23 Sep, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Hi, can this please be explained to me? What am I supposed to be doing/not doing exactly?

Quote
09/23-00:49,55 Davion@ADP <ichat2> Crat: If you circumvent our filters, you will be banned
09/23-04:41,12 Davion@ADP <ichat2> disregard that thought you were bypassing the swearword cfilter
09/23-07:45,18 Cratylus <ichat2> what are you talking about?


-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
23 Sep, 2010, Dean wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Seems to me that Davion believed you were circumventing the swearword filter, then realised you weren't.
23 Sep, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
Seems to me that Davion believed you were circumventing the swearword filter, then realised you weren't.


I don't see how that's even remotely possible. Can you look at the log and tell me
what would make anyone think that?

And I'd like clarification on whether this is a MB or IMC2 ban that's being threatened. If
admins are going to wave a banstick, it would be nice to have clear communication on
what exactly provokes it and what kind of ban is being threatened.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
23 Sep, 2010, Davion wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
Seems to me that Davion believed you were circumventing the swearword filter, then realised you weren't.


Ya, I got a message saying a front page filter was being circumvented. However, my iphone isn't nearly as filtered as my home PC so I actually saw what he was saying. Still a pretty lame circumvention of another filter, but one I care less about ;). And it's far easier to just tell him to stop and ignore his retorts then actually approach the guy civially.
23 Sep, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Dean said:
Seems to me that Davion believed you were circumventing the swearword filter, then realised you weren't.


Ya, I got a message saying a front page filter was being circumvented. However, my iphone isn't nearly as filtered as my home PC so I actually saw what he was saying. Still a pretty lame circumvention of another filter, but one I care less about ;). And it's far easier to just tell him to stop and ignore his retorts then actually approach the guy civially.


I really don't understand this.

Some person reported a circumvention and you acted on it without checking?

Some alert reported a circumvention and you acted on it without checking?

Regardless, why did you warn me on IMC2 if the presumed violation was on MB?

Or maybe it was actually in a forum, not IMC2? What was the presumed violation?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
23 Sep, 2010, Dean wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Dean said:
Seems to me that Davion believed you were circumventing the swearword filter, then realised you weren't.


I don't see how that's even remotely possible. Can you look at the log and tell me
what would make anyone think that?


I'm not sure. I've looked through all the IMC logs on here and rummaged through the recent topics. I can't see anything.
23 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
The only thing that I can think of is that he might have mistaken something from another server as having occurred on MB; but having that big bold RESISTANCE IS FUTILE type admin message reminds me of why tend to think it's infinitely more tactful to approach the person first about that kind of thing before making a big row of things.

Maya/Rudha
23 Sep, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
The only thing that I can think of is that he might have mistaken something from another server as having occurred on MB; but having that big bold RESISTANCE IS FUTILE type admin message reminds me of why tend to think it's infinitely more tactful to approach the person first about that kind of thing before making a big row of things.


Here's the offense Rudha:
Cratylus@Dead_Souls_Dev http://bit.ly/cCKCiX

See this link goes to http://lpmuds.net/orange_will_not_peel.j...

There's a filter on IMC2 that munges links to http://lpmuds.net.
Making links to http://lpmuds.net on IMC2 is strictly forbidden and against the rulez.

Okay the rules say something different, but subverting the stupid code is probably worse.
Oh and criticizing the coding prowess of those involved in IMC2 is also against the rulez.

You probably want to carefully consider implementing IMC2.
It like a mud of muds, run like a really bad mush. Where some super mush admin monitors and munges your
communications between other muds, and holds you responsible for the communications of anyone using it on
your mud. Most people are fine when they figure out the power structure of this super mush (i.e. which asses
to kiss).

That being its primary flaw in design, a centralized point of failure.
24 Sep, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Here's the offense Rudha:
Cratylus@Dead_Souls_Dev http://bit.ly/cCKCiX

See this link goes to http://lpmuds.net/orange_will_not_peel.j...

There's a filter on IMC2 that munges links to http://lpmuds.net.
Making links to http://lpmuds.net on IMC2 is strictly forbidden and against the rulez.



Considering this:

Davion said:
Still a pretty lame circumvention of another filter


That does seem a fair, and even likely correct, conjecture on what Davion was
up to. He does munge the MB IMC2 logs to break the lpmuds.net links I post.

Why he does this URL sabotage I'll leave to him to explain. But given
that he does do it, and that I posted a bit.ly that goes to lpmuds.net, I
think the mystery is probably solved.

Davion probably got mad that his filter that breaks lpmuds.net urls isn't
as effective as he anticipated, then when he realized he'd banthreatened me
for something not in any rules anywhere, pretended it was really about
the swearfilter. Which obviously and manifestly it could not be, by any
stretch of the imagination.

The really pitiful part of it is that he and Kiasyn have stated he does not
perform administrative duties on IMC2 and he's gone so far as to make it
understood that his administrative pronouncements on IMC2 should not be taken
seriously. And yet his participation in this thread seems to be that of an
admin caught sheepishly in a tangle of his own ad hockery.


Tyche said:
You probably want to carefully consider implementing IMC2.
It like a mud of muds, run like a really bad mush. Where some super mush admin monitors and munges your
communications between other muds, and holds you responsible for the communications of anyone using it on
your mud. Most people are fine when they figure out the power structure of this super mush (i.e. which asses
to kiss).


Well, maybe MB IMC2. I run an intermud network compatible with IMC2 clients
and that network isn't all about the ass kissery and arbitrary rules. When
I ban someone (and yes, it does happen on occasion, sadly) it's for clear
violations of tried-and-true rules that the community fully understands.

Rules that are written, btw.


Tyche said:
That being its primary flaw in design, a centralized point of failure.


I like the idea of decentralization but I have not the time to code it
and promote its adoption. I have, however, coded an "inter-router network"
that, while it does not allow decentralization, does establish
federation. This still requires some cooperation between intermud
admins, but allows some flexibility in who gets fisted when and why.
For example, someone fed up with living in terror of being banned by me
can switch to Aidil's router and live in terror of being banned by him,
instead, while on the same network.

Not decentralized nirvana, I concede, but a slouching step in the right
general direction I think.

This incident doesn't make it any more likely that MB IMC2 will join that
network, but it has been my desire to unify these networks. People peeking
at each other from behind their fortress walls is something the mudding
community could easily afford at one time. Now it's not just unproductive,
it's counterproductive.

I'm talking at you, Kiasyn. Let's at least discuss it.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
0.0/9