Quote:
Originally Posted by GReaper
Okay then, I'll propose the following:
- 10 channel limit per person
- No need for any supporters
- Instant registration
Why? Make it simple and easy so people can get the channels they want. I'm certainly fedup of having to jump through hoops just to register a new channel. Alliances shouldn't get special treatment, give the same options to all players.
It's also what other IRC networks offer. Not every network, but I'd guess that the backwards policies of this network are in the minority.
|
I think to better understand your request we need to first explain the reasons behind having supporters for channels.
Incidently, if you're refering to Qnet.. while you dont 'technically' need "named" supporters - you do need 5(?) people to idle your channel during the registration process. Most prespective owners who have less than 5 people available to them will simple /amsg "COME TO #CHANNEL AND HELP TO GET L PLZ" - Which is entirely something we want to avoid.
Named supporters are part of the requirements for a channel so that one man alone cannot simply register pointless and worthless channels. For this we mean idle channels with no use, other than to add load to our services, size to our database and all those other bad things which need to be considered when resourcing an IRC network. Supporters cannot be removed to prevent the above; "please support my channel, and I'll just remove you when its done". This used to happen alot under the old system, before we made supporters 'permanent'. It ensures that a channel has to have a purpose, which 3 people agree on and think is worth the time and effort. Jumping through our hoops, as you say.
Manual channel acceptance has always been a process of NG, even before it was NG and it was PA-IRC. We filter channels for content, by which it allows us to review each registration and ensure that nothing obviously against network policy would go on in there. We ask each owner to tell us, briefly, what the purpose of their channel is.. again just simply so we can get some idea as to what will go on in there (i.e: nothing bad.).
We keep the process because it allows us control of what we do and don't resource by way of services on the network. As explained above, the whole channel supporter system is there for good and valid reasons from our perspective. If we didn't have a manual acceptance procedure though, someone could simply register 3 nicks and get himself 9 channels by cross supporting them all. As it stands at the moment, that violates our policy and would be caught by our registration system.
The two systems really go hand-in-hand as you can see.
I'm also quite concious that you/I/we may be hijacking Jester's thread for discussions perhaps not particularly on-topic to the main issue. I will respond to your points directed at my reply, but then ask you to move this discussion to the netgamers suggestion forum should you wish to continue and formalise your requests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GReaper
So what if people have a few extra channels? Is there some sort of crisis where channels are like the supply of oil and have to be rationed to people? If I want to register a channel and someone else has taken it then I'll simply get a different channel name.
The administrative overhead is only there because of your policies. Registering a channel requires authorisation, changing a channel owner requires authorisation. Most other IRC services allow you to register a channel without requiring someone to authorise it, most other IRC services allow you either set multiple owners incase you do disappear - or a replacement founder which takes over automatically - instead of having to rush to #cservice every time your channel owner decides to quit Planetarion for a round.
I'm interested to see if you're actually willing to listen to this post, particularly Jeekay. Are you really bothered about what users think? Or are you more interested in enforcing rules just for the sake of being a bunch of jobsworths?
|
Our policies are in place to make NG a better place to be, not worse. Why else would we put these rules in place unless we actually believe they add value to the network? I mean, I cant seriously believe that you think we would put these rules in place to amuse ourselves. Far from it. Our volenteer staff put work into making the network run this way because we believe our policies prevent the network from falling into unstructured disarray.
You guys may have a different opionion or perspective, but I'll bet there are alot of people who idle Qnet etc who can agree that other networks lack something compared to NG. Its hard to describe and put your finger on, but its something we're proud of.
Primarily though, I'm concerned by the aggressive tone of your post. I dont really see how you can be so angered at this point. I cant speak for all the other NG staff, but I've always listened to the suggestions of users. Indeed; we have a suggestions forum which our staff ("Particularly Jeekay") respond to regularly. Several changes, once justified by the requestee, have been implemented because of user feedback.
If anyone would like to contribute to NG policy, suggest changes we might make or anything which might make NG a more pleasent environment to support PA and other games - Please feel free to tell us. Our forums can be found on the main NG site!
Apologies for hijacking your thread to respond to this Jester, I'll stop sidetracking your discussion now.
-Jedi