Comment GC Re: DDoS

Story Temporarily Offline?


DDoS (Score: 5, Insightful)

by on 2014-03-11 16:44 (#EZ)

In the IRC logs someone admits its a DDoS attack:
The motivation is unclear

Re: DDoS (Score: 5, Interesting)

by on 2014-03-11 17:21 (#F8)

Holy cow. Some dude thinks that the result of the drama is soylant selling out. He's pissed because he's spent money and time working with them, thinks he should have a say in the drama. So ... his answer is to cause bandwidth costs to go up by flooding it with traffic.

Some people...

The current drama there is too much for me. Pipedot looks like a better run site so far.

Re: DDoS (Score: 2, Insightful)

by on 2014-03-11 17:52 (#FG)

Ever since the change in ownership, there's been tons of drama. It's unfortunate. This site was better with the previous owner.

Re: DDoS (Score: 5, Interesting)

by on 2014-03-11 18:47 (#FS)

The drama is because of the previous owner. He made poor technology choices, then got into it with the tech guy *HE* brought on board to get slashcode working. Then when the volunteers *HE* appointed revolted due to his lax management and poor communications he "resigned". Then he turned around and gave the site seven days to pay him $2000, double what he stated it cost him to start the project.

So a couple of points of clarification, I think he deserves the $2000 he was asking for. He took the imitative to get things rolling and risked $1000 of his own money. IMHO he made it very clear he was looking for a payout from the site right from the beginning. That being said I don't think it's fair to pin the drama on the current sites management (NCommander). The site is trying to be as transparent as possible to the community, which is something that can't be done without airing dirty laundry. I'm confident things are going to work out over there, at the very worst Soylent will have to pick a new name and get a new domain.

Based on how quickly this story was posted to |. it looks like there are some people looking for Soylent to fail. I was reading the site before noon my time, and came back from a meeting around two and it was working fine, I didn't even see the outage. So sometime in a two hour period this story popped up on |. like it was the end of Soylent.

How did the saying go? "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

Re: DDoS (Score: 5, Interesting)

by on 2014-03-11 19:57 (#G2)

You are greatly oversimplifying the situation.

NCommander's extremely petty and vindictive blog post where he attacked the previous owner was drama no one needed. He started the post by saying this was an "amicable" change of ownership, but as I read on, it was clear that if it was amicable before, then it would no longer be the case afterwards. Honestly, you should probably wait until you have full ownership of a site before you start trash-talking the previous owner. I'd say John's behaviour is very understandable. I'd be angry too if I had decided to take risks to start a site like that, and then everyone was turning on me. This wasn't part of a "transparent process". It was just mudslinging. There was no purpose to this other than to make John look bad.

I don't understand why the volunteers complained. John made if very clear from the start that this was a business for him. It was *his* business. If you still volunteer after that, then you have to accept the terms.

He also spent more than 1000$. Some of the stuff he spent money on ended up not being used, but that's completely irrelevant. He's selling his business, he's entitled to ask to be completely refunded for all expenses.

All I can say is that, from a user's point of view, the site was better under John. There was no drama that we could see, and there were frequent posts asking the community for input. I think if people had let the site just run for a while, as John wanted, it'd probably be better off.

Re: DDoS (Score: 5, Insightful)

by on 2014-03-11 22:22 (#GC)

All I can say is that, from a user's point of view, the site was better under John.

I disagree. John had Business in mind, which I have no issue with, but it's not what the community wanted and ultimately would end in the community being treated as consumers to advertise to (as was the case with the other site that shall not be named). So on one hand he was toting the site as being "for the community", but then wanting to turn it into a profitable business venture on the other hand. I think the site is in much better hands with NCommander who was actually the one that got the slashcode working, and probably one of the very few people involved that will be able to maintain, update and add enhancements to it. The best people to run the site are the ones whos ideas and views align with the community not the people that want to make money at the communities expense.

I did read NCommanders post and it didn't come of as vindictive to me. To me it was him stating what happened and his reasoning for doing what he was doing. He's a technical person and as such his post lacked the political bullshit and dancing around you'd expect from a non-technical person, which is how I prefer my info. Give me the facts and relevant information and let me decide what's relevant. There were IRC logs and form posts to back up everything he said as factual. If you're trying to foster a community orientated site and you expect the community to be actively involved then you have to make sure the community has the information required to form opinions and make decisions.

But, again I do feel bad for John and appreciate his efforts. He did a decent job ad-hock organizing us in order to get something up and running and I think he does diverse to get something for his efforts.


Time Reason Points Voter
2014-03-12 02:29 Overrated -1
2014-03-12 10:33 Normal 0
2014-03-12 21:16 Normal 0
2014-03-12 00:32 Insightful +1
2014-03-13 05:21 Insightful +1
2014-03-11 23:28 Insightful +1
2014-03-12 01:30 Insightful +1
2014-05-27 21:32 Normal 0
2014-03-11 22:25 Insightful +1

Junk Status

Not marked as junk