View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001730 | unreal | ircd | public | 2004-04-12 13:29 | 2004-04-12 19:02 |
| Reporter | aquanight | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 3.2-RC2 | ||||
| Summary | 0001730: Notice ChanOps on failed kicks | ||||
| Description | I've noticed that the IRCd will snotice opers with umode +q when someone tries to kick him/her, but no notice occurs when a normal user tries to kick an & or ~ user or when the channel is +Q. I figured that in the former case (attempt to kick +a or +q), a notice would be sent to the person that was to be kicked (and possibly all +q users), and in the case of channel +Q, it would be sent via WALLCHOPS. (I guess this could be implemented via a module, but just one look at the platform will tell you that doesn't help me. ;) ) | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
Well in my mind, umode +q and channel mode +Q should be gone, so I'm personally not going to spend time redesigning the system because I think the system should be removed. |
|
|
>umode +q and channel mode +Q should be gone o_O But channel +aq are staying right? If so, it'd be nice if an admin/owner were able to know if some chanop is trying to kick him (and why). I think channel +Q should stay because it works well with the ChanServ SET PEACE option. If you keep your level 5 chanops from kicking level 6 ops (that don't necessary get protect) through ChanServ, why should you leave them a method to circumvent it (namely, the IRCd's own KICK command)? Granted you could just set AUTOPROTECT to level 6, but you may not want this so as to seperate your level 6 chanops from your level 10 superops. Plus your superops may not be op'd all the time (since they can deop/deadmin themselves through ChanServ). As for user +q, well, it's sorta fine as it is since you can somewhat control permissions to it. But if you want to remove user +q, I could care less. edited on: 2004-04-12 17:57 edited on: 2004-04-12 17:57 |
|
|
And I'm not considering implementing this either, sorry ;p. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-04-12 13:29 | aquanight | New Issue | |
| 2004-04-12 16:55 |
|
Note Added: 0005838 | |
| 2004-04-12 17:54 | aquanight | Note Added: 0005839 | |
| 2004-04-12 17:57 | aquanight | Note Edited: 0005839 | |
| 2004-04-12 17:57 | aquanight | Note Edited: 0005839 | |
| 2004-04-12 19:02 | syzop | Status | new => closed |
| 2004-04-12 19:02 | syzop | Note Added: 0005844 |
