Adduser protect level

You can post in here ideas and comments on how you think we could improve things on undernet.
bogzillaq
Posts: 5

Adduser protect level

Post by bogzillaq »

On absolutely every channel there is this one big problem : who has 499 allmoast rullze ( sorry for the lamer speaking and bad english :P ) . So lets lower the lath or even disable it . Of cource your access is given to adduser as much as you can , but still , i`ve senn channels like this : 1- 500 , 10-499 and 100` of 498. now thats just silly . accesses ar from 1->500 remember? so , lets use them all ( well not realy all, but at least 200->500 :P ). So how do we do this ?
Eg : you have 490 on a channel . You want to add another user with 399 level , but you want to protect him from anyone else who has lower level then 420 . what you do ? /msg x adduser #chan <username> 399 +p 420
( /msg x adduser #chan <username> 399 +p will set default value to +p 490 ) . If used /msg x adduser #chan <username> 399 the protection level would be set to 399 offcourse :P That way none "lower" the you ( or the give level ) could remuser still anyone with greater access then <username> could suspend or ban him .
Another benifit : people don`t realy use suspend anymore . they preferen remuser ( it`s quicker and much simplier to use i guess ) I guess Cservice didn`t implement this command ( suspend ) just for fun , or to be forgotten . if anyone ( official ) can tell me ( through statistics or something ) taht i`m wrong , and people do use suspend as much as they are suspsed to , please lock the topic :D
P.S. I`m a coder , and so i know that there shouldn`t be much trouble implementing this ( just another collumn in the username access list database : value :D )

The-Judge
Posts: 47

Post by The-Judge »

useless. what would be the purpose of the users with higher access? what purpose would have different levels? none
if you are really a coder then you must know that you don't code things because you just like it...and there are a lot things to do besides adding a column to the db
[url=http://www.youchat.org/][img]http://www.youchat.info/founder2.png[/img][/url]

bogzillaq
Posts: 5

Post by bogzillaq »

The result of the ideea : you can give someone some access , an protect him from certain users without having any trouble . I ( and not only ) often met sitiuations in wich people are asking for a "probation" , an user gives him access ( lest say 399 ) , and the next day the access is gone with no reason suplied , deleted by a pour 400 ( for stupid reasons like not on chann becose of target and many more ) who does know what`s the deal .
As for the condig part , if you are a coder , then i`m sure you made 100`s of usless soft or scripts "just for the fun of it " And i repeat , allthough i don`t know anything about X ( the actual software , his way of hendeling data , outputng the results and so on ) implementing another flag ( after all the flags that exists ) i shouldn`t be much trouble at all ( and I`m just one , not a hole team :P )

crystiano
Posts: 7

Post by crystiano »

thats kinda silly, I dont imagine the use of this.
<img src="http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/5226/seniorcsadmin4bg.png" border="0" />

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

Post by xplora »

bogzillaq this really comes down to channel management, and to be honest, your idea would only further bad channel management, not promote good channel management :(

While an interesting idea, if you add someone with 399, and can't trust anyone below 420 to not remove them, why should those 400-420 users have access that high in the first place?
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee

bogzillaq
Posts: 5

Post by bogzillaq »

well , in that case i guess it`s time for a moderator to lock the topic :)