Pills wrote: strikelight wrote:
Actually, it IS tradition, and one that even the new-school admins stick to. I remember a time where a server that umich had C/Ns with refused to hub us if we were hubbing another server (hobbes.kzoo.edu, IIRC). Servers can dictate what users, and servers, connect to them. Just as no one's forced to exchange C/N lines, no one's forced to allow a particular client on.
Poor pills.... I know it's been a long time since you were a normal user... You must have forgotten the reason why EFNet exists at all... It wasn't just to link a bunch of servers together just so fellow admins and opers could use exclusively. No, it was created for the open public... So as far as tradition goes, we are talking about tradition from a user's stand point... try to remember back that long ago, I know it's hard as you get up in years, but atleast make the effort
First off, my wife has been a normal user for 13 years. I speak to normal users every day. While it was created for the "open public" as you put it, admins have *always* had control. Control over I: lines, control over C/N lines, control over K:lines. As I said, a "normal user" is one who rarely, if ever, deals with the "government" of EFnet. I'm sure that, from a user's standpoint, having K:lines on certain vhosts doesn't make that big a dent in who has problems connecting, or the percentage of users that actually ever see "government". How about comparing it to three years ago, when people were practically offering to buy I:lines because they could not get on a server at all? The only thing that has increased the exposure of the top layer, so to speak, is CHANFIX, and that's mostly automated anyway.
It's been a *very* long time since my wife needed me to do something for her on IRC, or any of my friends (except for the occasional CHANFIX). I know a LOT of ex-opers and admins that have never looked back, and rarely needed an oper after that.
Considering I've held my O:line for over 10 years, I've seen what the early days of the network held, as well as now. The control of the admin over these things has remained constant that whole time.
I'm not saying users should/do call the shots.. What I'm saying is that, as with anything, EFNet (used to?) reflect a certain image to users... Not about the governing politics behind EFNet, but about the freedom of expression.. This is the tradition that I have been referring to from the start... Only opers/admins should/would consider the politics to be a "tradition", as they are basically irrelevant to the users, other than the fact they have to live by them.
So, you're reading operwalls, eh? Hmm...
Back a year or so ago, when I was oper'ing, yes...
Anyway, to respond to your "freedom of expression" point. This isn't a democracy. It has been the longstanding belief and practice that an individual server can do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt the network as a whole. Not allowing this.vhost.is.l.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.ng on is an admin's prerogative. Personally, I don't really care. Some do.
EFnet IS an oligarchy, although there are very rare instances that the vast majority sees the "government" behind it. Sure, you may get proxy scanned and/or CTCP versioned on connect, but most users have never needed an IRCop, and probably never will.
Just as a channel has a right to dictate who is on it, a server gets to dictate who uses it.
Well, let's go back to the democracy part... Because, when you think of it... EFNet's foundation of formation was actually based on democracy... There was a server that was uncontrollable and allowed massive amount of spammers and such, that the rest of the network "voted" much like in a democracy, to break off and create a new network... that network being EFNet (and IRCNet)... Heck, there are even votes for servers to be let in, votes for new policies, votes for almost anything.. So please continue on telling me that EFNet isn't based on a democracy, I'm sure you will convince the masses.
1a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
b.Those making up such a government.
2. A state governed by a few persons
This is exactly what EFnet is. There are currently about 112k clients on EFnet. Do they have a vote? Do they vote for admins to represent you? No. Democracy implies that everyone has a vote, at least in voting in representatives. This is government by a few, and always has been.
In the examples you give, who voted? Did the few hundred users at the time of the formation of EFnet? No, the admins did. Votes for servers, votes for policies... do you vote? No, but I do, because I'm an admin. So, while the admins themselves has a democracy, the network itself is an oligarchy. You as a user have no power, no vote. As an admin, I have a vote.
The opers/admins of EFNet were not put where they are by the people, but let's face it... It's an open/public service/community, and as such, they are there FOR
the people... Thus, indirectly, they become representatives of the people, which is exactly how a democracy works.... looking out for the best interests of the users. If this was not the case, then these servers would/should not have wanted to link to an open/public
service/community in the first place. And you are right, the politics don't interest most users, just as the politics in a democracy in the real world don't interest most people. Do citizens vote on every little issue that goes on to become legislation? No... that's what the representitives do, that's their job.. And of course, users have no real power.. but what's to say that makes/has made EFNet a dictatorship? Do you yourself think of EFNet as a dictatorship? Sure there are guidelines to follow, but most are common sense... When it comes down to prohibitting expression that doesn't hurt anybody, that's when it crosses the line into being a dictatorship, imo.