Re: Bquiet

[Christophe Kalt <kalt@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 24, Bjorn Reese wrote:
| Given the concern about the impact on normal users of the
| suggestion about temporary +r lines, I am surprised not to
| see similiar response to this patch. Especially given the fact
| that temporary +r lines are determined by the servers, but
| Bquiet can be used by an arbitrary chanop (provided you share
| a channel of course.)

there's nothing arbitrary about a chanop.

| I think the prevention of talking on the channel while being
| banned is good. I am more hesitant towards preventing nick
| changes, because banning somebody from a channel is a local
| event, whereas preventing them from changing nicks is a global
| event.

agreed,

| A slightly different solution could be to prevent talking and
| to increase the penalty of changing nicks while banned. I am
| aware that this is also global, but it seems less exploitable
| too me.

but a penalty is also a global event (from the user's point
of view)

and even if I set a very high penalty to nickchanges as you
suggest, clones will still have some opportunity to flood,
even if a little bit more limited.

The original purpose of the Bquiet patch is to fight channel
flooding.  I don't know what Eumel's intentions were.
Eumel?