WHAT FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEMISE OF ABUZZ?

Sure, some sites aren't hurt (by their definition) by hosting illegal activities either.



You've made it clear that you would like this feature, what I'm saying is that it won't work (because the overwhelming majority of net users do not have static IPs) and because there are MANY easy ways to get around this block.

So you'd end up having to only let a few users from an ISP like America Online in and the miscreants can still create multiple identities because the IP thing isn't much of a deterrant.

Yes you can claim that this doesn't hurt a site if the owner is foolish enough to want it, and you have made up your mind about it so I'll not waste time convincing you otherwise.

But since this is posted on the web development forum I feel compelled to make it clear that simply restricting accounts by IP number is easier to get around than to restrict it with different emails and that you would lose an enormous percent of possible members to implement this.

Sure, if the site doesn't want members and likes the idea of a security feature that provides not a shed of security then I can't claim it's hurt, just stupid.

I realize, too, craven, that you've got "definite" opinions about various operations for users of the Internet, and site specifics, too.

I got that, a while ago. Whenever I try to correspond with you about issues related to technical aspects of sites, you appear to perceive some arguement where none exists. If differences of preferential operations are perceived as difficulties, there's just nothing to discuss.

But, yes, you'r right, I do find account registrations per I.P. Address beneficial, for reasons that are beyond what you describe as why you don't prefer same. That's about all I have to add about this issue.

================

I bet it's my bird.

Reminds me of that moment in "Mars Attacks."

This isn't about an argument. It's merely technical.

It wouldn't work. I'm not talking about preference, just saying that restricting accounts per IP is easy to get around (off the top of my head I can think of 5 ways).

I hope I was clear this time. I have no preference with this issue and there would really be no point to argue with you about technical matters. I do however like solutions that solve and am merely pointing out that that one doesn't.

================

Your tone appears argumentative, craven, whenever I raise "technical" issues (your word).

Whatever works for you and your site, is what's right and workable for you and your site. Which is the rule of standard for most people and the sites they maintain, and/or construct for clients (who, in turn, exercise whatever works best for them).

There are always several solutions to any one, given problem, and different sites exercise different protocals for user behavior, and editorial capacity and more. That's the only -- very general -- point I've been making, and, with I.P. registration limitations, they, at least, exact a certain control over user registrations, despite them not exacting the control that you might consider a solution for you.

What good would IP restrictions do? Yes, you'd limit people to connecting from one IP address but at the same time it automatically prevents 75% of people with Internet access from accessing the site.

HTB,

I can't do anything about what you perceive as an argumentative tone. It's an accusation you've leveled several times on this forum and I am at a loss to explain why. Arguments are hinged on disagreement so yes if you are trying to say that I frequently have disagreed with you on technical issues then yes this is true.

This disagreement isn't a matter of taste (I like apples more than oranges) it's a matter of something that is not true (rubbing salt on your warts makes them go away).

I am not saying that if someone opts to accept the negative side effects of such IP restrictions that it is foolish. That's their decision.

I am saying that the IP restrictions wouldn't work. Please note, I am not saying it would work but would hamper the site. I am saying that it would not work.

If you care to to create such a feature I can demonstrate this for you.

Just to illustrate the problem that would be encountered - I checked Zone Alarm on my PC and I've been assigned 8 different IP addesses in the last 2 days even though I've dialed the same exact phone number to connect to the net each time.

================

AHgain, if it provides the result that some site desires, it's the solution for them.

About the numbers issue of registrants, not every site wants, values or is constructed with large numbers of registrants in mind. Some people prefer an alternative behavior for a site.

And, AHgain, if *whatever* provides a solution to a desired outcome, for any site, then it's the solution for that site.

Obviously, it wouldn't be the optimal solution for your site, fishin, or craven's site, or whoever's, who has a different perspective than, say, someone who finds registration limitations complimentary and useful to their site function.

And about 75% do not use a static IP, you can post from multiple IPs easily, there are free proxies you can use, there are free ISPs in many parts of the world......

With my broadband provider the IP address changes every 7 days, thus no static ip address.

===============

Some people have static I.P. addresses, fishin. Some sites capture I.P. addresses as per visitors to their sites, some sites provide secure registration.

Craven, we just don't communicate well in writing. And, where have I "levelled" whatever here, about what? I don't follow, but, again, I do experience your tone with me to be of the "personal attack" nature that your site is supposedly attempting to avoid. It's unpleasant to even raise issues when you and fishin respond to me as you do.

HTB,

It's not just that it would restrict the use, it's also that the restrictions are paper walls.

Like I said, try to keep me out of a site with that IP restricting system. I will not even change computers or ISPs and I will be in in 10 seconds.

Email validation would take me longer.

Once again, this isn't about wanting the restrictiosn or not, it's about the restrictions not working for the purpose they are intended. Please tell me you get it this time.

HTB,

Being disagreed with is far different from a personal attack, you've claimed to have been attacked on this forum a few times and I have never shared that opinion and am not aware of anyone who did.

This site doesn't purport to making everyone agree with you, nor does it promise everyone won't feel attacked. Just that there will be people responsible for helping avoid what IS an attack.

I have not flamed you, I am only stating technical facts that happen to contradict one of your statements and that don't have wiggle room.

==============================

Craven, much of the "technical" information you write about here and in other threads, isn't as reliable as you may believe it is. Why argue about it? You're learning, you've learned, it's an ongoing process.

I "get" that you've leapt into some hugely specific area in some perceived difference when what I earlier mentioned was, simply, a general restriction on registration per I.P. address, which is possible, at least for some sites and some users. It may be perceived as antiquated to some, obviously, but it's a workable solution for some persons and some sites.

Which has been my only point here, all along.

But, I'm not going to interact here again with you. Your bb site is nice, great work, and good luck with it.

Yes, some people do have static IP addresses. If your site is intended for use by people that will never connect from their homes on dial-up, DSL, Cable or satellitte as well as by any business that uses DHCP or a proxy server then you might be able to find that niche.

Most people create WWW sites (particulalrly dicsussion sites) for a broad range of people to use/access. Creating one that locks the user's registration to an IP address limits that sites availablity to a very small segment of the total IP address space and automatically eliminates a huge portion of the population.

HTB,

You are welcome to point out where my information was not reliable (I'm sorry that you decided to cease posting instead of doing so).

You are also welcome to flee when I return the favor. This is your right as you know and you have excercised it on every forum I've seen you on.

But don't act like this is ad hominem, I did not have anything to say about you. I said that you were wrong and that is an opinion that each have a right to. If I ran from a forum every time I wasn't right I'd have nowhere to go and I wouldn't be learning.

Aloha

weeee-eellll.... okey-dokey, then! ....

I just wanted to butt into here a moment to say that I truly appreciate the comment our Roger made about a certain person on abuzz

"That anal retentive, rat hating, sorry sack of suffering snake snot."

I just cannot think of a better phrase to describe my feelings about that individual!

Long ago, "Santa" told my sons (when visiting our home! for Christmas) that something was so cool it was "Slicker than snail snot". Since then, of course, it is a long-remembered phrase we all have to remember not to actually say aloud to many folks, lol!

I finally saw the post, and it's an old buddy. I have emailed her, asking about the avatar. I doubt it's the rat, but can't think of one that might be offensive.

One of the factors contributing to the malaise, if not demise, of Abuzz is the practice of offering objection as opposed to counter argument then registering personal affront when pressed to particularize the basis of the offered objection. Typically, such folks may be expected to engage in heated though irrelevant exchange, and often indignantly threaten to storm off in a huff, while offering no substantive refutation of the matter at dispute, nor valid support for any counter argument they may have themselves posed.

"I am right because I know I am right, and anyone who can't plainly see that I'm right is an idiot. By your very assertion that I am in error, you are wrong, you pompous, lying, misbegotten, prone-to-improbable-sexual-practice, heathen, unatractive idiot. In accordance with my contempt for you, I shall have no more to do with you. Therefore, I win this argument." Interestingly, such exchange can be quite frequent on the part of, and even among, some individuals.


The only truly secure network would have to be a wholly closed, fully encrypted system accessible exclusively to authorized, security-screened individuals of honest intent and congruent interest. Simply allowing that nework to interact with The Internet compromises its security. As a matter of fact, it should probably be independent of the commercial power grid.

To my experience, IP Blocking would be an impractical, essentially inneffectual, if not counterproductive, remedy to the problems involved. It is an unsophisticated "Shotgun" approach of likely great inconvenience to individuals not meriting the effect, and but negligible hinderance to those most likely to be causing problems. IP "Spoofing" and IP "Hopping", for instance, among other ploys, render it meaningless. A determined rabblerouser with the not-very-rare tech skills to do so is relatively unhindered by the measure. The tools are readily available in the nooks and crannies of The Net giving sanctuary to those with interest in such things.

In this regard, I believe I understand the reasoning behind CDK's position, and accept as demonstrated his credentials pertinent to his actions in the matter. I have seen no evidence to the contrary presented. There has been heated exchange of no relevance to the matter. That is disappointing.



timber