|
|
| Author |
Message |
Willaim
Idler
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 321
Location: IRC
|
 Posted: Apr 20, 2005 9:50pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I don't think Undernet's suffering because of this incident. They'll live in... not like they have over 60,000 users...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
magpie
Idler
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 453
Location: Essex, UK
|
| Posted: Apr 21, 2005 2:57am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roku's hit the nail on the head with this one. To me it looks like nothing more than somebody trying to turn an unfortunate situation they don't understand, or care to understand, into an excuse to criticise a network they don't even like. I'm glad the IRC community can actually see through such cowardly and pathetic attacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ashen
Idler
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 284
|
| Posted: Apr 22, 2005 11:38am Post subject: |
|
|
| magpie wrote: | | Roku's hit the nail on the head with this one. To me it looks like nothing more than somebody trying to turn an unfortunate situation they don't understand, or care to understand, into an excuse to criticise a network they don't even like. I'm glad the IRC community can actually see through such cowardly and pathetic attacks. |
You are partly right, partly wrong.
You were right in that my original post was pretty much a flame on Undernet..... on the grounds that they've caused me a lot of problems over the years and this latest incident is yet another minor annoyance I have to deal with because I provide connectivity there.
Example : "help Admin! nobody can connect to undernet from your server, something is wrong!"...... which is later found to be "Undernet screwed up - the problem is on their end!".
Example : Lamers or packet kiddies from Undernet coming from there to my areas and causing me problems.
Did I understand? Who are you to say I diddn't? Personally I think I understood they screwed up accidentally, but not the specifics of how. Even if I diddn't understand, I did try to, I did look for information... can the same be said of everyone?
Was it cowardly? I would argue no..... I posted my flame on Undernet here despite the fact that I know it would go against the vast majority of people's opinions...... I realised that by posting it I would get flamed and lots of people would try to find ways to write me off. But I did it anyway. Doing what you want to do, despite the fact you know you'll get in a lot of shit for it........ is that cowardice?
To all the people who are complaining that "you're being unfair, demanding an answer from the Undernet staff in the middle of a crisis!"..... READ UP! I answered this awhile ago. The original point of this thread was indeed to flame Undernet, becuase they've pissed me off so many times over the past few years....... without me being there!
I have since moved on in posting more helpful, constructive things here.... but people seem to reply to the stuff at the top, which I've already said was just a flame, more than they bother to reply to the deeper stuff... (there are some exceptions in that some people post serious, thoughtful posts, like ShelLuser does for example)
Note to all the people that say "If you don't like it, don't use it"..... the things Undernet does to piss me off happen despite the fact I do not go there...... such as being a festering ground fo script kiddies whom keep knocking at my door.
In summary :
1) no, it wasn't cowardly. It was a flame at first, but it wasn't a cowardly flame.
2) no, I did not completely understand, but I admitted this and tried to learn.
3) I only go there very rarely anyway, and stop going on with the "if you stop going there, your problems with it will go away" - because they WON'T!
Finally:
I notice that few people have responded to my "alright, I'm done flaming Undernet now...... here is what I think is wrong with Undernet and how they could do something about it." type posts.
I get the impression that people are reading the first few posts of this thread which I made when I was simply flaming Undernet off, and replying to those (which are easy to laugh at becuase they are simply flames and not even good ones at that)...... instead of replying to the much better stuff I posted lower down the thread...... after I switched from flaming them off to pointing out things that were actually helpful.
For example :
| Roku wrote: |
IMO opinion there is no point because the complaint happened DURING the chaos. I see it as a confused, disgruntled user lashing out because his/her chatting experience was interupted.
|
This post ignores my valid follow-up posts and points, and just writes me and this topic off becuase my initial reaction was a flame. The author dismisses what I say becuase of a bunch of completely untrue and unjustified assumptions about who I am. Let's examine these :
"a confused, disgruntled user lashing out because his/her chatting experience was interupted."
1) I'm not confused. I *was* ANGRY, but I'm not confused. There is a difference! Read my latter posts to see this.
2) I'm disgruntled (or, more accurately, was) about Undernet, but NOT for the reasons the poster states!
3) I originally lashed out at Undernet because it was causing me problems..... NOT simply because my chatting was interrupted by their screwup!
In short....... please read ALL my posts and think about my later messages before replying to me :) I agree, my first few posts were simply flames against the network that has been pissing me off, but the posts after those contain actual insights and aren't hostile to Undernet, they're mainly based on offering helpful suggestions for Undernet.
And no, to answer the perpetual question...... I don't expect the Undernet staff to listen or to follow them...... this confirms exactly what I am saying...... that the Undernet staff just don't appear to listen. If they are ok with running their network like this..... fine! I am just sad to see the network that I spent a very long time on running this way. Yes, I would dearly, dearly like it if Undernet addressed its problems (e.g. removed the warez, script kiddies, botnets, etc)........ but I realise that that is their choice. I'm not flaming off Undernet anymore, I'm pointing out that they have these problems and are chosing not to deal with them (or at least, not to deal with them publically in a way that displays their ethical values). If they want to do this, then fine....... that is their right. But it is also my right to mourn the downward movement of a network which I used to (a very long time ago) enjoy spending my time on.
I realise that the flames I originally posted were simply that - flames.... posted for one purpose...... to express my dislike of Undernet. I realise they weren't well thought out, they weren't clever and they weren't good.
Before anyone else replies to this topic, take the time to read my posts further down the topic where I explain exactly what I think is wrong with Undernet and what the staff can do about it. Those posts are more like my normal self, helpful and constructive.
You can pick the easy targets, or you can look at your own actions, realise which ones are constructive and which ones aren't, and move towards more constructive actions.
-Ashen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theEd
Newbie
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Posts: 74
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2005 2:35am Post subject: |
|
|
As someone who doesn't go on Undernet (although I used to have a channel on there), and has nothing against it, my one real concern is that there still isn't any kind of official statement on the Undernet website to say what happened, and what is being done to ensure that it doesn't happen again. It should have only taken a minute to put up a news post saying that all of the network had been glined and that steps were being taken to correct the problem.
Good PR stops posts like this from happening, and it isn't very difficult either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abdul
none
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2005 4:26am Post subject: |
|
|
| theEd wrote: | | Good PR stops posts like this from happening, and it isn't very difficult either. |
The thing is, they don't really care about these 3rd party forum discussions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheWingedOne
Newbie
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 71
Location: The Void...
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2005 4:55am Post subject: |
|
|
The thing I have always tended to notice about these forums is that people only DO get involved based on the topic or the first post or two of a thread, those who read every post and the updates are rare.
That aside, Roku, have you considered yours may not be the only opinion you have to consider? Try running an established channel, and then try shifting it elsewhere. It takes planning, time, reason, and your users have to understand that. I'm the founder of a channel that has now been established back to it's roots... I think 4 or so years ago. We've moved over 4 or so different networks, each time losing contact with someone or some people because we didn't communicate properly.
Just "up and moving" isn't necessarily the best way to go. It does nothing but breed dissent between the users and the administration, and in the end the administration may not know the root of their problem. This is why external consultants are often bought into businesses, to see things outside of the rose tinted glasses and bring problems to light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt_
none
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Oct 03, 2005 12:10pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ashen wrote: | Ok..... putting aside:
1) the first comment by an op in #help on undernet is "we know nothing".
2) nobody tells me who is responsible, the best response I get was that it was a mistake. There's never even direct confirmation it happened, just the admission of a small mistake...
Sure sounds like spin to me..... proclaim the good, hide the bad..... if pressed on the bad bits, massively understate what happened, and change topic as fast as possible.
3) instead of asking me to leave, they kickban me and ban my primary domain, simply for asking a question in the #help channel.... which, of course, they don't answer!
Undernet help channels :
1) "we know nothing"
2) we won't answer your question directly
3) we won't admit our own mistakes
4) we will ignore difficult or embarassing questions
5) we will kickban anyone who demands an actual *answer* to their question.
My question here is just one word.... WHY?
If as users have told me, it takes 3 independent opers to agree to a gline on undernet, then wtf were these opers doing glining *@*?
I can see some possible ways this could turn out not to be the dumbest thing I've seen in a long while..... but they're pretty unlikely....
I've stayed away from Undernet for a long time now due to the culture of stupidity present there, but this latest event takes the cake! I had thought at least the opers were sensible :-/
I may be wrong, it may be that the opers were sensible and did what really was the best thing in the circumstances, or that they just made a minor mistake........ but on the face of it, it looks like they did something seriously dumb. Not just the operators either...... I'm very unimpressed with the quality of that 'help' channel too :-/
Yes, this is a partial flame...... I really don't like Undernet at all, due the countless idiots get coming to my network to beg for things, most of whom seem to come from Undernet. I've held Undernet in very low regard for a long time now, but this latest incident just makes me wonder...... previously, I thought it was the users there who had no clue...... now I wonder if even the operators are awake. I'm annoyed.......... partly at Undernet, partly at their 'helpers' who are extremely unhelpful, and partly with the wider IRC community, for not already demanding an answer from Undernet as to how this seemingly huge mistake happened.
-Ashen |
A Services Admin/Services Operator does not require 3 glines per server to ban a user. They can over-ride that rule. Whatever happend im guessing a services operator/admin got pissed and glined everyone or lost his mind, whatever you pick one  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rob_
Idler
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 309
|
| Posted: Oct 03, 2005 12:17pm Post subject: |
|
|
| this thread was nearly half a year old, why do people feel the need to comment on it anymore? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt_
none
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Oct 03, 2005 12:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And another thing. Undernet must still be using old software because networks now adays do not allow you to gline *@* . Undernet blows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt_
none
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Oct 03, 2005 12:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rob_ wrote: | | this thread was nearly half a year old, why do people feel the need to comment on it anymore? |
lol im just bored  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asmo
none
Joined: 06 May 2003
Posts: 28
|
| Posted: Oct 04, 2005 12:47am Post subject: |
|
|
Not bored enough to actually READ the thread before you post. Becuase you obviously havent done so.
Anyways, with replies like this coming up at this point in time, I'll unsub myself from this thread ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
