It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:49 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




 Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:02 am 
Cservice Official
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:15 pm
Posts: 276
Location: Bucharest
We're the CService part of the network :)
Suggestions can and are posted within this forum, but I'm sure as hell that I don't wanna get private messages everyday being asked why this and why that, just because the users have the right to object and comment to anything they deem valid. (experience shows that users complain just about everything they dislike)

In the end, CService has the final word upon related topics, influenced more or less by user's oppinions, but let's not go off-topic and discuss why do we have maxlogins enabled instead of discussing alternatives and suggestions of the maxlogins being re-enabled.

That was my point, my previous post wasn't made to make users 'shut up', it was just to keep this discussion on-topic.

Later edit : I like your fish :)



_________________
Etherfast
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:21 am 

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:16 pm
Posts: 10
point is.. they should be following their own rules..
and as Eenie said.. i used Quakenet as an example that maxlogins can work fine on a network..
MartYanu said:
Quote:
there the opers own drones, ddoses users, and more than that, Quakenet is the most lame network I ever seen, as the opers/admins abuses there, the normal users much more.

let's say that's true.. i don't really know cause i don't really care about Quakenet.. BUT i have never ever seen a drone net or a flood net there.. and those who spam gets pretty fast Glined there so i would say that Quakenet is better than Undernet when it comes to handle abuse.. and MartYanu.. you shall not think that Undernet got the perfect opers..most of them are cool but i've heard and seen some nasty s*** about some of them...
anyway at the end it is only Undernet who does things harder than it is.



_________________
Happiness comes in packages marked 'Batteries Not Included'
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:11 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Etherfast wrote:
Indeed, this is not Quakenet, we will talk about Undernet only.
Second, *some* CService admins have multiple usernames/channels because they can be trusted, they're not abusive persons put in that position, and for some other officials, their job requires owning more than a username for testing purposes.

CService owns the Channel Service part of this network, and it's not up to you guys to comment or judge our decisions related to our rules and policies. You have an AUP to respect, just do it. If not, just don't use a username and you can own 30 unregistered channels if you wish.

Stay on topic when discussing the maxlogins thingie.
I still like the 399 second login, or the ghostkill command.


Etherfast,

1, you are right this is not quakenet, it's not really viable to compare networks, what may work for one network may not work for another.
2, I am an obvious example about multiple channels, , but my situation is a bit more complicated, I have my own channel, then there is #CService, for #CService it's not viewed that i am the owner/manager that registered the channel for myself (as is usually the case, such as my own channel), but I was appointed by #CService to handle it. This is the same for Managers of other Committee channels (of other committee's).
3, CService does not "own the Channel Service part of the network, CService is the committee placed in charge of that part of the network.
4, part of this forum is so they can comment/query/etc our policies/decisions/etc

5, for everyone, please stay on topic, maxlogins on undernet.



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:21 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
One last thing, the example of quakenet has been given and accepted as an example there is no need to continue discussing it here as quakenet is not undernet.

Further duscission involving quakenet that is not a reference or example will be deleted.

Please stay on topic, maxlogins on undernet, I would hate to have to close a topic while I still believe it should remain open.



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:36 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Netherlands
Maxlogins 2, 500 and 399 so people can still do things?
I don't get it.
Why not just implent a ghost kill command which will be so much easier?
Well slightly annoying if people get hold of your password and start killing you each and every day just for 'fun'.

But if it gets implented in the network, i would find it much more usefull then 2 certain levels just for a channel.
What happens if you're on more channels and like you have 500 and only 200 or 100 on other channels and other @'s are gone. You still use the 2nd maxlogin to assist the channels? like ehm... Like a temporary 'backup' till the 1st client just 'dies'?



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:41 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Ok, while I remember the ghostkill idea is a server admin issue, they don't want it, this annoyingly makes it a server issue not a CService issue :(



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:16 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 594
Location: Europe
ZeroSlashe® wrote:
Maxlogins 2, 500 and 399 so people can still do things?
I don't get it.
Why not just implent a ghost kill command which will be so much easier?
Well slightly annoying if people get hold of your password and start killing you each and every day just for 'fun'.

But if it gets implented in the network, i would find it much more usefull then 2 certain levels just for a channel.
What happens if you're on more channels and like you have 500 and only 200 or 100 on other channels and other @'s are gone. You still use the 2nd maxlogin to assist the channels? like ehm... Like a temporary 'backup' till the 1st client just 'dies'?

If I understood correctly, and lets say you have these access levels on the following channels: #testing1 (500), #another-test (437), #still-testing (400), #well-just-a-test (350), #test-again (100). So, while you are logged in once, you will login again and you will have the following levels: #testing1 (399), #another-test (399), #still-testing (399), #well-just-a-test (350), #test-again (100). So, still you will be able to do things, like get opped, ban, while your ghost is online. After the ghost goes offline, I assume the levels will be auto-increased to normal.

xplora: if I am wrong, then please correct me.

Best Regards,
Mit.



_________________
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:35 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
mitko thats the idea I was given exactly as I understood it yes :)



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:56 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 760
Location: Romania
Wai wait wait...lemme see if i get this straight...you will have X auto-detect the clone that is already connected, it will login you, but you`ll have 399 on all +400 that you have access on and it will auto-detect the clone exiting, and it will give you your rightfull levels back.

Among the lost of coding this will require, at some point it`s load quota will be kinda large....and i don`t think these processes can be done in the same time as a normal connect...for the more this solves nothing about the password stealing problem. Despite de fact that they can`t perform admin commands, they can still mass-ban, mass-kick the channel without any sweat. So this comes back to another request users had, and that is disableing the *!*@* host for bans, kicks. Even if you choose your admins right, we are all humans, it is bound to happen, to make a mistake and someone somehow can still find out your password if he`s a little smart.
So this ideea isn`t the best one. You keep the host *!*@* available for bans in channels but you disabled the maxlogins command which can be really usefull to some users. One + for the Cservice people.

Now regarding the other side of the problem xplora, i might just wonder how will X detect the clone quiting? It`s still a server issue :))



_________________
sirAndrew @ Undernet.org

8 years on this forum and i'm still the #1 poster around.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:55 pm 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
uhm the coding not is hard as you think, X already keeps a list of all nicks logged in to a username, it only has to allow 400+ commands to the nickname at the top of it's logged in list. as for knowing when you signoff, X already knows that too since that is the only way to log out of X.

in otherwords, the only piece of the coding that is not already there is on the 400+ commands to check if you are the oldest logged in user.



_________________
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:58 pm 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
xplora said:
Quote:
the only piece of the coding that is not already there is on the 400+ commands to check if you are the oldest logged in user.


So what can we do to get this implemented? The resounding opinion posted here is that people really would like to have this.

Eenie :)



_________________
Just a small fish in a big sea Image
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:47 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 594
Location: Europe
As xplora said, coding it is not hard at all. The big question is: does the Cservice committee want this implemented ? I would really like to get the answer to that question.


Best Regards,
Mit.



_________________
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:36 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Netherlands
Well we can blackmail them, but not me =P haven't been on undernet enough lately to blackmail ppl, but i finally understand the whole meaning of this. Fascinating, atleast it keeps giving us the chance to stay logged when the connection dies =))



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:09 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Europe
Speed^ write:
Quote:
for cs stuff and opers is available.. isn't that cute? ... BUT IS WRONG!


cs perons are more trusted then we are?
I know many people on Undernet who are more trusted then k1dnapper,nIckmenza or this last KoGiTo-
KoGiTo- help in #cservice 1 year, and someone help 4 years, and KoGiTo- is more trusted than guy who help 4 years, Mitko can be teacher to KoGiTo- ( sorry KoGiTo- but i take you like example ), Mitko is more trusted then KoGiTo- .... so why just cs persons can have max logins, we are not humans? We are aliens ? We dont know what is Cservice Comitee or just to say: we dont know what is Routtng-com ?
With that just cs persons can use max logins, we become stuppid and non-trusted ?!?



_________________
My Might Is Believeing In Allmighty GOD !!!
What We Do In Life, Echoes In Eternity !!!
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:30 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:22 pm
Posts: 639
Location: Backyard
the whole fact that, it's not about trust here, and you should be already aware of, that you can have no trust in nobody from UnderNet, the fact is most of the users when the maxlogins option was still avaible were abusing the system to evade bans/log their usernames on their bots and to flood other channels and so on. however you shouldn't start to offend someone if you don't know him second eval since you don't know who is him and what he has done for this committee. don't talk about something that you don't have any idea. you should keep all your comments in your mind or kept them inside of you, instead of starting to talk with non-sense, 'cause thats what you did. and one more thing, nobody's stupid. we aren't monkeys or animals, we have a brain to think.



_________________
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron