The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website
Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In

IrCQNet / Ignored by representatives

1 United States Review updated:

A copy of letter to IrCQNet:

Dear ICQ.

I am emailing you to complain about the current state of your IRC servers (irc.icq.com). This complaint has been triggered due to the mounting over kill on security placed on your server, which is now, more then ever, simple affecting users getting the full potential and enjoyment out of the server.

I have been on IrCQNet for close to 9 years now and have seen many drastic changes to a server group that I use to enjoy going to. Many of these changes have been for the worst and I can not help but notice that they where implemented after AOL brought ICQ.

I personally come from a heavy ICT background, with privies jobs including running IT support for 3 large E comers company’s in the UK, running my own business which had a large portion of it based on my own IRC server and I have been a Global IRC Oper on many of the large IRC networks. It is coming from this experienced point on the subject that I base my comments.

Now down to the problems at hand.

Firstly I will cover the current core root of IrCQNet’s problems, its IRCd. IrCQNet currently run’s an unreal IRCd, an IRCd that you changed to from Hybrid IRCd. Please note that none of IRC’s 4 biggest servers, QuakeNet, Undernet, IRCNET or EFnet, run an unreal IRCd. These servers also all carry over 70,000+ users.

Unreal IRCd is widely seen as a hobby IRCd. It gives a bad image that ICQ can not implement and maintain a big network IRCd. I can only presume that this limited IRCd was implemented by your staff due to lack of experience dealing with IRC related software and protocols.

However, unreal IRCd aside (which could still work for you, if it was not for the poor management of the server), the server has been set up with modes in place that are chocking it.

The first mode I would like to talk about is +T. This is the newest mode that you have implemented by default to all users joining IrCQNet and the mode that has finally prompted me to do this e mail, as I seem to get no where talking to your representatives on the server (more on this later). The mode +T stops using from receiving and sending out all CTCP commands. Please note that you only implement this mode AFTER your server has sent a CTCP version request to every client that joins it.

CTCP is a useful tool in IRC and a big part of the IRC data handling protocols, most clients use it and it is widely used by many scripts and Linux Eggdrop bot nets. Blocking this mode has prevented users doing some of the simplest things like CTCP PING to check if a friend is lagging on there connection. Something you sometimes need to know in a Relay Chat situation.

The next mode that is a problem is +G. The default implementation of this mode is pure censorship on your parts. +G mode stops your client from viewing words that YOU have deemed to be “in appropriate”, however, rather then just setting it on public channels you set this mode, on default, onto everyone, which affects what they can see in private one on one chats and in there own private chat rooms. Most these words are simple “swear words” which any English Language stupid will tell you is simple emotive language, the language used by people to express there feelings at the time. But you have removed the ability for people to express themselves in the matter that they feel most comfortable with, and are trying to force them to compile with the way you feel people should speak, even how you feel people should speak to each other in private, or between close friends. You have removed peoples most basic right of freedom of speak.

The last mode of real issue is +x. +x or IP masking, is used to encrypted users IP addresses on an IRC server. Now where this can be a good thing at times for security rezones, it does however course more problems then is solves. For advanced IRC user’s it removes there ability to correctly moderate there own chat rooms and IRC clients. +x renders many script’s for IRC bots useless. It also stops you from seeing the address, so that you can place wildcard bans on harassing users in your own private rooms. More disturbing is that you have disabled users ability to remove this mode, deeming that they must do as you say, when you say it. You have removed user’s freedom to choose.

Upon entering IrCQNet my connection becomes subject to a number of unwanted scans on a number of my computer ports. My firewall log’s these scan’s, from your servers, as a DoS attack. As you probe and try and connect to my computer ports against my will. If I am then found to be running or connecting through a proxy server (as many people using a computer from any large network do), then the IP address is banned from your server and I am unable to connect. This is the same for some other port’s you scan for, including recognised remote access admin tools. So my firewall is right, you are aiming to deny me of service.

Within your public IRC chat rooms, you bots can be found to be a tad over zealot. Kicking and banning users for saying words like “Hitler”. Again you are directing what users can and can not talk about in a free flowing chat environment.

Your bots are not really the problem thaw; the most problems are coursed by your live ops. These are people who you choose to represent your company (by there very nature of being in a position of power), in your private chat rooms.

Your channel ops are recruited from among themselves, after you handed out a large degree of server control to non-employs of AOL/ICQ. This has bread a culture of “friends” and “the right type” becoming channel moderators, where it is often clear that these types of people are fare from “the right type” needed for the rooms. You have stopped using the right person for the job and started representing yourselves will ill qualified and poorly skilled users.

The idea of live ops in itself is a good one but at current it’s simple not working. Ops often play favourites in the chat rooms they op in, with there friends and room regulars and pick on new comers who don’t yet know the rules of chat. This is because the channel ops also go to these rooms for fun, as part of there chatting hobby and so they have become close friends with many of the other users. This makes it impossible for them to affectively do an impartial job or a moderator, which is what you’re asking them to do.

These live operators are also never on hand when needed. There presents in a public room is erratic at best. When you do need one to dear with a troublesome user, then you normally find that they do not have the social or technical skills to deal with them, they are unwilling to use any degree in common sense to evade problems before they arise of escalate, they simple can not be bothered or more commonly you hear “there is no one to op us in that room so we can do nothing about it”. It is basically a poorly organised setup which reflects badly on you as a company.

Now all this extra “security” you have put in place was done so, from my understanding, to protect users from “hackers” and other militias users, however if anything it has had the opposite affect. For instants, instead of the use of anonyms proxy’s to flood people on the server now, “script kiddies” have been forced to go out and infect peoples computers with Trojans to build big DDoS networks. This now has an affects even more users then before and so the problem is worse. But that’s just one example of the many ways in which poor server management has compounded security risks and endangered users computers and personal information to a greater degree.

Now from dealings with your representatives on your server, I have come to expect my views and opinions, as a user, to be ignored by yourselves. As a result it has put me off the use of an AOL or ICQ product, due to my lack of faith in the company paying attention to its users. I am not the only person that feel’s this way, in fact this feeling is general consensuses within the server among your core user group, and if you just took the time to investigate and talk to users on the server, from an anonym’s login, you would find this out for yourselves. A little time to stop and check would stop you from alienating the very people that keep your server going, by keep chat flowing in your public rooms and being the first point of enquiry for new users.

I look forward to your reply.

Ad
Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Ja
      28th of Jan, 2007
    0 Votes

    I have to agree with the part about those live op's I believe the #romance room is one disaster after another with the live ops in there.

  • Di
      4th of Jan, 2008
    +1 Votes

    Dear ICQ,

    I am writing to you to let you know... I dislike your ICQ 40's room.... There are people in there that are very, very , very insulting. ... There are people in there that push the new comer's out of the room by nasty and harassing comments... They act like children... and all the time I have been in there ... I have never seen an Op... I do not understand how people can be so nasty..... The nik's of these people are .. .... ... and .. these people come in there and say they own the room and harrass all the nice people chatting... I have even seen them attack... Disabled people that are going through ahard time in life... I do not understand how you can let this happen... I always thought Chat rooms are suppose to be a friendly and happy place to go and chat and meet friends.... but there are gangs... and it is rediculass... I have noticed sence these people have ganged up on others ... that heaps... and heaps of the nice one's are leaving and going to Yahoo or someother Chat sight... I dont see why anyone should be harrassed and insulted everytime they come in to see there friends and have a nice chat... but these people are so clever and never give up... Its like the room is ruled by these people... ow and by the way.... I will never be going back because of these nasty rude people.... and I know of a lot of others that won't be neather... thankyou for you time...

  • Co
      20th of Feb, 2008
    0 Votes

    I'm writing this in response to the complaint written about tahlula ocheeky bon scot and terresa, i have been in the 40s chat room for many yrs now and I can say this from what I have seen and YES before I go to for into this I HAVE indeed said my piece a time or to also right along with the others mentioned in the complaint HOWEVER it behooves me to see such a complaint made when the whole problem is frankly this ? it has nothing to do with being "disabled" or "new" in the room it has to do with attitudes people display the "so called disabled person " being referred to is in fact `Mat / `Stress and for yrs now he has done nothing but harrass and treat people who do not kiss his behind like crap I can upon request show COUNTLESS logs of him doing this on a daily basis and the only reason people are getting complained about is they like me are quite frankly tired of it he harrasses threatens and verbally abuses any and all people he feels do not do what he wants .. you can ask MANY people in there they will all tell you the same ... we have another "disabled" person in there DeanW he does the same if he is NOT getting the attention he FEELS he needs he starts calling people names and harrassing them or when for days we had to hear how he can't function sexually therefore he would attack anyone who even made a small sexual inuendo saying how they were worthless if all they did was cyber when in fact cyber was not even mentioned just a sexual remark ... how is that fun for us ? or better yet he starts conversations with people in private and the second they do something he finds offensive he pastes to others wat is being said and causes MANY room fights the same with `Matt .. then they both cry to the Op's they are being harrassed and picked on when in fact they bring it on themselves perhaps icq would be better served to save the room from the likes of them rather then getting rid of the people who LIKE me stand up to them .... also if people want to complain why don't they complain about NyCowBoy/ The_brat / Poofter who comes in on two different scripts and harrasses new comers by taking them private and in the room stating ( as Poofter) how he will make MEN of them and how he forces them on thier knees and so forth logs of this can also be given upon request of icq officals .... the people who stand up to the REAL bullies in that room should be applauded not chastize for thier actions if icq officals want to actually do something then checking facts on who the real bullies are may be a bennifit to them and the room .. take the true bullies out so the rest of us can actually enjoy our chat without having to feel the need to "so called attack" these guys because of thier attitudes not because of their being in wheel chairs or being new ? btw NyCowBoy is not disabled he is just an ### ... thank you for your concern

  • Ra
      4th of Mar, 2008
    0 Votes

    I was just baited by the operator: CaptainDamerica on #20_something. he took offense at something he imagined in his own mind as an affront... he narowwed down my chat just him taunting me repatedly... and i called him an a-hole which he is and i was auto-kicked. - i have been chatting since AOL was charging by the hour so not any newbi - so CaptainDamerica is an abuser of chatters. And i hope someone removes him from operator-status.

  • Ca
      15th of Sep, 2008
    0 Votes

    Hmm the text in the complaint seems very familiar (ie loads of spelling mistakes, etc). Is it you tecsatan, who is behind it? lol. I also note the name is given as Adam which is teccies nick too (he is also a brit). Anyway I am just curious.

    As to the complaint I do agree in part with some of it, ie the attitude of certain ops, the restrictiveness of not being able to remove mode x and the like.

  • Nr
      25th of Aug, 2009
    0 Votes

    Do keep in mind this is AOL, not... Microsoft, IBM, or some other semi-elite company.
    I'm afraid your complaints fall on deaf ears. If they don't... well, good for them.
    -Warren

Post your comment