Forum:"Banning" all CGI:IRC from
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > "Banning" all CGI:IRC from
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6362 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
This is about the cabal. Apparently, anidnmeno and keitei have come up with an idea for IRC. They set a kind-of-ban for all CGI:IRC users. It's a kind-of-ban, because they can still join the channel, but they can't talk. In order for them to be able to talk, they have to be placed on the exception list (setting the user to +e). But, if they're unknown/new users, they would first have to message an op in the channel (which is only possible if you have registered a nickname). This way they (anidnmeno and keitei) hope to prevent spammers coming on and irritating the other users.
I for one think it's a crap initiatives, but would like to know your views, thoughts, or quite simple votes on the matter. --Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|PLS|CUNT 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am inclined to believe that M$ only disagrees because i have something to do with it. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ
03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
If this is the case, i am against all range IP bans on Uncyc itself. There. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 
03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Votes
Votes: -16
- Against (but I think Chron settled it anyway :P) --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere
CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY
NOT.
--Chronarion 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)- Against. It's one of the most unfriendly vibes I've got from the cabal so far... --Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|PLS|CUNT 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against. Ahem.. I use CGI quite often, alot of others do as well. Everytime I try to join I notice anidn has blocked it. Grr.
t o m p k i n s blah. F@H CUN VFH CM NS MORE FOULS, LESS BOWELS 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC) - Against this idea. If users aren't registered on Freenode, then they can't send PMs, and can't be unblocked unless they register. And if we use IRC to solve problems, then this essentially destroys it. --Hinoa 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against, for the above reasons. --Algorithm (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against because of the above. ~Sir Rangeley
GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) - Against Joke? --Rc (Talk) 02:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against The Cabal will be overthrown by the East Coast Avengers --Nytrospawn 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- What? I didn't decide to do this. Good gravy, ¥, I thought you were my friend. I agreed to a trial. -_- Anyways, we get a lot of crap from cgi users, but I don't care either way. --KATIE!! 12:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well you did agree to it, and allowed anidnmeno to execute it. You even defended the action when I asked you about it. So excuse me if I provided false information, but that's the impression I got. --~ sin($) tan(€) 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against. /me uses CGI:IRC.--Rataube 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against. That would be unfair, MoneySign. I'm a current user here.--Jtaylor1
22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC) - Against. Becuase of all of the above comments. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against. I don't see a need and there are better ways to accomplish this. ---
Rev. Isra (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC) - Against, how else am I going to effectively use
my sockpuppet(s)IRC on campus machines? --
Cap'n SimzorzAr, Matey!04:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC) - Against --The Zombiebaron 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against. I don't use CGI:IRC, but still... I can't say against strongly enough, IRC should be about letting people in, not shutting them out.--<<
>> 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Against. Requiring a download of an IRC client is unfair to people. --User:Nintendorulez 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- For Not really, but just to be the odd one out. Plus what do I care? I am seemingly banned indefinitely from IRC for responding to Dawg. -- The Village Idiot♠(talk to me) 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- For. Listen to me. Actually fucking read it... they must first gain access, like the tor peoples. CGI:IRC is an accesspoint where any jackass on the internet can join our chat and wreak havoc. It is a WONDERFUL idea to have all CGI:IRC users quieted until approved, it will keep our chats a safe, spam free,
family friendlyplace to be. Just think before you vote. do y'all really want another influx of tor-like IRC spammers? --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- By the power vested in me by myself, I hereby dub thee "Pariah of the Wiki." Rise, scuzz. Also, if there's a spam outbreak, an CGI ban should ONLY BE USED AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE.—Hinoa KUN (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Anidn, the fact that I don't even know what you're talking about when you say, "Tor-like spammers" tells me that this is a non-issue, given that I'm in the IRC chatroom all the time.--<<>> 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Bradley, then we should all be against IP range bans. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, Anid, do you not know what words mean? Specifically, the words TEMPORARY MEASURE ONLY? I don't see how you can miss that,
or Chron's opinion(edit: Excuse me whilst I remove my foot from my mouth). —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)- Personally, I think that the chatroom could do with a bit more spam, just to liven things up. It can get pretty stagnant out there. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC
MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that the chatroom could do with a bit more spam, just to liven things up. It can get pretty stagnant out there. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC
- Hey, Anid, do you not know what words mean? Specifically, the words TEMPORARY MEASURE ONLY? I don't see how you can miss that,
- Bradley, then we should all be against IP range bans. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ
