Comments for staffblog

Comment on Registering a channel on freenode by throwback jerseys

throwback jerseys — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:40:43 +0000

Any way for a precis of this blogpost to be offered when a registered user joins a new (unregistered) channel?

Comment on Java webclient decommissioning by Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:57:46 +0000

I see what you did there Ben.

Comment on Java webclient decommissioning by Ben L.

Ben L. — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:43:16 +0000

We’ll be decommissioning the Java client on Sun

It’s Oracle now, isn’t it?

8th August.

Oh. Sorry.

Comment on freenode webchat changes by Toes

Toes — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:51:09 +0000

While this works, it’s confusing to many. The unique connection string changes every time a user makes a new connection through webchat.

…

Comment on freenode webchat changes by ananana

ananana — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:53:18 +0000

This change should have been made a long time ago.

Comment on Connecting to freenode using Tor: SASL by I cannot connect to FreeNode via TOR using SASL

I cannot connect to FreeNode via TOR using SASL — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:34:06 +0000

[...] [...]

Comment on Change in #defocus policy – and what do you think? by Nick

Nick — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:22:49 +0000

This blog is probably long dead, but I anyway felt the need to say something, especially after reading all the comments and taking time to think about it. In theory, the idea of stopping trolls with such a policy is good, but practically, it still has its drawbacks. I know that the new bot “urd” appears to voice regulars as soon as they join, which is great. The problem is, there’s still those new users which we get many of everyday, as the network grows. That, and those who don’t frequently visit #defocus, still face a problem. In my honest opinion, the best way to deal with trolling is with standard mutes, as it has been with most channels for how long, as well as it is in #freenode today 9which appears to be doing fine). I understand that harsher punishments go against what freenode stands for, but lets face it, harsher punishments don’t cause inconvenience to everyone else like a whole chan mute does. Besides, if someone has a deliberate intention to troll, commit personal attacks or other offenses against a channel’s policy, is there a reason a harsher punishment should be avoided for that? We need to look at both sides of rule breaking: deliberate and ambiguous. There’s no reason the former can’t just earn a normal mute or ban. If a troll really wants to troll, they will usually just wait for voice, unless they have to wait for hours on end. In that case, the inconvenience for users with good faith still remains.

To sum this up, Freenode is a large public network, you remove or add one factor, you’re still going to have problems. In #Defocus’s case, for anyone upon getting voice, #Defocus is a typical channel with a large number of users, with free access, no less. No matter what policy you have, you’re bound to get idiots regardless.

Comment on New freenode webchat (and why to use it) by Frank

Frank — Sun, 02 May 2010 20:44:22 +0000

Hi, I went to http://webchat.freenode.net to use the cakephp irc and many users are there \. But when posting I always get an “Cannot send to channel” error … trying to find out why after 1 hour of research lead to nowhere … is there a way to properly use http://webchat.freenode.net without an “Cannot send to channel” error ?

Thx,
Frank

Comment on 50,000 Active Users by Shadowwolf

Shadowwolf — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:18:09 +0000

Great job, everybody. (i realize this is a tad late, but meh)

Comment on Change in #defocus policy – and what do you think? by david a lawson

david a lawson — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:35:19 +0000

the voicing is coming faster and more consistent. I just think it had to come up to snuff. I think it is great