Advantages in the Webnet network (and how Webnet can make them worse).

Who would have though I could ever come up with some compliments. Well they happened recently.

The purpose of problems of Webnet page was to list how the network was fluxuated to make it great for the staff, and a disadvantage to the users. To list the good things about Webnet, that is, from a user standpoint, is to list things that work for the user's advantage, and not staff.

1.There is no veto system in oper-abuse@webchat.org.

A case happened where the founder of #disturbed sent an e-mail to oper-abuse@webchat.org for the miscellaneous things from TheVoice. I lost logs of it now, but I listened to every word the founder told me, and I only found 1 thing he said as abuse, but as TheVoice is a help op, it was just a /kill for something the network doesn't enforce.

More about that later, the founder didn't get a reply, as of 24 hours later. It was only 24 hours later that a Dave join the channel, saying he read the e-mail from "yesterday," and wanted to look into it more deeply, and requested logs be e-mailed to him, which it was.

Well, when I first saw that incident, my initiative was Dave was not someone who gets into small network affairs, and if no one did anything for 24 hours, then apparently it must not be abuse. Therefore, the people who read oper-abuse@webchat.org (ECs, some WM employees, TMs, basically everyone except the NA), as none of them replied back saying it is abuse, I find it ironic that someone who does not stick with the network's politics becomes involved in it.

So what does this mean? You send your complaint to oper-abuse@webchat.org, and wait for a response. In theory or in a perfect world, either everyone finds it abuse, or, no one finds it abuse. And so in a more hypothetical world, you'll have maybe 1 or 2 people who disagree with the rest.

Now, the people who read the e-mail but didn't do anything, would most likely not have found it abuse as thus they did not do anything. But guess what? There is no voting system for that. All you have to do, in oper-abuse@webchat.org, is just fine '1' person that finds it abuse, regardless of how many don't. Isn't that just wonderful? (To the user's advantage).

In other words, Webnet could having a voting system for abuse e-mails. Therefore, every admin who read the e-mail and deleted it, or found it not abuse, could have voted "this is not abuse." If that were the case, then Dave's "I find it abused," is outnumbered by the rest who don't find it abuse. And what would the outcome of that system be? Well, as it doesn't exist, it is unknown. We know though, that in order for a help op to become IRC op, 1 veto surpasses an infinite amount of votes. That is, it doesn't matter how many votes you get, only 1 veto is necessary. But nevertheless, oper-abuse@webchat.org does not have a veto button for abuse, therefore, all it takes, (to the Webnet user's advantage), is only for 1 person to find it abuse.

Ain't that wonderful? This, led to TheVoice's 1st o:line suspension. In a way, I do find it out-of-the-box for an event like this to happen. What could have motivated Dave to step in on this 24 hours later? Well, the story of TheVoice and I can be traced to UnitedChat, where a case where someone there ended up not liking him anymore. I almost remember a case where he/she told me, I'm going to get Dave to shun ThisDyingSoul (his current nick at the time). I remember tellling him/her well heck, it's ~4 a.m. at Dave's time, would you want to be awaken at that hour just to shun someone? It seems if Dave really did have beef with TheVoice, it would be no surprise that an staff complaint e-mail 2-3 years later will be something he will take part in.

However, I have yet to confirm this event, as it is only of memory, and memory of 2-3 years ago is not a reliable authenticating source. I have yet to dig up logs from San Diego (I am in Chicago now), and this will be resolved no earlier than May 4th, when I fly there. If this is not resolved by May 17, it most likely won't be resolved, and my scenario, thus dropped.

Nevertheless, TheVoice may have suffered bias from his 1st o:line suspension, mainly because if the EC didn't find it abuse, or any TM, then, it most likely isn't.

So, if Webnet wanted to be mean, they could have a system where all oper-abuse e-mails are to be approved by 50% or more of the people who read it, or even 100% (or up to 1 less than total). This would work towards the advantage of staff, and not to users. If that were the case, TheVoice's 1st o:line suspension wouldn't have happened. As for as Webnet being mean, I don't care to give them ideas..

* Note this story is not to be confused with TheVoice's 2nd o:line suspension, which is, totally different.

And did what TheVoice do, really was abuse? I argue that oper-abuse@webchat.org really is oper-abuse@webchat.org, meaning, it doesn't fit the category for admins. Therefore, if you e-mail about an admin, chances are, 100%, it won't be abuse. But using that argument, one can argue that such a name wouldn't even apply to help ops. My whole Webnet life about staff abuse, comes to akills, not /kill. The only thing I remembered I disagreed with what TheVoice did, was /kill Philip` Impersonation of Phillip. But since it is a /kill, it doesn't fit in my jurisdiction of abuse. There could be a circle in Webnet that deals with help op /killa abuse, like 1 where the NA handles, but certainly not viewed by me.

2.Not sure what to call this, but an example that occured. On March 17, for a minimum of the 2nd time this year, ScottK froze Ratt's nick, and his channel, #Ratt. Around the same time, he also sent Ratt this memo.

<Ratt> [17:08] -MemoServ- Memo Listing:
<Ratt> -
<Ratt> [17:08] -MemoServ- [From: ScottK, last logged in on 03/22/07 18:15:28 GMT as ScottK!scottk@staff.webchat.org]
<Ratt> -
<Ratt> [17:08] -MemoServ- [Sent On: 03/17/07 22:16:15 GMT]
<Ratt> -
<Ratt> [17:08] -MemoServ- What is YOURS? The lovely memos, the topic of Ratt, etc. You are one step away from being k-lined and all of your nicknames frozen...but this is something that, historically you're already used to, aren't you?

Nick frozen, channel frozen, nasty memo. This as bad as it gets?

Except it isn't.

After it happened, Ratt came back to Webnet in ~3 days. What did he do? He /join'ed an official channel, said his nick and channel were frozen, and if anyone could unfreeze it. To his luck, it immediately happened, by an Asci, "just like that," as Ratt told me. How's that for something Webnet? He didn't even have to explain why.

Isn't it wonderful, that if your nick and channel is frozen by a ScottK, all you have to do, is to get some EC member, to reverse it all? And all you had to do is ask?

Isn't it wonderful, that in the system of Webnet, you can get some ~19 year old to reverse everything an ex-EC member did?

Well, in the wonderful world of Webnet, any magical thing could happen! And Ratt wasn't even given any conditions! This led to a "Thanks Asci ;)" in the #Ratt topic, followed some some op signatures.

In a way, I look at this scenario, and I imagine it could be wonderful that Webnet is getting some younger and younger ECs. This isn't the 1st time an EC member reversed everything that ScottK did.

A year ago, a user once told another young EC member, Angelz, that he was evading ScottK's akill set 12 hours ago, by using a proxy. He argued it was permanent. Angelz told him the akill was set to be removed in 12 hours (totally 24 hours), and he removed it, then sent ScottK a memo, saying he removed Scott's akill in return that Tends will be a "good" boy.

Likewise at situation, both these events are probably to ScottK's disadvantage as he moved down from the EC. Because being below the EC makes it possible that people half his age can reverse what he does. I certainly can't imagine any 40s, 50s, or 60s year old EC ever reversing what ScottK did. Because if you complain to <2003 ECs over an akill, nick, or channel freeze, you most likely will get "If it was done by ScottK, then it was done by ScottK." Then again, none of ScottK's akills or freeze in a hypothetical situation could also be removed by an EC, if ScottK was still on the EC!