Problems of the Webnet network, and ways to make it better.

Webnet is based off of California, U.S.A., yet its policies poorly resemble the American criminal justice system. If Webnet wanted to be a good and fair network, it can base its polices of the American criminal justice system.

Problems of Webnet, and ways or solutions to make Webnet better.

1.That you are guilty until proven innocent.

Rather than, innocent until proven guilty. This means when an administrator feels you have done something against network policies, with or without good assumption, he may feel the need to akill you without proof, so that if you are wrongly accused of violating a network policy and suffer an akill, you have to find the administrator when the akill is removed and prove to him that you weren't the victim or didn't commit the violation.

2.That you get the disadvantage of the doubt.

Not, the benefit of the doubt. In the American criminal justice system, if you happen upon a case where it is indeterminate whether you are guilty or not guilty, you get the benefit of the doubt, not, the disadvantage of the doubt, like it happens on Webnet.

How the disadvantage of the doubt works on the Webnet network is this: "I'm a Webnet admin, and I come upon a case where it is both okay for me to akill the user or not akill the user. What the user did is grounds to be akilled but it wouldn't be abuse to akill the user. Well, I'm going to akill him. ;) To give him the disadvantage of the doubt." Examples, 3.

3.That the jurisdiction of the network includes outside the network.

This means that your priviledge to get akilled could be a result of something you did outside the Webnet network (not counting *@WebChat.org e-mail). The United States does not jurisdict its laws to other countries..

4.Who is the most important person in the Webnet network?

As a criminal law 101 question I had in the final exam, "Who is the most person in the criminal justice system?" The answer given was you: the victim, the criminal. Not the police. Not the judge. Not the lawyer, or the attorney, or the bailiff, etc. You. Well, on the Webnet network, the most important person on the Webnet network isn't the user, it's the admistrator. His health and safety is the most important. Your whole safety on the Webnet network involves not pissing him off.

For all these examples stated above, clearly Webnet would be a better place if it weren't so.. [citation needed].



Sufface.

Webnet also isn't quite the place to be an IRC op either. The qualifications for being an IRC op, as stated in the official be IRC op page, wants IRC ops to be the "perfect IRC citizen," yet this is quite the opposite of administrators. It should be known that there is a big difference between an IRC op and administrator.

This brings me to a 5th problem of Webnet, and I believe it is the biggest and most important, that it isn't that Webnet has problems that is the problem, but that it isn't willing to resolve its problems, such as the case where one may want to exonerate themselves by either Hearsay, or pasting logs. Some administrators read the idea as "Well he's pasting logs and I'm against that so I'll punish him further for pasting logs."

Now, there is an oper-abuse@WebChat.org, and I'd like to emphasize it really is an oper-abuse@webchat.org, not staff-abuse. And there has been a case where I got an oper suspended, but not for akilling people, no, never that. Well, he was talking smack about an admin, and I thought that was the case. Well, turns out the first admin who read it was the one being talked smack about, and he suspended him (screenshot), but it wasn't for that. The oper said so and so was on a chat cafe. Would you want to get your o:line suspended for saying someone is on a chat cafe?



Additional stuff.

Why bother caring about it all?

As Webnet has a lot of unnecessary policies, one can wonder why it even bothers to enforce them, and why anyone would care what they do.

1 can argue against Webnet “Webnet doesn’t need to have the majority of its policies because it is a test network.” Webnet is the official test network of the company’s IRCd, ConferenceRoom. But that’s on the WebMaster employees side. Since Webnet primarily doesn’t refer its network as a chat network like Dalnet, Efnet, and Undernet, one can wonder why it has to behave like other networks with more unnecessary policies. What I meant by my first half of the sentence, is that is secondarily refers to itself as a chat network, it’s primary reason being a test network for an IRCd.

However, this is not a good reason to argue against an IRC op or administrator about the network being a test network. An IRC op, because he does what he is assigned to do, and what his administrator tells him, and an administrator, because he is not affiliated with WebMaster Inc. Since it is a test network for the WebMaster employees, the non-WebMaster staff use the network as grounds to enforce unnecessary policies! Additionally, 1 cannot use this reason to argue against the WebMaster employees because they are not the ones who go around enforcing network policies, so they do not have anything to feel an accusation of.

So why does Webnet have unnecessary network policies if they are a test network?

The ‘network administor’ has the duty to enforce them. And the network administrator is not associated with WebMaster staff, therefore, they do not have to feel guilty for that. While our current network administrator follows the ‘network’ policies, they come from a line of network administrators whom have passed policies.

My hunch is the 3rd network administrator came up with most of the policies as we know today, but then moved up with the WebMaster employees, therefore, is no longer a part of the force that enforces network policies, such that the 4th network administrator continues to enforce them, and so forth.

Note that when I say unnecessary policies, I am not referring to ddos attacks or the flooding of services agents, Chanserv, NickServ, and MemoServ, etc. so as to not include anything that slows you down on using the network’s services or connecting to the network.

The redundant policies, such as /nick IRC_Operator, or /join #Anti-Webnet, or even /topic #MyBank Welcome to #MyBank – Webnet branch: others located on #MyBank on Dalnet, Efnet, Undernet, etc., as well as /topic #__ Webnet’s official __ channel! There are a bunch of policies that would seem rather ‘useless’ and unreasonable for a test network, such as someone getting akilled for using the nick Mark_Owen. According to Wikipedia, Mark Owen is a musician of the pop group Take That, as well as a British television news presenter. Additionally, WhitePages.com lists 245 Mark Owen in the United States, so why should anyone get their nick frozen for using the nick Mark_Owen?

So, what about flooding and spamming?

There are some things that should be enforced, on the basis of IRC, but not in real life, and those are from IRC etiquette. This includes, flooding, spamming, mass ads, worms, etc. IRC etiquette is a good reason for enforcing IRC etiquette policies. Nobody likes spam! And if they’re spambots, well, bots aren’t humans! Therefore, for coming up with a good excuse to enforce mass ad policies, are from the principles of IRC etiquette, and there are lots of sites (and original) sites about IRC etiquette, and I was thinking of writing a page about it, but it would primarily be a clone of the other sites!

* ScottK (scottk@staff.webchat.org) has joined #outofcontrol
<ScottK> I'm going to be nice and ask this politely - the topic of this channel contains discussion of having sex with minors, which is against this Networks' Rules. Please remove the topic immediately
<venetta> it's been like that for an extremely long time
<venetta> why hasn't it been picked up before?
* S|mon changes topic to 'So there I was.. balls deep in this 15 year old boy when his Dad walks in and looks at me like I'M the fag'
<ScottK> Well it's pretty pathetic that a WebChat IRCOP permitted it

<ScottK> I stand corrected, folks
<ScottK> I was under the impression that there was a zero-tolerance rule for channels that depcited sexual acts with a minor

<ScottK> Just to reiterate: I'm truely, genuinely sorry over the closure due to what appears to be outdated info on my part. I did *not* imply that anyone in this channel was "pathetic" - just the topic

<ScottK> I stubbed my toe on out-dated rules
<ScottK> The topic was about having sex with minors
<ScottK> and I went on what appear to be out-dated rules
<ScottK> and I'm here to apologize

<ScottK> I've offered peace, waved the white flag

<ScottK> the channel
<ScottK> d00d
<ScottK> why do you have to be so damn rude?
<ScottK> Really, I was trying to be very humble and apologetic

An administrator once closed a channel for having underage sex in the topic, but then reopened it as it was no longer a policy.

If Webnet’s going to enforce a bunch of policies that may seem redundant, can’t they at least enforce ones based on law? I mean, are they just that dumb? As Webnet is based in the United States, children sex is against the law in that country, so it wouldn’t hurt to enforce it. Now, I’m not going to talk about the morals of children sex from a legal standpoint, but if Webnet wanted to have a lot of policies, they could at least enforce policies that are based on laws illegal in their country rather than… /topic #MyChannel /server –m irc.unitedchat.net –j #mychannel!

So…it seems once upon a time Webnet had a no-children sex topic policy, but they got rid of it! And enforce other policies like /topic # This admin sucks? Well, I find it a bit disappointing that Webnet would remove one of their better policies. Webnet just gets dumber and dumber! Anyways, pardon me for my biased opinions.

In any event, I don’t quite personally believe the channel was reopened for a non-existant policy, as much as someone just not wanting that channel closed period.

Update: ScottK e-mailed me saying the channel had +s, which made it exempt from the "open discussion"policy, by not violating it, a policy that I never even heard of lol.



Even more stuff, added.

Examples of why Webnet is or can be, corrupt.

Another problem with the Webnet network is the philosophy and mentality of how the official channels run. This could be the case where one could ask an unwanted question and get poor information. For this scenario, I will relate Webnet with its parent network, Dalnet.

A couple years ago, in a Dalnet help channel, I once asked how do you calculate excess flood. An IRC operator and channel op told me the excess flood formula. It was like an equation, where you plug in variables. It had to do with text length, nick length, bytes of text, etc. Also, somewhere in the equation, had the the number 110 in it. I believe you have to divide 110 in it.

With this equation, one can write a script to calculate flooding and where to stop right before you flood off. Now, I don't know the excess flood formula for Webnet, but I imagine once upon a time it was like that of Dalnet, but the excess flood formula here evolved.

Now, for the hypothetical situation, imagine joining #help.services before it merged to #help or #spiderslair, and asking the channel public, "How do you calculate excess flood?" Or, "What's the excess flood formula?" Now, exclude all the help ops since they most likely wouldn't know. Would any administrator tell you? Of course, I imagine a lot of the network staff do not memorize the excess flood formula, obviously.

How many of you are willing to gamble whether an administrator will be willingly willing to tell you what it is, if they knew it? And if they didn't, would they question you? Or argue with you?

If you asked, "How do you calculate excess flood?" A bull shit answer would be "By not flooding." That is a bull shit answer. That is because it would completely answer the question "How do I not excess flood?" But it would not answer the question: "How do I calculate excess flood?" Calculating the excess flood would require knowing the formula. Hopefully, none of the administrators will ask you why, or tell you don't need it, or even say it's none of your concern, or simply don't flood.

In a more perfect world, such an answer could be "I don't know." Or even, "I didn't memorize it, and I'm not willing to look it up for you." That would be better than not answering, because the user may just ask his question once every half an hour or hour until he pisses someone who refuses to answer his question off.

In other words, imagine joining #spiderslair one day and asking a question such as...

"Hello, I'm trying to write a script where I won't flood off. Therefore, I would like to know the excess flood formula so when I flood, my script calculate the very limits of flooding so that I won't excess flood."

Hopefully, you won't answers that are to your disadvantage, "just because the IRC op or administrator did not memorize the excess flood formula." And if he didn't know it, hopefully he won't take offense if you keep asking until someone answers.

And there are a couple of staff members that do know the excess flood formula, or can look it up, and would be willing to tell you. Most likely a couple of WebMaster employees. You just got to pop in their p.m. windows if their open. Otherwise, I imagine #help.services and #spiderslair will give you some hell of a time in giving you an answer.

Take a look at this for example:

PRIVMSG length rule: you can send $calc(500-$len($target)) bytes, but only $calc(498-$len($target)-$len($ial($me))) bytes will arrive. Since this was said on the Efnet network, I assume it is true for all IRCds.

This whole paragraph section itself is invalid, as it has never been tested before (at least by me). But years ago, I did ask several times in #spiderslair when I was a newb, how many lines does it take to excess flood? About only 1 IRC op told me in a non-official channel once, but #spiderslair was never willing to tell me. Then another will later tell me, it depends. It depends on how many characters you say, nick length, etc. But no formula.

Dalnet staff, on the other hand, have been willing to tell their users their excess flood formula nevertheless when they ask. In a more perfect society, I suppose if everyone was a scripter and had the excess flood formula, and shared their scripts around, everyone could potentially "flood" the very limits of the excess flood formula and never flood off, which may result in pissing the administrators off, which may make them strengthen the excess flood formula, which will change everyone's scripts, which will cause everyone to flood less, and that, still, is a more perfect society.

Why is this an example of bull shit? Which results in why an example of how this network is corrupt?

Imagine joining #Math one day, and asking the question:

"I have the equation Ax^2 + Bx +C = 0, and I know what A, B, and C, are, and such that certain variables are > 0, and I just don't have x. How do I find out what x is?"

Now, wouldn't the logical answer be, just give out the quadratic equation? And tell you where to plug in A, B, C, and x? Or would a better answer be to have a discussion about it like in an English class? Well, I believe the best answer is to straight forward give the quadratic equation for you to plug, which is why I believe if a user wanted to "calculate" how to not excess flood, or simply ask about it, channels like #spiderslair should best tell users the formula.

Another example.

What is the term 'corrupt?'

There are 2 types of corrupt: corrupt to the user's advantage (most common), and corrup to the network's advantage. An example of the second one, is where you whois flood an IRC op, and don't get akilled. Apparently that happens. Of course, most users won't find that as corrupt, as it makes an inbalance to what the level of corruptness the network already is. However, I do not view that as "negative corrupt points" to the already corrupt network. It doesn't balance by making the network less corrupt. It does make your network life less corrupt, that you can whois flood and not get akilled, but overall this isn't the case of acids and bases mixing to the neutral.

Take the pH scale, 0 to 14, where 7 is neutral, and perfect. As you go farther and farther from 7, you get more corrupt. And one side is corrupt to the user side, and the other is corrupt to the network staff side. When an administrator abuses his power, the pH goes more corrupt to the user side. The user gets to go through more hell. But when an IRC op does not akill the user for whois flooding them, that goes as more corrupt to the network staff side. This becomes a disadvantage to the overall network as their are IRC ops who do not do as they are assigned. Therefore, the entire goal of the network is not to reach 0 or 14, but 7, to be balanced equally between network staff and users.

Can an IRC op abuse without abusing?

What about IRC ops that don't do shit? This means IRC ops that ignore floods, spamming, advertisement, etc. And simply never akill. Therefore, one must define the term abuse, as one usually thinks of abusing as 'typing,' such as doing an akill. But if 1 never akills when one should, can that also be an abuse? WebChat.org site never said whether that is abuse for an IRC op to purposely not akill when needed. Because the official site never mention, you can make your own policies of what you think WebChat.org site would say, so as long as it doesn't contradict. Therefore, if you say it isn't abuse, then your policies will have to coincide with what you say and with the site. But I on the other hand am going to make the policy that is is abuse, that if you whois flood an IRC op, and he or she sees it, he or she *has* to akill you.

This brings me back to the original topic: "What is the term corrupt?" What is corrupt?

This is what corrupt is:

A situation where, when something of which a network policy is concerned, there is and can only be 1 way to ameliorate it.

That means, if it is akillable, it must be akilled. It if isn't, then it must not be akilled. There is no "in between." There is no yes or no to be akilled.

This means that if someone spams, he or she must be akilled. Therefore, it would be "abuse" to not akill.

This is the opposite of, if he or she did not spam, he or she should not be akilled for spamming. Therefore, there is only 1, and only 1 way only, possible.

In other words... if it didn't do that, it shouldn't be akilled for doing that, so it would be abuse to akill them for that, and if they did do that, then it should be akilled, so it should be abuse for not akilling them.

But Webnet apparently does not work like that. Webnet operators have choices. There are too many situations where, it wouldn't be abuse for them to akill, just as much as there wouldn't be any abuse for them to not akill. And for as long as Webnet has that, it is corrupt.