Forum:"Banning" all CGI:IRC from

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 22:32, May 23, 2006 by Hinoa (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Forums: Index > Village Dump > "Banning" all CGI:IRC from
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2983 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


This is about the cabal. Apparently, anidnmeno and keitei have come up with an idea for IRC. They set a kind-of-ban for all CGI:IRC users. It's a kind-of-ban, because they can still join the channel, but they can't talk. In order for them to be able to talk, they have to be placed on the exception list (setting the user to +e). But, if they're unknown/new users, they would first have to message an op in the channel (which is only possible if you have registered a nickname). This way they (anidnmeno and keitei) hope to prevent spammers coming on and irritating the other users.

I for one think it's a crap initiatives, but would like to know your views, thoughts, or quite simple votes on the matter. --Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|PLS|MDA 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I am inclined to believe that M$ only disagrees because i have something to do with it. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, turd-face, it's the reason I began disapproving of your general behaviour to begin with. So :P --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|MDA|+S 11:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, i am against all range IP bans on Uncyc itself. There. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Votes: -16

  • Against (but I think Chron settled it anyway :P) --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk | Rate 00:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


  • ABSOLUTELY

    NOT.

    --Chronarion 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • AND THAT... IS THE WORD.... .... .... .... OF THE LOOOOOOOOOORD!!! --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 04:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. It's one of the most unfriendly vibes I've got from the cabal so far... --Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|PLS|MDA 20:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Ahem.. I use CGI quite often, alot of others do as well. Everytime I try to join I notice anidn has blocked it. Grr. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. F@H CUN VFH CM NS MORE FOULS, LESS BOWELS 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against this idea. If users aren't registered on Freenode, then they can't send PMs, and can't be unblocked unless they register. And if we use IRC to solve problems, then this essentially destroys it. --Hinoa 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, for the above reasons. --Algorithm (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against because of the above. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Joke? --Rc (Talk) 02:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against The Cabal will be overthrown by the East Coast Avengers --Nytrospawn 02:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What? I didn't decide to do this. Good gravy, ¥, I thought you were my friend. I agreed to a trial. -_- Anyways, we get a lot of crap from cgi users, but I don't care either way. --KATIE!! 12:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you did agree to it, and allowed anidnmeno to execute it. You even defended the action when I asked you about it. So excuse me if I provided false information, but that's the impression I got. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|MDA|+S 19:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. /me uses CGI:IRC.--Rataube 12:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. That would be unfair, MoneySign. I'm a current user here.--Jtaylor1Small Egg 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Becuase of all of the above comments. Spang talk 22:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. I don't see a need and there are better ways to accomplish this. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, how else am I going to effectively use my sockpuppet(s) IRC on campus machines? --PiratehattieCap'n SimzorzAr, Matey!04:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. I don't use CGI:IRC, but still... I can't say against strongly enough, IRC should be about letting people in, not shutting them out.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 21:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Bradley, would you let someone into your house with an AK-47 and open fire more than once, or would you keep the door locked afterward? --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 03:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I see absolutely no connection between my home and IRC. Sorry.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. Requiring a download of an IRC client is unfair to people. --User:Nintendorulez 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For Not really, but just to be the odd one out. Plus what do I care? I am seemingly banned indefinitely from IRC for responding to Dawg. -- The Village Idiot♠(talk to me) 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Listen to me. Actually fucking read it... they must first gain access, like the tor peoples. CGI:IRC is an accesspoint where any jackass on the internet can join our chat and wreak havoc. It is a WONDERFUL idea to have all CGI:IRC users quieted until approved, it will keep our chats a safe, spam free, family friendly place to be. Just think before you vote. do y'all really want another influx of tor-like IRC spammers? --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 03:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
By the power vested in me by myself, I hereby dub thee "Pariah of the Wiki." Rise, scuzz. Also, if there's a spam outbreak, an CGI ban should ONLY BE USED AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE.Hinoa KUN (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Anidn, the fact that I don't even know what you're talking about when you say, "Tor-like spammers" tells me that this is a non-issue, given that I'm in the IRC chatroom all the time.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Bradley, then we should all be against IP range bans. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 04:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Anid, do you not know what words mean? Specifically, the words TEMPORARY MEASURE ONLY? I don't see how you can miss that, or Chron's opinion (edit: Excuse me whilst I remove my foot from my mouth). —Hinoa KUN (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the chatroom could do with a bit more spam, just to liven things up. It can get pretty stagnant out there. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 07:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
THEN IP RANGE BANS SHOULD BE TEMPORARY THEN! ARE THEY? NO! OK THEN. --ANIDN MENOSCWICZ Icons-flag-az 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What, they aren't? As far as I know, they are. I'll check the block log... —Hinoa KUN (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the ENTIRE block log, and there are two permanent range blocks; both of which are open proxies. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects