View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001310 | unreal | ircd | public | 2003-10-21 16:39 | 2003-12-22 19:45 |
| Reporter | JimmyZ | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 3.2-beta18 | ||||
| Summary | 0001310: Possible to prevent halfops removing op's bans, etc? | ||||
| Description | Would it be possible to assign a "level" to channel bans when they are set, so that the ircd would know whether it was a +q, +a, +o or +h that set the ban? What we are interested in is to give a little more control over bans to those that have more control over the channel. That way, for example, if I am +o in a channel and I set a ban another user would have to be +o or higher to be able to remove that ban. Thanks in advance. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
I actually dont like this... It would end up creating more work for opers and admin in general... I really wouldnt welcome too many MORE requests for channel help... ChanOps should be able to manage their own channels, thats why they ARE chanops. Although... I can also see how this would be useful when dealing with an abusive chanop... But then, you could simply close the channel with services ;) or close it, then set mode L to go to a new chan on which you were opered? |
|
|
Sorry, but I am not sure what you are on about w00t - it doesn't have anything to do with being an 'oper' or 'admin' (presuming you are talking about o-line holders :) What he means is if a +o user in the channel adds a ban, it should only be able to be removed by +o/+q/+a users in the channel, not by a +h. It sounds good in theory, but i find it could be rather unneccasary.... If you want to enforce a ban, use services or remove the person's halfop ability. If they are an halfop, they presumaly know what they are doing and should know they shouldn't remove bans without reason (one would hope)... But it could also cause problems in another aspect that it is more data for the ircd to check, and it could be sometimes neccasary for a halfop to remove a ban... reasons pending. Just my 2.2 cents |
|
|
what about adding an info line to a ban ? like: /mode #chan +b l33t!*@*.aol.com :spammer and if someone do a /mode #chan +b he will see all bans with info and can decide, if he remove the ban or not |
|
|
I can see your point DukePyrolator, but, what happens in the case of: /mode #chan +bbbb *!*@*.aol.com *!*@*.cox.net *!?@* *!*@*.cx It is impossible to specify a reason for the ban - if you want to specify a reason, use services. Plus it breaks IRC Protocol and would mean Unreal would need to break IRC Protocol for the client to be able to see the reason that the ban is being set. Also, making it so you can only set one ban at the time is more of a hiderence then a help |
|
|
I agree with w00t, with the reason that Preaetorian_ said, 'If you want to enforce a ban, use services or remove the person's halfop ability'. I know the reporter could tell a case when not allowing a halfop to remove a ban (set by a chanop) is a good idea, at the same time, I can also tell one when a halfop should be able to remove the ban. |
|
|
Sorry, but I am not sure what you are on about w00t - it doesn't have anything to do with being an 'oper' or 'admin' (presuming you are talking about o-line holders :) What he means is if a +o user in the channel adds a ban, it should only be able to be removed by +o/+q/+a users in the channel, not by a +h. /It sounds good in theory, but i find it could be rather unneccasary.... /If you want to enforce a ban, use services or remove the person's halfop /ability. If they are an halfop, they presumaly know what they are doing and /should know they shouldn't remove bans without reason (one would hope)... The point being just that: HOPE. Sometimes users go crazy (An ex-admin of sargasso.org springs to mind -- because of him we lost our entire userbase... but thats another story) /But it could also cause problems in another aspect that it is more data for /the ircd to check, and it could be sometimes neccasary for a halfop to /remove a ban... reasons pending. True, but if a ban was "necessary" enough to use this on... Perhaps there should be a "ban" similar to akill? i.e. applies to channel only and can only be set\unset by o:line holders (Yes, I contradict myself) /I agree with w00t, with the reason that Preaetorian_ said, 'If you want to /enforce a ban, use services or remove the person's halfop ability'. I know /the reporter could tell a case when not allowing a halfop to remove a ban /(set by a chanop) is a good idea, at the same time, I can also tell one when /a halfop should be able to remove the ban. True and true... There are reasons both sides of the fence... I now stand undecided. |
|
|
doesn't seem useful to me either... |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003-10-21 16:39 | JimmyZ | New Issue | |
| 2003-11-18 00:35 | w00t | Note Added: 0004053 | |
| 2003-11-18 04:04 | Praetorian_ | Note Added: 0004055 | |
| 2003-11-18 05:35 | DukePyrolator | Note Added: 0004056 | |
| 2003-11-18 05:41 | Praetorian_ | Note Added: 0004057 | |
| 2003-11-18 07:46 | AngryWolf | Note Added: 0004059 | |
| 2003-11-18 22:36 | w00t | Note Added: 0004061 | |
| 2003-12-22 19:45 | syzop | Status | new => closed |
| 2003-12-22 19:45 | syzop | Note Added: 0004414 |
