Dedicated IRC channel

[ChrisCF]

To summarise the whole confusion over bots, and hopefully end it all, many people have shell accounts. They pay per unit of space, and per background process. A telnet session or IRC client typically runs in the foreground, but an IRC proxy or a bouncer runs in the background. Most people that have these have paid for as many processes as they need. In my case, that number is 2. Some people have more, some less. ATM, I run a bouncer and an eggdrop. That makes 2 background processes. For me to go on another network would require me to start another bouncer, or to deal with two networks in different ways (which gets all confusing and whatnot). Starting this other bouncer requires separate configuration files (not usually supported on shells where the bouncer is already installed centrally), not to mention killing another process or paying for 3 bg processes (My host has a minimum monthly fee. If my monthly fee is less than the minimum, then I have to pay for a full year - this is common among small shell providers). This is a situation which is common among people that run channels, but aren't always available.

To clarify network choice, DALnet has fallen slightly short of complete collapse, and has had insufficient capacity to deal with the constant splitting (by which I mean total fragmentation) of the network. EFnet seems to have an annoyingly high number of "expert" types (The ones that insist that if you don't already know the answer to your question, they won't even help you to answer it. Try to stay on #linux while not knowing every single manual page inside out ), not to mention a reputation for a large number of invite-only channels (I envisage people then visiting EFnet for this project only - which is unworkable, and would never be a popular idea). I haven't made it as far as actually staying for enough time on IRCnet, though from what I am told, and my short time there, the situation is similar to EFnet. QuakeNet does have in its favour that people coming in from other networks would likely find some other reason to stay there, and some other channels in which to sit.

Enough on the subject. I'm probably not the only one who's now sick of arguing fine points. To try and end this part of the debate, does anyone have a good reason why using QuakeNet is a BAD idea?

And finally ...
#TT2 finally became available, and is up and running. Usercount minimum has reached 3, so we will need one more permanent idler to qualify for the L service, but there is protection for the meantime. Since there is still no final title, it didn't make sense to create #transport{master,empire}.

Feel free to drop in, especially if someone wants to take up this argument in real-time . Should anyone have any trouble with stuff like the lack of nickname reservation, and the different service structure, feel free to ask in the channel in case someone's there. If nobody's answering (probably because we're not really there) then #help will get you on your feet.

Since the vote is close and without a large majority, I have opened the channel subject to evaluation. If enough people use it, then I won't deprive them of it, though if it doesn't get much use at all, then closing it may become a possibility.