mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Quote:
"Well by dodging a ban you have become a ban evader, which is in essence an 'IRC criminal' who would be banned again immediately if they found out."

That's an interesting point. Technically, they have not banned me as an individual, but rather the server I use. Therefore, if I merely change my server, then I am not really being banned anymore, am I? It's the name which they are banning, not the human.

- Well with my 'Keep Out sign' analogy the sign was meant to keep out people who commit criminal acts as a whole, not you as an individual criminal, therefore by your *logic* you can enter private property because rules apply to *people*, not you as an individual. You're trying to rationalise something which cannot be rationalised without eliminating all boundaries.

Quote:
"How you you like it if someone you banned came on here and said that he was banned from your channel but that the ban shouldn't apply to him because he decided it didn't and we all gave him a list of proxies to dodge it?"

I would find it intellectually stimulating. A cat and mouse game.

- Just as a burglar enjoys the cat and mouse game of trying to enter a house illegally, or the cat and mouse game of a serial killer and his/her victim? After all, someone trying to not be murdered is just an invitation for you to try and dodge their attempts and murder them isn't it? Once again, your views are illogical and in a broader sense justify anything imaginable. I'm pretty sure you're already aware that your rationalisations don't make sense and you're just doing this for the sake of argument. If not then you have a psychological issue with boundaries and I'd suggest some kind of therapy.


Also I noticed you ignored my statement on how to get unbanned again, further demonstrating that the ban is meant for you so you can't ask the operators.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
T
texmex Offline OP
Ameglian cow
OP Offline
Ameglian cow
T
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
When I was first banned, I spoke to one of the channel operators and asked them why I wasn't allowed in. They told me they were sure I was someone else, and they didn't believe my story that "I'm new here". Since I realized there was no point talking to people who had already made up their mind, I decided to try to overcome their ban. There is apparently no software that lets me change my /whois information, and the proxy approach costs the same as my ISP, so I may as well just change ISPs and see what happens.

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 26
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 26
When I was first banned, I spoke to one of the channel operators and asked them why I wasn't allowed in. They told me they were sure I was someone else, and they didn't believe my story that "I'm new here".

Out of curiosity, what the heck is in that channel that you're so desperate to get inside even if you're not wanted? If you've already asked, and you've been told you wouldn't be allowed in, find another channel to chat in. At this point, even if you get in with another ISP, you will most likely simply be banned again. Why waste time and money trying to get around the ban rather than simply finding a different channel to chat in? That's what's baffling me.


Unknown error. (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer?
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
T
texmex Offline OP
Ameglian cow
OP Offline
Ameglian cow
T
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
"Two - Mentality's original post ("The only thing irrelevant here is your opinion" etc) was directed to Rounin, not you. Keep that in mind when replying."

Oops. Sorry, Mentality. I thought you were attacking me.

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 26
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 26
Oops.

Figured that's what had happened. smile As a suggestion - if you look at the top of each post, there's a mention of who the post is replying to (with a link to the post). This one for instance will have a [re: texmex] on it smile


Unknown error. (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)nfluence with large hammer?
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 177
K
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
K
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 177
tex, what folks are trying to tell ya, is that you don't have some -right- to be there.
There are thousands of channels, move along.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
Hm, you're right, I failed to remember the point in the forum rules about ban evasion. However, I think it would have been fair of you to point out those rules on the first page, rather than sparking a heated and one-sided ethical debate and then chastising the first person to disagree with you. Either we're debating ban evasion, or we're debating forum rules. And as far as forum rules are concerned, we agree.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
T
texmex Offline OP
Ameglian cow
OP Offline
Ameglian cow
T
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
"- Well with my 'Keep Out sign' analogy the sign was meant to keep out people who commit criminal acts as a whole, not you as an individual criminal, therefore by your *logic* you can enter private property because rules apply to *people*, not you as an individual. You're trying to rationalise something which cannot be rationalised without eliminating all boundaries."

Hmmmm, this is getting more interesting now. The sign applies to human beings. It's as if the house owner said to himself "Those human beings! 99% of them are pesky/rude/asshats ... I want them off of my property." If I change my species to a cat, let's say, then the sign would no longer apply to me. That's how I view changing my server name.



"- Just as a burglar enjoys the cat and mouse game of trying to enter a house illegally, or the cat and mouse game of a serial killer and his/her victim? After all, someone trying to not be murdered is just an invitation for you to try and dodge their attempts and murder them isn't it? Once again, your views are illogical and in a broader sense justify anything imaginable. I'm pretty sure you're already aware that your rationalisations don't make sense and you're just doing this for the sake of argument. If not then you have a psychological issue with boundaries and I'd suggest some kind of therapy."

Where you're wrong here is in the assumption that a different server name would be illegal. That room only wants to keep out users of a particular server. If they wanted ALL servers kept out, they would have banned the entire universe and been a room unto themselves.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,327
T
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
T
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,327
If you're so sure that they only want to keep out one server, then surely it won't do you any harm to ask them if you can use a different server to enter?


New username: hixxy
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
T
texmex Offline OP
Ameglian cow
OP Offline
Ameglian cow
T
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
"tex, what folks are trying to tell ya, is that you don't have some -right- to be there.
There are thousands of channels, move along."

Okay, I agree that I don't have a right to be there; that the room operators can behave in a totally irrational manner and keep me out.

But do I have a right to change my ISP, then walk into that room scot-free?

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 108
X
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
X
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 108
/me shakes his head

why is this thread still here? mad


sometimes these are as bad as quit messages :tongue:
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
T
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
T
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
I'm not even going to bother with this one anymore...

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
I don't know what planet you all live on, but the issue of whether ban evasion is a right or not is largely irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant, though not the only issue raised. When IRC was first introduced there was no real means to ban someone from a room. Why is this so? Because IRC was largely an unknown protocol and used only by professional computer users who had better things to do with their time than annoy other users.

When IRC began to appeal more to the masses they used to ban people like texmex by putting the room on +i (a mode that did exist at the time) and then kick the user out and simply restrict all entry until the channel owners hoped and prayed that the fool had left the server and found something else to occupy their time.

Soon after, someone suggested a more powerful and configurable way of dealing with troublemakers and mode +b was conceived. +b meant that specific connection details and/or nicknames could be banned from rooms without affecting innocent people. The trouble we have today is that people like you and texmex are determined to make +b an outmoded way of dealing with trouble.

As for IRC EULAs, AUPs or whatever you choose to call them, connecting to an IRC server does not signify an acceptance of such an agreement. These agreements are quasi-law at best, and one is not under an obligation to abide by those.

This depends on the country the server is located in and largely comes under civil law, regardless of the country. When you log into IRC you are presented with the message of the day which more often than not contains the terms (or a link to a website containing an AUP, etc) governing your use of the server/service. By continuing to use that server/service you are entering into an implied agreement to follow those terms. Failure to honour an agreement is classed as a breach of contract which leaves the offender liable to legal action which more often than not results in formal complaints to ISPs and in some cases the Police if a criminal offence is being committed. How this can be regarded as quasi-law is beyond me. I've been a server admin for quite a while and have had to deal with people getting past bans and I have had to, in cases where a person simply cannot be brought to understand what "You are not welcome on this server" means, sent a formal complaint to their ISP. Out of my habit of statesmanship I always include a reason for banning someone and quite frankly I am heartily sick and tired of people using proxies to circumvent my attempt to bring some peace back to a situation. Even worse is people like you who think it is okay for someone to deny they are the troublemaker and provide them with a means to reconnect. My thanks to Karen for removing the link you posted.

As far as I can tell, the poster has been banned unfairly and wishes for help on using a proxy so that he can get around the ban. I can't see that this is against my moral standards or any Norwegian laws, so here goes:

What are the chances that the user is not wanting to connect to a Norwegian server? I'd suggest that the chance is better than average therefore Norwegian law does not apply. At any rate my only reference to law originally was texmex connecting to someone's proxy without their permission. I am sure that Norwegians who own servers would disapprove of their IP being used to evade a ban as they are then responsible for any undesirable activity that texmex, or any other ban evader causes.

Above is a very helpful URL that will tell you how to set your mIRC up to work through a proxy. Of course, you don't have to subscribe to the proxy advertised on that page, you can use any proxy you can find that conforms to the standard.

Showing someone how to get themselves into further trouble is NOT helpful. It's stupid and a very bad reflection on you. You are worse than him because you "showed him the ropes".

I would ask myself though, "is it worth it?" Remember that you're trying to join a channel that chose to blanket ban you and many others.

Remember also that he is likely to raise eyebrows on his return. He'll most likely use the same nickname and the hosts of the channel will remember that he was asking to be unbanned. At the end of the day, it's not really worth the bother.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
T
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
T
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,237
I did a little digging and here's what i've found. Now I don't know if this can be of any help to you but I went to Tjerk's webpage and stumbled across this little section:

From the page:

You can not connect from AOL? AOL protects you from the evil IRC world and blocks most of the IRC servers. Read the AOL Help file to learn what servers you can use without problems.

Now as I said, I don't know if this will help or not but I don't know of anything else that can help you.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
I see now that our definitions of "implied agreements" are very different. Over here (Norway again) a EULA or a MOTD has about a million to one chance of passing as an implied agreement or an agreement of any sort, even if the user has expressly clicked an "I agree" button or something similar. It's often puzzled me how foreign servers and web sites can present users with huge licenses and contracts when they never collect a single signature. I guess that's exactly the same issue we're dealing with here.

As for the ban evasion itself, I agree that it's noone's right to evade a blanket ban, but I think that also goes for setting a ban, or just being on IRC in general. I agree with the URL being removed, since I obviously posted it being mindless of the forum rules, but I won't agree that setting a ban is any more ethical than evading it. What is unethical is connecting to IRC and bothering other users, but the above poster doesn't seem at all like a bother to me.

Anyway, interesting discussion... It just shows how different the views on Internet usage still are, especially with regards to connecting to other peoples' servers.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
It's often puzzled me how foreign servers and web sites can present users with huge licenses and contracts when they never collect a single signature.

And what exactly is a signature? It's a mark (often illegible) that someone places on a piece of paper to grant authority to the text above that mark. Since this is a little difficult to do to a computer screen there is two buttons (Okay and Cancel) instead.

Don't forget that some people cannot write either and in that case, even on a Statutory Declaration or Affidavit (sworn statements) a scrawl, thumbprint or even a rubber stamp can be used in lieu of an actual signature.

All in all it comes down to a person's integrity and the value of a handshake, a gentleman's agreement and the issue of a deal being a deal - if one agrees to something then they should stick to that agreement instead of being sneaky. By this I mean, for example, if someone logs into IRC and knowingly decides they have the right to breach the terms of an implied agreement then they deserve whatever comes to them.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
R
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
R
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 372
Duly noted.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1
M
Mostly harmless
Offline
Mostly harmless
M
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1
Let me fill you in on something. When you connect to a server, or accept the license agreement of a software package, even if you do not read it , you are legally bound to the agreement. The same applies for IRC servers. It is up to YOU to read the MOTD. I oper on 3 networks, one as a simple oper, another as a services admin, and on the last as a co-admin. For those that insist on evading bans set in place, both channel and server, I have no qualms about phoning up their ISP and having their service terminated right then and there. By trying to evade bans and get yourself into more trouble, you're also risking this, as well.

As it's been stated before, choose a different network and channel. One or the other, or both. That simple.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard