Re: wishes (Re: gac experiment)

[Diane Bruce <db@xxxxxx>]

Christophe Kalt says:
> 
> On Feb 02, Jochen Kaiser wrote:
> | My personal wishlist:
> | 
> | It is based on:
> | - more administrative power to the opers.
> 
> this isn't about ircd, only ircd administration.
> 
> | - less information to the users
> 
> so, more power to opers, less to users?

  There is no need for opers.

> 
> | - use modern design channels.
> 
  kludge kludge kludge on top of kludge without looking at it properly.

> ?
> 
> | but still tries to limit oper power:
> | 
> | 1. make !-channels the default channel type. 
> |    Either remove #-Channels complete (I know this is radical) or
> |    make them + by default so that user is forced to use the new ones.


ick ick wrong wrong wrong

> 
> this one i still don't understand.
> * many tell me that i wasted my time on !channels, and that
>   they're a big faillure.  (i wonder about it myself)
> * more and more often, people ask that you just did.  i have
>   many problems with that:
>   + it is very radical and not very sensible
>   + why not also disable &channels? :)
>   + you can't drop things which are so standard.. (s/can't/shouln't/ ?)
>   + i really think that most users will hate it.
> 
> the last point is possibly the most important.  there could
> be some toggable flag to allow ircnet servers to disable
> #channels, afterall it wouldn't be the first time we do this
> kind of thing for ircnet.
> but i really think that many users (will) prefer #channels over
> !channels simply for the very reason that you can take them
> over.  this kind of thing is very easy to find out with some
> sensible experiments/polls.
> 
> | 2. No connections after Operator kill from this host for 15 minutes.
> |    This would be a good means against spammers and kiddies.
> 
> at the u@h level or @h level?
> the first won't work well, and the latter is called DoS.
> (besides, when one sees the kind of kills many opers do, one
> ponders on how reasonnable this is)
> [i'm also ignoring the technical problems if you intend to
> have all servers react on all kills.]


  Fix the reasons spam works, and you don't need this.


> 
> | 3. No OP on rejoin (as the efnet(?)patch provides)

  No OP on NetSplit. Actually, no join on NetSplit if configured.


> | 
> | 4. wipe channel command (regards to viha): if a number of
> |    IRC-Admins (say 3 for example) (global O required) agrees, 
> |    a channel with channelmodes: +ims[k]? maybe spied and 
> |    wiped out so that it may be founded new. It's against TO-kids.
> |    This could be done by a service
> |    (there must also be alsa a &wipe - channel on which 
> |     other people with +o set may stay to get these messages) 


  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
> 
> all powerful opers again.
> and the misconception that opers have anything more to do
> than keep servers connected.
> (i could conceive this kind of service if opers were
> different than what they are now, and/or if it was a job.
> remember, they're all volunteers, and rarely impartial.)
> 
  I agree with Christophe on this one. 100%


> | 5. As an alternative or add-on to my 4th point: the 3 mentioned
> |    IRC-Admin may also be able to set +i +b *!*@* -e for opless
> |    channels (I think of big - ones like #flirt.de) (only if
> |    +r is not set). The sense of this is clear. Often, big opless
> |    channels are a place of chaos and flooding occurs. So this
> |    is an idea to slowly decrease the number of chatters so that
> |    it may be formed newly ...
> 
> same comment.
> i think it's foolish to think that opers can make good
> judgements.  it'll also give yet more reasons for kids to
> target servers/opers.

  If I had my way, there would be no opers. 

> 
> | 6. if +o is set, you may ignore +m.
> |    useful for #opers e.g.
> 
> try to live as a user once in a while.
> what makes you think that you're so different with your
> shining star?

  The only difference between an user and an oper is, an oper is lamer.
Think about it.

  Again, I agree with Christophe. (doing that a lot recently ;-) )

> 
> | 7. to read &-channels, you need +o set.
> |    all the kiddies waiting there for squit messages
> 
> and?
> 
> | 8. spyservice: may ignore usermode +i for people registered
> |    there. queries are posted to a & - channel to protocol
> |    misuse.
> 
> sure, i mean.. privacy is already so bad, why not make it
> worse?
> 
> | My personal dislikes:
> | 
> | 1. I don't want me to evade +b +i +s +p. Reason for this is simple:
> |   a) I don't want to know anything. Users also need their privacy
> |   b) I don't want to know what's going on in these *porn* *warez*
> |      *shellz* chans, because if I'd know, someone could expect me
> |      to be responsible for it. (depends on local law...)
> 
> if you understand these very good points, why do you still
> wish for these things?  (this is an honest question.)
> 
> | 2. I don't want any @-superpower. This is outbalancing the
> |    oper-user relationship and is stealing the character of ircnet.
> 
> @ or * ?
> it my strong feeling that all should be as equal as possible.
> of course, within a channel, there needs to be some evil
> chanop stuff.  but it should be limited to a minimum.  i
> think we all know/agree how bad the current scheme is.
> 
> | What can I do?
> 
> help.


- Dianora

-- 
Diane Bruce, http://www.db.net/~db  http://www.db.net email db@xxxxxx
--- I wonder how many people know what an aphorism is.