459 lines
29 KiB
HTML
459 lines
29 KiB
HTML
{% extends "_layout.html" %}
|
|
{% block title %}I2P Development Meeting 7{% endblock %}
|
|
{% block content %}
|
|
<h3>I2P (invisiblenet) Development Meeting 7</h3>
|
|
<div class="irclog">
|
|
Courtesy of <a href="http://www.archive.org/">the wayback machine</a>.
|
|
<p>
|
|
<p>--- Log opened Wed Jul 03 00:33:19 2002
|
|
<p>00:33 <+logger> logging started
|
|
<p>00:47 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o nop] by mids
|
|
<p>00:54 < UnDeRToW> hi
|
|
<p>00:54 <@mids> hi
|
|
<p>01:01 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:01 <@nop> hi
|
|
<p>01:01 <@nop> welcome
|
|
<p>01:01 <@nop> to the 5th meeting I believe
|
|
<p>01:01 <@mids> 7th
|
|
<p>01:02 <@nop> really
|
|
<p>01:02 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:02 <@mids> http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/
|
|
<p>01:02 <@nop> wilde you have anonymail
|
|
<p>01:02 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:03 <@nop> iip 1.1 rc2 will be released pending a few doc changes and me submitting a couple of technical docs for merging with docs
|
|
<p>01:03 <@nop> umm, cs and I will work on transforming inform to work with latest version
|
|
<p>01:04 <@nop> and we have had a few people try out some security checks on IIP
|
|
<p>01:04 <@nop> unfortunately with no success
|
|
<p>01:04 <@nop> but
|
|
<p>01:04 <@nop> that's the spirit
|
|
<p>01:04 <@nop> ;)
|
|
<p>01:04 <@nop> anyway
|
|
<p>01:05 <@nop> this is not much of a meeting today, but if anyone has anything to add please feel free at the questions part
|
|
<p>01:05 <@nop> so... mids, do you have anything
|
|
<p>01:05 <@mids> yes
|
|
<p>01:05 <@mids> I would like to have a public discussion about the pro's and con's of bots in the public channels
|
|
<p>01:06 <@mids> with ArdVark and some others I have had an argument about that
|
|
<p>01:06 <@mids> everybody has its personal ideas
|
|
<p>01:06 <@mids> and they aren't all compatible
|
|
<p>01:06 <@mids> but since we are not here to censor everything
|
|
<p>01:06 <@mids> lets discuss
|
|
<p>01:06 <@mids> allow me to state the current issue
|
|
<p>01:07 <@mids> unless someone already wants to add something
|
|
<p>01:07 <@mids> 3 2 1 0
|
|
<p>01:07 <@mids> ok
|
|
<p>01:07 <@mids> in #anonymous (and #iip and #help) we have had a few infobots
|
|
<p>01:07 <@mids> Herod, camabot and now visix
|
|
<p>01:08 <@mids> personally I dont see any good in those things.. since they seem to be only 'abused' for channel flooding
|
|
<p>01:08 <@mids> but I understand that my vision on that is biased
|
|
<p>01:08 <@mids> based on years of IRC trauma's :)
|
|
<p>01:09 < Kyl3> yes but there are some bots that are useful
|
|
<p>01:09 <@mids> Where are those bots good for?
|
|
<p>01:09 <@mids> .
|
|
<p>01:09 < ArdVark> what is defined as channel flooding?
|
|
<p>01:09 < UnDeRToW> for what?
|
|
<p>01:10 < Kyl3> there are some bots that are used for channel protection
|
|
<p>01:11 <@mids> like?
|
|
<p>01:11 <@mids> ArdVark: good one... anybody?
|
|
<p>01:11 < Kyl3> like my eggdrop on DALnet
|
|
<p>01:11 < UnDeRToW> but here is not necesary channel protection
|
|
<p>01:11 <@mids> I would say: filling the communication channel with data
|
|
<p>01:11 < Kyl3> all custom flood protection
|
|
<p>01:11 < UnDeRToW> at least now
|
|
<p>01:12 <@mids> Kyl3: true, but with Trent, I don't think that is a real issue here
|
|
<p>01:12 < ArdVark> excuse me but please define filling the communication channel with data
|
|
<p>01:12 <@mids> re flooding: but I agree that it is very personal what is seen as flood
|
|
<p>01:12 <@mids> Kyl3: what is flood in your wording?
|
|
<p>01:12 <@mids> communcation channel is irc channel / query window / message window
|
|
<p>01:13 <@mids> data = ascii characters on itc
|
|
<p>01:13 < Kyl3> so Trent has channel protections built into it?
|
|
<p>01:13 <@mids> and filling is putting too much into it
|
|
<p>01:13 <@mids> Kyl3: no, not like you mean...
|
|
<p>01:13 < ArdVark> no I have seen users place huge paragraphs of words in a channel without any negative response; perhaps a friend of an OP
|
|
<p>01:14 < UnDeRToW> I think the best way to control that is some @ on public channels that only go up when a problem appear
|
|
<p>01:14 <@mids> ArdVark: big pastes (what is big) is flood to imho
|
|
<p>01:14 <@mids> and jesus stating all the bible chapters is too... imho again
|
|
<p>01:15 < ArdVark> however mids you have offered no negative responses to some individuals; friends of your perhaps?
|
|
<p>01:15 < ArdVark> who paste large paragraphs
|
|
<p>01:15 <@mids> maybe friends
|
|
<p>01:15 <@mids> maybe I was away
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> tell you what
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> the best way
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> to determine this
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> is to let ircd determine it
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> ircd has a flood limit
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> and if they exceed that
|
|
<p>01:15 <@nop> it will kick them
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> other than that, if you're not intentionally doing it
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> then what's the problem
|
|
<p>01:16 <@mids> still, you can flood very easilly
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> yes
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> but intentional is obvious
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> so if it's intentional
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> we handle it
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> if it's not
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> then go on about our business
|
|
<p>01:16 < ArdVark> no too easy to decide someone is intentionally flooding nop
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> no need for unnecessary drama
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> but
|
|
<p>01:16 <@nop> it's easy to ask people to talk to the bot in a private channel
|
|
<p>01:17 <@nop> and if they are belligerent
|
|
<p>01:17 <@nop> then most likely you have probable cause of their intentions
|
|
<p>01:17 < ArdVark> I disagree
|
|
<p>01:17 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:17 <@nop> ardvark
|
|
<p>01:17 <@nop> please define then
|
|
<p>01:17 <@nop> because if we can set boundaries
|
|
<p>01:18 <@nop> this argument will be quickly over
|
|
<p>01:18 < ArdVark> I have no problem with your ircd flood control notion; I have a big problem with an OP doing the "protecting"
|
|
<p>01:19 < ArdVark> OP's may have friends that they permit to "flood"; while others are dealt with differently
|
|
<p>01:19 <@nop> yes
|
|
<p>01:19 <@mids> I think that your problem is having OPs...
|
|
<p>01:19 <@nop> the biased issue
|
|
<p>01:19 < CyberLOK1> sorry just saw msg I have been at work
|
|
<p>01:19 < CyberLOK1> did I miss meeting?
|
|
<p>01:19 < ArdVark> yes my ultimate concern is OP's because of the potential to limit speech mids
|
|
<p>01:19 <@mids> CyberLOK1: talking about flooding right now
|
|
<p>01:19 <@mids> CyberLOK1: logs: http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/
|
|
<p>01:19 < CyberLOK1> mids thanks
|
|
<p>01:20 <@mids> ArdVark: I totally agree on the theoretical side of that
|
|
<p>01:20 <@nop> well what about an agent
|
|
<p>01:20 < ArdVark> I will continually express my dissent about that issue
|
|
<p>01:20 <@mids> but on the practical side... without ops, how to deal with problem users that deny others to speak? (by flooding)
|
|
<p>01:22 < ArdVark> OP's are a threat to free speech, end of statement; deciding on flooding by OP's is not objective
|
|
<p>01:22 <@mids> then please tell me how you see #anonymous without OPs.. using current available technology
|
|
<p>01:23 <@mids> everything is fine...
|
|
<p>01:23 <@nop> agent to set a standard
|
|
<p>01:23 <@mids> then 10 trouble guys enter
|
|
<p>01:23 <@nop> for flooding
|
|
<p>01:23 <@mids> and start spamming crap
|
|
<p>01:23 <@mids> what is your solution ArdVark ?
|
|
<p>01:24 < ArdVark> spam is an emotionally laden term used to point out speech other's, perhaps most others do not like; free speech is not just about speech I like
|
|
<p>01:24 <@mids> so these 10 guys paste #####'s with the maximum rate that the ircd allows
|
|
<p>01:25 <@mids> resulting in nobdy beeing able to see any text
|
|
<p>01:25 < UnDeRToW> but an oper can go up when a problem occur
|
|
<p>01:25 < UnDeRToW> and the rest of the time down
|
|
<p>01:25 < ArdVark> and the point is that these guys are going to remain forever?
|
|
<p>01:25 <@mids> UnDeRToW: that is how it is now
|
|
<p>01:26 < UnDeRToW> i know
|
|
<p>01:26 < UnDeRToW> and if someone do a bad thing
|
|
<p>01:26 < UnDeRToW> or an oper do bad thing
|
|
<p>01:26 <@mids> ArdVark: why not.. they have a botnet with 100 t3 connections
|
|
<p>01:26 < UnDeRToW> talk and he/she know his error
|
|
<p>01:26 < UnDeRToW> and if persist
|
|
<p>01:26 < UnDeRToW> no more @
|
|
<p>01:27 < ArdVark> well I sense a real threat to free speech concern surrounding this issue
|
|
<p>01:27 < UnDeRToW> but at least now any problem related with that, isnt it?
|
|
<p>01:28 <@mids> okay, I have a proposal
|
|
<p>01:28 <@mids> maybe we should try a period without any operators in #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:29 <@mids> few weeks
|
|
<p>01:29 <@mids> and see how it goes
|
|
<p>01:29 <@mids> fix topic to something static
|
|
<p>01:29 <@mids> channel mode +tn
|
|
<p>01:29 <@mids> and everybody removed from the trent access list
|
|
<p>01:29 <@nop> you know
|
|
<p>01:29 <@nop> this is really not fair
|
|
<p>01:29 <@nop> people are missing the point
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> IRC has a ruleset, and channel control and all this other shit
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> I understand the nature of freedom of speech
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> but we also have to have some sort of defense
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> flooding can cause problems on networks
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> etc
|
|
<p>01:30 < wilde> but what's the problem really? anyone is free to open a new channel and get ops? So why is ops a bad thing in #anonymous? Open a new channel and speak freely
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> you can't say that's speech, really, it's 1's and 0's being abused
|
|
<p>01:30 < ArdVark> I disagree nop
|
|
<p>01:30 <@nop> the founders of specific channels, they have a choice to control the channel
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> if they want the #freespeech channel
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> then so be it
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> because then
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> you can flood it
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> all you want
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> and call it #freespeech
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> the technology provides the freedom
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> but the channel holders might not
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> and this is the design
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> you have choices
|
|
<p>01:31 < ArdVark> I must express my complete dissent officially
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> and all the choices range
|
|
<p>01:31 <@nop> and that's the freedom of choice
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> is that if you say I disagree, I can't say, no you must agree
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> but in a founder's channel
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> I can say
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> we take this as flooding
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> we're not an op on every channel
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> and if there is concern
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> then there is concern
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> but #anonymous is public
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> which requires some governing of very basic rules
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> because everyone must have a chance to speak
|
|
<p>01:32 <@nop> but flooding, interpreted or not
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> is not going to be tolerated
|
|
<p>01:33 < ArdVark> well again I dissent
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> that just wouldn't make sense
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> it's like saying
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> I have the freedom to kill 10 people
|
|
<p>01:33 < UnDeRToW> but nop, and all people without op and if someone start flooding just go up and fix the prob
|
|
<p>01:33 < UnDeRToW> and then go down
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> yes
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> that's fair
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> but
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> the interpretation
|
|
<p>01:33 <@nop> is the challenge
|
|
<p>01:33 <@mids> UnDeRToW: thats what we all minus ardvark are saying...
|
|
<p>01:33 < ArdVark> because I was accused of causing flooding when someone else pasted large paragraphs into channel previously was not admonished
|
|
<p>01:34 < CyberLOK1> are we tring to justify flooding?
|
|
<p>01:34 <@nop> I agree with Ardvark's view in the sense that he may be executing his free speach
|
|
<p>01:34 <@nop> speech
|
|
<p>01:34 <@nop> but the interpretation seems to be biased
|
|
<p>01:34 <@nop> and to solve that
|
|
<p>01:34 <@nop> we need to have a standard
|
|
<p>01:34 < UnDeRToW> mids i know
|
|
<p>01:34 <@nop> but we can't just allow flooding
|
|
<p>01:34 < ArdVark> OP's are inconsistent in their approach; let friends do stuff and others not
|
|
<p>01:35 < CyberLOK1> how about a control on the number of people and a throttle of max sends per second
|
|
<p>01:35 < CyberLOK1> this way it would be impossible to flood people for to long and it would really do nothing
|
|
<p>01:35 <@nop> hmm
|
|
<p>01:36 <@nop> it's not really an issue that much
|
|
<p>01:36 <@nop> and we might be a little sensitve
|
|
<p>01:36 < CyberLOK1> ArdVark remove the human part then
|
|
<p>01:36 <@nop> because we're used to public irc
|
|
<p>01:36 <@nop> and the biased ness is an issue
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> I say
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> that unless it's seriously obvious script kiddie flooding
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> then we just leave it be
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> and at the most
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> we can ask questions or ask politely if they will talk to the bot in a private channel
|
|
<p>01:37 < ArdVark> problem with flooding is what if no one is talking in channel? suddenly I just type a lot; since no one else is talking I am not infringing on anyone else's speech
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> no you're not
|
|
<p>01:37 <@nop> and you should be allowed
|
|
<p>01:37 < ArdVark> well that was the issue the other day
|
|
<p>01:38 <@mids> aprogas asked you to stop
|
|
<p>01:38 <@mids> but you didnt see it
|
|
<p>01:38 <@mids> because of the bot output I think...
|
|
<p>01:38 <@nop> well
|
|
<p>01:38 <@nop> I think if aprogas asks to stop
|
|
<p>01:38 <@nop> he should do it privately
|
|
<p>01:38 <@nop> then he should see it
|
|
<p>01:38 <@nop> unless he's running certain irc clients
|
|
<p>01:38 <@mids> depends
|
|
<p>01:38 <@nop> but that's another issue
|
|
<p>01:38 <@mids> lot of people dont check private messages
|
|
<p>01:38 < ArdVark> he cann do it privately, but I sense I need not stop because of his/her request
|
|
<p>01:39 < ArdVark> if no one else is talking
|
|
<p>01:39 <@mids> he was talking
|
|
<p>01:39 < CyberLOK1> mids ignorance is not an excuss
|
|
<p>01:39 < CyberLOK1> sorry spelling
|
|
<p>01:39 <@mids> now you dont want to stop
|
|
<p>01:39 <@mids> how much talking is needed for you to stop?
|
|
<p>01:39 < ArdVark> once again we have Aprogas a friend of an OP being supported by that OP
|
|
<p>01:39 < ArdVark> therein lies the problem
|
|
<p>01:40 <@mids> I understand your point
|
|
<p>01:40 < ArdVark> a threat to me who is no friend to the OP's and my speech
|
|
<p>01:40 <@mids> but I dont see a solution, except that you create your own channel with your rules
|
|
<p>01:41 < ArdVark> well why tell me to create one, why not tell your frend instead?
|
|
<p>01:41 <@mids> we created #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:41 < CyberLOK1> um how about 1 bot in each created channel that is oped.. then when a script kiddie flood is detected it protects the channel
|
|
<p>01:41 < ArdVark> see how it goes back to problem with OP's and their friends
|
|
<p>01:41 < CyberLOK1> then there is no more issue... no one is opped only 1 person and its not even a person so no one can claim biad
|
|
<p>01:41 < CyberLOK1> bias
|
|
<p>01:42 <@nop> but the programmer writes the biasedness
|
|
<p>01:42 < ArdVark> right
|
|
<p>01:42 < CyberLOK1> nop basic rules
|
|
<p>01:42 < CyberLOK1> if channel == lines per sec
|
|
<p>01:42 < CyberLOK1> if this many people are comming and going
|
|
<p>01:42 <@nop> hmm, mids can trent do this
|
|
<p>01:42 < CyberLOK1> then
|
|
<p>01:42 < CyberLOK1> lock channel kick out people flooding above this much
|
|
<p>01:42 < CyberLOK1> timeout at predefined
|
|
<p>01:43 <@mids> nop: technically yes, but I dont want trent to snoop on all channels
|
|
<p>01:43 <@nop> good point
|
|
<p>01:43 <@nop> what about just for #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:43 < CyberLOK1> well it would eliminate this "bias"
|
|
<p>01:43 <@nop> which is "THE" pub channel
|
|
<p>01:43 < CyberLOK1> I mean
|
|
<p>01:43 < CyberLOK1> lets face a fact here
|
|
<p>01:44 < CyberLOK1> you take risk running to the street shouting your words
|
|
<p>01:44 < CyberLOK1> here you risk maybe we all are out to get you and record what you say
|
|
<p>01:45 < CyberLOK1> risk is all of life and if they can not deal with "snooping" (which its not but hey) then tell um to get out thier banners and head to the street
|
|
<p>01:45 <@nop> no
|
|
<p>01:45 <@nop> no snooping
|
|
<p>01:45 <@nop> we don't want snooping
|
|
<p>01:45 <@nop> the argument is not of this
|
|
<p>01:45 < CyberLOK1> nop anyone and anything can snoop
|
|
<p>01:45 <@nop> it's that #anonymous is a pub channel
|
|
<p>01:46 <@nop> what I'm saying is
|
|
<p>01:46 <@nop> we're not going to abuse the power of trent
|
|
<p>01:46 <@nop> and become the gov't
|
|
<p>01:46 < CyberLOK1> ahhh
|
|
<p>01:46 < CyberLOK1> kk well
|
|
<p>01:46 <@nop> that's hardly called for
|
|
<p>01:46 < CyberLOK1> we can form "public" channel groups
|
|
<p>01:46 < CyberLOK1> this consists of channels formed by people
|
|
<p>01:46 < CyberLOK1> who dont want ops anymore but want thier channel protected
|
|
<p>01:47 < CyberLOK1> and there for it would be a self election
|
|
<p>01:47 < CyberLOK1> an "option"
|
|
<p>01:47 < CyberLOK1> this way no one choice is taken away
|
|
<p>01:47 < CyberLOK1> and you could use trent to protect the anonymous channel as an example
|
|
<p>01:47 <@nop> just trent for #anonymous because #anonymous is founded as the Public channel on IIP
|
|
<p>01:47 < CyberLOK1> others can leave it to op wars and other such nonsense
|
|
<p>01:47 <@nop> the rest is not trent's duty
|
|
<p>01:48 <@nop> look
|
|
<p>01:48 < CyberLOK1> nop I was thinking
|
|
<p>01:48 < CyberLOK1> I want to form a channel
|
|
<p>01:48 < CyberLOK1> but I myself dont want to deal with ops and yada
|
|
<p>01:48 < CyberLOK1> I want just like you guys freedom of speech
|
|
<p>01:48 <@nop> ardvark I understand your concern, it makes complete sense, but without a solution or idea from you, I need to know what can be done
|
|
<p>01:48 < CyberLOK1> unless I would be allowed to run a bot in my channel
|
|
<p>01:48 <@nop> do you have a proposal
|
|
<p>01:48 <@nop> and/or can you offer one by the next meeting
|
|
<p>01:49 < ArdVark> well if you are using trent to "control" #anonymous, can you please always place in the topic or have an intro for each user?
|
|
<p>01:49 < ArdVark> to let them know of this
|
|
<p>01:49 <@nop> I don't think we will do this
|
|
<p>01:49 <@nop> but if we could have a proposal from you
|
|
<p>01:49 <@nop> by next meeting
|
|
<p>01:49 <@nop> on what ideas you think would be acceptable
|
|
<p>01:50 <@nop> then that can be accepted and we can work it out so that it make everyone happy
|
|
<p>01:50 <@nop> we are just trying to protect the network as well
|
|
<p>01:50 <@nop> and that's the stance I'm coming from
|
|
<p>01:50 <@nop> so that everyone can use it efficiently
|
|
<p>01:50 < CyberLOK1> foofd time
|
|
<p>01:50 <@nop> and I want to respect the freedom of speech as well
|
|
<p>01:50 < ArdVark> nop I believe that must be worked out over time, I cannot promise in some business-like fashion a solution for next time
|
|
<p>01:50 < CyberLOK1> here here nop
|
|
<p>01:50 <@mids> okay, thanks for dropping by CyberLOK1
|
|
<p>01:50 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> that's fair
|
|
<p>01:51 < CyberLOK1> np mids
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> but let's just work it out
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> then
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> the hard fact is
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> we're humans
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> and a community
|
|
<p>01:51 <@nop> so it' s a challenge to not want to control
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> but I need a pseudo-utopia idea, but someone has to defend the utopia as well
|
|
<p>01:52 < ArdVark> no too many people are used to irc OP's where if you dissent with them you are kicked
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:52 < ArdVark> so if I dissent with an OP kicking someone
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> I understand the complain
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> complaint
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> and I believe that this can be a problem
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> and that no one is perfect
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> so what we can do is set up a standard
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> I think that mids idea
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> of no ops
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> in #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> for a while
|
|
<p>01:52 <@nop> might be a workable solution
|
|
<p>01:52 < ArdVark> actually nop most people will not complain, they will just leave and not return
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> well
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> no ops for 2 weeks
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> in #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:53 <@mids> I still propose no ops for 2 weeks
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> and the only, and strictly only time
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> is if there is without a doubt a malicious attack on #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> by a script kiddie
|
|
<p>01:53 <@mids> no
|
|
<p>01:53 <@mids> no ops is no ops
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:53 <@mids> then you have to do it right
|
|
<p>01:53 <@nop> fair enough
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> no ops
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> two weeks
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> in #anonymous
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> agreed?
|
|
<p>01:54 < UnDeRToW> not agree with no ops
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> all say I
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> we can vote can't we
|
|
<p>01:54 < UnDeRToW> one op only for big problems
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> that can't be done
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> it would still have biased
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> it's just 2 weeks
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> worse case scenario we deal with it
|
|
<p>01:54 <@nop> and measure it out
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> and say
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> is it worth it
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> in 2 weeks
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> ardvark
|
|
<p>01:55 <@mids> it would be an experiment, maybe with very interesting results
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> will that satisfy you for this temporarily till we can look at better options
|
|
<p>01:55 < ArdVark> OK
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> ok
|
|
<p>01:55 <@nop> done
|
|
<p>01:55 < ArdVark> thanks
|
|
<p>01:55 <@mids> great
|
|
<p>01:56 <@mids> now what topic do we use?
|
|
<p>01:56 <@nop> the one that's up there
|
|
<p>01:56 <@nop> ;)
|
|
<p>01:56 <@mids> ok, do you remove everyone from the access list?
|
|
<p>01:58 <@nop> can you please mids
|
|
<p>01:58 <@nop> for two weeks
|
|
<p>02:00 < ArdVark> however I really do not think we have resolved the issue of what is flooding; and the implications therein
|
|
<p>02:00 < ArdVark> if you want to talk about what the network can handle
|
|
<p>02:00 < ArdVark> cause I understand programs have limitations
|
|
<p>02:01 <@mids> (#anonymous accesslist is clear)
|
|
<p>02:01 < ArdVark> but have you ever been in #anonymous when the conversation is fast a furious
|
|
<p>02:01 < ArdVark> some people words pass by without being readable for me
|
|
<p>02:01 <@mids> yes, then I think that the normal typing exceeds the ircd floodrate :)
|
|
<p>02:02 < ArdVark> how is that different from so called spam or flooding?
|
|
<p>02:02 < AgentDelta> a hypothetical question, i hope i'm not out of line... if there was some kind of strong authentication system to authenticate to a known anonymous user with a micropayment account attached so users pay for breaking specified behavior, would that address flooding concerns? how difficult would it be to integrate such an api into the system?
|
|
<p>02:02 <@mids> AgentDelta: like hashcash for instance?
|
|
<p>02:02 <@mids> AgentDelta: not.. spam is also personal judged
|
|
<p>02:03 < wilde> Freedom of speech isn't equal to forcing people to listen, #anonymous is general place for chat, but if you want more freedom you should start your channel and discuss what you want and with as many sentences as you like per second
|
|
<p>02:03 <@mids> s/agentdelta/ardvark/
|
|
<p>02:03 < ArdVark> I agree mids, spam is personal
|
|
<p>02:04 <@mids> AgentDelta: and so it flood... even the flood that the ircd denies... some human picked the values for it
|
|
<p>02:04 < Neo> wilde: yeah, then you OP your own rules in your own channel.
|
|
<p>02:04 < ArdVark> look, I have no problem with people having their own channels with their own rules; so be it
|
|
<p>02:04 < ArdVark> #anonymous was started as I remember for anonymous free speech
|
|
<p>02:05 < AgentDelta> if the channels aren't owned, i guess you have the tragedy of the commons
|
|
<p>02:05 < ArdVark> commons is not a tragedy
|
|
<p>02:06 < AgentDelta> no, commons isn't a tragedy, but it doesn't have a specific owner who looks out for it
|
|
<p>02:06 < AgentDelta> and litter and other artifacts of this absence of an owner is called the tragedy
|
|
<p>02:07 < Neo> the commons can become a tragedy, and that is why we are talking about how to deal with people who flood the system and could turn #anonymous into nothing but a flood zone.
|
|
<p>02:07 < AgentDelta> ok
|
|
<p>02:07 < ArdVark> you mean like someone to be "accountable" AgentDelta? Using the economic view of life
|
|
<p>02:08 < AgentDelta> no, "accountable" implies accountability to some outside power. if i own this piece of land, i'm going to keep it in good shape for my own selfish reasons
|
|
<p>02:08 < Neo> AgentDelta: no, accountable could mean accountable to internal users of the system.
|
|
<p>02:09 < Neo> We were thinking about forum mentors for DC forums.
|
|
<p>02:09 < Neo> They are not all powerfull channel dictators,
|
|
<p>02:09 < Neo> but if they censor people, they will be held accountable to the users of the system.
|
|
<p>02:09 < AgentDelta> explain
|
|
<p>02:09 < Neo> So if mids is the op of #anonymous and he abuses op power, then he can get removed of his status,
|
|
<p>02:10 < Neo> and he also suffers reputation damage.
|
|
<p>02:10 < Neo> So someone that is impartial controls true FLOODING and real abuse of the system by users.
|
|
<p>02:10 < AgentDelta> ok, so you have some stated standard of under what strict circumstances someone could be silenced, and if someone uses op powers demonstrably outside of the listed guidelines, he loses op status?
|
|
<p>02:10 < wilde> Actually I think this discussion is really not a big thing, everyone is free to start their own moderated/unmoderated channels, if this is a battle of the #anonymous channel I think most users agree that this general chat channel is best without flooding or promotion of child porn for example, so some minimal control is needed
|
|
<p>02:11 < ArdVark> I disagree wilde
|
|
<p>02:12 <@mids> AgentDelta: yes, but now the channel founders are free to choose their standards
|
|
<p>02:12 < AgentDelta> absent some mechanism to establish order, the most powerful takes control over any place, physical or virtual, and i submit in an irc channel, flooders and spammers are the most powerful.
|
|
<p>02:13 < AgentDelta> the sheer volume of noise can overwhelm any logical argument
|
|
<p>02:13 < AgentDelta> hehe
|
|
<p>02:13 <@mids> AgentDelta: but what is noise? :)
|
|
<p>02:13 < ArdVark> noise has it's value too
|
|
<p>02:13 < AgentDelta> that's true,
|
|
<p>02:14 < AgentDelta> you could have a channel with so much noise in it that you can insert stenographic data that is'nt obvious
|
|
<p>02:14 < wilde> ArdVark: You say you disagree, but on what?
|
|
<p>02:15 < ArdVark> wilde I will just stand on that statement for now, sorry
|
|
<p>02:15 < AgentDelta> an anonymous channel with a constant stream of noise seems to serve an entirely different purpose from an anonymous channel with expectation of real-time communication to/from other minds
|
|
<p>02:15 < Neo> The issue right now is not about noise.
|
|
<p>02:15 < AgentDelta> maybe it needs a separate channel for anonymous communication for a general purpose, and anonymous communication for conversation
|
|
<p>02:15 < Neo> It is about abuse of the #anonymous channel from users flooding the system.
|
|
<p>02:15 < wilde> ArdVark: you're arguments are brilliant
|
|
<p>02:16 < wilde> s/you're/your
|
|
<p>02:16 <@mids> Neo: and (potential) abuse of operator power
|
|
<p>02:16 <@mids> anyway, I am going to sleep.. thanks for dropping by. The channel logs are and will be available on http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/
|
|
<p>02:20 < ArdVark> is the meeting over? guess so
|
|
<p>02:21 < Neo> yeah, got quiet in here.
|
|
<p>02:21 < ArdVark> nice discussion all, see you in #anonymous
|
|
<p>02:22 < UnDeRToW> time to sleep
|
|
<p>02:22 < UnDeRToW> bye everybody
|
|
<p>02:22 < Neo> l8r
|
|
<p>02:22 < UnDeRToW> nop
|
|
<p>02:22 < UnDeRToW> i will start with the translation of new docs soon
|
|
<p>02:22 < UnDeRToW> see you
|
|
<p>02:22 < UnDeRToW> bye
|
|
<p>10:12 -!- UserX_ is now known as UserX
|
|
<p>--- Log closed Wed Jul 03 10:29:14 2002
|
|
</div>
|
|
{% endblock %}
|