[AC-Admins] Principal

[Scott 'Simba' Garron]

Dan Skunk wrote:
> If that is the case, why create a seperate network for furries? Why 
> not just link your servers to EFNet or Undernet or something? There 
> are already places that operate under that principal.

      We're more personable and have a hip furry logo.

> If you're creating a network specifically to serve the furry 
> community, it would not be unreasonable to remove non-furry channels,
>  or remove non-furry users--especially if their intent is just to 
> harass furries.

      Okay, so we remove #NonFurryChannel1 and the people come back and
create #NonFurryChannel2.  We remove users who harass furries and they
come back on proxies and BNCs along with more of their friends who
harass furries even more because they got a reaction out of us.  The end
result becomes a never-ending cycle which wastes a whole mess of our 
time and accomplishes exactly nothing except giving them what they're 
looking for - a reaction.

      The right answer is to just ignore the people and they'll go away
on their own.  The right answer is to deal with it on a channel level
with things like temporarily setting a channel +i and giving all of your
channel regulars Chanserv VOP access so they can invite themselves.
Have your channel's users use the AJOIN feature of NickServ that I spent
weeks writing because it'll automatically issue an invite to channels on
their AJOIN list which are +i when they identify.  The end result is
that the harassers will get bored and go away, and you can set your 
channel -i again.

> If the purpose of the endevour is to provide a service for furries, 
> it's reasonable to filter out things that hurt furries.

      We are not in the practice of accepting the farce that text can
"hurt" anyone.  It's ones and zeros being redistributed across the 
Internet by our servers.  The last I checked, ones and zeros can't 
directly hurt anyone (excepting the case where transfer of financial and 
personal information can lead to identity theft, but even then, it can 
be argued that the transfer of information was not the cause of the 
harm, it was what was done with that information).  They're not jumping 
off of the memory buffers, running over to people, and punching them in 
the solar plexus.  Don't try to feed us any bullshit about "emotional 
pain is hurt too" because you're on the Internet.  If you let something 
that some random stranger says to you to cause "emotional pain", you 
need to get off of the Internets because you're emotionally incapable of 
reasonable social interaction.

> That said, I'm all for free speech and lack of moderation. It's 
> just not necessary to have seperate network for that.

      Sure it is.  There's no other place like it.  :)

-- 
Scott 'Simba' Garron
AnthroChat Founder