View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002557 | unreal | ircd | public | 2005-06-08 14:44 | 2007-04-27 04:05 |
| Reporter | RandomNumber | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| OS | FreeBSD | OS Version | 4.10 | ||
| Product Version | 3.2.4 | ||||
| Summary | 0002557: Ad Chat | ||||
| Description | Feature suggestion to allow C to use adchat since they are admins just co-admins | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
If I understood correctly, you want co-admins to be able to use /adchat... Sounds like a good idea, but I thought they could already... |
|
|
Nope cant youd think they could lol [quote] Permission Denied- You do not have the correct IRC operator privileges [/quote] |
|
|
Hmmm... One half of me says it's a good idea & that it should be implemented, but for some (unknown) reason, the other half of me says that it's not a good idea... :S |
|
|
I still maintain the *chat system is redudant, and should be replaced with a sort of channel-integrated system. Forced joins to =AdminsChat when a message arrives anyone? |
|
|
I've discussed this with you in the past, I think - and I agree. Not sure about the channel idea though, would it be easier for them to define their own channel in conf or something, rather than us setting a channel they MUST use? |
|
|
We personaly prefer the adchat nachat and chatops it just makes it easier for us, we ended up just using admin for the Co-Admins for now so they can use adchat. A channel just makes it harder because you then have to remember to join said channel and some clients dont like force joins. Also channels can be overridden and other ircops could then join. With the way it is now a user would either need raw enabled on services to do a svsmode or a better oline. |
|
|
The current system wtih chatops/adchat/nachat is very effective for various level's of chat throughout Networks. Specific channels designed for a Networks staff are not nearly as effective. In the past it has been my experience to see such channels be abused by staff members and admin of a previous Network I was an ircOP and later an Admin. Specific channels set up for staff are not allowed on our Network because of that reason. Options like Chatops/AdChat/NAChat allow us to maintain that system, which has proven very effective over the 5 years we have been an irc Network. Please consider this when deciding the fate of those options, some Networks, such as ours, think those options are critical in maintaining a productive Network. Thank you. |
|
|
I find this to be a matter of "if it's not broke, don't fix it". The option to make special staff chatrooms is always there. It is a simple matter of registering the room and applying the needed modes. However, to alot of chat networks, such as the one I am an admin on, the chatops/adchat/nachat system works better and is more secure. Our network would be at a loss without this feature, as it is used multiple times daily. I really feel that this is one of the more valuable features this ircd has to offer. |
|
|
I say to add the adchat ability to co-admin's and leave them there. |
|
|
Well with another guy from our network I tracked down the issue in the src/modules folder m_adminchat.c line 111 if (MyClient(sptr) && !IsAdmin(sptr)) Could just be changed to this if (MyClient(sptr) && !IsAdmin(sptr) && !IsCoAdmin(sptr)) And that would work fine, but I dont want to break the dont change source agreement. |
|
|
I suppose there'd be nothing wrong with altering the 'official' modules - since by and large, I've yet to find many networks that do use it - but keep the alternate behaviour perhaps as a config setting or something. Most of why I dislike the current system is there's just too much - /nachat, /adchat, /globops, /chatops, /wallops, ... ... ... (least we don't have /techat anymore). |
|
|
We don't have techops either though? :P Personally I like /*chats ... perhaps a configurable behaviour is best |
|
|
On w00t's subject, wallops is useless, because if you wanted people to see what you had to say, use a global. globops, is viewable by everyone in chatops, is if anything is to be removed, remove globops and and wallops. |
|
|
I got to agree with Dark-Enchantres here. Oh and yeah, sounds like a good idea to include coadmins in /adchat. Done so in CVS .397. So actually this bug is fixed now :P. "And that would work fine, but I dont want to break the dont change source agreement." Actually we do consider changing our modules as changing the source, this is logical because it's simply that the code is in a different area and nothing else. But yes, your fix is ok, it's exactly the same I just comitted ;p. "Most of why I dislike the current system is there's just too much - /nachat, /adchat, /globops, /chatops" *nod* it is ugly... but hey.. people like it, and it doesn't hurt either :P. |
|
|
@ Nazzy: We used to ;). @ Syzop: I'll just learn to like it I guess, against my better judgement.. :/ :P Oh, and @ Rawforce: Globops and wallops are two I'd definatly be keeping, wallops are _opt out_ information, like routing, and whatnot - and globops is one of the easiest ways to get hold of your opers. |
|
|
"But yes, your fix is ok, it's exactly the same I just comitted ;p." So mark it as resolved lol |
|
|
woot: thats what i was pointing to ;) |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-06-08 14:44 | RandomNumber | New Issue | |
| 2005-06-09 21:05 | Stealth | Note Added: 0010072 | |
| 2005-06-09 21:17 | RandomNumber | Note Added: 0010074 | |
| 2005-06-09 21:18 | RandomNumber | Note Edited: 0010074 | |
| 2005-06-22 23:51 | Dodge_Ram | Note Added: 0010103 | |
| 2005-11-11 03:18 |
|
Note Added: 0010698 | |
| 2005-11-11 03:25 | w00t | Note Added: 0010700 | |
| 2005-11-11 03:32 | RandomNumber | Note Added: 0010702 | |
| 2005-11-11 03:52 | CW34 | Note Added: 0010703 | |
| 2005-11-11 03:54 | CW34 | Note Edited: 0010703 | |
| 2005-11-11 03:56 | CW34 | Note Edited: 0010703 | |
| 2005-11-11 04:06 | Dark-Enchantres | Note Added: 0010704 | |
| 2005-11-11 12:40 | RawForce | Note Added: 0010710 | |
| 2005-11-11 23:13 | RandomNumber | Note Added: 0010711 | |
| 2005-11-12 01:13 | w00t | Note Added: 0010712 | |
| 2005-11-12 05:47 | Nazzy | Note Added: 0010720 | |
| 2005-11-12 18:15 | RawForce | Note Added: 0010726 | |
| 2005-11-12 19:22 | syzop | Note Added: 0010729 | |
| 2005-11-13 02:17 | w00t | Note Added: 0010731 | |
| 2005-11-13 02:57 | RandomNumber | Note Added: 0010733 | |
| 2005-11-13 03:17 | w00t | Note Edited: 0010731 | |
| 2005-11-14 05:37 | Nazzy | Note Added: 0010740 | |
| 2007-04-27 04:04 |
|
Status | new => resolved |
| 2007-04-27 04:04 |
|
Resolution | open => fixed |
| 2007-04-27 04:04 |
|
Assigned To | => stskeeps |
