The problem would improve the channel safety, since it can be issued only when they want to get rid of the whole channel when closing it for good, as an example.
Well, why. You've seen a lot of channels getting that problem.
There is no way of normal users imunize from the command issued.
A lot of channels have suffered since then, 100+ users having their usernames/bouncers hacked or stollen doing that. Or even simple people doing that intentionally, when bored out of Undernet, like leaving (heard such cases also) and doing it to get some fun.
The command can even be performed by mistake, if you're getting only a simple typo.
It looks bad, it gives a bad reputation to channels, and don't get me be the manager suffering that.
If Undernet gets that...
Managers trust the ops more (there are no ways doing a mass revenge kick on people, without the help of wonderful X) with so many all around protection scripts invented/or bots.
Having a user under 75 on a strict op channel, is like having him tied.
Can't protect channel from floods (if on a help channel) unless he does kicks - can't set a ban.
Most of the people added to help channels, yes, trusted. Yes, over 100.
And yes, channels still getting masskicks.
I'm just presenting a small pledge, and some small reasons of why I would like that implemented to X.
And I bet it couldn't take so much time, blacklisting it or implementing a special level in case we want it to be used.
Maybe it's the wrong forum also, so I hope the coder-com hears and reads this or replies.
Would be wonderful.

silvered@user-com.undernet.org
Translators project manager