View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0004042 | unreal | ircd | public | 2011-08-23 01:02 | 2023-03-19 12:37 |
| Reporter | katsklaw | Assigned To | syzop | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | no change required | ||
| Summary | 0004042: feature: new extban or chan mode to require certain user modes | ||||
| Description | This new extban only allows users to join with certain umodes. Example: ~M:N only allows netadmins in .. etc. This is to replace or augment chanmodes +A/O *update:* ..or a channel mode to require a usermode, eg: +X +h to require helpop. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| 3rd party modules | |||||
|
|
I think it makes more sense to do such a thing with an (extended) channel mode. +something <user mode(s)> IIRC there's already a request for an +A/+O replacement mode somewhere (?), perhaps it can be integrated in that. |
|
|
Either is fine with me really, the end result is what I'm after. This can also pretty much replace all chmodes(freeing mem space?) that require a umode. Examples: Allow secured opers : +X +zo (currently not possible) Allow Helpops : +X +h (currently not possible) Traditional Admin only : +X +A (freeing chmode +A) Traditional Opers only : +X +O (freeing chmode +O) Will still need to visit handling modewalks past +X -AO though. |
|
|
One would have to choose whether the modes specified in the mode parameter are OR or AND. In your +X +zo it sounds like you want to require both +z AND +o, so AND. If one would go on with this then we can ditch +z? As +X +z would be the same. I'm not sure if I'm really in favor of this idea, while it may make perfect sense to us from a technical point of view, for users it might be more simple to maintain +O, +z, and so on. OTOH, adding a new mode would make it possible to do things which are currently not possible. Perhaps add a new mode, but still maintain +O/+z, thus having some overlap ? And ditch +A? *set to feedback* |
|
|
I don't really like this (and in an extban way i totally disapprove this), if you want a netamdin-only channel, is better to use /nachat (and derivates for other needs). +X mode seems nice, but is a bit... twisted? I am not sure if i like it, like syzop. But I don't totally disapprove this and I don't totally like this. |
|
|
I understand the request, but yeah reading this issue again i agree with my earlier reaction: i think it's a bit too complex for regular users, especially with the letters and such, it's a bit too tucked away / too obscure in my opinion for ppl. I also feel like we are coping fine with the current system and all the features that were added past 12 years that we don't need this anymore. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-08-23 01:02 | katsklaw | New Issue | |
| 2011-08-24 15:09 | syzop | Note Added: 0016746 | |
| 2011-08-24 15:41 | katsklaw | Note Added: 0016747 | |
| 2011-12-21 19:23 | syzop | Note Added: 0016823 | |
| 2011-12-21 19:24 | syzop | Status | new => feedback |
| 2011-12-21 19:24 | syzop | Summary | feature: new extban ~M (chanmode) => feature: new extban or chan mode to require certain user modes |
| 2011-12-21 19:24 | syzop | Description Updated | |
| 2012-01-11 01:52 | Severus_Snape | Note Added: 0016856 | |
| 2023-03-19 12:37 | syzop | Assigned To | => syzop |
| 2023-03-19 12:37 | syzop | Status | feedback => closed |
| 2023-03-19 12:37 | syzop | Resolution | open => no change required |
| 2023-03-19 12:37 | syzop | Note Added: 0022794 |
