Re: Switch/Mail argument from "George" at Oct 7, 97 05:53:58 pm

From: Andrew Helm (ashe@IGLOU.COM)
Date: 10/07/97

> 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?

Excuse me, I"ll reword it: what does it have to do with fixing the
potential ethical situation that will arise due to the unforseen behavior
behavior in the switch function? We both agree, you simply
insist that other people's terminology is wrong and your's is right.
You changed the behavior by allowing chars to be loaded. I assume
other people who have encounted the switch problem have changed it's
behavior as well. Don't be so difficult when you already agree with me.
It's not like I'm making a controversial point.

> >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'.

Sigh, I already told you that stock circle doesn't have a load pc
function. People need to be made away of the switch behavior so
they can either take it out, thereby preventing future problems,
or so they can take advantage of it. There is no reason the
switch command's behavior shouldn't be changed, whether the
mail reading aspect of it is augmented or whether it's taken out.

> >The above makes no sense in the current context of the discussion.
> >Please stay on topic.
> Please actually progress in and follow the topic.

You were going off in a gun/murder rant. I'm sorry, but it's off
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.

If that was your interpretation consider yourself corrected.

> >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...

Am I correct in interpreting this as you saying that the way to
handle bugs is to state that they should not be abused?

> >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. ;)

Cool. =)

> >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? :)

They might not be playing at the time. Plus they know something is "up".

> >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 are arguing against things I didn't claim. I'm not saying you
need to change the command only because it's "unethical," but
because of its 1) general uselessness unless modified 2) it's
potential to be abused. In fact, I only claimed it was "sort of"
a bug, you brought up the ethical implications. :)
(Though I completely agree there are ethic implications. We
have discussed this though.)

> >> 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

> >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.

Policy when policy is appropriate. Code when code is important. This
is obvious.

> >> 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.

I wouldn't prefer any bug. I wouldn't call the implementor's ability to
kill someone a bug either. I told you again and again that I don't
care what word you call it, it still needs changed. Whichever side
of "mail snooping" argument you sit on, it still needs changed. We

> >> 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...

You snipped the text I was responding to. That's called misquoting.
Learn to quote properly.

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST