TGS

lol the context is pretty simple. L.C. and I were having a discussion about the state of the world and I've had this discussion with a few people recently and we came up with extinction as a possible solution. As far as us adapting to our world very well I'd be inclined to disagree with that statement. Third world countries are a testament to that fact. And while we may have adapted "ok" to the world... the world hasn't been so fortunate to adapt to us. Therein lies another problem lol.

As I just finished talking to L.C. on IRC about this I'll give the same bit of insight here as I gave to him. The features you cited being blocked are blocked in another feature called "head in sand" it's actually not about your security at all but security for the server. As anyone who is and has been an avid IRC user should know IRC servers are often havens and hangouts for script kiddies and hackers. As such they often times can become targets of attacks. Now generally speaking those commands don't yield much info that would be a security risk however the network that introduced the features UnderNet did so primarily because they were attacked in a massive DDoS years ago and due to the fact that /map was visible the script kiddies actually knew specifically which points of the network to take out to cause maximum disruption. Similarly a few other commands were usable that also gave them information which aided their attacks on the server. So basically the main answer to this hits at a couple points. 1. These head in sand features are designed for server security not user security. 2. SSL is designed primarily for user security but given how it works, for it to actually be effective each person would have to be using SSL. 3. User security is important and there are features enabled towards that end. Your IP for example can be masked. A common security feature on most IRCd's these days. Now as I told L.C. any IRC server that tried to force people to use SSL would fail. The closest you can do is enable SSL and set a mode in a channel restricting non-SSL enabled clients from joining. But this isn't a necessary feature. I can't imagine any "sensitive" discussion taking place on this IRC server/network. If you are ever that worried about your communications being monitored on IRC I'd simply suggest not using it for said communication. You'll find that there are very few communication systems that are SSL secured by default. The lay person doesn't need encryption for their communications. If they do there's a good chance whatever they're doing they shouldn't be lol.

Sadly I have to agree with Dr Brain on the issue of "zone hosts" having to have powers so I'm glad that you amended that. Granted I have no problem with you having powers in my zone so long as that's my choice rather than a requirement. I've hosted and administered quite a few servers of various types and under no circumstances have I ever allowed "host" access either way. As a host I can do anything and everything I need to do without specifically having "access" and as an Op/Admin I do not tolerate a host having visible power or access. Almost any system can be administered without having applied accesses. Forums/SQL based systems the host will have direct access to the database therefore full access (If needed) by that right. Game systems have config level access through direct access to the host server. *nix based systems such as IRCd and the like have config level access as well as SIGHUP for rehashing if changes were needed to ensure stability/hosting. Essentially there is absolutely no system where admin rights are necessary as a host. Even on a machine level if you didn't have admin on say a linux or windows system... if you were a large scale network administrator you'd have rescue disks that you could pop in to facilitate any changes with whatever access was needed. Anyway forgive the ranting I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents (Or maybe 20) in as I have over the years had a few run in's with hosts who expected access that simply wasn't necessary.

Well I suppose that's the problem. As it stands... if said SVS map and/or settings is already hosted or hosted within another zone. You have to seek "permission" from that zone sysop to use that material. Which is where the whole issue of ownership really comes into question. As you said. Nobody can own the default settings. Primarily because they're bordering on public domain. They came with SS. They essentially are the default "SS". The only real issue I'd see is potentially name ownership. IE two zones of the exact same name potentially competing. But even then I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing unless its entirely redundant. Really unless the SSC network is under some strain that we're unaware of. I don't see why it would be an issue to have multiple zones of the same configuration up. Though obviously it would be silly to have two identical zones both with 20 players when you could combine them to have 40. But if that's what people wanted to do... why not let them?

I think the issue isn't so much policy or decision making its ownership. Therefore the "claim" to ownership that people within SSC have made on what we know as SVS. Either settings or map or both. If I take an SVS map... and distinctly different settings (IE in the case of Realism Zone as its meant to be overlayed with SVS) noone within the SSC should apply "clone" guidelines as a deciding factor as to whether or not a zone gets in. Which is pretty much what would have stopped my zone getting in. I needed to obtain permission from not even a zone... but a "subarena" zone construct simply because my map shared a likeness which if you actually loaded up my zone you'd realize that it's an SVS map. Now that's where the ownership concept gets blurred. No one owns SVS settings or maps. I would consider them a "base" for any zone to start with. So I guess it would just be nice if in terms of SSC the policy was modified so that when SVS settings or maps are involved the "clone" policy isn't brought up. If it becomes an issue of potentially splitting a population I could understand that. But there is nothing wrong with competition anyway as long as it doesn't "break" zones imo. Currently the SSC (Biller reference) is where the community is networked. So having a zone on the SSC network gives a lot of connectivity to the rest of the community. It would just be very sad to deny any sort of SVS zone when SVS is subspace. Prior to player-run zones... SVS was all there was. And all the SVS settings were really minor variations of the base settings anyway. By the way I actually have a legal copy of SubSpace I bought when it went on sale. I still have the cd in relatively good condition. The SVS settings and maps are on the CD. So it would kinda bug me if someone else had the ability to blanket "claim" those settings and/or maps. I think what L.C. is trying to do is open a discussion so that the prospect of SVS zones isn't placed on the same restrictions that other zones are in the whole "copyright"/"clone" policy. Which I respect deeply as I wouldn't want someone cloning my zone and trying to steal players from my zone. That being said... the way my zone is setup now. If someone brought up another zone with the same map... I wouldn't have a problem. The map doesn't belong to me nor anyone else. I agree with PoLiX on the respecting each other aspect of the SSC/Game. I guess I'm ranting again as I'm so prone to do. I think it's interesting to get other people's perspectives on the matter. At the end of the day I'm actually kinda sad that because of some of the faster paced zones and the newer players... people don't particularly like SVS or SVS-type zones anymore. I guess the pace is too slow for the youngin's. Anyway I hope I haven't offended anyone... if I have. Let's take it outside and settle it like men. With a good game of rock, paper and scissors.

Hahaha it's okay bud. I understand perfectly. I just have to be as clear as I can about the facts. The nature of the subject makes it a bit too easy for people to add/change/remove elements that ultimately mislead. There have been several different versions of this story floating around. Even I have been corrected a couple times about points that I'd forgotten such as the use of UFO/Super. I forgot that I did occasionally use it in public. I can see why people might have thought I was the "worst cheater in TW history". Though at the time almost everyone had fun with it. It was a very long time ago all the same. Silent Dragon use to be a good friend of mine though. I knew him before TW and After. Though I don't really talk to him anymore sadly.

Uh you're thinking Silent Dragon. And no he wasn't the original creator. He was merely the guy that made the map that was used when I ran it. As far as "Not to be confused with VIE Trench" There was never a VIE Trench. You might be thinking of Turf. Not Trench Wars. And as far as I've heard DoCk is a nice and honest person. However he did not obtain Trench Wars from me through honest means. I took him and PriitK into a private arena. I had discussed with them that I was taking a break and a step down temporarily and that I was to be informed of changes in the sysop password and that I would come back to active management in a few weeks to a month. Upon leaving and coming in the next day as a regular player they both pretended that conversation never occured and that I had "given" the zone to them. Take that how you will. It's what happened.

None anymore. I stopped going to UnderNet a couple years ago. Though I use to hang out in the Coder-Com channel mostly.

Damn really? Did you go by TestTube there? I'm surprised I've never seen you. That's rather sad. Both on the same network and never ran into each other.

Hahaha TT I don't call using UFO and most of the players having a blast "abuse". Granted I remember copping a bit of flak from certain people who considered it as such. Which funny enough I read awhile back in some random article/interview with DoCk (It could be the one you posted though modified) where DoCk> actually cited me as being the worst cheater in TW history. Kinda ironic when most of the players had so much fun. Though looking back on it now I can see very easily how people might call it abuse. No permanent harm was ever done, I made sure of that. What's sad is when I left SS I went back to IRC myself. Mostly on UnderNet. Hence my name being shortened to TGS as TheGhostShip got cut down to TheGhostS due to the 9 character limit. I have to say though it's good to see you're still around and kicking TestTube. We'll have to catch up sometime.

I'd just like to clear up Trench Wars Dark had little if anything to do with me. I actually ran the same Trench Wars that is running now. Though after thinking about it more. I think baudchaser had actually lefted by then and it was BD Vine that appointed me to run Trench. It was a long time ago after all. I'd rather they didn't delete it. I'd love to see more people's take/input on this.