It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:14 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




 Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Permban through X
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:09 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:22 am
Posts: 19
I was thinking at an improve for X , about banning . Everyone is using eggs for permbans , but some channels which dosen`t have an egg what should they do ? i think /msg x permban <nick!*@* | *!*userid@host> [duration] [level] [reason] should do it . X should be improved to MAXIMUM so eggs in time will disapear because they won`t be needed longer .
Regards .


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:14 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:22 am
Posts: 19
i forgot to say something :
this command is necesary to ban those lammo people , so people won`t have to mind when the 336 hours (max) expires to add the ban again .

dreaming at a better undernet :devil:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:13 pm 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 760
Location: Romania
well it`s not a half bad ideea although i only think that it should be at level 499 because if all users have access to permban the 350 ban limit would be enough....



_________________
sirAndrew @ Undernet.org

8 years on this forum and i'm still the #1 poster around.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:15 am 

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:22 am
Posts: 19
i`m happy that you like the ideea . Hope coder-com will like it to :devil:


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:20 pm
Posts: 67
Location: Bucharest, Romania
What's the purpose in adding a [duration] if this should be a permanent ban? And then again, has anyone considered the potential abuse that this may generate? I would rather suggest the increase of the maximum time, to 30 days, instead of implementing such a ban. It would be a waste of resources and might be cause to abuse.

Should such a command be developed, I would suggest it left on the 500 level and none other.



_________________
"Gods do not suffer pride in anyone but themselves." - Herodotus

jasee
http://forum.undernet.org/
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 7:43 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Nowhere
I'm ok with the idea, i just would like it to be only available to the 500 in the channel, because there are douzines of channels that give 499 accesses like fresh cookies, sometimes to people they barely know. So if this command would be available to only one person, that would reduce the chances of the channel being massbanned and all that



_________________
I'm an angel, honest! The horns are just there to keep the halo straight
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:16 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 4:41 pm
Posts: 69
Adding such command doesn't sound like a good idea.
People will slowly stop using the X's normal ban command and they will keep adding permanent bans, that will just fill up the database.

For permanent bans, get a bot that will either ban via the /mode command or set the bans back via X, when the offender joins.

Regards,
Crosswing



_________________
Dead account, don't bother contacting.
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:23 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 7:43 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Nowhere
Probably, but for those who actually *know* how to manage a channel, will use this kind of ban when it will be necesary, like flooders/abusers, etc. Even so, if people will start using this command more often than the ban command, that is their choice, we cannot fobbid anyone from banning who, and for what period of time they want



_________________
I'm an angel, honest! The horns are just there to keep the halo straight
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:20 am 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
This has been looked at, and now X will allow up to 2400 hours (100 days).

Happy New Year


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Tell X that :)
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:55 am 
Forum Super Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 606
Location: Virginia, USA
At the risk of being off-topic, someone needs to fix the information a user gets when typing /msg x help ban to reflect this change.

I just got this old information ( [05:56] -X- The duration is in hours, with a maximum of 336 hours (2 weeks).)

Eenie


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:37 pm 

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:22 am
Posts: 19
finaly , if not permanent , 2400 hours should do it , and btw , like sirandrew sayd first , if the permban cmd was improved to X , than the max bans on the list should be modify to 350 .and such bans are not seted on everybody , just flooders/lammers like Wolfyx sayd (for Crosswing & Jasee ) .


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 1:23 pm
Posts: 36
Location: Heaven, Heavenstreet
It's fixed now.

-X- The duration is in hours, with a maximum of 2400 hours (100 days).


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 3:27 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:16 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Romania
nice nice.

100 days!!!!!!

with 300 bans limit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HALF JOB I THING!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:13 pm 

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 76
Location: Trois-Rivières, Canada
sirAndrew wrote:
well it`s not a half bad ideea although i only think that it should be at level 499 because if all users have access to permban the 350 ban limit would be enough....


Since when was the limit of bans through X reinstated?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:32 pm 
Senior Cservice Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:47 am
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand
Never it was always there, the question was when was the bug that stopped X respecting that limit fixed, that was early last year.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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: