XMPP Service Operators - 2021-10-23

Will say only this: I haven't ever seen christian say anything like this before, but it certainly does not bode well for him.

Hi all. Does anyone know any xmpp domains that has a v3 .onion address with webclient (which also have a muc/conference) where people can either join it anonymously without account or with an account?

?

i have a birman cat that is 12 years old, it is black, and its name is nigga. where is fas problem?

https://xmpp.zp1.net:5281/upload/J6DhGS5rZCFf2aN_/0WGMx9ERR16ZjQhXkl0FjA.jpg

it was on a chat about cats.

what is this block captain atitude?

this guy is calling me "christian, you piece of shit"

https://xmpp.zp1.net:5281/upload/UwJR_8Gs_aZkGnrl/12P4Li90SlCUTiO0W0_1Vg.png

i think calling someone "christian you piece of shit" is a terrible insult, and can't be justified by the fact that i named my black cat nigga 12 years ago. nigga is not peiorative, it's meant to be chummy. But "christian du stück scheisse" is an insult according to 185 bgb. i could have called her blacky, back then, 12 years ago, but it seemed more like a dog name than a cat name.

>185 bgb

citing the law? do it properly

Ellenor Bjornsd.: That would be § 185 StGB (criminal law), not BGB (civil law).

millesimus: Of Germany?

What does any of this have to do with running an XMPP service?

Seemingly nothing moparisthebest

zp1.net: Independent from the name of your cat, in that screenshot grrras posted you are clearly not referring to the cat but using an insulting and offensive word and I suspect you are very aware of this.

Ellenor Bjornsd.: yep

for those w/o a § key, i'd suggest using the word 'sect.', short for 'section.' a proper cite would've been "§ 185 stgb (Germany)" as this is an international chatroom. I am in Canada, so I don't have to know the German code all that well.

Ellenor Bjornsd.: i don't care, i do not Intention to sue anybody :)))

then ... why'd you cite the code?

Could all of it discussed somewhere else please?

afaik it's finished. ✏

> zp1.net: Independent from the name of your cat, in that screenshot grrras posted you are clearly not referring to the cat but using an insulting and offensive word and I suspect you are very aware of this. And for the reference, and then I'll shut up about it, I asked Christian if he believes if it's ok if I name a bird "Christian you piece if shit". I said, I disagree that this would be ok. Christan said he's fine with that, hence I did for what Christian gave consent.

grrras stop it, that's enough of a petty fight and none of it belongs to here as well.

rare enough, I agree with Maranda

Maranda, jonas’: 1. I said I stop taking about it, your reply just makes noise 2. I will now respond to your reply in general. 3. Is there nothing like a ToS that is used? Everyone can be a service operator and will be welcomed by the community for ever, doesn't matter what they do? Is there a line? Will it be ever drawn? 4. I read the channel guidlines https://xmpp.org/community/channels/operators/ There it says, that the issue I brought up is on-topic. I'll quote the relevant parts: "...also a place for the wider XMPP community (including end-users and operators of non-federated servers) to get in touch with operators to resolve issues, report abuse or any other service related topic." "Announcements and raising awareness about problematic actors in the ecosystem affecting end-users or services negatively, preferably with corresponding evidence so that everyone is able to form their own opinion." This and only this is what I did. If you believe this is OT, you are either in the wrong room, or you may request the guidlines to be changed. For the reason people expressed their discomfort to continue the debate about an user, I agreed to stop the debate about the user, hence the shift in topic.

grrras, did I say anything about not enforcing? I just woke up, but there's no point to discuss this in public. It just creates noise as yousaid.

I'm in fact already looking into this, so let's keep it out of the public channel until a resolution has been found. I'll get in touch with both of you privately.

Ok

grrras: > ToS ToS is fine for making intentions explicit, but in cases such as this one, it typically wouldn't avoid endless discussions on the question whether the line was crossed. My solution is to join communities where I trust the intentions of the moderators to be fine (like this one) and leave the decision on whether lines were crossed to them, assuming good faith.

Anyone know? 🙂 ✏

Reason for asking,is because I have had no luck finding any yet

sorry, what are you asking? I didn't see your question.

> Hi all. Does anyone know any xmpp domains that has a v3 .onion address with webclient (which also have a muc/conference) where people can either join it anonymously without account or with an account?

thanks

no don't know of any

Would be an interesting feature for one of the services that has onion anyways. But I suppose it would be like another 8chan.. So... ¯\_ (ツ) _/¯

have a nice day

so you mean a .webclient doesnt really have any v3 .onion address?

Jaxx: it depends on what the admin sets up, yes it's possible technically

I see.. thanks. i do have few xmpp domains,but dont know if any of them have any webclient.. Is there any way to check that?

Jaxx: see their websites...?!

thanks 😃

So, uh... here's a related but actually topical thing that I've been wondering: why do bans seem to be so much more popular than devoicing?

Are the reasons generally more technical, pragmatic, political, or what?

rozzin: I think devoicing how it is mostly implemented can be avoided by rejoining a room.

grrras: hmm. Even if that's true..., I can more easily understand bans as a next escalation if when someone circumvents devoicing; it still seems strange to me to just always jump strait over devoicing directly to bans.

And my recollection was that it looked like devoicing could be made to stick, when I was looking at the moderation options on my ejabberd server. Never really tried to apply it, though.

I may be wrong but I think a user rejoins a room by going offline/online.

grrras: No, you're right.

And looking now at where I thought I must have seen what amounted `sticky voice/devoice' options..., I actually don't see them.

Looks like if I wanted devoicing to persist across leave/join cycles, I'd have to make the MUC default users to `visitor' instead of `participant' and require all new users to be specifically granted voice or membership by some means (either manually or by an admin bot or something).

I guess that could possibly be workable in this channel, for example, since there actually is such a bot here.

What codebase is authbot, BTW?

rozzin: https://github.com/horazont/authbot

rozzin: the couple MUCs I'm in that had a spam problem went that route, ie no one can talk until they join and are made a member

Guy kept spamming, getting banned, rejoining with another jid, rinse repeat

moparisthebest: do tell how the MUC members kept talking with the spammer for days...>1-2k messages, yeah, fun times

Yep

Well, I wasn't going to say it because I figured it was obvious: but, yeah... there is the issue that if people don't pass a certain `honestly threshold' or whatever of at least using their `real JID' consistently, them even bans don't really work.... So ironically you can only ban people who _aren't_ completely beyond redemption....

moparisthebest: so how did that work out, in practice?

rozzin: no more spam...

moparisthebest: did it still "work" for newcomers? Or was it more like "no more spam because no more public MUC"?

It was kinda split, the bigger talkers with the spammer made their own members only group

Then again the spammer didn't return...

There are still new members

Licaon_Kter: did they invite the spammer to their new members-only group?

That was my first joke too :)

Is conversations offtopic still like this Licaon_Kter ? I was actually talking about '64 sprites' a gaming muc

Same spammer though...

Does it matter? Some room...same behaviour

Licaon_Kter: well, that was basically what I'm trying to ask: does `voice only by request / membership' actually work long-term, or do groups who try it out tend to eventually revert after their specific bad-actors have given up and forgotten about that room?

I'm semi-seriously looking for info on what moderation options are actually useful (and how / to what extent) in case I ever find the gumption to run some sort of `griefer re-education' MUCs....

64 sprites is still moderated this way and is as active as it ever was

Which is, not super active, but meh :)

Hmm...: I wonder how many clients actually do/don't support voice-requests https://github.com/iNPUTmice/Conversations/issues/3835#issuecomment-667812768

It's a client thing too, eg. I can kick and ban from Conversations...but I can't undo :)

I usually use this info as a warning ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Indeed.