your service from anyone you want, any time you
want. All you have to do is go into #exceed or #!!!!!sexwithmymom and wait
a few seconds to see all of the illegal activities. This is not mere
suspicion, these people are running fservs 24/7, the warez is flowing freely.
It should be noted however that pornography in itself is not illegal. I am
referring only to child pornography. I do not advocate censorship. If
people wish to trade legitimately obtained images depicting legal acts,
thats their decision. If dalnet wishes to be a forum for these activities,
that's fine too. It is the *illegal* activities that I am concerned with.
: The only reasonable way to investigate is to access the fserve, ftp
: site, web site or whatever and confirm the presence of warez or child
: pornography. That would, of course, put us in possession of those materials,
: which is a violation of US law.
Above, you said you can't ban someone just because someone said they're
trading warez. And now, you say you cannot legally confirm that they *are*
trading warez. But what's stopping you from accessing their fserv, and
examining the offerings, *without* downloading it? If someone has a file
on their fserv called office97.zip, and its 95 MB, I'd say that's sufficient
evidence for banning someone from dalnet. In addition, if they are
soliciting warez, that is also sufficient reason to warrant a permanent ban
from dalnet.
: We are also concerned about possible liability from our passing such a
: policy but being unable to perfectly enforce it. As a result, our policy is
: primarily one of cooperating with law enforcement. DALnet has an excellent
: record of cooperating with law enforcement.
I'd prefer that it didn't have ANY RECORD AT ALL with law enforcement.
[TREMENDOUS SNIP]
Anyway, that's my little rant. I like dalnet, its 10x better than efnet.
But I'd like it even better without all the illegal stuff going on.
Tracy R Reed
On 29 Oct 1997 02:26:28 GMT, Tutor <tu...@pcis.net> wrote:
>that Dal has basically a veto power. IMHO Dal should say or have the
>final say as to what happens to the network he started (or continued to
>work on). It would be the same as a Founder in a basic channel structure
Lots of people started it and have continued to work on it. dal was not "the"
founder and I think giving him all of the credit greatly shortchanges all of
those who rightly deserve it but were too polite to ask for it. I was rather
surprised that he would even accept such a title.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
David Schwartz
>So Microsoft could effectively buy out DALnet by running a few hundred
>servers?
Only if we implemented your 'one server one vote' system. Pot. Kettle.
Black.
JK
Tutor
Tracy R Reed wrote:
> On 29 Oct 1997 02:26:28 GMT, Tutor <tu...@pcis.net> wrote:
> >that Dal has basically a veto power. IMHO Dal should say or have the
> >final say as to what happens to the network he started (or continued to
> >work on). It would be the same as a Founder in a basic channel structure
>
> Lots of people started it and have continued to work on it. dal was not "the"
> founder and I think giving him all of the credit greatly shortchanges all of
> those who rightly deserve it but were too polite to ask for it. I was rather
> surprised that he would even accept such a title.
>
> --
> Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
> <dalvenjah> I've surrounded myself with fools.
Let's set a few things stright right off the bat.
First off I'm not in league with Dal (before ppl start to think differently)
Second I'm just one of the average users on DALnet
and lastly I'm don't have access to servers nor Admins nor anything else that
would make me a "power user".
I've seen Dal only once or twice on the net and one of those times was when some
spoofer hacked #dr and kicked/ban'd Dal and a few others a year or so ago.
If you'd read my entire line you'd see I said one person doesn't make a channel
or network but it does take everyone working together. If there was a single
person in charge whether it's Dal or another enity then who ever it is that is in
charge should be listened to. I ATTEMPTED to use the "channel concept" to show a
basic heirachey structure, but guess that just flew by without being read.
Let me try it this way:
#mirc channel rules say no sound files (wav's) are to be played in channel (at
least they use to say that, I guess they still do).
Who made that rule? The Founder.
Who enforces that rule? The ops.
Why? It's a dumb rule.... sounds can be fun... ppl like sounds... etc etc etc
It's the Founders call to say what they do or don't allow in there channel.
When I was Founder of #wasteland (I just turned the channel over to my lover), I
set the rules and guidelines... my ops followed those rules and ensured ppl
entering the channel also abided by them.
Now it's true I was called Hitler once or twice (more like a few hundred) and I
also lost some ops sometimes when they refused to "play by the rules" or refused
to stop a power struggle. It happens.
Point is... someone is in charge.
If one of the ops disliked my rules and such, that was fine by me as long as they
continued to do their duties, I didn't hold personal grudges. But if they same op
continued to break my rules or complain about what I was doing, I'd ask them to
locate another channel.
Nothing personal, sorry, come on back and vist, etc etc.
Now alot of ppl told me the reason they were coming to the channel was because I
was there and willing to help them. Thats kewl... but the reality of the
situation was that the ops that were in that channel were what was bringing ppl
back, not me.
The same is with DALnet. I know Dal isn't what is bringing 10000 ppl online every
night ALOT of it (at least it use to be) is the IRCops helping ppl, CSOP/Admins
willing to help instead of chatting and normal basic users like myself that are
showing new ppl a smiling face and letting them know that #mirc4dummies allows
them to use colored text (after they got booted from #dnh).
Jeremy Nelson
In article <6366sk$o5i$0...@208.207.70.125>, Tutor <tu...@pcis.net> wrote:
[Why should dal have "absolute" power on dalnet?]
>IMHO Dal should say or have the
>final say as to what happens to the network he started (or continued to
>work on).
So what youre saying is that it is completely excusable for anyone to
become an unreasonable tyrant simply because they organized a structure?
Are the other people who are putting in voluntary resources just chopped
liver?
I think the point that most people are missing is that DALnet doesnt
exist without servers that arent run by Dal. And if you say that it is
reasonable for him to rule with an "iron fist" against the wishes of
the other volunteers simply becuase he "founded" the network, even though
he doesnt control the majority of its resources, then you will find a lot
of people to disagree with you.
>all the other ops (IRCops) esp the SOP's (CSOP/Admin's) should abide by
>their (Founder) desision and ensure it remains in effect.
Isn't this the type of mindless unquestioning loyalty that has been used
all through history to set up dictatorships, by people, like maybe HITLER?
-hop
wx on DALnet
> Because at some point they may be required to mediate a dispute which
is
>either of or is on a channel which is adult in nature.
i've been a ircop on midsun.com for a long time and before that i ran my
isp's server i don't think this statement is true, i've been involed in
many matters and i belive i handled them well
maybe it is time you sit back and look how you act?
wx
Tracy R Reed
>>From: Dalvenjah FoxFire[SMTP:dalv...@DAL.net]
>>well. Feel free to pass this post around if you know of anyone who could
>>stand to read this.
dal, let me get this straight... You explicitly state that this can be
posted around to anyone who can stand to read it. Then, when it does get
posted around, you have a huge fit, collect 40+ people in #operators, and
generally give everyone a huge ration of shit asking how the hell I got
ahold of it. Anyone else see something wrong with this?
I really wonder why so many people tolerate your "leadership" when you
pull crap like this on the people you are supposedly leading.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
Ryan Tucker
On 31 Oct 1997 01:18:14 GMT, Tracy R Reed
<tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org> spewed:
>dal, let me get this straight... You explicitly state that this can be
>posted around to anyone who can stand to read it. Then, when it does get
>posted around, you have a huge fit, collect 40+ people in #operators, and
>generally give everyone a huge ration of shit asking how the hell I got
>ahold of it. Anyone else see something wrong with this?
He meant to pass it on to everyone EXCEPT you, very likely. -rt
Steve Lamb
cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com in <<345c561e...@news.gwis.com>> wrote:
>Look harder. Look around you. Read what goes on in senate meetings.
>Watch the nightly news. If that's what it means to be civilized and
>act maturely, I'd rather be a minor.
Irrelevant.
>True, being a minor generally means being inexperienced and slightly rash,
>but, that IS a generalization.
And it is one that fits in more cases than not.
>If they are to learn from us, why not teach them right, instead of teaching
>them to generalize and stereotype?
If they want to learn, fine. But being in that position of power is
something entirely different than learning. If I were to take your example
above are you saying that since you believe in the overall maturity of some
minors that you would accept minors into our government?
>And this is any worse then 11 year old Bobby crying for daddy to stop
>beating up mommy last nite?
Apples an oranges. In one the minor is in a position of authority to
which other people are looking up to. On the other they are an unfortunate
victim of a very bad situation.
>Face it, our kids are NOT stupid. We are.
Teen pregnancy is at an all time high and "our" kids are failing in
academics more now than ever. We have kids out there blowing each other
away with guns on a daily basis. None of this takes a rocket scientics to
understand. Most of it is common sense. Please excuse me if I have little
faith in today's youth.
>We too often put them in "adult" situations, and when they try to
>understand, we tell them they don't have the right to know.
I see it as the reverse. Often times they put themselves in adult
situations because their parents won't educate them or they fail to learn.
I don't see adults putting children in "adult" situations.
>Granted, this a step away from the subject of BDSM channels, but,
>honestly, you think it matters if a child is an IRC-Op or not, should
>a situation like that arise, in ANY channel?
As I said, in that situation you have a bunch of people looking up to
the IRCOp. I'd say it matters quite a bit.
>If we teach our children right, in such a case, they will get an adult to
>handle the situation.
That situation should not ever arise in the first place.
>Besides, I've seen far more creative and constructive solutions presented
>by children, then I have from many adults.
I've also seen far more overractive temper-tantrums presented by
children than I have from many adults. Couple that with the tendancy for
children to overreact and abuse the power they are given and you have a
dangerous combonation.
Casteele/ShadowLord
Sorry, I've tried to stay out of this, but..
On 30 Oct 97 08:42:34 GMT, morp...@no-spam.calweb.com (Steve Lamb)
scribbled on the wall:
> I've yet to see any minor act in a civilized manner in a position of
>power.
Look harder. Look around you. Read what goes on in senate meetings.
Watch the nightly news. If that's what it means to be civilized and
act maturely, I'd rather be a minor. True, being a minor generally
means being inexperienced and slightly rash, but, that IS a
generalization. There ARE those who don't fit the stereotypes so many
adult like to make. If they are to learn from us, why not teach them
right, instead of teaching them to generalize and stereotype?
> Because at some point they may be required to mediate a dispute which is
>either of or is on a channel which is adult in nature. I'd really like to
>see an 11 year old mediate in the possible illegal takeover of a BDSM
>channel.
And this is any worse then 11 year old Bobby crying for daddy to stop
beating up mommy last nite? Face it, our kids are NOT stupid. We
are. We too often put them in "adult" situations, and when they try
to understand, we tell them they don't have the right to know.
Granted, this a step away from the subject of BDSM channels, but,
honestly, you think it matters if a child is an IRC-Op or not, should
a situation like that arise, in ANY channel? If we teach our children
right, in such a case, they will get an adult to handle the situation.
Besides, I've seen far more creative and constructive solutions
presented by children, then I have from many adults.
- - - - -
Casteele/ShadowLord <cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com>
[Del spam and sux to email]
- - - - -
The only effective cure for ignorance, is education.
Adam Noel Harris
Carlfish (cmi...@NOpasticheSPAM.org) said this stuff:
: On 29 Oct 1997 19:20:49 GMT, Jeremy Nelson <nel...@cs.uwp.edu>
: somehow managed to type:
:
: >Isn't this the type of mindless unquestioning loyalty that has been used
: >all through history to set up dictatorships, by people, like maybe HITLER?
: Deliberate attempt to invoke Godwin's law. Lose three points and go to the
: end of the thread.
Isn't that where he wanted to go?
-Adam
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Keith D. Tyler
I have next to no comment about this discussion, and have no intent to
attempt ato be involved in it, but I have just one thing to ask.
In alt.irc Dalvenjah FoxFire <*dalv...@dal.net*> wrote:
>Please explain why this is a bad thing. DALnet is not a government. It is
>not a democracy. It is an organization....
>-dalvenjah
>Proud founder and CEO of the best IRC network on the planet.
CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer. CEOs, like all corporate (and
organizational) officers, are elected. The existence of elections infers a
democratic structure at some level. How then can you be the CEO of an
organization if it is not democratic?
(I was going to add a presmuption on that, but I'll hold for a response.)
--
*NO SOLICITING* Fight Spam - http://www.cauce.org
-----------------------------
"Just because we don't tear down your illusions, doesn't mean they aren't
illusions." - Kaehno
Tracy Reed
In article <63d8h6$8...@fridge.shore.net>, Keith D. Tyler wrote:
>CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer. CEOs, like all corporate (and
>organizational) officers, are elected. The existence of elections infers a
>democratic structure at some level. How then can you be the CEO of an
>organization if it is not democratic?
That's a good question. There was never a vote to make him CEO as far as I
recall. It just sorta happened and nobody complained at the time. That
will be a good thing to remember for the future.
--
Tracy Reed
www.ultraviolet.org
Ryan Tucker
On 31 Oct 97 08:59:41 GMT, Steve Lamb <morp...@no-spam.calweb.com> spewed:
>>True, being a minor generally means being inexperienced and slightly rash,
>>but, that IS a generalization.
>
All adults are bigoted against children, even though they were one at one
time.
Generalization? Yes. And it does fit in more cases than not...
>>If they are to learn from us, why not teach them right, instead of teaching
>>them to generalize and stereotype?
>
> If they want to learn, fine. But being in that position of power is
>something entirely different than learning. If I were to take your example
>above are you saying that since you believe in the overall maturity of some
>minors that you would accept minors into our government?
If they're responsible. There's quite a few cases where a given minor
would probably do a better job than a given adult.
>>Face it, our kids are NOT stupid. We are.
>
> Teen pregnancy is at an all time high and "our" kids are failing in
>academics more now than ever. We have kids out there blowing each other
>away with guns on a daily basis. None of this takes a rocket scientics to
>understand. Most of it is common sense. Please excuse me if I have little
>faith in today's youth.
We have adults getting pregnant, failing in their jobs and shooting each
other on a daily basis too. Point? In many cases, if someone would have
told these kids what would happen and how to get around it, they'd
probably be in better shape.
And guess who should tell them? An adult. -rt
Steve Lamb
rtucker+...@crasher2.ttgcitn.com in
<<slrn65k0at.3lf.r...@crasher2.ttgcitn.com>> wrote:
>All adults are bigoted against children, even though they were one at one
>time.
It is because they were children that they understand that certain
things should not be handled by a child.
>If they're responsible. There's quite a few cases where a given minor
>would probably do a better job than a given adult.
If they're responsible. A group of people who cannot handle a $5
allowance is going to balance a mutli-trillion dollar economy?
>told these kids what would happen and how to get around it, they'd
>probably be in better shape.
People do. They don't care, they don't listen, the do not engage the
brain. And in each case more so than adults.
Andrew G Feinberg
On 28 Oct 1997, Steve Lamb wrote:
[JK's post snipped]
>
> Then I suggest you remove such individuals immediately. Noone under 18
> should be in such a position of power. Noone.
an O:line is not power. As for your suggestion that DALnet (or any other
net) remove all it's under-18 IRCops, that is absurd. As a former IRCop
who is a minor, I can attest to the fact that most IRCops I have dealt
with who are also minors have been mature, and extremely knowledgable.
Generally, people who have O:lines have earned them. Minors or not. As for
the 11-year old IRCop in question, I can tell you that he more than earned
his O:line. Being an IRCop isn't a position of power. If you've ever held
an O:line, you would understand.
Andrew Feinberg
and...@ultraviolet.org
ali
Steve Lamb, without thinking, wrote:
> I've yet to see any minor act in a civilized manner in a position of
> power.
Quite simply, oh dear. Do you even know what youre talking about? There
are a good many 'young' ircops on DALnet..when were you last killed by
one for fun? When did one of them kline you because they didnt like your
nick, or something inane like that? Hrm..whats that..never? When have
*you* personally witnessed one acting immature, and embaressing DALnet?
Oh, I thought so..never... *sigh* Looks like your argument is falling
apart...
Ali
Casteele/ShadowLord
On 31 Oct 97 18:16:25 GMT, morp...@no-spam.calweb.com (Steve Lamb)
scribbled on the wall:
> It is because they were children that they understand that certain
>things should not be handled by a child.
As an adult, and a father, I wonder what horrors you went through as a
child to believe such a statement. In all honesty, I seriously doubt
that is really your own opinion. Looks more like the automatic
response of a child who's parents told them that quite often. I
cannot speak for others, but speaking for myself, I think my parents
did a darn good job teaching me to think for myself, and to realize
when a situation is beyond my grasp, and turn elsewhere for help.
With as much as we adults tell our children, "No, you are too young,"
and other such excuses, they have it all too well drilled into when a
situation is beyond them, and seek an adult. This WOULD be good,
except, as you are showing, it carries over into our adult lives, and
prejudices us against our own children.
> If they're responsible. A group of people who cannot handle a $5
>allowance is going to balance a mutli-trillion dollar economy?
If they are responsible, they don't post flames and spam, and other
pointless crap to newsgroups. Yes, it's really true! All those "Hot
Horny XXX Babes Here!" sites are run by irresponsible children! The
last time a government official got involved in a sexual scandle, it
was a childs fault! The last bank robbed was performed by a child! A
child accepted a bribe to find a mass murder innocent! A child chose
to devote millions of dollars of budget to war, rather then education!
(Well, they hate school, right? =P) Boy, I sure am glad I'm an
adult, and NEVER do anything stupid or irresponsible!
> People do. They don't care, they don't listen, the do not engage the
>brain. And in each case more so than adults.
That, is one hell of a load of bull. Children, by nature, are
inquisitve, open minded, and willing to explore the world around them.
They think more then adults, their imagination is more active (when is
the last time you got into an exciting police chase.. with
hotwheels?), and, they really LEARN from whats around them. A child
living in a multilingual house, picks up both languages faster, and
more naturally, then us adults do, dealing with a multilingual world.
Children learn hate, bigotry, violence, and more, from us adults. If
you ask me, us adults can learn alot more from watching our children,
instead of being too busy putting them down. But, we're adults, we
can do no wrong. It's all our childrens fault.
We learn to close our minds from adults, being constantly told "you
cannot understand" and other such bullcrap. Consequently, we learn to
stop seeking answers, to stop broadening out minds, to stop asking
questions. Open your mind, the universe around us has no limits,
neither should our minds. As an adult, you should know this now,
after all, you have all the answers now, right?
Casteele/ShadowLord
Casteele/ShadowLord
Casteele/ShadowLord
Casteele/ShadowLord
Steve Lamb
cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com in <<346503d8....@news.gwis.com>> wrote:
>Is that not what this whole thread is doing? Analysing children from
>an outside perspective?
No.
>Hrmm.. Yet, below, you remind me how, in 5 years from now, you'll
>look back and realize how little you now, but how you thought you knew
>it all at the time? I love irony. :-)
No, I am pointing out that I was a minor in that position and that now,
almost 10 years later, I look back at it in regret and how foolish it was.
The fact that I explain later about not knowing things only *supports* my
position.
>Presuming you are refering to the children being irresponsable issue,
>not my statement that we carry that prejudice to our adult lives,
>wouldn't even you agree that truth is highly subjective?
In this case, no. Children are irresponsible. Tell me, how many toys
have your children broken?
>their kids then I see kids hitting their parents. Watch some kids
>some times.
I do. I stated so early on.
>Something just doesn't fit there. I'm willing to listen to children,
>to defend them, playing devils advocate, yet, I'm refusing to open my
>eyes?
Yes, becuase you will not see that you are simultaniously trying to hide
them from and expose them to dangers they are not prepared for.
>so doing, the best way of doing so would be to point out the
>inconsistancies and such?
There are no inconsistancies, only your unfounded and untrue conjecture.
>Welcome to real life. It won't just magically stop being that way if
>you remove children from IRC, or at least in positions of
>responsibility.
Then why place them there in the first place? Tell you what... Next
war we have, let's send little bobby with he rubber band gun on the front
line. Let's not let the fact that he is unprepared for such an event by a
magnitude deter us, ok?
>We have organisations, like Boy Scouts, which teach children
>responsibility, and wilderness skills. We teach children CPR and other
>life saving skills. We have things like Junior Achievement, which allows
>children to form "Companies" to make a profit, and allow them the positions
>of responsibility to run such. Shall we also cease doing so, as children
>are irresponsible?
Of course not. IRC, however, is not any of those.
>Granted, these activities have adults around, helping to supervise, but, I
>hardly see a lack of adults willing to help on IRC, either. I won't bother
>with the legal issues, as I'm not an attorney. Are you?
I, however, do see where adults are discussin adult topics.
#submission, #bdsm come to mind. Channels for survivors of sexual abuse are
also there. And let's not forget that this all started as part of a thread
where problems arose because of DalNet's lax position on kiddie porn and
piracy. If the current admin is to be believed DalNet has an agreement with
a law agency and should begin actively pursuing these channels. That falls
on, GUESS WHO, the IRCOps! Yeah, let's send little Billy into these
channels to shut them down:
*** #fem-dogsex 1
*** #!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Welcome to Heaven, Get your Quality pics here,
Fserves/FTP/Randoms/Webservers
*** #!!!!!!!!!!! 1 C4,11 Pics and more Pics for you to get. High
quality
for all.
*** #freesexpix 1 Welcome!!! All fserves welcome. please no
Kiddy,animal,rape,incest or teen porn! Must be 18 to enter(Adults only)
have Fun :)) : Check out Scars FREE ADULT web page
http://www.Scar.dynip.com
*** #adultsexpic 2 C4,1@CC3,1}--}---CCADULT ONLY F-SERVERS NO
TEEN,PRETEEN, OR ANIMAL PICSC3,1---{--{CC4,1@ (Coit^us)
*** #!!!!!!!!!!! 2 Adults Only ABSOLUTLY NO KIDDIE OR ANIMAL PORN
*** #!!!!!freese 1 welcome to #!!!!!FREESEXPIX "no
kiddy,animal,rape,teen,or incest pics allowed: Check out Scars FREE
ADULT
web page http://www.Scar.dynip.com (Scar_FaceII)
*** #ohiosex 1 Girls With Huge Tits Apply Here!!!
*** #bisex 1 The First Ladies-BISEX channel on the net!
*** #O!!!!!TEENS 1
*** #0!!!!!older 1 Trading XXX PIX. Clean fservers welcome! No kiddie,
animal, incest! Fserves active:!bong
*** #0!!!!sexyol 1 sexy older women and the guys that adore them(#2)!
Fserves active! !bong
*** #0!!!!!older 1 Chatting and Trading Pics of Olderwomen
*** #0!!!!olderw 1 Trading XXX PIX. Clean fserves welcome. Type !bong
!PIX !Wild
*** #!1-femSubmi 1 Go To #1-femSubmissionSex the rooms
FULL!!!http://www.wvinter.net./~bozo/
*** #0002-femSub 1 Go To #1-femSubmissionSex the rooms
FULL!!!http://www.wvinter.net./~bozo/
*** #13-femSubmi 1 Go To #1-femSubmissionSex the rooms
FULL!!!http://www.wvinter.net./~bozo/
*** #femSubmissi 1 Go To #1-femSubmissionSex the rooms
FULL!!!http://www.wvinter.net./~bozo/
Am I a lawyer? No. Do I have to be to see the problem with this? No.
We barely got around the CDA this time. Let's just give the radical right
more ammunition by having children actively pursue this material. "Oh, but
an adult can do that," I can hear your think. Yea, an adult can. But if an
IRCOp cannot maintain control on his or her server what use is that O-line?
*NONE*.
>Face it, children are exposed to many elements the second they are
>born, both good and bad. They experience, and hopefully learn. They
>are exposed to gangs, violence, poverty, broken homes, and countless
>other things.
So you want them to deal with that in another venue or be impotent in
doing so? Just because they do doesn't mean they must elsewhere. That
logic doesn't work.
>As a father, and a very patient person myself, I look at my daughter,
>and see far more patience, creativity, openess, and equality then I
>myself have.
And most parents read too much into their children.
>You want these figures to support you, you do the homework.
Incorrect. It is you who is pointing out the woes of adulthood without
going further to show that is the norm, not the exception. The burden of
proof is at your feet, I'm defining what is acceptable.
>In your own arguments, you point out the opposite. Children are crude
>and irresposible as the norm, and adults are exceptional and angelic
>as the norm. Pot? Kettle? Black? Mean anything to you?
No, because I am right. I am not saying that adults are angelic as the
norm nor that children are crude. I am saying that adults are better
prepared to deal with adult situations than children are. You're the one
who is trying to quote criminal figures to show that adults are no better
than children while simultaniously ignoring that children have shorter
tempers, settles disputes in a worse fashion (usually physical violence) and
are not prepared.
Steve Lamb
cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com in <<346503d8....@news.gwis.com>> wrote:
>You want these figures to support you, you do the homework. You are
>implying, without researching for yourself, that the figures will
>support you.
For starters:
o Physical violence occurs in approximately 1 out of 10 dating relationships,
(22% higher among college students).
o 95% of large cities and 88% of small cities suffer from gang related
violence.
o In a recent survey, 16.6% of those students polled said they had carried a
gun to school within the last 30 days, and 29.3% said they had been in a
fight within the same time period.
o Every school day more than 150,000 students stay home because they "are sick
of violence and afraid of being stabbed, shot or beaten."
o Every 92 minutes an American child is shot.
o Increasingly, school violence is indiscriminate and random.
o All communities, urban, suburban and rural, have seen an increase in teen
violence over the past five years.
o Between 1983-1993 there was a 94% increase in gunfire deaths among children.
<http://www.colosys.net/fmhs/archive-mar97/stats.htm>
And...
o Drug use among 8th graders has tripled since 1991, from 6% to 18%.
o Drug use among 10th graders has doubled since 1992, 15% to 34%.
<http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/stats/cp-319.htm>
And...
o Each year, more than one million adolescents become pregnant. In Iowa
alone, 5,000 teens give birth annually.
o One in nine women age 15-19 become pregnant each year.
o Forty-three percent of all adolescent women become pregnant at least once
before age 20.
o Approximately 2,800 adolescents become pregnant each day. 1,300 will give
birth; 1,100 will have an abortion; 400 will miscarry.
o Forty thousand young mothers drop out of American schools each year. Many
of them endure dramatic social and economic hardships and become
dependent on welfare.
o Eighty-two percent of adolescent pregnancies are unintended, three-fourths
of them because the couple did not use birth control. In fact, most
sexually active teens make their first visit to a family planning clinic
to get a pregnancy test.
o The United States has the highest adolescent pregnancy rate in the
developed world.
<http://www.netins.net/showcase/ppgi/pregnanc.htm>
And...
o Suicide is the second leading cause of death for teens
o Suicide and attempted suicide has increased 300% in the last thirty
years.
o Nine out of ten suicides take place in the home
o For every completed suicide there are an estimated 30 to 50
attempts
o 70% of suicides occur between the hours of 3 p.m. to midnight (when
they could be saved)
o Males complete suicide 4 times more often than females
o Females account for 75% of the attempted suicides (mainly with drug
overdoses)
o Males use more violent means - guns, hanging
o In 1978 Regina High School students revealed that the majority felt sad or
depressed regularly. 50% felt lonely sometimes, 25% felt lonely all the
time, 40% admitted to thinking about suicide. 8% said they would commit
suicide if they had the opportunity.
o Spring and Fall are the months of highest risk
<http://hlthed.uregina.ca/cni/units/10.4.2/tbsui103.html>
And...
o Almost one-sixth of all U.S. births are to teenage women.
<http://www.saintjohn.nbcc.nb.ca/Students/Freenet/BTISS/974/facts.htm>
And...
o 53% of teens are currently having sex.
o 47% of sexually-active teens do not use condoms.
o 19% have had sex with four or more partners.
o 11% used alcohol or drugs just before having sex.
o 18% used birth control pills.
<http://www.ihf.org/thirdreport/sex.html>
Want more or is that enough? In each case, on each page that I grabbed
these from in the past 20 minutes on just a few casual searches it shows
that many of the problems are on the rise. This conflicts with your
"Children are smarter" rhetoric. If they were smarter than generations past
I doubt there would be an increase it such stupid areas as teen pregnancy,
teen suicide, sexually active teens not using condoms, teen smoking, etc.
In fact, it seems to support my notion that children are unprepared for
adult situations.
One final quote, and the last sentence says it all...
"Studies show that approximately one out of every three high school and
college students has experienced sexual, physical, verbal, or emotional
violence in dating relationships. Date rape accounts for more than half of
all reported rape cases. The first steps to acknowledging and addressing
this severe problem are to recognize the dynamics of unhealthy relationships
and to educate ourselves and the general public by developing programs that
address the issues of dating violence.
"Adolescents' encounters with violence, embarrassment, humiliation, and
trauma in relationships are reflective of their everyday lives. Living in a
society that values power and control, teens become involved in
relationships that model these images. Adolescents who are inexperienced in
relationships commonly have problems handling the intricacy of feelings,
decisions, and disagreements that arise. Romanticizing these relationships,
they often construe jealousy, possessiveness, and even abuse as signs of
love. Young men and women can be susceptible to exploitation, and their
difficulty interpreting abuse adds to that vulnerability."
Let me state it clearly for you, "Young me and women can be susceptible
to explotation, and their difficulty interpreting abuse adds to that
vulnerability."
<http://www.handsnet.org/handsnet2/Articles/art.829767112.html>
Your turn.
Mike Middleton
Kevin, David, et al:
I have used IRC since it started, first EFnet, then Undernet, now DALnet
where I am an AOP on #40up-intellichat. I am in Internet Operations
Manager for an ISP in Texas. I'm 49 years old. I agree that DALnet is the
premium chat network on the Internet today.
I do not like the abuse of DALnet for software piracy (which causes those
of us who obey the law and buy our software to pay for the crooks who steal
it). I do not like the abuse of DALnet as a medium to distribute damaging
pornography. Although I don't like censorship either.
I saw a report on TV last night about IRC and the problem of young people
being the targets of sexual predators. That might even be a bigger problem
than geeks trading dirty pictures.
Anyway, this report showed a person who was taking it upon himself (and has
formed a group of similar-minded IRCers) to police the channels where
software is being pirated and where pornography is being traded. The
report said this group quotes the laws into those channels, then uses
floods and Winnuke and something I hadn't heard of before to disrupt or
shut down these channels, like vigilantes.
Since the task to control and stop the flood of warez and porn on DALnet is
obviously far beyond the current administration's ability to moderate it,
what is the thinking about the vast majority of users who are not abusing
the system to do some of the task ourselves? What can be done?
I'd help.
Mike Middleton
PondaBear on #40up-intellichat
mi...@spisystems.com
Kevin Swan <ke...@kombat.acadiau.ca> wrote in article
<34564...@131.162.2.91>...
Casteele/ShadowLord
On 1 Nov 97 15:30:55 GMT, morp...@no-spam.calweb.com (Steve Lamb)
scribbled on the wall:
[liberally snipped, see previous threads if you don't follow]
> In this case, no. Children are irresponsible. Tell me, how many toys
>have your children broken?
So far, none that I am aware of. I mysefl have "broken", and still
"break" things, just as unintentional as a child would. Curiousity
still drives me to "take apart that neato transistor radio" to see how
it works. Does that make me irresponsible?
> Yes, becuase you will not see that you are simultaniously trying to hide
>them from and expose them to dangers they are not prepared for.
Please elaborate. If I am indeed ignorant, then educate me. After
all, that is my pet peeve in my .sig. :-)
> There are no inconsistancies, only your unfounded and untrue conjecture.
And I feel the same about much of your arguments. Stalemate.
> Then why place them there in the first place? Tell you what... Next
>war we have, let's send little bobby with he rubber band gun on the front
>line. Let's not let the fact that he is unprepared for such an event by a
>magnitude deter us, ok?
We already do send children to the front line. How many children die
in wars? The world is full of evil, it's pure folly to try to hide
them from it, rather then educate them, so when they do have to face
it, thay are truly, as you point out, unprepared.
> Of course not. IRC, however, is not any of those.
No, it's basically a public place. I do not believe it can be ruled
out as an educational experience, just like these other organizations.
It exposes them to differing ideas and cultures. Not all of it will
be good. That's life.
> I, however, do see where adults are discussin adult topics.
>#submission, #bdsm come to mind. Channels for survivors of sexual abuse are
>also there. And let's not forget that this all started as part of a thread
>where problems arose because of DalNet's lax position on kiddie porn and
>piracy. If the current admin is to be believed DalNet has an agreement with
>a law agency and should begin actively pursuing these channels. That falls
>on, GUESS WHO, the IRCOps! Yeah, let's send little Billy into these
>channels to shut them down:
I also seen channels for teens and children. I see channels for
religion. I see channels for bigotry. I deal with many of these
daily. I deal with many children. Some I agree, I would never allow
then to be an IRC-Op. Some does not equal all, in any language. As
for DALnet, well, that's irrelevant, as this applies to any IRC
network. No one said if we had children IRC-Ops, they'd be required
to actively seek out and shut down these channels. In fact, if it'd
suit your ideas, you could even suggest that children IRC-Ops stick to
children channels, removing the scum that harasses, letting the adults
deal with the rest, just like previously mentioned organisations. I
however, do not feel the need lock our children in a closet for their
own good. Sure, there are some things I'd do my best to prevent their
exposure to, but that is very little indeed, and I refuse to
generalize and cast blanket statements, unless in defense of such.
> Am I a lawyer? No. Do I have to be to see the problem with this? No.
>We barely got around the CDA this time. Let's just give the radical right
>more ammunition by having children actively pursue this material. "Oh, but
>an adult can do that," I can hear your think. Yea, an adult can. But if an
>IRCOp cannot maintain control on his or her server what use is that O-line?
>*NONE*.
What's the difference if the radical right and CDA are telling us how
to run our lives and raise our children, or you are? O:lines are for
maintaining the server, no? I was an oper on DALnet, I'm not just
tossing conjecture. I've dealt with many "situations." Some, I
wouldn't let a child deal with, but I wouldn't hide it from my own
children and call them irresponsible and ignorant, either.
> So you want them to deal with that in another venue or be impotent in
>doing so? Just because they do doesn't mean they must elsewhere. That
>logic doesn't work.
No, I'm not suggesting we expose them to more evil. I'm debating your
base argument that children are irresponsible and ignorant. Age
affects this, yes, but is far from the only factor, and I don't
believe it to be a determining factor. Life's experiences are far
better teachers then any we could dream up.
> And most parents read too much into their children.
I beg to differ. Too few parents read to their children. To few take
an active role in their development and growth. To few give support
to their children. Instead, they turn to gangs and such for family
and support. Seems more like cause and effect, then irresponsibility
to me. Same for issues like drugs. Sure, many kids get into them,
but, is it not usually an adult supplying them? Rather then lock our
children in a closet, how about we strive to set a better example for
them? That's also a point in my previous post.
> Incorrect. It is you who is pointing out the woes of adulthood without
>going further to show that is the norm, not the exception. The burden of
Read my last again.I'm not setting any norms. I'm not doing any
generalizing. I'm giving examples. If you want to expand it to
include a full population set, be my guest.
>proof is at your feet, I'm defining what is acceptable.
I guess this is what I really don't like. You are defining what is
right and wrong, within your own views. You give no room or thought
that anyone else may have differing opinions or ideals, either they
agree with you, or they are wrong. I've said it before, I'm willing
to listen to your arguments, to re-evaluate the issue based on your
input, but don't expect me to blindly follow you without reason.
> No, because I am right. I am not saying that adults are angelic as the
Because you are right. I like that. Does that mean the rest of us
are wrong? Again, is this why my mind is closed, because you are
right? No other answer is correct, only yours? Do you really want
everyone to think like you, be clones of you? I don't now about you,
but if everyone was like me, the world would be a dull place. There'd
be no challenge, no spark, no motivation. It's far more fun to get
others to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. It's
even more fun and rewarding when you can educate them well, so when
they do make those decisions, they make the right one. It's one of
the few joys of parenthood society still allows us. I won't give that
up without a fight.
>who is trying to quote criminal figures to show that adults are no better
>than children while simultaniously ignoring that children have shorter
>tempers, settles disputes in a worse fashion (usually physical violence) and
>are not prepared.
I'm not ignoring anything. You've continuously implied or directly
accused me of ignoring or being ignorant. It's frankly, quite
insulting, and uncalled for. I am *trying* to understand, to see your
side, but you are resorting the the very immaturity that you claim
should ban children from being IRC-Ops. I still find it quite ironic,
and very hard to give your stand any credit while you continue to do
so. Considering my normal sarcasm and sharp tongue, the tone of this
discussion is VERY subdued. I truly am trying to be objective, and
learn, and see from others eyes. Please keep that in mind with your
next reply. Educate me. :-)
Tracy R Reed
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:30:47 -0500, David Schwartz <dj...@gate.net> wrote:
> Ah yes, where a well-established channel that a hard working group of
>operators developed and managed over a period of months can be stolen by any
>asshole with a few geeky friends at any second. Much better.
At least it's much harder to be institutionally persecuted on EFnet, as I
(and others) have been on DALnet.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
http://www.linux.org - Escape the Gates of Hell
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates from "The Road Ahead," p. 265.
Steve Lamb
On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:39:16 GMT, Casteele/ShadowLord
<cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com> wrote:
>them from it, rather then educate them, so when they do have to face
>it, thay are truly, as you point out, unprepared.
So the only way to educate a child it to expose them to the very danger
we want them to avoid. This means:
To show children the dangers of smoking, encourage them to light up.
To show children the dangers of playing with a knife, stab them.
To show children the dangers of men offering them candy, rape them.
Lovely logic you have there.
>for DALnet, well, that's irrelevant, as this applies to any IRC
No, it isn't. This started with two statements.
1: That DALNet was doing nothing to rid itself of kiddie porn and warez.
2: That there were many children who where IRCOps, one as young as 11.
>network. No one said if we had children IRC-Ops, they'd be required
>to actively seek out and shut down these channels.
When why have them as ops?
>In fact, if it'd suit your ideas, you could even suggest that children
>IRC-Ops stick to children channels, removing the scum that harasses,
Chanserv and ops are all that is needed for this.
>organisations. I however, do not feel the need lock our children in a
>closet for their own good.
No, you figure since they may be faced with dangers in everyday life
they are qualified to be placed into a position where they MUST face them
and resolve them.
>wouldn't let a child deal with, but I wouldn't hide it from my own
>children and call them irresponsible and ignorant, either.
If that is the case then they are worthless in that position. And I do
believe I have stated, repeatedly, that my primary arguement against
children is "unprepared." This is supported by your statement that there
are situations that you have delt with that you would not children to deal
with. The irresponsible part comes into play when coupled with power.
Ignorant is your own word, not mine.
>No, I'm not suggesting we expose them to more evil. I'm debating your
>base argument that children are irresponsible and ignorant.
My base arguement is unprepared. An arguement you have supported.
>to me. Same for issues like drugs. Sure, many kids get into them,
>but, is it not usually an adult supplying them?
In most cases they are getting it from other children.
>Read my last again.I'm not setting any norms. I'm not doing any
>generalizing. I'm giving examples. If you want to expand it to
>include a full population set, be my guest.
Then to what point are you offering examples than to show that adults,
as a whole (IE, a generalization) are bad?
>to listen to your arguments, to re-evaluate the issue based on your
>input, but don't expect me to blindly follow you without reason.
I have given you reason, you ignore it, not my falt.
>others to think for themselves, to make their own decisions. It's
At the same time to do so in the face of facts makes one a fool.
>I'm not ignoring anything. You've continuously implied or directly
>accused me of ignoring or being ignorant.
What else can I do when I lay it all down for you and you, obviously,
don't want to get it?
>side, but you are resorting the the very immaturity that you claim
>should ban children from being IRC-Ops.
What immaturity?
>next reply. Educate me. :-)
I have tried and you refused much like so many children.
Steve Lamb
On 1 Nov 97 17:00:29 GMT, Mike Middleton <mi...@spisystems.com> wrote:
>I saw a report on TV last night about IRC and the problem of young people
>being the targets of sexual predators. That might even be a bigger problem
>than geeks trading dirty pictures.
If the news reported it, disregard it. I have yet, in 16 years, to see
the news report anything about computer with any accuracy.
>report said this group quotes the laws into those channels, then uses
>floods and Winnuke and something I hadn't heard of before to disrupt or
>shut down these channels, like vigilantes.
Floods are easily traced and will most likely get their accout yanked at
their ISP, Winnukes are a joke that work on the uninformed. All they are
doing is running the risk of losing their access, nothing more.
>the system to do some of the task ourselves? What can be done?
Let the admins handle it. If they aren't handling it to your
satisfaction, walk away. Anything else could get you into a world of hurt.
Steve Lamb
On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 17:30:49 GMT, Casteele/ShadowLord
<cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com> wrote:
>Very good indeed. Though I still don't see the relations you'd like
>defined.
To refute your statement that children are getting "smarter." Various
statistics showing that todays children are doing worse when it comes to
common sense than children 30 years ago with no end to the trend.
>unobjective, as well as some equally unobjective quotes supporting my
>defense.
Every single "Story" is about single individuals. I posted statistics
on a national level. A story here, a story there does not a statistic make.
I could have told a story about a coworkers family. I could have mentioned
how one kid in his early teens cut his younger brother from shoulder to hip
for no reason. I could have told the story how one of the boys beat his
brother with a bike lock repeatedly. But I didn't. They aren't statistics
which give an overall picture of what is happening. In and of themselves
they are an isolated case and can be dismissed as such.
Furthermore, some of your stories have been debunked as urban legend
time and time again. Nice try, doesn't work, do better.
ali
Steve Lamb, who should go back to undernet and take over a channel or
something, cos he onviously doesnt like the way we do things on dalnet,
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:31:46 +0000, ali <oce...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >*you* personally witnessed one acting immature, and embaressing DALnet?
> >Oh, I thought so..never... *sigh* Looks like your argument is falling
> >apart...
>
> daily basis? I hardly see Dal below 5000 people. By your logic the
> following is true:
>
> Have you even seen an IRCOp? How Many IRCOps have you seen resolve an
> issue? Well then, I guess IRCOps don't exist!
>
> Because, guess what, I've only seen 1 IRCOp in my months on Dal and he
> was idle (later timed out) and that is it. So I guess, according your
> assinine logic, IRCOps don't exist or just time out when they do.
>
Erm..I have no idea what youre talking about, and you obviously didnt
understand what I posted. How can you make generalisations about young
ircops, when youve never seen one act immature? How can you say theyre
not suited for the job, when we already have some who are doing fine? My
assinine logic? Actually, I think its you being thick skulled.
Re-reading your mail, im getting more and more confused. What *are* you
babbling on about...?
Ali
Ian Westcott
Steve Lamb (morp...@no-spam.calweb.com) wrote:
:
: >True, being a minor generally means being inexperienced and slightly rash,
: >but, that IS a generalization.
:
: And it is one that fits in more cases than not.
So? So what? I go on maturity, not physical age. The idea that because
someone is under 18, that they CAN'T be a good oper is BS.
: >Face it, our kids are NOT stupid. We are.
:
: Teen pregnancy is at an all time high and "our" kids are failing in
: academics more now than ever. We have kids out there blowing each other
: away with guns on a daily basis. None of this takes a rocket scientics to
: understand. Most of it is common sense. Please excuse me if I have little
: faith in today's youth.
I have little faith in today's youth, and even less faith in today's
adults. Don't be fall so easily for stereotypes. Look around a little an
judge people individually instead of as a group.
--
Ian Westcott Rakarra@IRC
ez042914 --or-- itlm013 @peseta.ucdavis.edu west...@cs.ucdavis.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Demon's blood and dragon fire, falling on my wings.
Racing to the battle in the sky and ancient gods are
calling me I hear them when they sing,
of all the heroes who wait for me to die."
Casteele/ShadowLord
On 1 Nov 97 22:11:01 GMT, morp...@no-spam.calweb.com (Steve Lamb)
scribbled on the wall:
>On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:39:16 GMT, Casteele/ShadowLord
><cast...@spam.sux.gwis.com> wrote:
>>them from it, rather then educate them, so when they do have to face
>>it, thay are truly, as you point out, unprepared.
> So the only way to educate a child it to expose them to the very danger
>we want them to avoid. This means:
[snip]
> Lovely logic you have there.
In my logic, education means to teach something, with varying methods
based on content, in such a way as to prepare someone to deal properly
with such real life situations. The above looks more like your logic
then mine. No wonder you have no respect for anyone, and think
children are subhuman beasts to be locked up.
>>for DALnet, well, that's irrelevant, as this applies to any IRC
> No, it isn't. This started with two statements.
And the law of gravity started with Newton observing and thinking
about a specific event. Does this mean, that everytime we discuss the
law of gravity, we must bring Newton into the discussion? Or are you
just trying to be DALnet's counterpart to Undernet's RevWhite?
>>network. No one said if we had children IRC-Ops, they'd be required
>>to actively seek out and shut down these channels.
> When why have them as ops?
Why allow them on the net at all? Better yet, lets just shoot our
children now, and be done with it. No more worries. I'm not
suggesting we force children to be opers, but if a child breaks your
"generalizations" and is capable of acting maturely and making good
decisions, why count them out? Shall we also not allow the blind,
deaf and handicapped out in public? The majority of the population is
capable of things like crossing the street without assistance, so, the
handicapped should too. If not, lock them up.
>>In fact, if it'd suit your ideas, you could even suggest that children
>>IRC-Ops stick to children channels, removing the scum that harasses,
> Chanserv and ops are all that is needed for this.
Oh, how I wish this were so. In 16 years of doing this, you still
don't have a clue. If ChanServ and ops are all we need, then why have
IRC-Ops, *AT ALL?* Does this also not directly counter your previous
post about "IRC-Op 'power'?"
>>organisations. I however, do not feel the need lock our children in a
>>closet for their own good.
> No, you figure since they may be faced with dangers in everyday life
>they are qualified to be placed into a position where they MUST face them
>and resolve them.
"MUST?" Must? Hrmm.. Oper Manual, Page 134, Paragraph C, Section
II, Subtitle 1: IRC-Ops MUST deal daily with kiddie porn, adult
situations, and other unreasonable circumstances. Sorry, I stand
corrected, remind me to read my oper manual before posting further.
>>wouldn't let a child deal with, but I wouldn't hide it from my own
>>children and call them irresponsible and ignorant, either.
> If that is the case then they are worthless in that position. And I do
>believe I have stated, repeatedly, that my primary arguement against
>children is "unprepared." This is supported by your statement that there
>are situations that you have delt with that you would not children to deal
>with. The irresponsible part comes into play when coupled with power.
>Ignorant is your own word, not mine.
Look closely. Your argument is that children should not be IRC-Ops
period. My argument is that that is foolish. I have never said you
did not have *some* valid points, even ones I'd agree on, I just don't
agree with your lack of respect, not only with children, but from your
posts here, seemingly lack of respect for anyone who doesn't fit your
standards. Your solution to the problem is to hide it from children,
ignore it, it'll just disappear. Again, the only solution to a
problem is to deal with it, educate ones self to it, not to ignore it.
>>No, I'm not suggesting we expose them to more evil. I'm debating your
>>base argument that children are irresponsible and ignorant.
> My base arguement is unprepared. An arguement you have supported.
I do not support your argument. I agree and support some of your
assertations, but not all, nor do I support your solution. What you
cannot see, is that your own arguments work both ways as well. Life
is often a two way street. You see it one way. I see your way, but I
also see that there's other ways. I may not agree with all, but I
don't assume that the ONLY way is my way, and anyone who makes such an
assertation is automatically supporting my way of seeing it.
>>to me. Same for issues like drugs. Sure, many kids get into them,
>>but, is it not usually an adult supplying them?
> In most cases they are getting it from other children.
Then you are truly blind to the world around you. You are seeing the
symptoms, and ignoring the disease. Not just here, but in this whole
issue. It's like, when a child turns 18, they automagically transform
into a mature, responsible adult, cpable of dealing with anything
tossed their way. No need to educate them, no need to teach them how
to deal with it, thay just suddenly know, and it's a violation of
nature's law that anyone can know before 18.
> Then to what point are you offering examples than to show that adults,
>as a whole (IE, a generalization) are bad?
I'm not. I'm pointing out that your arguements about children apply
equally to adults. Unfortunately, in todays world, the only norm I
commonly see is ignorance. But, unlike you, I don't believe the cure
for it is to hide people from it, I believe in educating them and
improving our world, our quality of life, and insuring our future. In
one of the examples you posted from web pages, did they not say
children mimic what we adults do? So, what we have here, is a vicious
cycle. Child learns bad behavior, is never educated on it, adults try
desperately to ignore it and hide it from child, child still sees it,
picks up habit, becomes adult, passes it on tho their children. Break
the cycle, educate our children, teach them it's wrong, don't just
hide it from them.
> I have given you reason, you ignore it, not my falt.
> At the same time to do so in the face of facts makes one a fool.
> What else can I do when I lay it all down for you and you, obviously,
>don't want to get it?
You have given me nothing, but implications, accusations, and
disrespect. I'm even returning some this post, as my patience with
your attitude is wearing thin.
> What immaturity?
Implications, name calling, et cetera. Or does that not count as
immaturity in your definition? "Oh, he disagrees with me, and my
comments are scientific facts, so he is a fool." Your comments are
inferences, derived from facts, which is only a matter of opinion. My
discussion with you is done. I'll gladly discuss this with anyone in
a mature manner, and will do my "homework" and post the results, but I
will respond no more to your posts, it's not worth my time.
Keith D. Tyler
In alt.irc Tracy Reed <tr...@connectnet1.connectnet.com> wrote:
: In article <63d8h6$8...@fridge.shore.net>, Keith D. Tyler wrote:
:> CEOs, like all corporate (and organizational) officers, are elected.
: That's a good question. There was never a vote to make him CEO as far as I
: recall. It just sorta happened and nobody complained at the time.
I didnt intend to inspire a total comparison. Keep in mind that in a
normal corporation, the CEO is elected by the Board of Directors, who are
chosen from among the biggest stockholders in the company -- making it in
truth, an aristocratic oligarchy. Workers and middle-managers dont get to
elect their superiors.
When a company/corporation is established, sometimes the founders and
partners are given sizeable stakes in the corporation. It depends on how
you want to look at it and how it actually is.
My intent was to evoke the idea that calling oneself the CEO of an IRC
network may be an attempt to look more impressive; an attempt to shield
one's immaturity with the terms of professionalism, but none of the
actual structures involved in _being_ professional.
My impression is that dalnet is not a true corporation by any strecth of
the imagination; it just wants to look professional, for whatever reasons.
Unfortunately, a lot of life-meaning-searching people make themselves
believe that sort of facade and try to become part of it. But thats a
commentary on society, not a comment on dalnet.
--
*NO SOLICITING* Fight Spam - http://www.cauce.org
-----------------------------
Please, in the future when someone offers help, try their suggestion
before saying that it is not useful. - Justin Sheehy
Jeremy Nelson
>Tracy R Reed wrote in message ...
>>I would reply on the ops list, but it would get censored by the moderators
>>and the address with which I am subscribed would be revealed and I'd be
>>booted off the list yet again. I can't reply or send any mail at all to
>>dalvenjah himself or anyone @dal.net because my domain has been banned
>>from the dal.net mail server. So I have little choice but to respond here:
David Schwartz <dj...@gate.net> wrote:
> Kind of neat that you would publically boast about stealing DALnet's
>intellectual property.
This is complete doublespeak. Just how is someone being subscribed to a
quasi-open mailing list "theft of intellectual property?" Are all those
who subscribe to the list sworn to sign a non-disclosure agreement? Does
any *seriously valuable* discussions take place on this list, such that any
revelation to an unauthorized third party would cause undo damage to the
network, or are you attempting to make some kind of jack-booted threat so
as to intimidate and harass Mr. Reed?
If they were truly concerned about "theft of intellectual property", then
they could easily find out the address he is using through process of
elimination. However, if there are people on the list who they dont even
know about, then it is completely outrageous of you to assert that his
subscription to the list is "theft" while everyone else's is not.
This is possibly the most single handedly dishonorable threat i have seen
made with regard to silencing someone who would embarras a network. I hope
that someone from DalNET will come along and tell us that they dont back you
up on this, becuase if they dont, it would speak eons for their
professionalism.
-hop
Mikko Rautalahti
Steve Lamb (morp...@no-spam.calweb.com) uttered these words:> It isn't? Then why don't we all have it?
You think an O:line is power?
Hehh.
Wake up and smell the coffee, bud. An O:line is no more power
than ... actually, see below, I'll comment on this at more length in a
moment.
>>his O:line. Being an IRCop isn't a position of power. If you've ever held
>>an O:line, you would understand.
> "...isn't a position of power."
> Is it true that an IRCOp can force people off servers?
> Is it true that an IRCOp can force people off the network?
> Is it true that an IRCOp can ban an entire domain?
Yes. I applaud your powers of deduction. What you fail to realize
is that this is not power. This is merely the ability to do something. At
my work, I can piss off thousands of customers by pressing a couple of
buttons and yanking out a couple of power cords. Does that mean that I
have power? If you insist on calling that power, then maybe I am indeed a
powerful man.
Huzzah.
So why is it that not everyone gets an O:line?
For the very same reason not everyone gets to come to my work and
press buttons and yank out power cords. Common sense.
See... being able to piss people off isn't power. It's just
something you can do. Power is something that actually matters. Power is
also severely overrated. This may come as a surprise to you, but being
able to kick a person off an IRC network doesn't matter one bit in the
grand scale of things. Is it power? Only if you let it be that way. As
long as you can choose the option of being elsewhere, the person holding
the O:line doesn't hold much power over you. This is why governments (who
can impose regulations on you and enforce them, if need be) have powers,
and IRCops (who can do things to you if you let them do them to you) do
not.
> I have been an IRCOp. I've also been the comanager of a very popular
>channel on Undernet in my time. I've also held similar positions of power
>since before IRC even existed. It is because of that experience that I know
>children should not be in that position.
Ah. So because some children aren't capable of handling positions
of power, no children should ever handle positions of power. This is
false logic. In fact, this is downright stupid.
This is like saying that because some adults aren't capable of
handling positions of power, no adults should ever handle positions of
power.
I might point out that no one is saying that because some
children are capable of handling positions of power, all children should
handle positions of power. We're just kinda sorta trying to bring forth
the fact that there are plenty of children who are not only capable of
using the brains, but far better than at than many adults, and therefore
should not be treated like morons just because they haven't happened to
reach some magic age limit which suddenly transforms them into real human
beings.
- Mikki
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Mikko Rautalahti --- "I'll never know where she disappeared, but I can -
- watc...@iki.fi --- see her raising up out of the back seat now..." -
- WatchMan @ IRC ------ - Jim Steinman - http://www.iki.fi/~watchman/ -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikko Rautalahti
>>They think more then adults, their imagination is more active (when is
>>the last time you got into an exciting police chase.. with
>>hotwheels?), and, they really LEARN from whats around them.
> More to the point, when was the last time that I hauled off and started
>a fistfight with someone for no better reason than he called me a name?
This is going to come as a surprise to you, but not all children
start fistfights over someone calling them a name. Plenty of children
actually try to resolve the problem with communication.
> I never said adults can do no wrong. But if adults can do wrong with so
>much experience under their belt, where does that leave a child who is
>completely unprepared to handle volitile situations.
Why do you assume that children are completely unprepared to
handle volatile situations? That's like assuming that adults are
completely prepared to handle volatile situations.
>>questions. Open your mind, the universe around us has no limits,
>>neither should our minds. As an adult, you should know this now,
>>after all, you have all the answers now, right?
> No, I don't have all the answers, and neither do you. The difference is
>I am willing to look at the broader picture of what is going on. I am
>willing to see problems where you refuse to.
It's not that Casteele refuses to see those problems. It's that
Cas refuses to judge an entire group of people based on their age. THAT's
where the difference is.
> On these servers anything goes, both illegal and legal. And many of it
>is adult in nature. Children *ARE* *NOT* *PREPARED* to handle many of the
>situations that arise. Add to that those situations could be adult in
Why not? Because they're not experienced enough?
The difference between humans and (most) animals is that we don't
have to go through something a couple of times until we can figure out
how to handle a certain situation. Certainly, a child may come across a
situation he can't handle. You seem to assume that this is a horrible,
horrible thing. Why?
> You sing the praises of children, saying that they can think for
>themselves and that if they find themselves in a situation that is over
>their head that they can turn to an adult. This statement admits that there
>are situations that a child cannot handle. If that is such the case, and, I
What about the situations that an adult can't handle?
Oh, but they're adults. They can ... uh, well, sort of just
figure it out as they go, or ask for help, or just improvise, or...
So why can't children do this?
>middle man and not have children on in the first place. If they are not
>IRCOps they do not run into situations, by your own words, they cannot
>handle and then must turn to an adult.
"If they are not IRCops they do not run into situations."
What on earth makes you think that? Have you actually taken a
good look at IRC lately? The only way of using IRC without running into
situations is either not using it at all, period, or doing so very very
quietly, never letting anyone know that you're a child, and preferably
never talking to anyone -- ever.
Just like in real life, situations arise.
> As a father surely you understand that many children, a great majority
>of them, do not have patience. A great majority of the children do not have
>the capablity to see both sides of an issue. Both of those are traits
>required of a mediator and being a mediator is the basis of what an IRCOp
>is.
So because a great majority of children are that way, those of
them who do not share those traits should be judged by the majority? Is
this what you are saying?
Steve Lamb
On 2 Nov 1997 14:12:44 GMT, Mikko Rautalahti <watc...@xgw10.pal.xgw.fi> wrote:
> See... being able to piss people off isn't power. It's just
>something you can do. Power is something that actually matters.
To the people that an IRCOp can ban it matters, esp. if they are the
founder of a channel and they can no longer get onto the network after they
have poured years into a channel. If you think that doesn't matter then you
need a wake up call, not me.
>long as you can choose the option of being elsewhere, the person holding
>the O:line doesn't hold much power over you. This is why governments (who
>can impose regulations on you and enforce them, if need be) have powers,
>and IRCops (who can do things to you if you let them do them to you) do
>not.
By your definition governments have no power as well. The US Government
has no power. Why? Because we can go elsewhere. Personally I'd like to
move to Canada or New Zealand. I have the ability to do so. Does that
ability and desire mean that the Government has no power over me? By your
definition, yes. By my definition, no.
> Ah. So because some children aren't capable of handling positions
>of power, no children should ever handle positions of power. This is
>false logic. In fact, this is downright stupid.
Most, not some.
> This is like saying that because some adults aren't capable of
>handling positions of power, no adults should ever handle positions of
>power.
Some, not most. There is a difference there, find it.
Andrew G Feinberg
On 2 Nov 1997, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> To the people that an IRCOp can ban it matters, esp. if they are the
> founder of a channel and they can no longer get onto the network after they
> have poured years into a channel. If you think that doesn't matter then you
> need a wake up call, not me.
This sounds like I've seen it before. On DALnet, I know of at least two
people who have put years into channels only to be banned from the
network for no reason at all. By whom? A grown man. Not by a child, but by
a 22 year old man. Wake up.
[WatchMan's comparison snipped]
>
> By your definition governments have no power as well. The US Government
> has no power. Why? Because we can go elsewhere. Personally I'd like to
> move to Canada or New Zealand. I have the ability to do so. Does that
> ability and desire mean that the Government has no power over me? By your
> definition, yes. By my definition, no.
Let me reiterate this: THERE IS NO REAL POWER ON IRC.
>
WatchMan Wrote:
> > Ah. So because some children aren't capable of handling positions
> >of power, no children should ever handle positions of power. This is
> >false logic. In fact, this is downright stupid.
>
You wrote:
> Most, not some.
Ah...once again you go back on your words. In your original post, you
stated that "Children under 18 should never be in positions of power." So,
you are not only stupid, you are a hypocrit
WatchMan wrote:
>
> > This is like saying that because some adults aren't capable of
> >handling positions of power, no adults should ever handle positions of
> >power.
You wrote:
>
> Some, not most. There is a difference there, find it.
And while we're at it, why don't you take a look at some of the perfectly
good under-18 IRCops that DALnet has, and find the difference between them
and the pimply teenagers looking for porn and trying to find ways to
change their grades over the internet.
>
Andrew G. Feinberg
and...@freeside.ultraviolet.org
Mikko Rautalahti
Roger Espel Llima (es...@solar.sky.net) uttered these words:
>Mikko Rautalahti <watc...@xgw10.pal.xgw.fi> wrote:
>>>Which is one reason why I stick to EFnet :)
>> The other dominant reason being that you're an old fart who's
>>stuck in a rut.
>Nah, not "stuck"...
But you don't contest the part about being an old fart?
>Another reason would be that I'm involved in the coding of EFnet's ircds :)
Pfah. Everyone knows that you sold your soul to the Great EFnet
Daemon, no news there. =)
David Schwartz
Jeremy Nelson wrote in message <63i2cn$pds$1...@news.inc.net>...
>>Tracy R Reed wrote in message ...
>>>I would reply on the ops list, but it would get censored by the
moderators
>>>and the address with which I am subscribed would be revealed and I'd be
>>>booted off the list yet again. I can't reply or send any mail at all to
>>>dalvenjah himself or anyone @dal.net because my domain has been banned
>>>from the dal.net mail server. So I have little choice but to respond
here:
>
>David Schwartz <dj...@gate.net> wrote:
>> Kind of neat that you would publically boast about stealing DALnet's
>>intellectual property.
>
>This is complete doublespeak. Just how is someone being subscribed to a
>quasi-open mailing list "theft of intellectual property?"
It is not 'quasi-open'. It is closed.
> Are all those
>who subscribe to the list sworn to sign a non-disclosure agreement?
No, they are simply asked not to disclose. Unfortunately, we may need to
progress to a written non-disclosure agreement,
> Does
>any *seriously valuable* discussions take place on this list, such that any
>revelation to an unauthorized third party would cause undo damage to the
>network, or are you attempting to make some kind of jack-booted threat so
>as to intimidate and harass Mr. Reed?
I can document cases of unauthorized disclosures to third parties
harming the network.
>If they were truly concerned about "theft of intellectual property", then
>they could easily find out the address he is using through process of
>elimination.
Already done.
>However, if there are people on the list who they dont even
>know about, then it is completely outrageous of you to assert that his
>subscription to the list is "theft" while everyone else's is not.
The authorized scope of distribution for that mailing list, which
includes copyrighted material, is IRCops on DALnet. Maelcum publically
admitted to being subscribed to that list. That is theft.
>This is possibly the most single handedly dishonorable threat i have seen
>made with regard to silencing someone who would embarras a network. I hope
>that someone from DalNET will come along and tell us that they dont back
you
>up on this, becuase if they dont, it would speak eons for their
>professionalism.
Umm, where's the threat?
JoelKatz
Tracy R Reed
On Mon, 3 Nov 1997 20:01:13 -0500, David Schwartz <dj...@gate.net> wrote:
> I can document cases of unauthorized disclosures to third parties
>harming the network.
Cases such as the blacklist being leaked. Dairenn's server was delinked
over it. What was the evidence that Dairenn was the guilty party? There
wasn't much, if any. Dairenn's server being delinked did some small amoung
of harm to the network. So, who did harm to the network? No doubt you will
say it was Dairenn, for allegedly leaking it and not DALnet administration
for so hastily convicting him of it and then tossing out his server.
> Already done.
'fraid not. Look harder. I made another post just a few hours ago.
> The authorized scope of distribution for that mailing list, which
>includes copyrighted material, is IRCops on DALnet. Maelcum publically
>admitted to being subscribed to that list. That is theft.
I also admit to stealing the Statue of Liberty. Am I guilty of theft?
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
<dalvenjah> I've surrounded myself with fools.
Jeremy Nelson
>ali <oce...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>*you* personally witnessed one acting immature, and embaressing DALnet?
>>Oh, I thought so..never... *sigh* Looks like your argument is falling
>>apart...
Steve Lamb <morp...@no-spam.calweb.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>By your logic the following is true:
>
> Have you even seen an IRCOp? How Many IRCOps have you seen resolve an
>issue? Well then, I guess IRCOps don't exist!
>
> Because, guess what, I've only seen 1 IRCOp in my months on Dal and he
>was idle (later timed out) and that is it. So I guess, according your
>assinine logic, IRCOps don't exist or just time out when they do.
No. He was saying that due to insufficent data, the conclusion you
previously reached was in error. That is to say that your blanket
statement that all persons less than 18 years of age are automatically
unqualified to be an operator is probably overr-reaching.
He asked you to provide more than one or two isolated examples to
support your thesis. You come up with this grandiose straw man about
how youve never seen more than one ircop, therefore they must not exist.
I can provide you all the data you want about the presence of irc operators.
The fact that you do not choose to find them yourself does not invalidate
their factual existance. However, your statement that all adolescants are
eminently unqualifed based on your sparce contacts with some of the
members of that group smacks of disingenuousness.
You have shown a profound resistance to intelligent thought. If you dont
shape up, im going to have to refer you to the EBOAI staff attorney for
de-breifing.
-hop
Steve Sobol
in <63hd0v$h...@fridge.shore.net> on 2 Nov 1997 08:18:39 GMT,
Keith D. Tyler apparently said:
>My intent was to evoke the idea that calling oneself the CEO of an IRC
>network may be an attempt to look more impressive; an attempt to shield
>one's immaturity with the terms of professionalism, but none of the
>actual structures involved in _being_ professional.
...which provides an oh-so-excellent segue for the following few
paragraphs which I was going to post anyway!
Dalnet takes itself too seriously. That can be seen in what is going on
with the network itself, and on a smaller scale on some of the Dalnet
channels I frequent that have regular "op meetings" and "channel
managers".
I.J.I. is an acronym which I invoke whenever someone starts acting like
IRC is more than a diversion. "It's Just IRC." IRC is not an
all-encompassing activity that is essential to the functioning of life
as we know it. No, really, it isn't, RevWhite! :)
I certainly do not want to minimize the efforts of those people who created
and run Dalnet or any of the other IRC networks. It's lightyears better than
ytalk (ok, MOST of the time it's lightyears better than ytalk). It's a neat
communications medium, one which has enabled me to meet people all over.
(I love roadtripping, and I've been able to do a ton of roadtripping in the
name of meeting IRC friends in real life. It's quite cool.) But I still have
a life. Not much of a life, since I work roughly 60 hours a week, but a life
nonetheless.
The people involved in the threads about Dalnet might want to reconsider how
important IRC really IS in their lives.
Not a flame, just an opinion.
--
Steve Sobol, Tech Support, New Age Consulting Service, Inc. 216 619-2000
sjsobol @ nacs.net http://www.nacs.net
"No, we didn't relocate to the airport. Yes, I know that sounds like a
Boeing 747 in the background. It's not; it's our new Cisco 7513."