Forums General Discussion My complaint and criticism against Efnet #mIRC.

if it's so bad, change network, you don't need to hang on efnet, but if a user can't behave, then the network or opers don't matter, the user will get the same problem where ever he goes..

Think of it more like a public building that has security in it (ops) and the security (ops) tell you you're not allowed to return because you were causing trouble. They have every right to prevent you from returning.

It doesn't matter what you think. Ops can do whatever they want to. Period. Nothing you say can or will change that on ANY channel. If you don't like how a channel is run, go somewhere else. Don't start bashing things in a public forum for no reason. And, like others have said, you're just digging your grave deeper... everything you say is making you sound worse and worse and making everyone completely certain that you should have been banned regardless of the circumstances.

Btw, I don't know the rules there and there may not even be a rule specific to not running any kind of scripts in the channel. Or, they may allow ops and/or voices to do so. However, your specific script was a very bad script to be running in ANY channel and there is no reason why you should be allowed to run that unban notification script regardless of any other script-related rules.

This seems like trying to drive a nail into concrete with a sponge.

~ Edit ~
I think LostShadow could really help the IRC community by creating a channel named #Complaints, then users who feel that they were treated unjustly can go there to complain to him and he would make them feel better by saying "yeah, yeah... YEAH" and then threaten the offending channel with legal action. He could be of real service to some.

Those are 100% valid rules if the ops of a channel choose to use them. Just because you don't like those rules, doesn't mean they can't be used in that channel as justification for banning you. The simple fact is, that the ops do not need any reason or proof for banning you. It is their channel and they can do whatever they want in their channel, and it has nothing to do with faith.

For example: I don't agree with the 100km/h (60MPH) speed limit on the highway near my house. I'm not required to obey that speed limit. However, if I choose to speed, and I get caught, the fact that I don't agree with the law is irrelevent, and I will still get a speeding ticket. If I then pay that ticket and choose to continue speeding after warnings and punishment have been given, then I will encur more severe punishments (loss of driving licence). To relate more back to your complaint, if I happened to be friends with one of the police officers who pulled me over for speeding slightly over the speed limit, that officer may choose to give me only a warning. But why would one person get a ticket, and another get a warning? The answer is discretion. It is up to the officer to choose whether to warn or ticket.

Now, I know you will point out that speeding is a measurable quality, and you are correct on that point. So that example would more closely correspond to your 83% caps statement. A more subjective example, keeping with the driving example, would be 'dangerous driving'. There is no 'danger-ometer'.

One point in your complaint, that I noticed, is that you are transforming a very specific case into an excessively broad statement.



So? That channel has nothing to do with the channel in question, nor any other channel on any IRC network anywhere.


That is a very noble idea, and I encourage you to employ such a theory on a channel that you are an op and/or founder.


-
Anyway, I have other things to do today, so I won't spend hours typing in this thread. I probably left some of my statements half completed, but I honestly don't care.

-genius_at_work

I note several fallacies in question going around. I started this topic about Efnet #mIRC. Not a typical channel in general.

I'm looking for answers for Efnet #mIRC
Efnet #mIRC is an IRC channel.
Therefore, here's the answers for an IRC channel!

Call it the opposite of division fallacy?

Now, according to /list, the 'mode' of IRC channels probably has 1 user. Matter fact, most troll channels do not have a message board affiliated or a rules page or anything. And Efnet #mIRC is not a troll channel.

Now, suppose a channel (for whatever reason), had rules. Posted rules. I suppose if a channel had rules, 1 could argue the logic of it, or argue whether a rule was broken or not. Then, the answers could be "Oh, I see how I broke my rule now, my bad," or, "Oh, I see you didn't break the rule. *Unban.*"

An example of this is a caps rule, such as 80%.

"Hi, why did I get banned? I only said 75% caps. Rule was 80% minimum."
"No, you said 83.33%, here's my reasoning proof."
"Oh, okay, I now see how you took into consideration spaces, periods, commas, and exclamation marks. I indeed did say > 80% caps."

Anyways, about 3 people that posted on the thread are the appeal to authority, as only about 3 of them were Efnet #mIRC ops.

I particularly got 3 answers from 2 ops, argv0 (argv[0]) and Bekar.

They were "reputation" and "being liked," from argv0, and about "trust," from Bekar. The other op was Mentality. There might be other ops with other relevant stuff to add.

And apparently, almost everyone else that posted is not affiliated with the channel, whatever anyone else had to say about "IRC channels in general" - well, they certainly are free to post, but rather can be meaningless to me. Because we like specific cases and specific situations.

-Neal.

Comparing a "60 mph speed limit" rule is not equivalent to a "do not argue with ops." rule. It would be equivalent to no flooding more than 6 lines a second or something. On the contrary, a "do not argue with ops" rule is equivalent to "do not argue with police officer" rule.



Basically, I was just referencing that it was a rule based on a channel in real life on IRC, not completely made up. (Not that it matters.)

-Neal.

Threaten legal action? Oh no, - if no law is broken on IRC, it would be meaningless to make legal action threats. Such a channel would not be ideal on Efnet - Efnet doesn't have many teens and children.

-Neal.

It was a joke. Laugh.


* RoCk takes one more whack at the nail...


But see, the point is that Efnet #mIRC IS just a typical IRC channel. It is NOT an official mIRC channel, it is owned essentially by the ops that run it since they hold the power to control it. Regular users (you) have no rights on said channel, you may be kicked/banned for whatever reason(s) the op(s) may or may not have, and yes they may treat you unfairly (in your mind), that was the right given to them when they were made an op, a power which you (regular users) do not have. Either deal with it or just don't join the channel.

Do you perhaps mean these rules?

Some form of these rules has been on our website for many years (since approximately 1996), but admittadly just recently the link to them has dissapeared.

We're working to restore the original layout as it is.

I guess the question next to ask is - what is a typical channel.

Does a typical channel have only 1 attribute? If a typical channel has only 1 attribute, and all channels are typical channels, then all channels have the same attribute. Personally, I don't think it works that way. I think there are too many indifferent attributes that make up a channel. I apparently don't see in comparing a channel like Dalnet #Windows95 as opposed to #Stop.Whoising.Me.Bitch and finding a lot in common.

-Neal.

What the [censored] are you talking about?

IRC is IRC. There is only ever one true rule: Those with power will use and abuse it. Those without power have to take it unless they can convince someone with more power to do something about it.

And so to apply this to your situation:

The channel ops have power on that that channel. You don't. They banned you, now you have two options: Accept it or try and get someone with more power to step in. From your little performance here on the forums and the general attitude you have it seems you won't get another channel op to help you out. I'm also 100% certain that no EFNet IRC Op would help you with a trivial channel matter. Neither Khaled nor anybody on this forum can help you because as far as I can tell they really don't have anything to do with that channel. So accept your situation and stop bitching on a forum that has nothing to do with your problem and whose users (or at least me and everyone else who has responded to this thread so far) don't care one iota about it.

There have been 70 posts now going round in circles of people trying to explain that nobody here can or will do anything to help you and that by the sounds of it the ops of the channel were entirely justified in their actions. Not that it would matter if they weren't - your problem would still be irrelevant to this forum and would still be just the nature of IRC in action.

Grow up.

Is the topic of this thread a "My request to get unbanned from Efnet #mIRC?" Or is it "My complaint and criticism against Efnet #mIRC."



Call this the straw man? I sure don't deny the posts and advice/opinions going around.

-Neal.

Your assumption is that anyone cares. They don't. How many thousands of people get banned from channels on IRC each day? Why is this any more important?

I don't see how my ban is any significant.

Suppose there was a topic that no one cares about. It was meaningless. Therefore, the only posts that someone would post was to point out that the topic was meaningless. This could very well be the case for the "typical message board."

And then I don't think the regulars at mirc.com forums have idiots. Meaning, no one there would care to "feed the trolls."

So suppose I posted a meaningless topic that no 1 cared about in mirc.com forums. I would expect to get "0" replies.

-Neal.

Meaningless or not, you also flamed a specific channel which clearly a number of forums users go to. You knew exactly what you were doing trying to get people to respond. The art of trolling lives on.

Besides, whether people respond or not is irrelevant to whether you should have posted it here.

No I don't believe or want to give the ad hominem (to person and channel). Which channel was it and what did I say that was a flame?

-Neal.

See post 1.

Wow, the thread has gone full circle. Now we can all move on with our lives.

Cheque please!

Criticism/complaint != flame in my opinion.

And when I criticize, I use examples. Matter fact, I listed about 7 scenarios providing the veracity of my complaint.

Anyways, suppose I did flame a channel. My conclusion would still be irrelevant if I didn't provide my premise.

-Neal.

To make it clear for future posts:

If I someone said "this channel sucks!" and did not provide a reasoning behind it, then indeed, it was a troll topic, and no one has to bother responding to it.

And then of course, saying "this channel sucks" is also not specific.

But if someone said "this channel sucks because of these 7 reasons," and he listed the 7 reasons, providing examples, and scenarios of how it happened in real life, then that would be something else.

No where in my topic have I said I was requesting to be unbanned. No where in my topic did I say I was upset of not being unbanned.

Which is why I don't want any straw mans/red herrings/ad hominems/slipper slope, etc.

I came here to discuss the logic (or possibly illogic) of the provided scenarios and situations in post 1. These are specific situations of a specific channel, which I find somewhat linked to the forums. That's all a complaint is - merely a complaint.

-Neal.

Edit: And I did get some relevant answers, such as "you must build reputation," "you must build trust." Etc.

Your findings are wrong: As everyone else has pointed out repeatedly, that channel has nothing to do with this forum other than some people happen to use both. As such, there is absolutely no reason why you should be complaining here. It doesn't matter if you have reasons, premises, or conclusions, this is the wrong place.