Re: RFC: OP cheating

[forcer <forcer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ville/viha@xxxxxx wrote:
>Hmm.. After the clones flood that period of time, they leave the channel
>wait 3 minutes and go back? Worst nick floods go on for (a few) dozen
>minutes where a few clones stopping for 3 minutes doesn't help - the
>clones could just join/part flood that time. While join/part flood is
>easier to stop and doesn't do as much damage to civilized(tm) irc clients,
>it should at least be made sure they cannot use both.
... and setting them +r would not be much better, since (with the current
delay) a disconnect/connect takes a maximum of 2 minutes.
Then we had to put temporary +r on the hostmask of the nickflooder and...
Well, that doesn't lead anywhere, and we have to think of the normal users
first. :)
>By the way.. Should some more efficient channel cycling penalty be
>implemented or would it already be too annoying to the users ?
A channel cycle delay should NOT annoy ANY user, since it's quite
uncommon to cycle just for fun ;) (while a nickchange or two ... are a bit
more common).
Actually it's a nice idea, since it would also lessen those rejoins-on-kick.

>Err, you seem to be suggesting we'll just change to the efnet ircd while
>at it ;-)
*boo* the evil evil EFnet.... right?
IMHO we should LEARN from good ideas of others, and not banish them just
because someone else had them ;)
>IMHO something (but what ?) should be done about the lag collisions you
>mentioned.. What have the other non TS nets done about this ?
Again... *evil* timestamps *banish* :) would help here.
	-forcer