home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!manuel.anu.edu.au!coombs!avalon
- From: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed)
- Newsgroups: alt.irc
- Subject: Re: yes or no? (bot deopping)
- Date: 18 Dec 92 06:25:14 GMT
- Organization: Australian National University
- Lines: 76
- Message-ID: <avalon.724659914@coombs>
- References: <85220@ut-emx.uucp> <avalon.724249567@coombs> <mrgreen.724296161@munagin> <1gm39aINN9ee@life.ai.mit.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2
-
- gwydion@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mercenary Programmer) writes:
-
- >In article <mrgreen.724296161@munagin> mrgreen@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (matthew green) writes:
- >>avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed) writes:
- >>
- >>>> 3) Reduce the number of kills.
- >>
- >>>Just mean less operator kill...and this wont happen while at least
- >>>1 operator can issue /kill (in this, the real politicans leave us way
- >>>behind - they at least are willing and see need to disarm).
- >>
- >>>Consider the recent case where person A (an operator) was killed by
- >>>person B (another operator) who was then killed by person C (another
- >>>operator) and to end it all, person B then squit'd the server that
- >>>person A was on.
- >>
- >>>Given this, can you see person C or B ever giving up oper in
- >>>fear that they may not be able to retaliate ?
- >>
- >>#define A Page
- >>#define B Spur
- >>#define C Gywdion
- >>
- >>..
-
- >According to the above, the following is claimed to be the sequence
- >of events:
-
- ># Consider the recent case where person Page (an operator) was killed by
- ># person SpUr (another operator) who was then killed by person Gwydion
- ># (another operator) and to end it all, person SpUr then squit'd the
- ># server that person Page was on.
-
- >It is not correct.
-
- >What actually happened was that SpUr /ignored page, at which point
- >page /killed him. SpUr complained to Stale, who is the admin of the
- >server that Page has oper on; Stale was not interested in SpUr's
- >opinions.
-
- So ? If I were Stale, I wouldn't be interested in them either.
-
- >Page continued to harass SpUr, and eventually SpUr was /killed by
- >Page. At this point, I /killed Page. SpUr came back on and /squit
- >Stale's server as well. This seems to have resolved the situation
- >to SpUr's satisfaction, because it now seems that Page is no longer
- >harassing him.
-
- So everyone should /squit a server to resolve a problem with another
- operator ? What an excellent show of maturity. Can you imagine what
- would happen if all operators started doing this because someone else
- killed them ? Squit is not a toy for operators to exercise control
- over other operators/users with.
-
- >At no point did I kill SpUr, as you have claimed.
-
- Read it again. No such claim was made. Maybe you got your pronouns
- mixed up, Page was the subject of the first sentence and to which the
- "who" is refered to. But that is just a trivial point. If my
- grammar is lacking and I've got it wrong then I'll rewrite it for
- you:
-
- Page killed Spur (stupid reason);
- Gwydion killed Page for killing Spur (another stpuid reason);
- Spur squits the server Page is on (the most stupid reason of the three).
-
- Whether Page killed for the right reason or not is not the issue.
- The following blatant abuse of both SQUIT and KILL, combined with the
- original KILL is.
-
- Now if anyone had any sense, they'd make it clear to ALL THREE that such
- action won't be tolerated in the future and that something should be
- done to stop it happening again if it does. I believe that can be
- done without using KILL or SQUIT and more effectively too.
-
- Avalon
-