Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: nick collide prevention ideas]]]

[Russ Cassidy <russell.cassidy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we're trying to deal with too many issues here: `nick collide
prevention` ideas and basic ownership of channels, nicks and attitudes
towards bots, automation, etc.

For one, I think the /rnick approach as put to the list by m de`jour is
quite a good idea in itself. If this 'function' was introduced, I probably
wouldn't use it that much, but I know a few people who may.

I'd like to make a few points:

1. Personally, I go with Bjørn's method of dealing with IRC 'aggression'. I
just move on.  I don't want to give the aggressors the satisfaction of a
fight over something so silly as a channel name.  Aggression met with
aggression will only escalate matters.

2. Brandnames really have nothing to do with IRC.  If you want a
'brandnamed' channel, then email Khaled Mardam-Bey and ask him really
nicely to add you to the mIRC default channel list.

3. Server policy is something to do with that server's particular
Administration and the IRCOps on it.  If they wish to be
anti-bots/automated clients/whatever then it is up to *you* to either: live
with it, or, put your case to them and try to use your powers of persuation
to get the admin to change their position.

Hum.. as Christophe said: lets keep this list to IRC server software ver
2.9.x and 2.10.x.

-- 
Russ Cassidy  ---  IRN-BRU@IRCNet
<russell.cassidy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>