Paddy,
Yes I disagree with your statement.  The protocol does not require the client to do any client-side filtering to implement the gag.  To elaborate, all a client has to do is issue a gag command, and this command can easily be sent to FIBS every time the offensive user logs in.  If the client does the filtering then it should be responsible for FIBS-like behavior and responses.

I can't quite figure out what you are saying in your OR clause so I don't know if I agree or disagree.  You have it phrased somewhat like a "have you stopped beating women?" question, and I don't want to touch it.

So that's a clear answer to a clear question and a dodge of a vague question.  IMO, a programmer should be able to phrase a question clearly, if he's interested in a discussion.  Have you stopped beating women, Paddy?  See?  There's no yes or no answer.

--
don

PS -- I'm ignoring diane's post because I can't see any relevance to this topic in it, except as she provides examples of the behavior I'm talking about.  I am not objecting in this discussion to users like diane, zyxtcba, donzaemon and others who hide and snipe behind gag.  That's not a client issue of great concern here.  It only becomes a serious client issue when I'm forced to interact with them in situations like tournaments and I don't get the well-designed feedback specified by FIBS.

Absolutely not.

Can you name any client that conforms 100% to the protocol for which it is being used?
First question when you find one: which version or the protocol?

I don't think this is a "beating your wife" question at all. I think you answered it by saying you thought it was
I would agree with that statement. Clients are free to bypass the use of CLIP. Anyone who uses telnet or tinyfugue knows this. One *could* implement a gui approximately like javafibs using straight telnet. You might question that persons sanity, but that would be a different question.

When I login non-CLIP and gag a player I no longer see shouts from that player.

When I login CLIP and gag a player, I continue to see shouts from that player.

The single most common use-case for the gag must surely be to deal with the likes of bgfd the other day.

A CLIP client has to filter on the client-side, to implement the same gag that a 'telnet-client' gets.
Indeed to get what is in practice the most basic gag function.

At least, such are my recent observations, but I am very new to this.  I had thought that such an interesting wrinkle would be well known, and that my statement would not be controversial.  Hence my pains to ensure that this is indeed a point of disagreement and not merely a misunderstanding on my part ?

Is there something that I have overlooked ?

Although it may simply be a case of simplifying something that was previously overengineered, it would come as
no surprise to me to discover that this change is in fact intended to address a weakness in the original fibs gag.

but this is just one detail in fairly complex picture, which anyone could easily stumble over, and yet I fear it could take some considerable time to go through it all in this level of detail.

Don,  you've pointed out a real hole in the existing system. I think we are fortunate that it has come to everyone's attention before it could be exploited by mischief makers intent only on causing trouble.  I am sure the players and TDs will join me in applauding you for cutting straight to the heart of the matter in identifying a lack of decorum.

I have great sympathy for the general view that gui authors should be encourged not break to underlying text interfaces, but for the reasons I have outlined strongly disagree with your contention that this is what is happenning in this case.

I would encourage you to set aside your impractical insistence on the legacy fibs gag and focus instead on looking for real practical solutions to a problem which is essentially non-technical.  As I have pointed out the technical community may well be able to offer some asssistance.

The please kibitz proposal has the considerable benefit of addressing the immediate problem directly and specifically, whereas the impact of the fibs gag is much more pervasive, even if it is at first sight elegant, and has the considerable disadvantage of already having a history. Although I do not have any stories to hand, it would not surprise me discover that there are already known weaknesses in the fibs gag that make it unsuitable for the purpose you propose.

Sadly, neither of us has a role in this that adds to the credibility of our genuinely intended proposals, and so it will be a loss if we reach an impasse on some fine point of technical principle, without exploring the various practical possibilities.  I have gone to considerable lengths to explain the reasons why your proposal will not work, and I would be grateful if you take a little time to point out possible problems with please kibitz.

Regards,
Paddy

Don,

I hope you will come to see that badmouthing the authors of clients and their users and pressuring TDs to take sides does nothing to advance the cause of improving the atmosphere.

I know from personal experience playing you with a client that really did have a problem that you were entirely gracious about it, and that overall players on fibs are both extremely friendly and understanding.  It would be a shame if people were to get a wrong impression of fibs from the quarrels that sometimes spill out onto the web.

In the end, while I sincerely wish that we could all just get along amiably, I have to find the grace to accept that sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason.  I can only hope that you can too.

I do thank you for engaging in discussion on this matter, and I hope you will understand me taking my leave of it now, if you have nothing further to add.

Regards,
Paddy

Ok, even if don will ever be, technically speaking, right again, just disregard my approval for him. Keep them coming:   postcards, brownies and homemade beer, along with smites. It is a great ARENA !  Free to play and free to observe.
( Why couldn't I just STFU  ?? )
 
 and