I think something is wrong with the services database. Some channels suddenly changed ownership to "FurNet" without permission from the founders of those channels. 11:13PM If you have any problems like that Simba, email [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org. Oh. 11:14PM Anything else? So it's not an error? 11:14PM Some of the channels that have been abandoned here on Furnet have been changed to Furnet whilst a new owner is found. Oh I see. So, you're still doing the "Opers get involved with channel workings and politics" schtick. At least some things never change. 11:15PM Anything else Simba? 11:15PM Actually Im not doing any of it at all. 11:15PM But nice to see you are still assuming as such. Anything else? Hey, I never said, "You are still getting involved" I said "opers are still getting involved" 11:16PM You run your network your way, we'll run ours how we want to. 11:16PM Anything else? Hmm, not just yet. I'll be back in a bit when I come up with more pwning. :) From [address redacted]@pridelands.org Tue Apr 20 00:24:25 2004 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 00:24:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet It has come to my attention that some long-standing FurNet channels have been mysteriously taken-over by the "FurNet" user and had their access lists wiped. I know at least some of them haven't expired due to inactivity, so I was wondering why they were suddenly ripped out from under their founders and users. In particular, I'm speaking of #SAFurs, #Furry, #DeadDog!, #Yerf, #Foxes, and #mifur. I don't know how many others have fallen prey to this seemingly random services "glitch", but I was wondering if there were logs of access lists or founders that can restore them to the way they were should that be requested by their founders. --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org [[ Sven Tegethoff / Cheetah is cheetah_spotty on LiveJournal ]] Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:28:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Sven Tegethoff <[address redacted]@tigress.com> To: "Scott 'Simba' G" <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> cc: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Scott 'Simba' G wrote: > > It has come to my attention that some long-standing FurNet channels > have been mysteriously taken-over by the "FurNet" user and had their > access lists wiped. Yup. We have reset ownership of those channels whose founders moved to AnthroChat. There was a significant interest to continue some long existing traditional channels on furnet, and so we had to change the ownership to keep them operational. yours, Cheetah Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:19:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> X-Sender: [address redacted]@dogma.fanarchive.net To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Sven Tegethoff wrote: > Yup. We have reset ownership of those channels whose founders moved to > AnthroChat. There was a significant interest to continue some long > existing traditional channels on furnet, and so we had to change the > ownership to keep them operational. So, let me get this straight (so I have complete clarity behind your uncaring attitude toward the wishes of your channel founders and can use it to further humiliate the Furnet administration in public Furry forums all over the world): You did _not_ consult the wishes of the founders of those channels before you yanked those channels out from under those founders and reset their topics and access lists? You meddled into the affairs of the inner workings of the channels on your network yet again? --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:40:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Sven Tegethoff <[address redacted]@tigress.com> To: "Scott 'Simba' G" <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> cc: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Scott 'Simba' G wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Sven Tegethoff wrote: > > > Yup. We have reset ownership of those channels whose founders moved to > > AnthroChat. There was a significant interest to continue some long > > existing traditional channels on furnet, and so we had to change the > > ownership to keep them operational. > > You did _not_ consult the wishes of the > founders of those channels before you yanked those channels out from under > those founders and reset their topics and access lists? Yes, we did NOT honour the wish of the original founders to make widely used public channels either inoperable or turn them into political instruments to lure users away from furnet. > You meddled into the affairs of the inner workings of the channels on > your network yet again? In this case, it's more like the "outer workings". yours, Cheetah Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:57:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Sven Tegethoff wrote: > Yes, we did NOT honour the wish of the original founders to make > widely used public channels either inoperable or turn them into > political instruments to lure users away from furnet. Spoken like a true fascist, Cheetah. Well put. You're basically saying, "You're not allowed to consolidate your channel onto the network where you feel it will better be served because we say so and we're the gods around here." It's a good thing you're looking out for interest and wishes of your users there, dude. > In this case, it's more like the "outer workings". No. The founders of the channels on YOUR network decided to better house _their own channel_ on AnthroChat. These founders and channel regulars decided to do so because of all of your colossal screw-ups, and you're now ripping away their freedom of method for telling their regulars where to find their channels. The most frequent question from regulars who don't know about what is going on when they enter one of these channels is, "Hey, where is everybody?" If people want to gather in similar channels with similar topics on Furnet, there's NOTHING stopping them from forming a new channel for it. You're doing this because you're listening to vocal minority whiners, like Ozone, AGAIN instead of upholding the wishes of the people responsible for their own channels. THAT'S "meddling with inner workings". I don't care how you try to dance around it. This is the kind of bullshit that is costing you users. Keep it up, though. It just makes AnthroChat all that more inviting. :) A mass of forced takeovers like that really takes the cake beyond any of the hare-brained stunts that have been pulled before. You never cease to amaze me at how completely facist you all are, especially when your _posted code of oper conduct_'s bright, glaring second rule says, "You will not interfere with channel management". Way to follow your own rules, guys. Also... Since #SAFurs has fallen under the same fate and you gave the reasoning, "There was a significant interest to continue some long existing traditional channels on furnet", I have to ask: Was there significant interest to continue #SAFurs on Furnet? That's freakin' hilarious. :) I'm not going to trying to tell you how to run your network. Consider my statements as merely "more ideas" or "thoughts from a different angle" and take them as you will. As always, I'm just trying to keep you thinking a little more thoroughly about what you're doing, that's all. --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org From [address redacted]@tigress.com Wed Apr 21 02:24:50 2004 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:24:59 +0200 From: Sven Tegethoff <[address redacted]@tigress.com> To: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> Cc: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet At 11:57 20.04.2004 -0400, you wrote: >On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Sven Tegethoff wrote: > >> Yes, we did NOT honour the wish of the original founders to make >> widely used public channels either inoperable or turn them into >> political instruments to lure users away from furnet. > > Spoken like a true fascist, Cheetah. End of conversation. Rest ignored. yours, Cheetah From [address redacted]@pridelands.org Wed Apr 21 02:46:38 2004 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:24:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Re: Channels mysteriously changing ownership to FurNet On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Sven Tegethoff wrote: > End of conversation. Rest ignored. lol --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org -------------------------***********---------------------------- Addendum from Simba: I'm almost ready to book travel plans to Eurofurence this year to meet this guy and see how he runs a convention. I find it almost impossible to believe that someone can be THIS unreasonable and uncaring toward his patrons in real life. "Thanks for coming up with a good topic for a channel and working to make it successful, well-known, and popular. Now that you've decided it would be better to host it on a different network, you're not allowed to tell your regulars how to find it." That's like the post office telling you that, "No, you may NOT leave a forwarding address when you move to a new house." Another interesting tidbit is how #Foxes was included in that list and it's a channel that has only been around for about 2-4 months. I'd hardly call that "traditional". ---------------------------------------------- Here's the next bit of fascism shining through: Closing Link: anthrochat.net (Autokilled: Unauthorised bot "|" - see http://www.furnet.org/policies/bot-policy.html) -:- SignOff |:#EatShitAndDie,#FloridaFurs (Autokilled: Unauthorised bot "|" - see http://www.furnet.org/policies/bot-policy.html) HOWDY, my friendly, neighborhood fascist draconianist ist ists. Anyone know why my idle client got akilled? 06:30PM Which one? The unauthorized bot? Bot? What bot? Do you have any logs to indicate that I was running a bot? (Anything that suggests that my client was doing any "bot-like" things) 06:54PM I just know that some bot named "|" was killed. Ahh, okay. Yeah, that was just my channel troll aid. I use it to accompany me in channels that I'm trolling so that when I'm banned, I can still see the aftermath of the trolling. It's really harmless, but no more than just another BitchX session. (lol @ my tongue-in-cheekyness) Seriously, though, it wasn't any more than another connected client as far as you guys were concerned. Why did it all of a sudden get targeted as a "bot"? 06:59PM We had a bot application for it which was refused? Ooohhhh, funny you mention that. I never got ANY response about my bot application. I figured it went through the normal channels and was approved. :( Anyway, since I never did receive a response, I didn't run it as a bot. It was just another registered nickname that I could use for various server testing and whatnot. FURTHERMORE - If it was rejected and I didn't receive any formal notice of rejection, could I trouble you guys for one? I'd love to see the reasoning behind its rejection. 07:06PM I'll check. -:- ZetaWolf [ZetaWolf@FurNet] has joined #FurNet -:- mode/#FurNet [+o ZetaWolf] by FurBot 07:06PM Hiya Simba Oh hi 07:08PM What can I do for ya? :) Oh, I was just inquiring our dear Hurga here about my poor, unknowing, idle client's (|) akill. It didn't do anything to anyone and all of a sudden BOOM no more connecty to the networky. 07:11PM Wansn't it a link bot of some sort? Poor thing. I'd love to see logs of its "linking". =) 07:12PM * >ZetaWolf #FurNet puts a band-aide on | 07:12PM I didn't personally see it acting as a link 07:12PM I dont think Hurga was around to see it acting as a link Ahh, and I bet that nobody did, for it was just an idle client. Put forth as bait to get more instances of humiliating Furnet fascism. ^_^ 07:13PM I wasn't here but for a few mins off and on this weekend Same here. I was partying with Drykath, Fredryk, Shanerak, nothingkat, Shadowpaw, Ronny, Geemo, AcidWolf, and a few others. I found out about its akill when I got back from my fun-filled weekend. 07:14PM if it was just an idle client, I apologize and will remove the akill on it and will send a note to the admins list explaint it was a plain old client. 07:14PM I think the idea that it was a link bot was because of the application that was put in a while back for it to be a link bot 07:15PM But if you do decide to have it as a link bot linking this network with any other network can you please drop a bot application to admin@ ? 07:15PM before making it active? 07:16PM I think it was a honest mistake, as it was thought to be a bot because of the application that was put in a while back I already did that. I got no response. I figured it was good to go, 'cause I heard nothing come back and I definitely waited more than ample time for it to go through the normal (supposedly one week) process of "bot application"-ness. 07:17PM as far as it being a link bot, just my personal opinion, as long as we have a way to mute certin users if they are being abusive to our users I dont have a problem with it It's been more than a month. You mute certain users by muting the whole bot. 07:18PM as you know, I don't handle the bot applications but If you do decide to have it as a link bot and it is ok'd with the others or if there is questions regarding it I can make sure to contact you. +b [redacted]@anthrochat.net Problem solved until bad user goes away. 07:19PM Can you please resend the application stating what channels and what it would do? and you might want to add your suggestion regarding the "what if there is a problem user on the other end" problem 07:20PM But..the one problem I can see happening, is if one of the admins comes to a channel that has the bot on it.. and we're getting complaints.. wouldnt we be interfearing with how the channel is ran?? Yeah, which is why you tell your users how they can fix their own problems. 07:21PM * >ZetaWolf #FurNet nods The bot wouldn't be joining channels that it wasn't invited to. 07:21PM I'm not promising that the others would be willing to have any kind of link bot on here. 07:21PM I am just stating my opinion 07:22PM Does that sound fair?? I know. I'm reeeaallly interested in the "other opinions". :) 07:23PM I know I know :p 07:23PM I stay outta all that drama crap :) 07:23PM I think all the drama bullshit is.. just that.. bullshit :p 07:24PM I personally don't have the time or energy to participate in all that stuff :) I hear ya, mang. 07:24PM You know that if I have a problem with something you might be doing or not doing I just ask ya about it Okay, I have to get to the Funday Pawpet Show. I'm already late. See ya. :) 07:25PM okay see ya have fun@! -:- Simba [[address redacted]@pridelands.org] has left #furnet [] From [address redacted]@pridelands.org Tue May 4 01:11:59 2004 Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 19:43:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott 'Simba' G <[address redacted]@pridelands.org> To: [address redacted]@irc.furnet.org Subject: Any news on my bot application from 38 DAYS AGO GREETINGS, my fellow, furry drama queens. I put in an application for a bot on March 26th. I was under the impression that the normal procedure for authorizing a bot was: 1. User sends an application to the admin list 2. A nebulous team member on the admin list sends the request to the users list for user review. 3. Users offer up legitimate excuses as to why the bot should not be allowed. Legitimate excuses would be from op-level regulars of channels that the bot was slated to attend. 4. After ONE WEEK (ie. seven days), the bot would be approved and added to the network's "allowed bots" list. I completed step #1 over a month ago, and it hasn't made it to step 2 yet. I was wondering what the hold-up was. I thought that maybe since so much time had passed without so much as a peep, it had just silently been approved. I mean, it WAS over 30 days ago. Just to test the waters, I connected a regular, idle client to the network with the proposed bot's nickname, real name, and hostmask to see if it would get akilled by Furnet's usual overzealous administrative actions or if it would just be accepted because it had gone through more than ample registration time. It appears that my poor, idle, normal client that wasn't performing ANY bot functions whatsoever was akilled by overzealous administrative action. Tisk tisk. So, anyway, since my client wasn't doing any bot-like things, and since the bot approval process fell flat on its face due to the negligence of Furnet's administrative staff, may I have my akill lifted and my bot's name added to the list of approved bots? kthx. Also, I didn't get any response to my query about the users list functionality. It seems to only be accepting posts from administrators and not doing its primary function of allowing the users to discuss the network. =[[ --- Scott 'Simba' G [address redacted]@pridelands.org