i3 rules debate

[cratylus]

A while back, some folks got banned from a channel on intermud, and this sparked debate.

I started a topic and vote to get people's opinions.

This was back when this site used beehive forums, and unfortunately, poll-based
topics did not survive the conversion to SMF.

I've salvaged the thread in html format, because I think it contains information
worth archiving. I also think that the topic isn't really closed, since there's always
room for policy discussion.

So without further ado, I present you that old discussion thread in two separate URLS:

http://lpmuds.net/debate1.html
http://lpmuds.net/debate2.html

And if you have opinions or comments, I invite you to make them here.

Thanks.

-Crat

[cratylus]

Recently, I invited folks who disagreed with the way yatmim works to take up the
job of running a router. As one might expect, lively debate was the result.

http://lpmuds.net/router_debate.html

I'd like to get input from more than just a couple of interested parties. What do folks think?
It seems I'm being asked to hand over DS muds to someone else's router adminship. My
reservation is that there seems to be only one advantage to doing so: not "fragmenting"
i3. Yet an inter-router network accomplishes the same thing, and it's on the development
plan anyway, so I feel like I'm not quite getting something. Especially given how
pressing and urgent it seems to some folks. What's this all about?

Comments welcome.

-Crat

[Duuk]

Moving all the i3 traffic to the new router is a very worthwhile thing.  It frees up your time so you can stop fiddling with i3 code and instead focus on Dead Souls again, which is your A-1 passion.

In addition, it will remove the nasty stain of evil that has taken your soul and allow you to once again walk in the light of peace, love, and happiness. 

We're just thinking about your eternal soul here.  Obviously you should respect that.

[saquivor]

My ha'penny on this issue. Is that I stopped accessing certain channels
on the intermud router, as there were some "bloated" egos on those channels
that took offence to noobs offering opinions on almost anything at all,
they seem to imply anything they said was "god like" and beyond approach!
Personally I think they have spent so long playing God like creators of VR worlds,
that they should also receive GOD like status on intermud.

It is they key opponents of the yatmin network that want certain "lower"
forms of internet users/mudders/creators banished from their heady heights
were they pretend they are still at the cutting edge of things like internet
development, rather than hanging on to the past like the sad old gits they
are. Why do they want to "censor" who rather than what goes on the channels?
What gives them the right? Given the limited user base of most of the muds that use
the i3 network why don't you elity type creators install some Instant Messenger
software and just talk to each other with that

What is wrong with creating a multi router model if the 5 9's and QOS are
so important, this is the best way of achieving it and the most democratic.
It bothers me that part of you arguments are about deciding who goes on
which channels are even mentioned in terms of switching to a new router.

For what it is worth I vote for a multi router model, where each owner of a
router can make as many petty rules on what happens on their side of the
router as they want.

[Tricky]

Multi-router support (ala IMC2) is something I have always wanted to see happen to I3. The protocols for I3 mention it in passing and give vague clues on how to achieve it. Putting in this support would make the I3 network semi-IRC like (and we know how big that is).

So I say, "Bring it on!"

Tricky

[cratylus]

Since the one thing we all can agree on is the usefulness of an inter router network,
I've begun work on a new irn subsystem. Hopefully the long weekend will allow me
the time I need to get a prototype up soon.

-Crat

[Tricky]

One thing i ask is if you and Arren can work out some sort of read-only channel. inews would benefit from this. I could re-register the channel as filtered, but that would mean having to track which mud was up or down to keep on top of who is allowed on (or to listen to it).

I apologise if this makes no sence, it is my birthday and I am a wee bit drunk.

Tricky

[cratylus]

Heh, you'll think I'm joking but it actually made a lot more sense after a pint.

Anyway the idea sounds totally doable and reasonable.

The only thing is, as I design the IRN, I'm following the i3 spec and only doing my
own thing where the spec is silent (eg, "The routers open and maintain TCP sessions...to each
of the other routers..." with no explanation of packet structures or authentication schemes).

But adding read-only channels is extending an explicitly laid out spec. I'm with you on
it, and I'm putting it on the todo list, but I'm a little uneasy, because this is a definite
step in the direction of changing the existing protocol, rather than fleshing out the incomplete bits.

I invite comment on this. I wasn't planning on becoming the i3 protocol maintainer or the
i4 protocol developer, so this would be a great time for folks with an interest in such things
to speak up.

-Crat

[daelaskai]

If I understand "inter-router network" properly, it means that I could create my own channel and regulate it also from my very own mud.  Personally, I like that.  If it also means that I could be listening to and conversing with both Arren's router and *yatmim I would be tickled pink.  Admins could then have more control of who and what their mud is exposed to, which is absolutely what I would like to see.  Put the control in the hands of the community.

Daelas

[cratylus]

Actually you can do that now. The chancreate, chanremove, chanban and chanunban commands
facilitate this. They're undocumented for the most part, as I coded them long ago mostly for
my own testing purposes, but they do the job. To create a new channel:

chancreate channel_name 0

The 0 makes it a public channel. A 1 would make it invite-only.

More info on how it works is available here:

http://www.intermud.org/i3/specs/services.php3

-Crat

[cratylus]

All righty, in order to put the debate in context, I've written up an
article on the subject. I hope in sheds some light on the subject:

http://dead-souls.net/articles/router_controversy.html

-Crat

[Samson]

Its flagship chat channel, imud_gossip, had
become such a notorious cesspool that at least one major codebase
maintainer swore off putting I3 code in his work.

I don't know if you're referring to me, but the hostility, hatred, and general unwelcoming nature of *gjs as a whole was exactly why I swore off of ever bothering with I3 again. Yeah, I know, they were all broken up about it. The downtime certainly wasn't helping either.

I've kept a bit of an eye on your work with *yatmim and I was pleased to see that the rules were more than just words on some page somewhere. People should have expected them to be enforced. The resulting nasty reaction to it is sadly what I expected from the anarchist wing of I3.

Personally I think you should just let them go their own way. We learned the same brutal lesson with the IMC2 network 2 years ago. The same kind of nasty public feuding. Eventually we just had to ignore it and let it all go. It worked out in the end for us. I suspect the same will be true of you. It doesn't sound like Arren's people want to work cooperatively. It sounds like they seek to assume full control and let it turn back into a cesspool because a cesspool is what they like and are used to. Let them have their cesspool.

[cratylus]

Samson,

I was indeed referring to you, but didn't want to drag your name into the mess explicitly.

It's certainly an eye-opener, this whole business. Shows me I'm pretty much not made for politics.

One positive side effect is that the real-time close quarters assaults make
flamewars on mud boards seem like love-ins. It's good training.

It does appear that some of the more hard-core malcontents are defecting, and I have to
say that I'll miss some of the people going away. There's something to be said for
having smart people intentionally find fault with your behavior as a pastime. Keeps you honest, and
it's a healthy thing to examine one's assumptions. Still, I suspect there'll be less hostility
in general and an atmosphere more conducive to the mission of the router, and really,
that was the point.

It's nice to see you here. I know you're not an LP guy, but I hope you'll feel welcome all the same.

-Crat

[Samson]

Oh I don't mind being mentioned in something as long as it's truthful. I haven't kept the fact that I removed I3 from the codebase a secret after all.

From what I can see here it looks like you guys have had pretty much the same kind of "real-time" flamewar that we had over on IMC2 2 years ago over pretty much the same thing. Unification under one banner with one primary administrator, vs fragmentation into several networks each run by their own administrator. With a bridge between them if they liked you enough. Well, we didn't like each other at all, so it just went to shit from there.

In the end though, it was for the better. I learned a very valuable lesson about when to give up the fight and just go my own way. Those who agreed with my position ended up on the network I chose to support. The other ended up on the other two. Circumstances played themselves out, and now there is only one network left. And it happens to be the one I support

Since it looks like there's some interest in getting an inter-router network established, an old thought popped into my head. Would there be any interest in a cross-protocol inter-router network? One in which IMC2 servers can connect with I3 routers and properly communicate with each other as though they were the same? One of those little experiments I've always wanted to try but never had enough motivation to work on.

[cratylus]

I'd love to have a way for imc2 and i3 to communicate.

I've not looked at imc2 much, I'm sorry to admit. Since you're
very familiar with both specs, I'll defer to your opinion on how
such a thing might best be done.

-Crat