Forum:Revamping IRC

Forums: Yew Grove > Revamping IRC

Recently, a forum topic was created to revive IRC. I wasn't active in that particular thread, but I have been hard at work planning out the next phase of IRC.

First off, I would like to point out from the beginning that this huge conflict over Freenode vs. RuneScape-Wiki IRC will not help revive IRC. The Freenode IRC channel was recently added back tot he top of the IRC chat menu in the sidebar. If we continue to split the IRC community like this, we will effectively smother IRC. I shouldn't need to propose this again—Christine specifically went against the previous proposal outcome by moving it back to the top of the list—but I am proposing that the Freenode channel link be completely removed from the menu. We have had no problems with the new IRC network, and there is no reason to split the community. The Java IRC client works great, and I am developing a WPF client in addition.

Currently, the RS Wiki's dedicated IRC network runs UnrealIRCd 3.2.7, the most popular IRCd. I have been preparing a new server based on InspIRCd, a newer, more powerful IRCd. The transition should be smooth, though all IRCops will need to confirm their passwords with me, as it uses a different hash algorithm (Christine especially, since she's still in charge of it, last I checked).

I have been working on a new IRC client with a few friends that will integrate with SwiftIRC, and will likely pull guides and other data from the RuneScape Wiki, much like SwiftKit. The difference is that it's a newer, more powerful program with a cleaner interface. (There's also a web version with all the same features for those of us who are worried about viruses.) I am not entirely in charge of the project, so I can't make any promises, but I'd like to integrate it with the RuneScape Wiki IRC network. The program cannot and will not integrate with Freenode for various legal reasons; it would likely lead to the same legal battle that Swift fought with Jagex, as RuneScape rules can't be enforced on a network that we or a similar organization have little control over. (For example, there's no way for us to prevent account sharing/trading via PM, whereas we can add a spamfilter for such things on our own network.) I would really like the program to support access to the RuneScape Wiki's IRC network, as it would bring many more players into our community. I've put many hours of work into that network, so to see its community growing would be quite rewarding.

Any thoughts? As I said, none of this is really official yet, but a lot of things are sort of lining up and the client is nearly done, so it'd be great to get things going again.

Thanks,

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 17:15, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Freenode has been working fine for many years, so I don't understand why we had to have a new network. I actually say just stick with Freenode, as it seems to be more accepted by the community anyway. Every time I go into Freenode, it has more people than when I go into the other network. For example, right now, Freenode has 6 people in it, but the other network has 4. Also, one critical advantage Freenode has is that RuneScript can be invited into it, and I'm not sure that's the same with the other network. I say just stick with Freenode, like we've been doing for a long time. Butterman62 (talk) 19:16, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

X is a bot, so it's only 3 people. Also you're right, no RuneScript on the other network. Christine 21:47, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. RuneScript was on the official network. Nobody used it, so it quit and never came back. If someone will actually use it, feel free to ask for it back.

As for using Freenode, it has zero advantages over the official network. We've already established that in past proposals. This proposal is not about switching back. Again, Christine, please revert the menu back to the way it was; you are going against the community consensus.

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 07:15, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

Supertech, the fact is, however, that our contributors use Freenode and barely use your network at all. Why should we keep yours? It's just a hassle. Butterman62 (talk) 19:44, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that Freenode is currently preferred over the dedicated network is that it's what's always been used. For some reason, the particular group of people that frequent that channel have a hard time with change. But that channel is, like I said, used only by a select few people. Personally, I am interested in making IRC usable by the entire community. That is, as a viable alternative to the clan chat, which is difficult to moderate and requires players be in-game. From a programming perspective, Freenode is geared more towards efficiency than usability, and CGI:IRC/pjIRC are just... well... neither usable nor efficient.

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 21:22, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is Freenode not "usable by the entire community", or not a viable alternative as well? Besides, most of the "moderators" are on Freenode anyway, so being on your network doesn't really help. Also, how exactly is freenode less usable than your network? The CGI and pjIRC issues are client-side problems and have nothing to do with Freenode itself (many of us don't even use those clients). Butterman62 (talk) 21:53, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking Freenode. It is simply a matter of good and better. And it's not my network--I contributed it to the wiki a while back, and it was accepted. It's hosted on my server; that doesn't make it mine.

CGI:IRC requires server-side support to function properly. Freenode only has partial support, resulting in various technical difficulties, such as problems banning/muting/etc. It's also hosted on a separate server, meaning double the hops per message. (CGI:IRC for the new network is located on the same server, so it only adds one extra hop--less than 1ms.) pjIRC is being replaced for the new network, but for reasons I already stated, the client cannot and will not connect to Freenode; that is not my decision, and the matter is beyond my control.

We have already switched to the new network; we did that something like a year ago. The attempted switch back to Freenode was made without a proposal or community consensus. This proposal effectively ignores the unapproved changes and continues on with development. If you are interested in explaining why Freenode is better and why such advantages warrant the switch back, this is not the place for that. I represent the community when I say that we have already chosen to use the new network. That has already been established by overwhelming community agreement. By making unapproved changes in an attempt to revert community-backed proposals, sysops are effectively abusing their ability to moderate community development. Yes, I am calling the changes made to the menu abusive. I would have no objection if the decision was made by the community, but it was not; it was made by a single sysop with her own agenda that differed greatly from the community's. As such, I continue to consider the new network the RS Wiki's official IRC location, rather than what it has forcibly been changed to. This proposal is made under the assumption that the community will not support unapproved changes and the modifications will eventually be reverted back.

1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 01:51, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem though. You say "we have already switched/chosen to use the new network". In theory, we have. In practice, however, that's far from the truth. The community has generally decided to use Freenode. There, chat happens at least somewhat often, considering the number of people, and we have a good time. Therswiki is barren; except for a few people and a bot, there's not much, and no one talks. That's the key. It's not the work of "one abusive sysop"; IRC users in general have chosen Freenode, for the most part. Since people want to go where there's other people, they all go to Freenode. Sure, in writing, we have our own network, but our de facto network is Freenode. Butterman62 (talk) 02:29, October 5, 2009 (UTC)