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.
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.