NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/irc/5106

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 8.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!gjm5
From: [e-mail] (Gregory J. Meyers)
Newsgroups: alt.irc
Subject: Re: Bots and Common Sense
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:54:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lord Maximilien of Myragorthia)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 145
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


I'd like to post a reply to this one, because it's probably the most logical,
intelligent, and above all, calm posting regarding bots that I've seen so far.


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Scott A McMillan) says:

>Let's start with what IRC is: Internet Relay Chat. Okay, so the purpose of
>IRC is to chat. I take that to mean to talk, to hold a conversation. From the
>ardent supporters of vanity bots, I must be wrong...

IRC began as a chat service, but I don't see why it has to remain just that.
When you connect up hundreds of computers around the globe, the possibilities
are endless.  Almost none of these possibilities have been exploited yet.  I
see NickServ, and Shaz (the GIF-distribution bot), and NCC-1701, and little
else.  These bots all share a common feature: they interface a useful program
with an easily understood network interface.  With more creativity we might
see better netgames, some ongoing MUD-type environments.  The difference is,
anyone with a little skill can write a bot, whereas starting a MUD and getting
people to try it out is more difficult.

>Going on. Can people own channels? Nope. Why not? The number of channels is
>potentially infinite. Any basic economics book will tell you that you can
>only own something if there is a finite amount of it. In response to the
>people who are plagued by people who join their channels and kick everyone
>off or deop them or commit other IRC crimes... Create a new channel and
>ban the offender and then invite everyone over...

A possible exception is the case of old, well-known channels, where seniority
gives priority over control.  The method you describe doesn't work on these
channels, since everyone already knows the channel by its old name, and cross-
overs are unlikely.  Apart from that, this is a compelling argument.

>Next. Can people own nicks? Yep. I know that I violate my previous argument,
>but nicks are names, when it's all boiled down. And names just represent
>people. ... [stuff deleted]
>I personally believe that nickserv is doing a fine job right now...

I agree.  Perhaps we need something stronger than NickServ to reserve nick-
names--say, some sort of user registration.  BBS's have this, so why not IRC?
It would eliminate the problem of impersonating other users.  It would also
probably require the deletion of the /nick command, but maybe it's worth it.
The only problem I see is how to prevent users from registering twice, from
two different hosts.

>Vanity bots... I'll admit that I have written a bot, and ran it for about
>two days. Then I wrote an ircrc. For better or worse, bots are good as
>sources for ircrc's. Bot's that just hold a channel are wastes of IRC
>resources (for the reasons mentioned above.) Bots that op users are also
>a waste.

Depends.  A well-written channel holding bot is a bit like a government in a
tiny country.  If it performs valuable services, like keeping track of
messages and maintaining the peace (rather than instigating wars), then it can
provide a safe haven for regular users, and even enhance conversation.  I
remember channel #pub not too long ago, and its bot #pubserv, which was a
bartender of course.  All it could do was pour you a Coors.  But people on
that channel talked as if they were really in a pub.  One guy came on the
channel to tell us he'd just lost a friend.  Man, I sure needed that Coors
right then.

>Let's go back to what IRC is: chat. I sure don't need an op to
>chat. Some people sure think they do. Maybe if people didn't throw around
>ops, they wouldn't get kicked off 'their own' channel. I personally auto-op
>three people when they join (from an ircrc.) I know lots of people on
>IRC, but I op three. Point made? I refuse to join #hotsex and #hottub because
>of the number of opings and deopings that just clutter the channel and
>interfear with talking, the supposed purpose of IRC.

No one joins those channels to talk.  They're way too clogged up with people
for anything that laid-back.  People go on #hot* because they want to have
mode wars--it's like a huge wrestling match, everyone jostling for position,
and I often find it's fun to watch as well as to participate.  OK, I know it's
wasteful of bandwidth.  This point has been made so many times, it's begun to
lose its bite.  But when channels get as huge as those two, things can easily
get volatile, and after a while a reputation builds up that perpetuates the
situation.  Seems to me that whenever you give some users power over other
users, along with the ability to grant or revoke that power, you're gonna
have a little rivalry.
     Instead of trying to stop it, how about finding ways to accomodate it?
Perhaps if the system were organized differently, so that it weren't necessary
to transmit mode commands to *every single server* on the system, there would
be no more complaints.  How to do this, I'm not sure yet, but I'm working on
it, just give me a couple minutes... *Grin*  I've suggested this before.  I'll
keep thinking about this one until someone comes up with an idea, or proves to
me why it's impossible.

>Let's see, what other reasons are there why someone would run a bot? To
>keep people off of a channel? Use an ircrc. I can't stress it enough,
>an ircrc can do everything a bot can do, but it is better. You don't have
>to worry about the bot getting kicked off a channel or losing it's op.
>The commands are shorter (eg. /msg botname op nickname vs. /op nickname, or
>even if you shorten the /msg botname with an alias, it's still /alias op
>nickname) and easier to remember.

My bots are all written with various modules strung together.  My .ircrc and
my bot scripts are both just series of /load commands, and the two share many
of the same modules.  So I don't have to tell my bots to /op suchandsuch, I
just do it myself.  But my bot could do it if I told it to, since it has the
same alias.

>Plus, ircrcs are written from the ground
>up, therefore the user gains some knowledge of IRC script. I know of bots
>created by just changing the /nick at the top and the op list. Can't learn
>much from that...

All my modules were written by myself only.  I think all bots should be
written by their owners.  Otherwise you have no idea what you're getting into
when you run a bot, and the dangers are numerous.  People who run bots written
by others should be aware that the owner can turn around at any moment and
use the bot to annihilate the owner's account.
     I *did* add some neat programming techniques to my modules which someone
else authored (public domain), but that's different.  I understood what I was
doing, and wasn't copying lines of code directly.

[stuff deleted... basically restating earlier argument]
>I hope that makes sense to most people. I do not believe that bots can ever
>be banned from irc, so we have to put up with them. We SHOULD however, make
>sure that they never flood and avoid loops. Hopefully, users will progress
>from using bots (at least harmful ones) and become mature IRC users, and
>not out to only op your friends and ban your enemies.

Since the client program has developed into an operating system all its own,
the knowledge necessary to write a bot has diminished.  I applaud this,
because I still feel bots could be used to foster creativity in a flexible
environment.  But if the bot-writing feature of client programs goes away, it
won't be all bad.  At least this will single out the *true* programmers, who
will have no choice but to write their bots in C, Pascal, assembler, etc.
Many of them already do.

>As far a `right' to have a bot, sure you can have your bot, just don't get
>mad if I kick it off.... The roads goes both ways....

Fair's fair.

>socket
>
>--
>Scott Andrew McMillan             University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>[e-mail]        "Fighting for peace is like fornicating for chastity"
>[e-mail]            What about my ontological predicates???

                                        Greg Meyers
                                        Lord_Max
                                        [e-mail]