First Libya, now THIS??!!?

(Reply) (Thread)

Doesn't surprise me, their nazi admin crap has been going on there for a long long time there.

(Reply) (Thread)

Yet you keep going back to them. Guess why it keeps happening? Because you fucking morons put up with it!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The problem that Furnet has the rep as the furry IRC in the fandom. A lot of younger furs have never heard of Anthrochat.

There's not much on Furnet that interests me, the Texas area furry channels are usually full of lurkers. I've used Anthrochat for the past 7 years and never had a problem with it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sledgehammer, meet nut

(Reply) (Thread)

*sledgehammers your nuts*

sounds like a good idea to me

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There's a reason I'm no longer an admin there, either. :>

Of course, you know these reasons as well as anyone out there.

(Reply) (Thread)

Deja vous.

(Reply) (Thread)

At the risk of labeling myself as the one user they're butt hurt and scared over during our "grade school antics", I have to say... It's not just you who were blasted in the crossfire, but scar and locobunny were as well.

(Reply) (Thread)

Unfortunately we're living in an age of dynamic IP adresses, so the only way to ban someone who does damaging things to the network or gravely violates the TOS is banning an entire IP range ... which means collateral damage. But sometimes the only way to keep the network usable.

And it's the only way to deal with spammers, channel-level protections don't work in that case.

(Reply) (Thread)

(Addition: Channel-Level Protections don't work because you can easily evade any bans by simply switching ip adresses.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

But sometimes the only way to keep the network usable

Somehow I find it hard to believe that by connecting one client, just like any other user would connect a client, and occasionally sending lines of text, which is what the network is designed to handle, was causing the network to be not "usable".

Channel-level protections work because you can do things like set combinations of +R, +m, and +i until the boredom kicks in. You can carefully craft +f for spammers that flood. You can configure services to allow channel regulars with even the lowest of access levels to get an /invite from ChanServ while a channel is set +i. You can configure BotServ to watch channels for flooding and repeated text and have it act accordingly. These methods work way better than IP-based bans. Open Proxy Monitors take care of the rest of the problems faced by drone/flood networks, but that's way outside the context of the ban mentioned in this post.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If you have absolutely no life, yeah, you can spend 24 hours a day to keep your channel locked down. Some people just have better things to do, and that's why networks have Terms of Service.

You are just complaining because ... well, not because you have any point, it's because you have a personal issue. If you don't like the Terms, why do you keep going to this place? I'll tell you: Because you WANT these reactions from the admins, and you WANT this collateral damage, because you know it pisses off people like yappy, and it ultimately drives them away from furnet. And that's precisely why you are doing all this.

I can very well understand that the admins won't let themselves blackmailed, though. Your Rules become worthless if you do. Well, the nice thing is, clients support more than one network. It doesn't matter which network a channel is on.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This is compleatly untrue. YOu don't need to spend 24hours a day to keep a channel locked down. there are plenty of tools available. For one you can mark the channel invite only. You can require rigistered nick names. That will take care of any spam attack right there.

If you were not such a fucking idiot, you would realize this.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

This is absolutely true. Years ago, Furp set the channel modes on #furry after spending a few minutes reading the online documentation. He has absolutely no life - he was killed 2 years ago, and his settings spend 24 hours a day keeping #furry spammer and flooder free. So in this one instance, I would say what you said matches reality.

We're a friendly group to people who can type coherently, with a huge group of admins and no infighting. I think other networks could learn from our default position of trust instead of distrust and angst.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, the nice thing is, clients support more than one network. It doesn't matter which network a channel is on.

It's interesting (and even refreshing) to see that you've changed your position on that. That's right, folks, they CAN be taught!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You are just complaining because

Actually, my comment above was not a complaint at all. It was merely pointing out how I thought that you were incorrect about the adequacy/inadequacy of channel-level protections and examples of the most effective tools to use. I even managed to leave out ChanServ's akick feature, which, when combined with channel mode +R, also becomes a very effective measure. I was also pointing out that I didn't consider what I had done to be somehow damaging to the network as you were insinuating that it was.

not because you have any point, it's because you have a personal issue. If you don't like the Terms, why do you keep going to this place? I'll tell you

Oh! Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking and what my motivations are. I never would have known, otherwise, 'cause I was thinking something completely different. ... in my own mind... where I was actually generating my motivations.

I don't really have "a personal issue" with any of you. In fact, I thought you (Cheetah) were a pretty fun-loving, reasonable, level-headed guy when I met and hung out with you at EF14. I've had a few phone conversations with ZetaWolf and one with Snowpony - and I'd do it again. They were pleasant people. I've had a few PM conversations with Lymril and would do it again. I'd even welcome the idea of getting together, having a few beers, and just chatting it up for a while with all of you because typically, it seems that your intentions are based on doing good which I find is a sign that you're good people and worth getting to know more. I wouldn't have agreed to do voice-over work for EF13's puppet show if I had a personal issue with you (Cheetah). Instead of refusing, I happily got together with Yappy and recorded it. We even had a blast doing it because of some of the outtakes and because neither of us knew how to do pull off a convincing french accent, so I did my version of Homestar Runner's voice instead (we figured you'd find someone else to fill in that part for the actual production but would at least get a laugh out of how absurd our version was). ... and these sentiments are after almost every on-line interaction with you giving me a very unpleasant attitude. I listen to my friends, KP in particular, who always has good things to say about you. Some of the stories of your interactions are priceless, like the way you went about approaching and asking him, during AnthroCon, to extend it another day because you were having such a good time and were really happy. I found that to be really funny and charming at the same time.

The only thing I take issue with is your (Furnet admins as a whole) IRC administration practices because I think they're ridiculously overbearing, over-reactive, and only make you look like insecure, power-tripping control freaks. It is possible to not like something that someone does, but still not have "a personal issue" with them. If everyone did exactly everything the same way as everyone else, all the time, this would be a pretty boring world to live in.

The actual reason that I still connect to Furnet is that I have a couple of idiot friends who can't be convinced to go through the effort of moving their channel - regardless of all of the compelling evidence I've compiled in favor of it. They just think that because they weren't really directly affected by the "politics", that it's just easier not to go through the effort to move.

And that's precisely why you are doing all this

What is "all this" that you're speaking of? Connecting a client and occasionally chatting in a channel or two is hardly "all this". Occasionally pointing out behavior that I think is more damaging than helpful is also not what I would call "all this". You're going on as though I've been orchestrating some kind of diabolical, guerrilla-tactical, mastermind project of epic proportions when you say "all this". :p

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Since when is speaking the fucking truth damaging? The network is suppose to carry text. There was no spamming dumb shit. Learn the facts of the situation before commenting you dumb motherfucker.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If you say it at the wrong time, the wrong place, or in a disrupting way. And I didn't say there was spamming. I was explaining IP range blocks. Of course it applies to all kinds of ban evasions. Learn how to read, you dumb motherfucker.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

" And it's the only way to deal with spammers,"

Jesus fucking christ! Do you even read what you post? You most certainly did insinuate it!

The other point here is, in case you haven't noticed, is that the furnet admins themselves violate their own TOS. Not only that, but the entire TOS is being questioned here. It is unethical what they do.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Also,.. there is a bad time for truth? What kind of fucked up crap is that?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Please explain to me how a user complaint against the way the network is being run equates to damaging things on the network?

The IP range you blocked was not being used for any sort of spamming or flooding, nor was your target even using it at the time.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Please explain to me how a user complaint against the way the network is being run equates to damaging things on the network?

It doesn't. But this detail you cherry-picked out of the issue did not cause the ban, so that's not relevant.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If that's not what it was, then what was it? When I asked about it in #Furnet, that's the explanation that I got, so that's the only thing that I have to go on. I didn't cherry pick the detail. Harik didn't cherry pick the detail. Lymril provided the reason and the detail. That is what caused the ban. That is why I'm banned. That is not against the ToS.

It came straight from an admin involved when the ban was set. Don't try to allude to it being something else when it you aren't providing supporting documentation about your alleged "other details" that don't actually exist.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You're free to connect if you use IP space not owned by someone who is banned from the network. Unbanning a range owned by someone who is excluded from the network seems a little daft to me.

(Reply) (Thread)

The best part is that while a bunch of IP addreses were banned in attempt to exclude someone from the network, that person is still connected and was not affected by the ban at all. It didn't even require a reconnect because the person was never disconnected or touched by the ban. What did happen, though, was that the ban has now excluded 3 users from the network who weren't involved with these petty games at all. Even if those 3 users have the option to evade that ban and connect by other methods, it's still impeding their most convenient method.

In addition, all of this started simply because the targeted user made an indirect, off-handed criticism/comment about the network in a public channel... nine months ago. Continuing to cause "collateral damage" because someone made a comment that the admins didn't like is not only petty, it's ridiculous.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It should also be said the comment was THE FUCKING TRUTH. When people ban persons over facts, there is something wrong with them.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yapster, thanks for shout out for Anthrochat. You rock for that guy! *fistbump* :D

If you ever need any accommodations, just look any one of us up. You know where to find us, and our principals aren't changing. We like to keep things simple.

-Mirage
Network Admin / Founding Member
snowleopard.anthrochat.net

(Reply) (Thread)

You've got to thank simba, for his effort to get all his friends banned as collateral damage. That's what I call some legtitimate guerillia recruiting tactics.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Logs or GTFO.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. Why would you even say something like that to me? I've never provoked you, I've never said bad things about you, I've never trash talked you, and here you go wanting to start some kind of he-said, she-said passive aggressive smartass bullshit with me? You need to take a step back guy. In two sentences, you've summed up about everything I need to know about you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

But of coarse, AnthroChat is one of the first servers of them all...(well, at least alphabetically speaking.) :[= =]

(Reply) (Thread)

You are part of the problem with comments like "So in their desperate fear, they have managed to ban several furnet users that have nothing to do with the grade school antics."

Simba isn't one for antics of any sort, other than using his superior intellect to get what he wants. Wake the fuck up. Stop being part of the problem. All Simba did was speak the facts to these people, and they responded with banning him.

I will say, moving to anthrochat, that would be a good step away from being part of the problem. Look forward to seeing you around, join us and Simba in #yeah.

(Reply) (Thread)

Simba isn't one for antics of any sort, other than using his superior intellect to get what he wants.

You forgot to mention he has a 12 inch penis, too :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

50 inch ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yappy, don't fall for it. Simba is using you as a human shield by luring you into the blast radius and then yelling "BOMB ME NOW" at the furnet admins. The ban did NOT hit his network unexpectedly. He wants as many people as possible (and that includes you) to be affected by his actions, the more people he gets to be pissed agains furnet admins just doing their jobs, the better for him.

And as you can see, it works. You're playing along perfectly! He just managed to move you and all your peers over to his network.

(Reply) (Thread)

Fact: I stopped connecting to Furnet using IP addresses in the range where my server and Yappy's server are located 9 months ago in an effort to NOT get Yappy and Scar banned alongside me. (and also because I was under the impression that those IPs were already banned)

Fact: I have been connected to Furnet, non-stop, since the ban in June, illustrating that IP-based bans are pointless against me. Oddly enough, you somehow even AGREE (as seen in your comment above) that IP-based bans are pointless for channel management, yet have some kind of logical fallacy disconnect in your brain when it's applied to IP-based bans at the network level.

Fact: The ban DID hit my network unexpectedly because it wasn't a direct result of anything that I was doing at the time. The admins suddenly decided that the entire IP range of the network my server is using needed to be banned, with no corresponding action from me. (other than connecting, idling, and logging into my nickname once per month to keep it from expiring)

Fact: If "my actions" of simply connecting a client and idling on the network is all it takes is to have other people affected, the statement "He wants as many people as possible to be affected by his actions" is somewhat accurate. Why? It illustrates how vindictive, petty, draconian, and grudge-holding the Furnet admins are. They would happily take out several users while blasting at an idle client or blasting at someone who simply speaks their mind. ... a blast that MISSED, I should reiterate, and ONLY took out other users. Why would I want that? I think it's kind of sad and funny at the same time.

Fiction: "the more people he gets to be pissed against furnet admins just doing their jobs, the better for him"

Fact dispelling your fictional statement: The more people that get pissed at the Furnet admins, the more that have had their eyes opened to how ridiculously awful those admins are. It's better for the people that they be made aware of it and distance themselves from it as soon as possible so that they are not subjected to it. I don't really benefit from it one way or the other except to be able to say, "I told you so".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

tl;dr

The consequences were 100% intended by you, and you got what you wanted, and now stop wasting my time with your strawman arguments about how your intentionally antisocial behaviour becomes magically tolerable because of some formalisms that may or may not have been violated in the process of kicking your ass out.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

How wonderfully presumptuous of you to decide that you are inside my head and somehow magically know my intentions and motivations better than I do even after I've spelled them out in exacting detail. Oh, but that exacting detail was too much effort to read, so you didn't.

It's this EXACT behavior that is earning the Furnet admins the reputation of being terrible. It has nothing to do with me other than maybe being a catalyst and unwarranted focus of that behavior.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

wow, you are one dumb mother fucker.

The only one being antisocial here are the furnet admins. They strive to create a monoculture, which is an antisocial behavior.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

No, seriously, logs or GTFO. You keep insinuating that there's some sort of network level attack going on by Simba, when all that's really happened is you decided to piss off his friends by IP-banning a network range that shared with him - and that he doesn't even use. I'm sure something bad must have happened before this incident that you can point to, spammers and flooders leave plenty of evidence behind.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

... and something I forgot to mention. You say that I am "intentionally" exhibiting "antisocial behaviour", yet you're the one defending the position of excluding someone just because they have a different opinion than you do which is almost the very definition of antisocial behaviour.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

So the admins have a job to take out entire channels just because some users of other channels found that channels content offensive?

That is exactly what goes on on furnet. Try joining #BMX. They killed my entire channel over there, just because we didn't communicate with each other in a way they could agree with. It's petty, and fascist.

It's amusing that they ban the user name Simba from services. They have left other usernames open on the network that can easily be used to actually cause damage to the network.

In other words, what they are doing protects the network in no way. What it does is illustrate how fearful and incompetent they are. Fear is born of ignorance, and ignorant the admins certainly are.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

here is what I don't get

why would you bother banning the IP range at all.

you know full-well that you're merely going to be fighting an internet arms race if Simba/whoever truly desire to connect to furnet for god knows what reason. you have absolutely no power to keep them off of the network if they really desire to connect to it.

so you could be the better man and simply let it go, but instead drop a nuke on the IP range knowing you'll be banning people who have nothing to do with the situation in the process. in addition, you apparently did so incompetently enough to not even remove the person you were aiming the nuke at. it's as though the Enola Gay flew over Japan, then kept on flying and dropped the atomic bomb somewhere in the middle of china instead of on Hiroshima.

the admins of furnet have always had this tendency to overreact in such a stereotypically furry manner to any perceived threat, which is pretty much what caused this entire debacle to begin with. every time you do something like this, you merely give Simba's account credence, because you prove time and time again that furnet's administration is overbearing. there are many furries who are socially awkward enough to welcome such "protection", as being trolled would impact their enjoyment of life significantly, but in this instance you got around to "banning the trolls" several years late and inflicted significant splash damage to your own innocuous userbase in the process.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

here is what I don't get - why would you bother banning the IP range at all

Because if you don't even TRY to enforce your TOS, they become meaningless.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The ToS is already meaningless because of its subjectivity. As far as I can tell, by my interpretation of the ToS, I haven't violated it at all. There should be no need to enforce it when a violation has not happened. If uttering the words, "Furnet Fascism at its Finest" is a violation, I must be reading a different ToS than you are.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

you rendered your TOS meaningless the moment you pushed the ban button. it's been pretty much meaningless for years now.

petty bans over questioning of admins or policies don't really accomplish anything other than making you appear woefully insecure.

literally stating "we don't care if a few innocent users get banned and inconvenienced in the process as long as we get him" over this issue isn't exactly doing anything to improve that impression. it's not like he was even doing anything to the network other than connecting to it with a single client and sitting idle - hardly something that "impedes connectivity" or "affects other users".

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That is exactly what happened

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Let me ask you exactly what simba gets from more users? He has nothing to gain from it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I guess Im not really surprised. Thou, it has been years since I really chatted on any IRC on a regular bases.

(Reply) (Thread)

Power trips and morons seem to be the prevailing theme on most, if not all IRC servers I've visited.

(Reply) (Thread)

Then stop using them. The fact is, you won't find that on anthrochat, dumbshit.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

No need to be rude. :-/

I do use Anthrochat among other servers, and I have seen the referenced behavior there. Maybe not on a server level, as appears to be the case with Furnet, but it does happen.

*shrug*

I've not had it happen to me, per se, but I'm generally pretty laid back on IRC. Not much for heated debates, trolling, or other irritating behaviors.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

not need not to be rude either..

You get channel operators that behave poorly, like tempdog, but that's just a channel problem, not a network problem. There is a difference.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I think I remember this happening like five years ago with half of the people I knew leaving for the other? But the other way around.
Also, why is this polyguy such an asshole and making sure to comment on everyone's stuff?

(Reply) (Thread)

It's just one of the many services I provide, shithead.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, but you're supposed to insult everyone in alphabetical order.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

am I? Well shit.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Being an admin is so much easier if you just get rid of all the users.

(Reply) (Thread)

That icon is TIGHT! ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You were there when it was made, no?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Indeed, I was. (... which is one of the reasons that I mentioned it) :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)