UnrealIRCd Forums

Believe me i'm the last person who'd ever say change unreal... I'm just contributing to the debate.... None of my arguements should really be taking into any kinda of consideration when it cames into actually changing unreal... (in this case anywho)

but as for the "test" I was talking about a standardize test for others to take before they ever get the o:line... much like the quiz to gain +v for the channel.... only of course slightly harder... hell and why stop there, create a personallity test as well.... 25 questions about ethics much like the bullshit test I kept failing on bestbuy.com's site.... for employment... just suggestions for those of you newbs running / starting ircd networks....

Holy heck, this is what happens when I go awol for 6 hours?!

Ok,

No I didnt expect to see anything in 3.2Stable. I am talking long term, especially since I read the source last night, and figured its going to be quite a job if it is ever done.

Yes, it would create problems, hence plaster it with notices of "CHANGE YER OLINES" or something like you do when something big changes. Think of the change from the old conf file to the new conf file.

lol @ the windows remark... oi, I got raised on windows It's only recently ive started to see the light.

jeweles, all contributions are valid. Especially yours.

Change is necessary to prevent stagnation, and introduce more coolness. Look at the extended bans system, which many now take for granted. I love going /mode #thelounge +b ~q:Lamer and watch as they PM me furiously...

Ethics have always been a problem, but do remember, that if oper abuse occurs, people just tend to leave rather than stay and complain. See my latest article on http://www.zerohope.org about that (offtopic, yes, but anyhow)

I believe I have a possible compromise

(sorry about awakening a dead topic)



I opered to a Oper block with only the flags kKv

Jason is using modes +iowgrsxt

I got the local IRCop flag

If the system was set up to only give the specified flags, but keep the grouped flags o, and O etc. I believe that would satisfy both parties.

Also I would like to see the SA commands given their own flag for this purpose, perhaps can_sa?

I just don't like the whole "you can have this because you have this" philosophy. I would prefer to explicitly GIVE people permissions, rather than them having them. I mean, why does the localkill flag exist, when you can get it just by giving O. It doesnt make sense.

As to your remark Jason, I am afraid I don't quite understand it.

I meant to say, that we should keep this system with one change:

People who do not include the o or O flags, but instead list permissions specificly without those flags, would recieve only those permissions.

My example/test demonstrated that this is not the case, i added kKv and got o


Edit:

Flags work individually, however keep the "summary flags" o, O, A, N etc. for backwards compatibility.

Ok, I kind of understand what you mean, but due to the way it is coded, it would still be hard to do. (imho, naturally)

I understand that, I was simply attempting to come up with a usable solution for the next big version