1  |   Order by index

Oct 26, 1998, 1:02am

After using AW for less than 2 weeks, the differences between it and
Internet Relay Chat have become painfully obvious. Most notably is the
lack of a command line for typing out commands such as Mute so wildcards
could be used. Hanging around AWGate as I do I see every troublemaker
who has yet to make some other point their default for arrival within AW
and yearn for the ability to Mute these people with something like
/ignore *!* at dialup.isp.net and am highly discouarged that all I have to
ignore them with is /ignore nickname at *.* All the Mute feature in its
current config does is make it nesscessary for the abusive user to
switch nicks. Something any tourist can do in 10 secs.
One such user goes by the nick of "Preston" among others and has been
a thorn in my side since he attracted my attention yesterday by taking
the nicks of GKs, Members, and other tourists. He even boasts about how
many times he's be Ejected from the Gate and/or other Worlds. Obviously
something needs to be fixed in how Mute and the Eject command work.
I dunno diddly about programming, but can't imagine it's that hard a
thing to do. Ask Khaled for help if ya need to (heh) but resolve this
matter post haste or I for one will soon have no hair left upon my head
from all the pulling out I do in frustration that real troublemakers can
skirt around mutes and bans with wild abandon.

Geophrey

Oct 26, 1998, 5:48pm

Get used to the frustration. I've been here over 1.5 years and I'm STILL frustrated with AW...

[View Quote] > After using AW for less than 2 weeks, the differences between it and
> Internet Relay Chat have become painfully obvious. Most notably is the
> lack of a command line for typing out commands such as Mute so wildcards
> could be used. Hanging around AWGate as I do I see every troublemaker
> who has yet to make some other point their default for arrival within AW
> and yearn for the ability to Mute these people with something like
> /ignore *!* at dialup.isp.net and am highly discouarged that all I have to
> ignore them with is /ignore nickname at *.* All the Mute feature in its
> current config does is make it nesscessary for the abusive user to
> switch nicks. Something any tourist can do in 10 secs.
> One such user goes by the nick of "Preston" among others and has been
> a thorn in my side since he attracted my attention yesterday by taking
> the nicks of GKs, Members, and other tourists. He even boasts about how
> many times he's be Ejected from the Gate and/or other Worlds. Obviously
> something needs to be fixed in how Mute and the Eject command work.
> I dunno diddly about programming, but can't imagine it's that hard a
> thing to do. Ask Khaled for help if ya need to (heh) but resolve this
> matter post haste or I for one will soon have no hair left upon my head
> from all the pulling out I do in frustration that real troublemakers can
> skirt around mutes and bans with wild abandon.

Oct 26, 1998, 8:58pm

perhaps a good idea would to have mute work based on IP address instead of
on name... much like eject.

[View Quote] > After using AW for less than 2 weeks, the differences between it and
> Internet Relay Chat have become painfully obvious. Most notably is the
> lack of a command line for typing out commands such as Mute so wildcards
> could be used. Hanging around AWGate as I do I see every troublemaker
> who has yet to make some other point their default for arrival within AW
> and yearn for the ability to Mute these people with something like
> /ignore *!* at dialup.isp.net and am highly discouarged that all I have to
> ignore them with is /ignore nickname at *.* All the Mute feature in its
> current config does is make it nesscessary for the abusive user to
> switch nicks. Something any tourist can do in 10 secs.
> One such user goes by the nick of "Preston" among others and has been
> a thorn in my side since he attracted my attention yesterday by taking
> the nicks of GKs, Members, and other tourists. He even boasts about how
> many times he's be Ejected from the Gate and/or other Worlds. Obviously
> something needs to be fixed in how Mute and the Eject command work.
> I dunno diddly about programming, but can't imagine it's that hard a
> thing to do. Ask Khaled for help if ya need to (heh) but resolve this
> matter post haste or I for one will soon have no hair left upon my head
> from all the pulling out I do in frustration that real troublemakers can
> skirt around mutes and bans with wild abandon.
>
> Geophrey

Oct 27, 1998, 12:39pm

Not with variable IP's.

[View Quote]

Oct 27, 1998, 7:23pm

Probably would work best if the browser of the person being muted , was
"told" by the server that they were muted and who by , so it wouldn't send
chat message to them until unmuted .

[View Quote]

Oct 28, 1998, 1:53am

[View Quote] What are you talking about? Muting works by builder number (to mute a citizen)
and by IP address (to mute a tourist). For a tourist to defeat mute they must
break their connection with their ISP and then reconnect to get a new IP
address.

What is this "/ignore nickname at *.*" business? What you are supposed to do is
right click on the avatar to be muted and select "mute" from the short menu.
Perhaps this is why mute is not working for you.

> One such user goes by the nick of "Preston" among others and has been
> a thorn in my side since he attracted my attention yesterday by taking
> the nicks of GKs, Members, and other tourists. He even boasts about how
> many times he's be Ejected from the Gate and/or other Worlds. Obviously
> something needs to be fixed in how Mute and the Eject command work.
> I dunno diddly about programming, but can't imagine it's that hard a
> thing to do. Ask Khaled for help if ya need to (heh) but resolve this
> matter post haste or I for one will soon have no hair left upon my head
> from all the pulling out I do in frustration that real troublemakers can
> skirt around mutes and bans with wild abandon.
>
> Geophrey

If Preston turns out be be a continual problem COF can block his entire subrange
of IP addresses. A little drastic, but they have used the tactic in the past.

ScottyDM

--
Scott D. Miller
General Manager & Principal Consultant
Arête, Ltd.

Please use the return e-mail address of: scottydm at codenet.net

Oct 28, 1998, 1:54am

[View Quote] It does, or it did. I have had tourists stay muted through several name changes.

ScottyDM

--
Scott D. Miller
General Manager & Principal Consultant
Arête, Ltd.

Please use the return e-mail address of: scottydm at codenet.net

Oct 28, 1998, 2:04am

[View Quote] What I observed one day at AW GZ was a tourist named "Dr Bob" who was being such
an extreme pest that most people muted him. After several name changes (and
remaining muted the whole time) this person left and came back after about a
minute (with yet a different nickname), not muted this time. They acted a little
better, but they had a peculiar style of moving their avatar around that made us
suspect that it was the original person. After awhile it became obvious it was
them and many of us muted him again.

This makes it seem as if IP address (even if dynamic) is the way a tourist is
muted, and that "Dr Bob" must have dropped his connection to his ISP and signed
on again to become unmuted.

Perhaps we could do some experiments to confirm this. Another test is that
tourist can have *exactly* the same name; mute one, are the rest muted too? I
suspect that IP address is how it is done, and not nickname.

ScottyDM

--
Scott D. Miller
General Manager & Principal Consultant
Arête, Ltd.

Please use the return e-mail address of: scottydm at codenet.net

Oct 28, 1998, 10:13pm

I have a feeling that is not correct. I suspect AW gets the tourist IP and
mutes him/her until that person logs off of AW. If they reconnect to AW
they are no longer muted. If they use the Login from the menu to change
their name, then AW probably doesn't see that as being a disconnect, so they
stay muted, whereas, if they exit AW and reconnect, then AW gets the persons
IP address again and thus, they are no longer muted. Otherwise, AW would
have to keep track of Tourist IP addresses even after they disconnected and
I can't see COF writing the software in that manner. I could be wrong
though.

Paul

[View Quote]

Oct 29, 1998, 6:25am

[View Quote] Sounds like a reasonable speculation Paul. If we really wanted to know we should
go on AW and test it out.

ScottyDM

--
Scott D. Miller
General Manager & Principal Consultant
Arête, Ltd.

Please use the return e-mail address of: scottydm at codenet.net

Nov 7, 1998, 3:09pm

Why not just ask Roland... i'm sure he can tell you how mute works...
:)

1  |   Order by index