[AC-Admins] ANTHROCHAT.NET: Request for action

[Scott Garron]

Matt wrote:
> I have spoken to 2 admins (one Kojak and Pippin) regarding this issue
>  and I would like to appeal to the adminship at large.

      While I may not be the adminship at large, I am the guy who wrote
the admin policy and mission statement, so I'll try to field any
policy/action questions you may have.

> The problem I have is the chat is disguised and setup to attract 
> people whom are completely new to the server to grief them and insult
>  them.

      Because of the way IRC is designed, this network's policies are
based on first-come, first-served.  Because there is no policy in place
to govern the content provided by users, the names of the channels, the
nicknames of the users, the content of channel topics, the content of
channel descriptions, the content of nickname's vanity host masks, and
finally the content distributed by the network when someone types a
private message or into a channel are all determined by the users.  If
someone wants to create a channel for the purpose of "griefing" and
insulting, it's their business.  If new users are insulted and
"griefed", they're free to try a different channel or other networks
where the policies are more catering to their sensitivities.

> I urge you to carefully read your mission statement which 
> specifically notes: "For more persistent nuisances, more detailed 
> technical tools will be outlined and suggested."

      A channel's mere existence is not considered, and shall not ever be
considered to be a "persistent nuisance".  The "detailed technical
tools" phrase in the mission statement refers to the granularity of some
clients' ignore feature.  For instance, if someone is receiving repeated
/invite requests from multiple troublemakers in a single channel, we'll
help the recipient of that nuisance by suggesting that they use the
/ignore * invite  option instead of just telling them to manually and
individually ignore each person sending the invites.  Interference with
channel options, names, or any other content by server admins is
strictly forbidden (unless the admin founded the channel, of course).

> they are clearly using a ruse to lure people and that means everyone 
> that ever comes into this server may technically be subject to their 
> unwanted behavior. This is how I define them to be in violation of 
> the mission statement.

      There's never a "violation" of the mission statement since there is
no policy in place to govern users other than a rudimentary set of
constraints regarding frequency of vanity host changes.  The global
network policies that are in place only put constraints on the server
admins, not the regular users.

> I ask the channel be permanently flagged as private or the channel be
>  flagged unownable or not usable unless you can find acceptable hands
>  to run it.

      Regardless of what you perceive as an acceptable way to manage the
channel, it is currently managed by those who founded it, which is who
has the rights to manage it.  If they want to make it public, that is an
option that they control, not us.

> so only those that are interested in going there will go there.

      There's nothing forcing those who are uninterested in going there
into joining.  If, after joining, they find that the content of the
channel is either not what they expected, or even unacceptable, they're
free to leave the channel and find something more to their liking.

-- 
Scott "Simba" Garron
One of AnthroChat's Founders