[AC-Admins] Unban me from Anthrochat please

[Scott Garron]

Bobby wrote:
> I guess there's an upper limit to how much someone can be a complete
> dickhead and spam people before telling people to /ignore him stops
> becoming an option.

      If that were the case, Werwolf, Sibe, and several others would have
been G:Lined a long time ago.

> Guy's been dumb enough not to know how to get around a lousy channel 
> ban, and is dumb enough not to know how to get around an akill, so I 
> don't really see any risk of him freaking out and pulling a botflood 
> or the like.

      That's not really the issue.  I mean, there's always a slight
concern about that, but fear of retaliation is not the entire reasoning 
behind the "admins don't do things other users can't do in order to 
solve problems that are based around interactions" philosophy.

> Eventually we can either be called "the network that never bans 
> people" or "the network that lets some psycho do a /WHO and 
> systematically start pestering nicknames one at a time to get what he 
> wants", the line between those is very, very thin.

      The line may be thin, but it's cut and dry, nonetheless.  The admin
policy is designed to not enforce the impression that the admins are 
police for content, regardless of that content.  If a legitimate user 
doesn't like the content coming from another legitimate (however psycho 
they are) user, they're free to ignore/silence them.  It is *not ever* 
the server admin's job to dictate what one user is allowed to send to 
other users excepting the case where a network admin happens to also be 
a channel op.  In that exception, they are only allowed to use the 
commands that any other channel op has available to them (ie. mode +b, 
kick, /chanserv akick add, etc).  The _only_ exception to that rule is 
when it's done to non-legitimate users.  Such users are automated flood 
bots, spam bots, and wholly-network-impacting abusive acts.

> It's a lot more work to tell dozens of people to /ignore him than it 
> is to akill or /shun him.

      If all of the users that he's pestering are in one channel, it's a
simple /msg #channelname Hay guys, do a /silence +mozdoc  so you don't
have to listen to his whining.  Or /topic #channelname So guys, mozdoc
is being a shit.  /quote silence +mozdoc  for your sanity.  He's banned
from the channel, and regardless of who he pesters, he's not getting
unbanned.

> Incidentally, the /shun command doesn't appear to work, and would 
> have been a wonderful solution here since it'd effectively silence 
> him and from his end he'd see it as a technical problem with the 
> network.

      That's another example where you're attempting to use an
administrator-only tool in order to do user-to-user moderations.  For
reference sake, and to just be sure that things are working as they
should, /quote shun +user at host.mask 5m :spammer  will shun someone for 5
minutes.  I just tested it, and it works as it's designed.  Although 
this is an admin-only solution, I'm more inclined to turn and look away 
from an admin using it, if it's usage is temporary.

      The final point that I'm going to make is that Inaki's AKILL for 
mozdoc was set to be _permanent_.  "You're not allowed to use this 
*entire network* at all, ever, from now until the end of time, 'cause 
one of us doesn't like how you acted in one channel" is ridiculous and 
borderline Snowpony level of fascism.

      All that being said, and now that we've determined that this case 
is not against an automated spambot, but rather, a legitimate user, I'm 
unbanning mozdoc from AnthroChat.

--
Scott 'Simba' Garron