NOADDUSER

You can post in here ideas and comments on how you think we could improve things on undernet.
Keops
Posts: 76

NOADDUSER

Post by Keops »

adding this option was a good thing but i think it would have been better if it was available for channels also. i saw channels where some user decided to add a lot of access to the list. removing all those usernames would take a lot of time so that's why i think there should be a noadduser channel flag available only to the channel manager which would prevent ppl from adding unwanted access. i also think it would be good if there was a command like CLEARLIST to clear all the usernames from the acc list if such unwanted events may happen.

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

Oh well, this is a good idea after all. Regarding noadduser for channel. But, regarding that clearlist, imagine what will happen if someone manage to login to your username and do clearlist, accesses gone! That's a bad idea. Maybe some mode that will prevent adduser/remuser/modinfo if it is set to ON will help. But, nothing less or more. Oh, and if level => 500 to be able to adduser/remuser/modinfo. :)


Best regards,
Mit 8)
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

Keops
Posts: 76

Post by Keops »

there are a lot of bad things a guy can do if he steals your 500 user password :lol: i was thinking of clearlist as a panic button if the manager forgets to set noadduser and some moron adds 1000 users in the middle of the night. the only thing the manager can do after, is either to remove each user one by one or ask an admin to purge/register the channel which i dont think its likely to happen :-?

User avatar
xplora
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

Post by xplora »

Why have noadduser for channel's when choosing better 400+'s will do the job.

As for clearlist, some CService Admins have access to a similar command, and making it available for manager use would be bad (think a channel that has 1000 legit users and the managers access get hacked, 2 sides to every coin ;)

User avatar
sirAndrew
Posts: 760
Location: Romania

Post by sirAndrew »

yes explora it would be nice if coders would change the permission for remall from 800 global to 500 manager access...And choosing responsable admins for your channel comes with the ability to prevent your username from being stolen.

How can you choose responsable people to manage your channel if you cannot do a simple thing as using a password only you would know....
sirAndrew @ Undernet.org

8 years on this forum and i'm still the #1 poster around.

User avatar
xplora
Posts: 564
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

Post by xplora »

Well when all the managers learn to manage there channel properly and pick decent 400's, I'll support letting managers have access to a command to clean out there userlist.in the meantime, it is better they do it one at a time, starting from the top.

Keops
Posts: 76

Post by Keops »

well, i think if it was a flag like noadduser for channels, a lot of managers would use it, rather than flags like noop which almost no one uses :(

User avatar
sirAndrew
Posts: 760
Location: Romania

Post by sirAndrew »

xplora wrote:Well when all the managers learn to manage there channel properly and pick decent 400's, I'll support letting managers have access to a command to clean out there userlist.in the meantime, it is better they do it one at a time, starting from the top.
Yes that true. Also i don`t think you know the current profile of a manager on undernet. Some would say to register a channel on undernet is hard, but i`d say it is more than easy. Any stupid monkey can. I encountered people on undernet still thinking that while a channel is in regproc Cservice can see what they type in the channel or they played mirc.ini in the channels to make traffic so the channel passes the traffic check.

For the more, many managers do not understand the terms access level, and give out access like candy on halloween. They add 10, 20, 30 people with 499 not realising what hudge power they give them. If this continues coders should think of removing some access level feature or make commands like join/set autotopic to the a lower level as a better part of the managers on undernet do not understand why a user with 450 can set a description or a url for the channel. They do not understand that by giving access they also give a responsability. And what`s the result of that?! Channels locked/suspended because of manager abuse, takes at every step...

Some solution must be found to stop idiots from becoming channel managers. A small IQ test before hitting the submit application button would be nice. And i`m not kidding.
sirAndrew @ Undernet.org

8 years on this forum and i'm still the #1 poster around.

Keops
Posts: 76

Post by Keops »

i agree. a little quiz on IRC/mIRC commands, user & channel modes, protections and X commands & stuff would help :) managers and users with access on channels should know at least some basic stuff before registering a channel. 8)

User avatar
zippen
Posts: 6
Location: Romania

Post by zippen »

xplora is right. Wisely selecting 400+ ops should prevent such a problem. What I mean is that adding an user with 400+ if it's his first time joining a channel is plain stupidity. For my channel, I have two users with level 450 and that's all. The rest are with 200, thus assuring peace in the channel.

Merry Christmas! :wink:
Mind of the wonderful...

Keops
Posts: 76

Post by Keops »

i have to agree that i saw many dumb people on undernet that add a lot of 499 accesses to ppl they dont know (romanians mostly - no offence! :D)

MiLLeniuM
Posts: 4
Location: Heaven

Post by MiLLeniuM »

NO ADDUSER is a very useful command ... nice one guy`s Keep up the good work :classic:
I`m not a complete Idiot some part`s are still missing

User avatar
lemuel
Posts: 408
Location: Southeast Asia, Philippines

Post by lemuel »

The command doesn't affect me at all. If you don't want to be added then just tell him NO or if you're clever enough do /msg x info username clean your access list. Simple as that. :-?
I love Maria Katrina Rey

User avatar
Mitko
Posts: 594
Location: Europe

Post by Mitko »

lemuel, you said it does not affect you. And then you mentioned "If you don't want to be added" telling to all of us. Well, why should I do /msg X info all the time (not just me actually, everyone) just to see if someone added me in a channel without my permission ? Why doing the other way when I can just set NOADDUSER ON ? It's non-sense. Let me tell you an example, there were some lamers adding all usernames of persons who were in help channels. So, we were all supposed to do /msg X info all the time, and remove ourselfs (do not mention that we can't remove ourselfs if the channel is suspended - and some of them were suspended). Now, we can just use this command. So, why not using it when it is very useful ? Come on :)


Best Regards,
Mit.
Dimitar Tnokovski aka Mitko
[img]http://rap.com.mk/images/UL/mitko_userbar.gif[/img]

User avatar
lemuel
Posts: 408
Location: Southeast Asia, Philippines

Post by lemuel »

hehehe.. didn't heard that one and didn't encounter also.. well actually for the past years that command is not available and there's no problem with that, correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah it's useful I know that.. users opinion to put that command on X so, it's plainly another useful command that is made for all of us. Yeah I'm using it also :lol:
I love Maria Katrina Rey