HISTORY or Manager/Admin Log

Ask questions about Undernet's Channel Service

HISTORY ... options/methods

Poll ended at Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:42 pm

WEB only
18
14%
IRC only
2
2%
Both
19
15%
490+
9
7%
495+
9
7%
500 only
21
16%
Last 5
4
3%
Last 10
14
11%
1 Week
7
5%
2 Weeks
26
20%
 
Total votes: 129
User avatar
xplora
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

HISTORY or Manager/Admin Log

Post by xplora »

Possible new feature being looked at by the Undernet Channel Services Committee.

It has some far reaching possibilities, but basically the idea is to give at the very least channel managers the ability to see a short log of actions done on their channel, strictly speaking the following X commands would be logged, ADDUSER/REMUSER/MODINFO (except the new modinfo invite), SUSPEND/UNSUSPEND, AND BAN/UNBAN.

There are 2 ideas on how this would be accessed, one online with a command like /msg X HISTORY #channel, the other being via the web, after that there is how long the data would be kept etc.

Due to the issue that doing this would make using those commands public (at least to the channel manager) I have decided it is not my decision to make, however before we take this decision to the Undernet Administrators Committee, we would like your input. please make suggests, and vote accordingly.

Please select:
WEB, IRC, or both
Level required for viewing
How many commands for on IRC
How Long to keep logs
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee

User avatar
Sw1ft
Posts: 72
Location: Cyberspace

Post by Sw1ft »

It'd be a very useful feature. Even I can say the best feature that is required to let channel managements to reach some information. My voting with area that logs should be stated was 'both' but due to possible flood that logs on IRC may cause because of excessive lines, it might be restricted with 10-15 entry on IRC but whole 2 weeks/10 days/etc. on web.

I hope this feature will be available as soon as possible for everyone's good.
Sw1ft

Panzer
Posts: 40
Location: West

Post by Panzer »

Done and voted.

Indeed it's an age old questions we usually get in CService: can I see who removed an access level in my channel and even who set/unset a ban in the same channel.

Imo this feature (which could be easier to access on the web interface in terms of display and handling) will allow channel managers to have a tight control over the actions their admins/ops perform inside a channel. Massbans can be prevented and also levels of trust can be seen according to the activity log of the above mentioned commands.

Also I strongly believe it's a feature only the managers can see as it's their duty ultimately to control the whole channel access list and attribute access level in accordance ultimately.

Looking forward to seeing it happening.

Regards

Panzer
Image

umairs
Posts: 4
Location: Pakistan, Karachi

Post by umairs »

Hi,
vote cast.

First of all, thanks to you for concerning about new changes on Undernet Channel Service Committee.

I agree with Panzer, our users were looking for this kind of feature since so long, this could be a very useful for everyone..

Hope the implementation will be soon.

Regards,
UmaiRS
UmaiRS - CService trainee

DjChulo
Posts: 57
Location: Spain

Post by DjChulo »

First of all I want to thank you for the good intention regard the newe command i think it will be very useful to see this logs mostly for the many massbans wich happend day by day on the undernet.

I think that the best way is the website, there you can explain better and i thank that the needed access must be 500.

Keep up the good work Undernet CService Channel Committee
Image

Dooku
Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

I don't get it why should should this be an option only for the manager, if the admin considered and promoted some co-managers why shouldn't they know about the history ? what if the manager fails to login and then someone tries to over throne him a +400 maybe... its a possibility....
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
Image

Hawki
Posts: 8

Post by Hawki »

This could be an easy way for Channel management to find out what's happening around in their access list. Most of the users needing help regarding massbans on #CService come up with a question like Who added the person, Who removed him, Who suspended etc.. This would make it easier for Channel management to find out the trouble makers in their accesslist.
Regards,
Hawk.

Spidel
Posts: 639
Location: Backyard

Post by Spidel »

Good initiative. :thumbsup:
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."

Panzer
Posts: 40
Location: West

Post by Panzer »

Dooku wrote:I don't get it why should should this be an option only for the manager, if the admin considered and promoted some co-managers why shouldn't they know about the history ? what if the manager fails to login and then someone tries to over throne him a +400 maybe... its a possibility....


First of all a channel manager should be by definition active and keep a constant maintenance on his/her channel.

Second, the co-manager issue is a bit complicated for channels that have more than one 500 on them. In this case CService staff will consider if one or two are directly responsable for the channel and serve as decision factors on that channel. This is rather an exception and is dealt with on individual channels.

Third, absent managers trigger a response from CService and I really don't see how a 400+ admin can "overthrow" a channel manager. If the vote is succesful and CService grants a person (based on the vote exclusively and popular demand among the active 400+ admins there) the managership status that doesen't mean it's stealing it. Also knowing the history of a channel by channel admins doesen't influence in anyway their chances to be nominated or elected new managers in case the manager becomes absent.

With kind regards

Panzer
Image

Dooku
Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

Panzer wrote:
Dooku wrote:I don't get it why should should this be an option only for the manager, if the admin considered and promoted some co-managers why shouldn't they know about the history ? what if the manager fails to login and then someone tries to over throne him a +400 maybe... its a possibility....


First of all a channel manager should be by definition active and keep a constant maintenance on his/her channel.

Second, the co-manager issue is a bit complicated for channels that have more than one 500 on them. In this case CService staff will consider if one or two are directly responsable for the channel and serve as decision factors on that channel. This is rather an exception and is dealt with on individual channels.

Third, absent managers trigger a response from CService and I really don't see how a 400+ admin can "overthrow" a channel manager. If the vote is succesful and CService grants a person (based on the vote exclusively and popular demand among the active 400+ admins there) the managership status that doesen't mean it's stealing it. Also knowing the history of a channel by channel admins doesen't influence in anyway their chances to be nominated or elected new managers in case the manager becomes absent.

With kind regards

Panzer

Imagine this,
A new manager is trying to create a management team and he adds several administrators (+400) some 200 and so on, one of those 400 is adding a new operator and that one adds mass ban and then removes his access, why should only the manager who could be away for several weeks be the only one who can see the history and be able to identify the fake op and take some action ? :rambo:
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
Image

Panzer
Posts: 40
Location: West

Post by Panzer »

Imagine this,
A new manager is trying to create a management team and he adds several administrators (+400) some 200 and so on, one of those 400 is adding a new operator and that one adds mass ban and then removes his access, why should only the manager who could be away for several weeks be the only one who can see the history and be able to identify the fake op and take some action ? :rambo:


Manager can't be away for several weeks, because after 3 weeks MIA kicks in (locks the channel and calls for the vote or purges the channel directly the days after 21 days have passed without the manager logging in).

And to answer your question in a simplistical manner: The manager is ultimately the sole responsable for each wrong decision his admins/ops perform. Channels can get purged if admins/ops fool arround abusing and manager doesen't remove them/kick them out. Therefore every access added to the channel is added by someone who got added on his turn by the channel manager (good channel managers add 400+ and instruct them to notify or to "vouch" with ther access level every access they might wanna add to the channel list).

Moreover the channel manager can remove all access levels, whereas the rest can remove only 1 point lower than their own.

Regards

Panzer
Image

Crys
Posts: 27
Location: Undernet

Post by Crys »

Great idea. This will enormously help the managers whose channels have been abused of by the operators. This will show them who to trust and who not to knowing that they actually add on their channels almost everyone who requests access and they get it in no time, even more, after that they start adding other friends (supposing they have been given 400+ access) and those friends start abusing of their "powers" and commit bans and conflicts between the other ops, this could really help and the so-called people that commit take-overs could wake up and find another job. That's my point.

Keep the good work running :)
Your work is appreciated!


Thank you & best wishes,
Crys.
Just a wise head on young shoulders.

Dooku
Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

Crys wrote:Great idea. This will enormously help the managers whose channels have been abused of by the operators. This will show them who to trust and who not to knowing that they actually add on their channels almost everyone who requests access and they get it in no time, even more, after that they start adding other friends (supposing they have been given 400+ access) and those friends start abusing of their "powers" and commit bans and conflicts between the other ops, this could really help and the so-called people that commit take-overs could wake up and find another job. That's my point.

Keep the good work running :)
Your work is appreciated!


Thank you & best wishes,
Crys.

That's what I was trying to explain to Panzer- :wink:
Anyhow that's my opinion, that not only the managers should see this and take action, I would prefer +490 or +450 ( if you want to make an = thing between the access commands that points that the 450 is a trusted channel admin) :D
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
Image

User avatar
Sw1ft
Posts: 72
Location: Cyberspace

Post by Sw1ft »

I agree with Dooku on this. It is not about responsibilities of channel manager only, in some channels, channel managers are not the only part of management so I believe that, trusted channel administrators (which might/should be 495+ imho) should have right to access 'history' command.

Actually 495+ would be an appropriate option, it's clear that is a feature for management members who has top access in channel. So I think 495+ members of managment such as senior channel administrators (co-managers, co-ordinators etc.) should be able to use history command as well as manager. We all know manager supposed to keep his activity but there might be times that manager is not around. It's not always about MIA threat with 3 weeks over inactivity, according to security in channel; even while 1 day away action there chould be need of use history command in order to seek logs and fix things in channel instantly and when manager is not around 495+ should be able to use history command in order to seek logs and provide order in channel.

P.S. I see that 500 and 490+(+)495+ has equal votes so far. Comparation while taking decision should be 500- vs. 490+, because I believe those who has 495- mostly would go for 490+ option automatically.
Sw1ft

Spidel
Posts: 639
Location: Backyard

Post by Spidel »

Why debating instead of just voting? Just vote so your votes could be casted.

Have fun :thumbsup:
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."