Re: thoughts on new modes (Ie)

[Q <Q@xxxxxxx>]

Christophe Kalt wrote:
> 
> I can see a pattern developping where these modes are used
> in a way which was not intended originally.
> 
> The purpose of these modes is to provide exceptions (to the
> mode +i, and to bans); instead I fear they will mostly be
> used as a prevention method: "I am chanop, let me set +eI
> for myself in case I need it later".
> 
> I think this is bad, and here are a set of actions we could
> take to avoid this:
> 
> * +I can only be set when the channel is +i
> * furthermore, setting the channel -i removes all +I entries
> 
> * +e <foo> can only be set if <foo> matches a current ban
> * +e entries are removed once they no longer match a current ban
> 
> Thoughts?

It's probably going to cause more desynch's then we already have atm,
because not all have upgraded yet, but don't think it's a real problem.


Q