View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002255 | unreal | ircd | public | 2004-12-25 12:39 | 2007-04-27 04:57 |
| Reporter | vonitsanet | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | trivial | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Product Version | 3.2.3 | ||||
| Summary | 0002255: +Q Channel mode | ||||
| Description | I think +Q may be settable only by owner. This because +Q prevents kicks (from opers) and only the owner should set a mode to prevent kicks and not any opers. +Q is a channel administrative mode (like +L) not a mode to prevent colors or to prevent flood or .... and it should be used only from the administrator of the channel. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
| has duplicate | 0003364 | closed | +Q settability |
|
|
If so, I'm really starting to think that the first user to join a channel should perhaps get set +q(o?) instead of just +o. Unfortunatly, i am having to resolve already to a hacky 3rd party service to do this (since i dont want services etc on one crappy testnet). Should I shove this on a seperate request? |
|
|
My opinion is that the first user should get +qo when he joins a channel. But i don't see any comments from any coder for these:-P |
|
|
I think +Q may be settable only by owner. This because +Q prevents kicks (from opers) and only the owner should set a mode to prevent kicks and not any opers. +Q is a channel administrative mode (like +L) not a mode to prevent colors or to prevent flood or .... and it should be used only from the administrator of the channel. -- 1) channel owners arnt always online 2) +Q is the Only mode that can be used by a channel op or admin to stop netbot egg drops fighting and kick each other, if +Q was channel owner only and a egg drop net started fighting it would never end coz no one there could set +Q 3) someones channel has all aop 2 sops and 1 founder, and someonelse gets a sops password for their nickname, that sop could join the channel and kik the aops to no end coz they couldnt set +Q to defend themselfs/each other -- If so, I'm really starting to think that the first user to join a channel should perhaps get set +q(o?) instead of just +o. Unfortunatly, i am having to resolve already to a hacky 3rd party service to do this (since i dont want services etc on one crappy testnet). -- [13:07] * ChanServ sets mode: +q ^White_Magic^ [13:07] * ChanServ sets mode: +o ^White_Magic^ if a room is unregistered, why should the server give you +q? isnt +q only ment to be given / taken by Services becuz 1) the channel is registered 2) that nickname is registered 3)that nickname owns the channel || they have identifyed to chanserv with the channel password. note: when a unregistered nickname identifys for a channel via password they get +q but not +o onjoin, if they try to get ops from chanserv they are accessed denied althou they ahve identifyed for it. isnt that for a reason? why should the server go against it? if they dont wanna get deoped or lose ops in that channel maybe they shouldnt op anyone else who enters the channel and just leave it as +o onjoin..? |
|
|
Another thing is +Q allows ops to put a little choke on halfops. Recall that halfops can kick too, but they can't twiddle +Q. [quote]2) +Q is the Only mode that can be used by a channel op or admin to stop netbot egg drops fighting and kick each other, if +Q was channel owner only and a egg drop net started fighting it would never end coz no one there could set +Q[/quote] Eggdrop has this nice thing called "enforce mode" which is essentially the same as mlock (except eggdrop is slow :P and doesn't always enforce it). Thus eggdrops are just as capable of setting -Q and you're back to square one. [quote]3) someones channel has all aop 2 sops and 1 founder, and someonelse gets a sops password for their nickname, that sop could join the channel and kik the aops to no end coz they couldnt set +Q to defend themselfs/each other[/quote] So the SOP sets -Q and you're back to square one? But still, if a channel wants only the owner to decide this, ChanServ has this nice thing called MLOCK. Technically +Q is a flood protection mode (you can use it to stop kickfloods... hm... and in that logic, halfops probably should be allowed to set it? Nah...) so actually I wouldn't be surprised if it might even be possible to add a +f "kick" type... *edit* [quote] My opinion is that the first user should get +qo when he joins a channel.[/quote] +q is channel owner. In order to own a channel one generally registers it. If a channel isn't registered then no one owns it. So why should anyone be given +q for a channel they don't own? */edit* |
|
|
Because not all networks have services... That is something that seems to be forgotten. And then what happens when the network gets DoS'd and the services that they DO have die? Then what? It's already close to anarchy on some occasions when this does happen (yes, i've seen it happen on many production nets...) |
|
|
.........I think you completely missed my point. Since +q means OWNER why should I be marked the owner of a channel that I don't own? And when there are no services, it usually follows that channels are not owned by anyone. So if NO ONE owns the channel then NO ONE should have +q. |
|
|
I got the point, but since the first person to join an unregistered channel with no people is the first one there, wouldn't he be termed the creator? Isn't this how IRCd does things... :/ Maybe we should just leave +Q alone and let me whinge to myself :p |
|
|
+q indicates the owner of the channel, i.e., the founder. Unreal is designed *only* to be used with services. Therefore, founder/owner is the person who registers the channel, not the person who joins it first. I understand that some networks don't run services, but that is not an environment we designed Unreal for. They are using Unreal incorrectly. If they want an IRCd that is designed for a network without services, Hybrid and friends are quite capable. |
|
|
codemastr, I fully understand that, I'm just saying "if cricitcal modes like +i etc are made +q-settable only" then what happens if/when services go down... |
|
|
If services go down, it doesn't really help you very much :P . In most cases, the channel isn't going to become empty so that you can get +q back. So you're pretty much going to have to stick it out either way. Besides, I really can't see +i, +m, +Q or anything like that becoming owner only. If you want it at that level, use MLOCK. I don't see any reason why unreal should restrict these modes :P . |
|
|
i don't said anything about +m or +i. These modes are for channel protection. +Q is something different. It prevents kicks from opers and not from users. |
|
|
+Q is also good for protection: 1) It can help to slow kickfloods from chanops. 2) It prevents halfops from kicking at all. Though in all technicality +Q is a "policy mode" hence why halfops can't use it, but if we want all policy modes to be "owner only" then let's not forget about +M, +R, +c, +S, +T, +N (though most are also primarily flood protection), oh what the heck, why not make +o owner only even? No, owners should not have too much to have to deal with. Remember, most ChanServs only give one person owner status. If too many things are left only to the owner, then what happens when he's offline or away? Channel ops need to be able to make those kinds of decisions. Only things like +u which is either always on or never on, or +L since it forwards users to another channel... |
|
|
I tend to agree +Q would be useful to be only settable by +q or +a.. That way +Q finally makes some sense instead of being a stop-the-eggdrops-fight-mode which is just a ridiculous purpose of a mode if you ask me ;p. Another idea I just thought of would be that +Q would slightly change the way kicks are allowed (restrict it more), namely that +o cannot kick other +o's. (I was going to say 'and +h not other +h's' and '+a's not other +a's' but that's already always the case [unless oper], and for +q kicking +q it's ok ;p) And then of course restrict (un)setting of +Q to +a&+q. Opinions? |
|
|
[quote]instead of being a stop-the-eggdrops-fight-mode which is just a ridiculous purpose of a mode if you ask me ;p.[/quote] :P syzop, indeeed it sounds/IS silly, i quite agree but when the botmasters/operators arnt online then the bots never stop. anyway, i dont fully agree on making it +q/+a settable/removeable. *most* of the time (from the 2 networks im on) i see it being used for usless things, (stuff like egg drops, stoping them from kicking a halfop/op) when the eggdrop has +a/+q (yeah +q but if the person trusts it what can u do). i agree with aquanight, +Q is a good choke on halfops, and aops + can remove / set as desired, many channels run aops over sops. (from what ive seen neway) using it to stop egg drops fight is dull, but thats also another thing it gets useed for alot that i see. why should +q be allowed to kick +q? |
|
|
1) If you can't configure bots.. dont add bots to a channel 2) I agree 100% with syzop |
|
|
[quote]If you can't configure bots.. dont add bots to a channel[/quote] did ya read my last post? [quote]i quite agree but when the botmasters/operators arnt online then the bots never stop.[/quote] nothing to do with the config of the bots, sure the bots should be added to each other but thats not the question in the light here.. the fact my problem maybe doeesnt exist where others are, the +Q mode is used alot on those 2 networks more than at least 20 times a day. in most channels, due to egg drops.. yeah its wild and excessive but thats how the network is. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-12-25 12:39 | vonitsanet | New Issue | |
| 2005-01-07 00:49 | w00t | Note Added: 0008726 | |
| 2005-01-07 07:12 | vonitsanet | Note Added: 0008727 | |
| 2005-01-07 09:04 | White_Magic | Note Added: 0008728 | |
| 2005-01-07 09:05 | White_Magic | Note Edited: 0008728 | |
| 2005-01-07 13:01 | aquanight | Note Added: 0008731 | |
| 2005-01-07 13:03 | aquanight | Note Edited: 0008731 | |
| 2005-01-08 00:22 | w00t | Note Added: 0008733 | |
| 2005-01-08 00:31 | aquanight | Note Added: 0008734 | |
| 2005-01-08 00:42 | w00t | Note Added: 0008736 | |
| 2005-01-08 10:55 |
|
Note Added: 0008740 | |
| 2005-01-11 20:02 | w00t | Note Added: 0008781 | |
| 2005-01-12 12:36 | aquanight | Note Added: 0008788 | |
| 2005-01-13 12:24 | vonitsanet | Note Added: 0008792 | |
| 2005-01-14 19:15 | aquanight | Note Added: 0008809 | |
| 2005-02-03 21:01 | syzop | Note Added: 0009021 | |
| 2005-02-04 04:35 | White_Magic | Note Added: 0009025 | |
| 2005-02-04 06:46 | vonitsanet | Note Added: 0009027 | |
| 2005-02-04 12:55 | White_Magic | Note Added: 0009032 | |
| 2007-04-27 04:57 |
|
Status | new => closed |
| 2007-04-27 04:57 |
|
Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2007-05-28 16:22 | aquanight | Relationship added | has duplicate 0003364 |
