On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Andrew Helm wrote:
>> You can't code morality.
>
>Correct. What does this have to do with fixing a bug?
What bug?
>Why are you being so difficult? Switch obviously wasn't meant to be
>used the way you're suggesting. If you want a "mail snooping" command
>then there are much better ways to do it. In fact, I wouldn't even
>call switch a viable mail snooping command since it depends on the
>target being link-dead.
Sigh, I already proved you wrong a long time ago about the link dead part
with my 'load pc' function, and below by just doing a 'dc'.
>The above makes no sense in the current context of the discussion.
>Please stay on topic.
Please actually progress in and follow the topic.
>If I were claiming you shouldn't be reading other people's mail then
You just said that we shouldn't do that with switch.
>this might just be on topic. However, I have only said that the
>unsupervised, unlogged, and uncontrolled ability to read mail
by only implementors...
>due to a bug in switch is an ethical hazard and quite frankly it
due to a lack of discipline to use the command correctly...
>is only an unintended side-affect (ie- a bug), not a built in,
>documented feature. (They say you have to document the bugs
>before you can call them a feature ;-)
Switch is working exactly as specified.
>> But you are wrong there, they do not have to be link dead. I wrote up a
>> command to load a player into the game without them having to log in.
>
>Don't be so difficult. You know very well in a normal stock mud
>that no such thing is built in. If you want mail snooping ability
Ah, but it was so easy, there very well might be...soon. ;)
>in stock code then you should add in the ability to read other
>people's mail without depending on them going link-dead. If you
dc ###
switch sucker
What's wrong with that? :)
>don't want mail snooping ability then switch needs to be changed.
>Accept it.
I never said I didn't want it. I would not use it for 'snooping' and there
are many other things (which Kenneth pointed out) that switch can be used
for that are much much worse. (Like pissing people off with tell.)
>> You cannot be switched into by anyone lower.
>
>I never claimed you could.
You said (and I quote from above):
>this might just be on topic. However, I have only said that the
>unsupervised, unlogged, and uncontrolled ability to read mail
unsupervised, unlogged, and uncontrolled? Only an imp can do it.
You ARE the supervisor, you have the control. If you don't trust someone
else then they don't deserve implementor status.
>> You'd have to be an implementor anyway to even switch to the imp.
>
>You're right again. You're point? (Some muds decide to have multiple
>implementors, George.)
"...unsupervised, unlogged, and uncontrolled ability to read mail..."
>Load up a pc? How do you do that in stock circle? Unless you change
>things it's rather inconvenient. Why do you persist in defending a
>bug? Why do you believe just because you don't have a problem with
>it that others won't?
My implementors are not going around reading mail that is why. Any
implementor who does (unjustified) should be kicked out by whomever owns
the mud. Policy, not code.
>> Um...if you really want them to get the mail, load up the other person and
>> cut&paste the mail back to them.
>
>You're assuming you can load up the other person again, George. Remember,
>I'm talking about the bug being abused, not valid situations in which
>the mud administration wants to read other people's mail.
Maybe you'd prefer the bug that the implementor can outright 'kill'
someone? That's a bug waiting to be exploited, they don't even know who
killed them if you're invisible! Get real, get a policy.
>> You can't code morality.
>
>I never claimed you could.
That's what you're asking.
>*yawn* tell me when you're done playing with semantics.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
I'm done with this silly argument. If anyone else wishes to make an
attempt at digging you out of the rut of a position you are currently in,
they are welcome to try.
I believe it is Sammy's turn to get into a pointless argument, Daniel
already had his...
--
George Greer - Me@Null.net | Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity
http://www.van.ml.org/~greerga | is not thus handicapped. -- Elbert Hubbard
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST