Greetings SEN,
I think one thing we can agree on, is there were definitely some problems in Op SEN as to conduct, language, and spamming. People pressing enter after every word, flaming each other, and generally doing things that would earn you some serious severity here on SEN.

Op SEN is an extension of Staredit.net, it is our connection to bnet. It is under our name, and therefore represents us. As such, we should make it a place that we are not ashamed to be associated with. The new rules are in place because some people ruined things for the majority of people. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to find out who's consistently breaking the rules, getting kicked/banned, and causing trouble, nor do I have a script to do it for me. I am not going to read through two months worth of bot logs making tallies so you can continue asking magic 8 ball questions to your pointless bots.

Why are all bots banned? Because some people were irresponsible with theirs. If you want anyone to be sore at, then that's who's to blame. Our hands were forced in this matter, and I would have preferred that our Op SENners were able to handle themselves properly without moderation having to come down on them.

I may in the future create a criteria, test, or some sort of bot authorization process, however if I did, it would probably be this:
Your bot may not have a trigger or answer to any commands. Bots would be for logging/chatting purposes only.

I challenge anyone to bring me any valid purpose besides logging and chatting that you need your bot for. Note that it'd be a reason I actually have to care about, or does SEN/Op SEN an actual service.

It doesn't.

Stop and ask yourself why.

Was the access denied message just specifically for the seen command? I find that hard to believe and quite peculiar indeed if true.

Bot, starcraft, IT'S THE SAME THING! Starcraft users spam also, yet I never see them banned. You have no justification. You want to make op sen look nice because it's associated with the site? Give me one or two examples from the last two weeks of a bot constantly flaming or spamming. The bot spamming has been at an all-time low recently, and now you just randomly decide to ban them? That makes no fucking sense.

I use my bot to talk to people. I don't like being kicked off every two minutes (and no, I will not resort to hacks), so I leave my bot on. My key is muted, so it's not like I can even talk on my bot. When people come into op sen, they're not like, "oh look, people are spamming here, staredit.net must be a bad site." Unless you're a member of SEN, nobody goes to it unless they have friends in SEN. Everyone on SEN spams, so why should the bots be banned?

You challenge us to bring you a valid reason for letting bots in? I challenge you to give us something other than the "Op sen represents SEN, therefore we can't have any bots." They don't do anything, and the mods have access to most of them anyways.

Oh yeah, and Moose, you told Kevin to ask himself why map makers got their own private channel? I hardly doubt it's because of five bots (at most) talking in the channel. Everyone on sen, and even people outside of sen, yell and spam that channel, and don't try to deny it.

I ban people all the time. This hammer isn't just for show.

I am the law.

Constant magic 8 balls and quotes on various occasions. I'll post the logs if you want me to, but I think you know I'm right. You just want something to BAWWW about.

Citation needed. I'd also like you to make me a graph showing the highs and lows of bot spamming and logs to verify your statistics.

If you don't want to do something, we're not going to force you. Just like you can't force us to let your silly bot in.

Citation needed. I assume you can read minds as well as that's the only way you could know what people's impressions are. Are you god too? Just figured I'd ask while I'm at it.

Citation needed on the first, and the bots were banned due to abuse. Like I said, I can get the logs if you really want to go there, however I hope you're smart enough to know better, and if you're not, I think being that ignorant is against the rules somewhere.

Yes I do.

You're not staff, you have no such authority to challenge me in any way. Don't like it? Take it up with my superiors.

Citation of number of bots needed, and I'd like to see evidence of everyone spamming and yelling, and I mean everyone. I mean you have to provide me with logs of everyone who's ever been in Op SEN ever. That is of course, if you can prove your ridiculous claims, or if you'd rather you could stop BAWWing.

I didn't create the plugin. I apologize for this. I removed the script from my bot folder but forgot to reload my bot's script (it wasn't disabled just from deleting it) because not only was the "Access Denied" annoying, but also because it caused major lag having to gather information from everyone that was coming and going. I'm sorry, it won't happen again.

Perhaps have a 'vigilante system' within Op SEN that allows known, responsible, active members, to have access to the SEN bot and have the ability to vote for someone to be kicked out of the channel? FaRTy would need to write a script for it (unless one exists out there) but I think it could bring some justice to SEN without you having to go through pages of moderation logs. Alternatively, I think that there are enough active people with access that can kick people themselves.

You can't solve a problem by ruining it for everybody because one person was abusive. That just creates unconstructive whining and complaining, not saying that any of the previous posters were not constructive. Think back to when you were in middle school and a fight started at lunch, so some faculty member decided it would be a great punishment to bring fries or another treat away from the lunchroom for some period of time for everyone. I think you'd hear some moans and groans. You could have just banned the one person or just warned them not to do it anymore (along with a kick to show you mean business).

As long as the test isn't too stringent, I agree that it should be done; however, not having ANY commands at all? Don't you think that's going a bit too far?

As I said in my first post in this topic: with the help of my bot, I was able to make a refuge channel when Op SEN was flooded (I believe it was two times). If you don't care about something like that then you most definitely do not care about the main channel.

@Inferno
First point noted.

Second, as you can see from Vrael, some of our mods cant even be trusted with access. Not going to happen.

Third, as I said, people were whining enough on individual bans that I figured getting it all done at once would be a lot less painful.

Fourth, no bots or no commands. Take your pick.

Fifth, sure that's one good use in one good situation. And you didn't really require any commands to do that did you?

That's correct.

Actually the ML revival endangered my position here if anything.

Make me.

Citation needed.

What you know has nothing to do with it.

You must not have been in the channel for this.
But, they're going to get banned. Just you wait.

For some reason you seem to think that exemptions to the rules will be granted to non-bots by virtue of them being users. This is not the case.

So let me get this straight: You used your bot to help SEN by taking it out of op SEN?
...

I stir up conversations all the time, and I see you talk once every couple of days.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 30 2009, 3:13 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Last sentence is irrelevant. Back-handed flame toward Excalibur.

Remind me what this has to do with you being wrong right? Oh wait...

Not a justification.

So get a reporting script, or just ban bots you see doing it.

Applicable to you, too. You just assumed the opposite.

Abuse of certain bots, not all bots. For example... CHATBOTS.

To chat in op SEN without turning on SC, an old, slow game that screws up its palette and may randomly minimize due to it being outdated and the resolution difference. Bots make chatting much, much easier.


That's what I found wrong with your post. Try not to take it too personally. I largely agree with Demonslayer, but Inferno brings up very good compromises.

http://lynxy.no-ip.com/pinggnome/?action=browse&page=view&realm=USEast&chan=op+sen
While not completely accurate, it serves as a valid citation.

Aw, that's cute, Ex. Use little smiley faces to help get your point across. The truth is, you don't have a point. Your reasoning for everything is, "i'm the law, i have more power, you can't say shit." I'm tired of it. Just because you have more power, doesn't mean you should be able to do whatever you want. This is a forum. The members should be happy. So far, the only happy person I've seen is yourself.

Hence why I said it should only be given to trusted, responsible, members. I'm not going to be a rat, but I've also seen people other than Vrael abuse power, banning random people without reason.

I seem to remember the SEN bot saying that flames and spam would result in a ban. Everyone has their moments, some more than others (not gonna mention any names [sub]devilesk) but that doesn't mean everyone is to take the blame for it. Also, receiving a ping is not spam. You shouldn't force a whisper in order to use a command. It should be entirely optional for the person using the command. I myself cannot receive whispers, and for that reason I can't send whispers in order to use commands.

Actually I did. I had a greet message, which happened to whisper the person, set on it telling people to go to "Op lil-Inferno" (the refuge) and when the person who was flooding finally realized that everyone was heading there, I had to ban all of the bots that came into the channel. I managed to fight them off, though.

EDIT: PingGnome@Azeroth was banned by MrrLL in Op SEN. It was unbanned, but I'm just saying: You shouldn't ban someone trying to gather information, and it's a useful tool for finding various statistics of your ping as well as find some fun facts about Battle.net.

I disagree.

Why not just ban bots? They're not doing anything useful anyway.

I logically assumed that a place filled with spams and flames is not one I'd like to be in or be associated with since I don't like spamming or flaming. Silly me.

I may allow bots for chatting/logging purposes in the future after we get some criteria/requirements ironed out.

Agreed.


[05:15 pm]Excalibur -- There are people to blame, but it isn't us, we were just doing our jobs. If you don't like it Cent I'd be happy to give you a nice 'Banned' redirect page to read.
[05:18 pm]Centreri -- OH OKAY IM HAPPY.

I suggest you get happy again, and quickly.

[05:18 pm]Centreri -- OH OKAY IM HAPPY.

I just wanted you all to know that the past 2 pages of this discussion completely justifies my stance on this issue.

You're not god, you're not administrator. You can't ban me, and arguing about this stuff is what this entire forum is for. You're going to need better justification than 'I don't like that you're arguing against me'.

Justification is giving a proper reason. The presidents needs to justify his decisions; he can't say 'I'm the President'.

To 'Why not just ban bots? They're not doing anything useful anyway.'
- You already contradicted that, right here: 'Agreed.', agreeing that Bots can be doing something useful - providing a better interface for chatting on battlenet.

'I may allow bots for chatting/logging purposes in the future after we get some criteria/requirements ironed out.'
- This is largely what people are arguing for here.

'I logically assumed that a place filled with spams and flames is not one I'd like to be in or be associated with since I don't like spamming or flaming. Silly me.'
- I haven't seen any flames in op SEN for three days. I've seen light spamming, but nothing that lasted for more than a minute. Neither of these was conducted by bots.

'I just wanted you all to know that the past 2 pages of this discussion completely justifies my stance on this issue.'
-Yah, mine too.

Try this.

Not at all. Moose is watching all of this. And I'm on MSN with him. If there was anything he didn't like going on, I'm sure he'd let me know.

Gee, it's not like I'm a GM or anything. I don't do anything at all. In fact, unless I do something where you can see it, I bet it doesn't count right?

Actually I should be digging holes and burying them under their own ignorance, interpreting the rules to my advantage. That is actually something I could do. There are a lot of rule interpretations I can think of that would cover a lot of things I let go. But I'm not that sick of them yet. They'll get their chance, they're usually already digging their own holes by the time I get to them. For instance, you've already got a nice ditch going.

Purely joking Cent, you're too much fun to ban. Relax a little bit. You go from joke to serious faster than I can switch gears.

Its a good thing I'm not president then, isn't it?

I should've phrased that differently, I apologize. The bots were being more counterproductive than useful to the flow of the channel before, after we get our criteria worked out that should change. I'm sorry for the ambiguity.

I'll work on it, promise.

The flaming rule was always in place and it was more users than bots on the flaming front. They'll be dealt with. Its my opinion that the users and bots spammed a good deal equally due to commands and the like.

Ignorance? You've the most ignorant person I've seen on this site. All we're trying to say is that we mainly use bots as a form of communication, and that they don't even spam that much. But no, you, being the almighty god that you make yourself look like, constantly look over what we're saying. The only way I've ever seen you be helpful is by giving advice to people on how to make a computer, and if you know that much about computers and just play HoN all day, please, get out of your basement and make some friends.


No, but according to you (and only you), you seem to be the law, which lets you do whatever you want without any justification.

And thanks for the ditch. I look forward to crawling into it.