Dedicated IRC channel

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 03 Mar 2003 10:56

Some people have suggested setting up a separate IRC channel from the one which already exists. However, before we set one up, there needs to be enough interest in using it. There would need to be at least 4 people on at all times (no less - this counts 24/7). Also, there would need to be enough activity on it to justify running it. I checked both of the DALnet offerings recently to find nobody on either.

//edit
Also, might I suggest using QuakeNEt as the IRC network if there's enough - that way I don't have to run two bouncers

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 03 Mar 2003 10:58

I don't need a seperate channel.

sultana · Post by **sultana** » 03 Mar 2003 11:01

i voted no because I don't have IRC, you should make that an option.

jacke · Post by **jacke** » 03 Mar 2003 14:55

I would use it....
But i think dalnet is a good place for the channel....

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 03 Mar 2003 15:18

jacke wrote:But i think dalnet is a good place for the channel....

IMO, DALnet's not a good place for any channel

Anyway, for those that don't use IRC, this poll isn't exactly relevant.

TeKiZeRo · Post by **TeKiZeRo** » 03 Mar 2003 16:41

I suggest we use GamesNET

.

irc.gamesnet.net

I could register a channel if anyone's interested.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 03 Mar 2003 16:58

I think it's pretty much already decided that Quakenet is the way to go.

That way, I don't have to stump up more cash to my shell provider sto run an additional bot and bouncer

jacke · Post by **jacke** » 03 Mar 2003 17:02

ChrisCF wrote:I think it's pretty much already decided that Quakenet is the way to go. That way, I don't have to stump up more cash to my shell provider sto run an additional bot and bouncer

Yeah maybe quakenet is a good place, maybe it doesnt matter where...
But say quakenet then, its quite stable also, many here maybe already use quakenet.
channelname then ?? #TT2 ?

SHADOW-XIII · Post by **SHADOW-XIII** » 03 Mar 2003 18:59

<----- doesn't like IRC

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 03 Mar 2003 20:23

and why not?

Anyway, the vote's looking pretty close at the moment, but I'd need to be sure that there'd be at least 4 users able to keep a client sitting in the channel almost 24/7, otherwise it would not be viable. Take away me and my bot, and that leaves a *minimum* 2 users which would need to stay on.

TeKiZeRo · Post by **TeKiZeRo** » 03 Mar 2003 20:59

GamesNET gives your channel a bot after you register it. And the channel is yours until you unregister it. GamesNET would be a good idea since its a irc server for basically any type of game. And they also have several servers for east and west. Also GamesNET has rougly ~100% uptime

.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 03 Mar 2003 21:09

TeKiZeRo wrote:GamesNET gives your channel a bot after you register it. And the channel is yours until you unregister it. GamesNET would be a good idea since its a irc server for basically any type of game. And they also have several servers for east and west. Also GamesNET has rougly ~100% uptime .

Registering of channels can cause more problems than it solves. Not very nice to head in looking for a channel, only to find that it's both empty and registered. Dishing out bots willy-nilly's not always the best idea - hence you have services which sit on the channel to keep watch(That's "services" in general not the program "Services").

Has GamesNET managed to find its way to being the biggest IRC network out there?

In any case, I'm not paying an extra £20 just for the privelege of sitting on another network. Can you say "47 servers"? GamesNET didn't get past dalnet in the stats so much as dalnet hit the floor (http://irc.netsplit.de/).

SveinT · Post by **SveinT** » 04 Mar 2003 16:17

Hmm..time to toss in my two cents. Imo, DALNet is the worst IRC network i have ever seen...attracts all types of lunies too

Anyway, quakenet is quite good, gamesnet I have no experience on, but both sounds like a good service. But, ChrisCF, you say "yes, then QN is decided", the only one I see here voting for that are you...
I'm not saying that it whould not be there, i'm just asking if you would pay a little more attention to everyone and not only your wish. The thing about IRC, is that everyon has their favorite and nobody likes to connect to several networks at once. I would vote EFnet, but that is my opinion...I would settle with most other networks though..

And bots...I am almost 100% certain I can provide bots if at EFnet, and using bots as an argument for using a network is stupid. There is always someone who has bots for your channel, if you just are nice enough

mp3Pro · Post by **mp3Pro** » 04 Mar 2003 16:48

EFnet is hard to connect to from N. America. I would suggest going with a smaller network with less traffic.. our userbase is here after all, its not like you need a huge channel list to recruit ppl from....

btw- Sure Dal has A LOT of freaks on it, but didnt your momma tell you not to talk to freaky strangers?????? lol

jacke · Post by **jacke** » 05 Mar 2003 07:19

Looks like quakenet seems to be the best place for the channel.....
or ??

SveinT · Post by **SveinT** » 05 Mar 2003 14:45

mp3Pro wrote:EFnet is hard to connect to from N. America. I would suggest going with a smaller network with less traffic.. our userbase is here after all, its not like you need a huge channel list to recruit ppl from....

btw- Sure Dal has A LOT of freaks on it, but didnt your momma tell you not to talk to freaky strangers?????? lol

Hmm, I have never heard about it being hard to connect to from N america...but again, those who can't connect obviously wouldn't be there

I never meant that we should select a server going from the userabase, and honestly I don't think it means much. Quakenet is fine with me though, I was just commenting ChrisCF's way of "deciding" things which I didn't like much...
But I think the IRC channel would be quite dead until we got something real to work with, i.e an engine or some specs for gfx...

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 05 Mar 2003 18:46

If you like, you can look at it this way. DALnet has become a non-entity, and EFnet is full of not-very-nice elitists. My experience of IRCnet wasn't particularly pleasant either. I have no experience with Undernet.

For some people, the only barrier between them and connecting to two networks instead of the usual one is that they can't be bothered. OTOH, some would have to pay to run extra background processes on their shell accounts.

As for my way of "deciding" things, it comes down to the fact that I am on QuakeNet, that it is easier for me to set things up on the network on which I already am sitting, and that there is already a TT-related channel on Qnet, in which I also sit. That logic seems to stand up. IIRC, places like DALnet and EFnet weren't too happy about people running channel bots last time I looked.

Anyway, for the moment, #TT2 is taken, but I'll see if I can free it. ATM it's being held up by someone who's sitting in that and a couple of others by himself - clearly not doing anything with it.

mp3Pro · Post by **mp3Pro** » 05 Mar 2003 20:29

ummm why do you want to run a bot?

jacke · Post by **jacke** » 05 Mar 2003 21:36

Why not just register a simple L-bot ??
We have no use of other bots....or ?

SveinT · Post by **SveinT** » 07 Mar 2003 13:57

ChrisCF wrote:If you like, you can look at it this way. DALnet has become a non-entity, and EFnet is full of not-very-nice elitists. My experience of IRCnet wasn't particularly pleasant either. I have no experience with Undernet.

For some people, the only barrier between them and connecting to two networks instead of the usual one is that they can't be bothered. OTOH, some would have to pay to run extra background processes on their shell accounts.

Bots, bots, bots...again, bots normally isn't a problem, but you are right that most accounts only allow one shell, thus only one instance of eggdrop which can only connect to one network at the time afaik (i have no clue though)

As for my way of "deciding" things, it comes down to the fact that I am on QuakeNet, that it is easier for me to set things up on the network on which I already am sitting, and that there is already a TT-related channel on Qnet, in which I also sit. That logic seems to stand up. IIRC, places like DALnet and EFnet weren't too happy about people running channel bots last time I looked.

Well, you kinda missed my point, but to me it seemed like you made a decision without paying attention to the replies (not that there were many, and thus not much response to make a decision on). But just never mind. I'm fine with Quakenet, I just tried to point out that it seemed like a bit selfishness to decide using a network because you used it and so you would be the one not having to stay on multiple networks at a time.

As for EFNet, you can run 200 bots in a channel if you want to, no one minds...there is no channel service, so you have to run bots in a channel, unless you have many people idling 24/7.

Anyway, for the moment, #TT2 is taken, but I'll see if I can free it. ATM it's being held up by someone who's sitting in that and a couple of others by himself - clearly not doing anything with it.

Well, that isn't necessarely a problem as we could always use #transportmaster or "transportempire, whatever this project will be named final...

To mp3pro:

On many networks bots are required in order to keep control of a channel and to op people...On some networks, like DALnet, there is a server client which does this things though. But again, DALnet is not worth a penny imho

Undernet also has serverbots, but I would much rather go quakenet than undernet...

Topic locked, come visit us at [url=irc://irc.quakenet.org/transportempire]#transportempire @ Quakenet[/url] (12112006).

Transport Tycoon Forums

Dedicated IRC channel

Would you use an IRC channel if one were provided for this project?

Dedicated IRC channel

Who is online