12 Jan, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
[2011.01.12-00.17,25] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> [ichat] Cratylus@Dead_Souls_Dev: kiasyn is a stinky poo lol
[2011.01.12-00.17,26] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> hey :<
[2011.01.12-00.17,51] Ksilyan <ichat2> shocking
[2011.01.12-00.19,13] Cratylus <ichat2> P.U. stinky poo!
[2011.01.12-00.19,24] Ksilyan <ichat2> pe pe le pee you
[2011.01.12-00.22,43] Ksilyan <ichat2> so why aren't you jokers on the network where people actually talk more than once a year or so?
[2011.01.12-00.23,35] Cratylus <ichat2> img advertising
[2011.01.12-00.23,39] Cratylus <ichat2> b&
[2011.01.12-00.23,49] Cratylus <ichat2> hey that reminds me
[2011.01.12-00.23,50] Ksilyan <ichat2> nobody's advertising img here
[2011.01.12-00.24,02] Cratylus <ichat2> HEY KIASYN
[2011.01.12-00.24,20] <ichat2> Cratylus fires up the stinky poo bonfire signal.
[2011.01.12-00.24,43] Cratylus <ichat2> AHOY
[2011.01.12-00.25,01] Cratylus <ichat2> sumbitch
[2011.01.12-00.25,10] Cratylus <ichat2> never one around when you need one
[2011.01.12-00.27,07] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> eh i dont care
[2011.01.12-00.27,41] Cratylus <ichat2> hi
[2011.01.12-00.27,52] Cratylus <ichat2> i dont care that you dont care about being called stinky poo
[2011.01.12-00.28,02] Cratylus <ichat2> that would be fucked up if you did
[2011.01.12-00.28,14] Cratylus <ichat2> i want to talk about unifying the networks
[2011.01.12-00.28,25] Ksilyan <ichat2> hoooo boy
[2011.01.12-00.28,40] Cratylus <ichat2> you been hinting here and there for 2 years you might be up for it
[2011.01.12-00.28,46] Cratylus <ichat2> quit the cocktease
[2011.01.12-00.28,52] Cratylus <ichat2> let's do it
[2011.01.12-00.29,21] Sinistrad <ichat2> by the way, true fact: I'm higher than any of you are RIGHT NOW
[2011.01.12-00.29,31] Sinistrad <ichat2> I can't help but look down on you
[2011.01.12-00.29,34] Sinistrad <ichat2> but my heart sees equals, ok
[2011.01.12-00.29,40] Sinistrad <ichat2> except for you and you
[2011.01.12-00.29,40] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> do you have an easy way of doing it
[2011.01.12-00.29,47] Sinistrad <ichat2> ohai Kia
[2011.01.12-00.29,53] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> hurrow
[2011.01.12-00.29,55] Cratylus <ichat2> easy is not the question, are you up for it is the question
[2011.01.12-00.30,00] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> im a google apps resller now :]
[2011.01.12-00.30,07] Sinistrad <ichat2> orly?
[2011.01.12-00.30,13] Sinistrad <ichat2> well good for you
[2011.01.12-00.30,23] Cratylus <ichat2> goddamn gogcockblock
[2011.01.12-00.30,41] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> yeah lets do it
[2011.01.12-00.30,47] Cratylus <ichat2> EXCELLENT
[2011.01.12-00.31,15] Cratylus <ichat2> let me tell you about some stuff
[2011.01.12-00.31,42] Cratylus <ichat2> back in 2007 or so some dickweed wanted to run an i3 router. im like, i dont know, you're a dickweed
[2011.01.12-00.31,53] Cratylus <ichat2> he's like i want to run the router fuck you
[2011.01.12-00.32,16] Sinistrad <ichat2> such potty moufin
[2011.01.12-00.32,25] Cratylus <ichat2> so i set up an inter router network that #1 allowed communication between routers, #2 allowed channels to be mapped to different things
[2011.01.12-00.32,45] Cratylus <ichat2> why? because he wnated to have channels with the same names but potty mouth channels
[2011.01.12-00.32,50] Cratylus <ichat2> and i was liek fuck that
[2011.01.12-00.33,22] Cratylus <ichat2> we ned to talk about policies and what not. it can be done, a federated system is not rocket science and it can work if the admins are committed to making it work
[2011.01.12-00.33,44] Cratylus <ichat2> when are you up for such a discussion
[2011.01.12-00.34,01] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> forum me up a post
[2011.01.12-00.34,06] Kiasyn@Talon <ichat2> or something
[2011.01.12-00.34,22] Cratylus <ichat2> oh and the end of the dickweed story? once he found out he couldnt fuck things up, he lost interest
[2011.01.12-00.34,32] Cratylus <ichat2> ok


So what I envision is federation. Individual nodes on a network that can choose for themselves
what policies are acceptable for which channels.

The point of agreement would have to be channel names.

For the purposes of this discussion, I suggest that advocates of full zebedee-style decentralization
STFU on that point and let the admins of live networks negotiate some actual no-fooling unification.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
12 Jan, 2011, Asylumius wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Does this mean when I come to MudBytes the IMC box on the homepage will actually change through the course of the week again?
12 Jan, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
Does this mean when I come to MudBytes the IMC box on the homepage will actually change through the course of the week again?


Assuming the unification happens, I'd say "maybe".

There's a good chance that the goodwill generated by the networks interoperating, I think, will make
both benefit from increased traffic in general, meaning more traffic would flow across the ichat channel.

However, it'll still be ichat and it'll still be on IMC2, you shouldn't expect to see i3 channel traffic being
directed into already established imc2 channels, nor vice versa.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
21 Jan, 2011, kiasyn wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
makes sense to me.

are oyu looking to map all your channels to imc or just popular ones or?
21 Jan, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
makes sense to me.

are oyu looking to map all your channels to imc or just popular ones or?


My assumption is that it is optimal to allow all imc2 denizens access to all i3 channels and all i3 denizens access to all imc2 channels.

There is no name overlap I know of, though since i3 people are allowed to create channels of their own, the i3
side would have to prevent the creation of channels known to exist on imc2.

So let's get to the nittty gritty. It seems to me that the most straightforward way of doing this is having me
set up an imc2 server that Server01 and Server02 consider a peer…basically I'm seeing me in charge of Server03.

How's that grab you?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
04 Feb, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
14 Feb, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
13 May, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
kiasyn said:
makes sense to me.

are oyu looking to map all your channels to imc or just popular ones or?


My assumption is that it is optimal to allow all imc2 denizens access to all i3 channels and all i3 denizens access to all imc2 channels.

There is no name overlap I know of, though since i3 people are allowed to create channels of their own, the i3
side would have to prevent the creation of channels known to exist on imc2.

So let's get to the nittty gritty. It seems to me that the most straightforward way of doing this is having me
set up an imc2 server that Server01 and Server02 consider a peer…basically I'm seeing me in charge of Server03.

How's that grab you?

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net


Some months have gone by since I wrote this reply, and despite my colorful and humorous attempts to
bump for more attention to it, I haven't heard back.

I think it is safe to say this represents a "no" as an aswer, whether it's due to intent or negligence.

If it is an intentional "no", and if it is borne from a reluctance to have me be co-administrator, I would
like to suggest that at the very worst, it's unlikely I'd do a worse job of administration and support.

For example, afaik, IMC2 has been down for a solid week with no mention of when it'll be back.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
13 May, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
A sign on the wall reads: "I3 connection: ONLINE, IMC2: WAITING FOR ACCEPTANCE"

04/30 	20:40 	mbchat 	Cratylus@Dead_Souls_Dev 	i'm a teenage girl
04/30 20:42 mbchat Ninja@Dead_Souls_Dev i'm a teenage boy - wanna hook up?
05/01 08:09 mbchat Quixadhal@Bloodlines Testing #f07d50Peachy Colors OK?
05/05 17:57 mbchat Cratylus@Dead_Souls_Dev big bottom
05/05 18:02 mbchat Sinistrad@Dead_Souls_Dev centripetal perfection

Magic 8-ball says "Outlook not so good?"
14 May, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Perhaps it's time to finalize an MSDP spider as the potential for growth would be substantial. Not sure if any of the current MSDP capable muds are interested.
14 May, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Perhaps it's time to finalize FTSP, the Forum Topic Shift Protocol. Since I can't imagine how MSDP in any way relates to IMC2 being down, nor really to the concept of merging IMC2 and I3, I assume Scandum has chosen this as an opportune moment to advertise MSDP. If we had FTSP working properly, this would have become clear and no assumptions would be necessary.
14 May, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
I can't imagine how MSDP in any way relates to IMC2 being down, nor really to the concept of merging IMC2 and I3


I think Scandum once mentioned having his mud client behave in the manner of a distributed chat client
people could use for communication without necessarily being logged on to a mud. Maybe that's what he
means. He might be expressing an interest in having muds also participate in this theoretical chat network.

While I'm not opposed to that idea, I don't see that it resolves the issue being discussed, which is
that two longtime, established networks could use more cooperation and in the case of IMC2,
more activity and admin attention.

In any case, it looks like Kiasyn finally got around to restarting IMC2 today.

-Crat
http://www.mudworld.net/imud/logs/
14 May, 2011, Kline wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I think Scandum once mentioned having his mud client behave in the manner of a distributed chat client
people could use for communication without necessarily being logged on to a mud. Maybe that's what he
means. He might be expressing an interest in having muds also participate in this theoretical chat network.


I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be (to utilize MSDP) over something far more common, like XMPP.
15 May, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
There are about 10 MUDs with MSDP currently with (so far) pretty steady growth. The main benefit would be widespread support and ease of implementation.

I'm only interested in something basic however, like an admin channel as a proof of concept. A more complex MSDP implementation could be a way to merge I3 and IMC2 and secure future growth.
16 May, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
What's the steady growth look like, out of curiosity? Any data on adoption since the protocol was released? Sounds like it's 10 MUDs now.
16 May, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
I added 6 MUDs since KaVir's MSDP snippet release, which averages to about 1 a week. They all bothered to customize the MSDP and MSSP variables.
23 Jul, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Down since Monday, as far as I can tell.
24 Jul, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
If only it had used MSDP over TELNET, we might have known sooner!
24 Jul, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
If only it had been douchebag free, it might have still been up!
24 Jul, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
You mean, maybe, if only people actually still used it, people might care enough to have it up? :wink:
0.0/21