View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002408 | unreal | ircd | public | 2005-03-07 20:14 | 2006-04-27 18:46 |
| Reporter | lion-o | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Summary | 0002408: Hideops channel mode | ||||
| Description | I think Unreal might benefit from the 'Hideops' channel mode (+a in Hybrid7). In this mode anyone without ops (+o) or halfops (+h) cannot see the current chanops or halfops. Which also means that the +<o|h> or -<o|h> mode changes are also hidden from the users. Its my experience that this mode is especially beneficial for the operators of support channels because everyone will be treated equally. The operators can focus on what really matters, keeping the peace, without having to deal with people who would rather ask/msg/etc. a chanop/halfop "because". Another advantage, but this is merely an opinion, is when people behave badly. A warning from one of the many users will IMO also set a different signal / tone than when a chanop issues the warning. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
I'm not so sure. I completely understand your logic, and for EFnet, that's probably very useful. However, Unreal is designed for services. With services, it is really never necessary for ops to be +o in the channel. You can have everyone -o, and just /cs blah whenever something needs to be done. In that case it's even more effective because on Hybrid, if an op does /kick, the users now know that person is an op. However, if chanserv does the kick, they have no idea who actually did it. |
|
|
Except ChanServ signs the kick message by default. (Also, while hybrid does have this channel mode, but (get this) along with halfops, EFnet does not use it :) .) |
|
|
I second that [@w/services = limited use]. Also, this is so complex to code (and much work) that I can at least guarantee that it won't show up in 3.2*. I've taken a look at it before, ~2 years ago, and just stopped ;). |
|
|
um wouldnt a desync or sumthing come into play here? join a channel, they have +a on teh room so no ops show up - but people kick and ban *misleading & confusing* |
|
|
How is that a desync? And how's it confusing?! It's the same as chanserv having unsigned kicks and using chanserv to kick someone... Most of the time, if you get kicked from a channel it's because you deserve it. If not, you probably shouldn't be there. And if not, then... well... anyone say "chanop abuse" ? :p |
|
|
user1 joined #bleh <user1a> oh no its user1! user1a kicked user1 from #bleh <user2> um, are u a ircop user1a? <user1a> no why? <user2> then uh, how did you kick that person without being chanop? <user1a> i have ops u just cant see them <user2> O_o so u can give me ops then and no one will know :D <user1a> hm yeah, true but you might abuse them. <user2> who says ur not? acting like ur *NOT* an op but kicking people without op`in up is a false sense of security? wouldnt u sit and rub ur head if u seen someone kick someone else from a channel without visable ops and ircop? |
|
|
I have seen something like this before... Users without op was seen all mode changes, bans, kick, just everything to be done by the server. Something like this: Oper1 sers mode: +b Lamer!*@* Lamer1 was kicked by Oper1 USERS will see: User.Local.Server sets mode: +b lamer!*@* Lamer1 was kicked by User.Local.Server |
|
|
Seriously people, if you need this functionality, use chanserv! I doubt that this functionality is popular enough to merit the major work required to implement and debug it. |
|
|
It's also my experience with help rooms on most networks that ive been to, the administrations *prefer* the users to be helped by staff, and if the ops are "hidden" then the users wont know who is staff unless they go 'hey who is staff' -- and then since ops are hidden, anyone could simply say 'im staff'... so given the fact that a grand majority of networks do that, i really dont see a need for that mode either. as a debugger/module maker and a network oper and user myself, i would not ever use that mode. if someone out there with a lot of patience wants to make a module, go for it. u really only need a channel mode added, and a bunch of hooks. |
|
|
I'm afraid this is simply too much work, plus well.. see the comments of others (codemastr, etc..). See also 0000039 for the first occurence of this feature request... Back then I started enthousaisticly but it turned out to be a reaaaal pain, and I'm not going to do it again, plus - like I said - the complexity/time/etc does not justify this feature. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-03-07 20:14 | lion-o | New Issue | |
| 2005-03-07 20:23 |
|
Note Added: 0009484 | |
| 2005-03-07 22:51 | aquanight | Note Added: 0009490 | |
| 2005-03-07 23:47 | syzop | Note Added: 0009496 | |
| 2005-03-07 23:47 | syzop | Note Edited: 0009496 | |
| 2005-03-08 07:06 | White_Magic | Note Added: 0009509 | |
| 2005-03-08 09:43 | w00t | Note Added: 0009518 | |
| 2005-03-08 10:07 | White_Magic | Note Added: 0009519 | |
| 2005-03-08 10:08 | White_Magic | Note Edited: 0009519 | |
| 2005-03-09 03:31 | vonitsanet | Note Added: 0009541 | |
| 2005-03-12 13:37 | JasonTik | Note Added: 0009570 | |
| 2006-02-18 22:31 | Zell | Note Added: 0011267 | |
| 2006-04-27 18:43 | syzop | Relationship added | has duplicate 0002825 |
| 2006-04-27 18:44 | syzop | Relationship added | duplicate of 0000039 |
| 2006-04-27 18:46 | syzop | Status | new => closed |
| 2006-04-27 18:46 | syzop | Note Added: 0011625 | |
| 2006-04-27 18:46 | syzop | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2006-04-27 18:47 | syzop | Note Edited: 0011625 | |
| 2008-02-24 18:41 | Stealth | Relationship added | related to 0003644 |
