HISTORY or Manager/Admin Log

[Hodari]

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

Have fun

Actually I'd say the debate part of this may well be as important, if not more so, than the actual vote totals, especially if some of the votes remain as close as they are now. The main point of posting this in the first place was to see how people feel about this command and any concerns they might have with it, especially if there were privacy concerns with this. Knowing WHY people voted the way they did will make it easier to judge this, so feel free to debate on these questions or even to say you don't want a command like this to be put in place at all

[Crys]

Good point -- thinking that we are the ones who are going to use that command (users), so we DO have to post our opinions because the command is actually a feature that will help us very much and we have to know what to expect from it.

[DjChulo]

Good point Spidel

[Panzer]

Spidel has good points ?

[Crys]

I was talking about the "good point" of debating =)

[Spidel]

Spidel has good points ?

d'oh, is that a rethorical question?

I always had good grades.

[Panzer]

OK Spidel

[Hawki]

I think this option should be limited to the channel manager ONLY, After all the channel manager has to be the one who is going to check up his channel history and then based on that make decisions. Limiting it to 450 or other access level holders by change can create chaos and unnecessary fights amongst the channel management. I agree with PANZER on this.

[dontuta]

Verry good ideea, and a nice command. But how about history command?

[Hodari]

Verry good ideea, and a nice command. But how about history command?

It is certainly an idea that is being very strongly considered, however since it involves storing and making public information which was not previously recorded, there was some concern raised over privacy issues. This is why we felt it would be best to provide some opportunity for users to comment on the command before implementing it. We'd like to find out first if there are any major objections to it and also at what level people would like it to be available(In particular, 450+, 500 only, or somewhere in between). If you haven't already done so, please feel free to post your comments on this in the topic for it.

[Spidel]

I think this option should be limited to the channel manager ONLY, After all the channel manager has to be the one who is going to check up his channel history and then based on that make decisions. Limiting it to 450 or other access level holders by change can create chaos and unnecessary fights amongst the channel management. I agree with PANZER on this.

It can be avoided by not adding them at level 450 or higher. And still you can watch your members action in your channel, either way doesn't matter on what level this command will actually work as long as you're the manager of the channel this is why i highly recommend the level required to be 500 for this feature.

[Revival]

Apparently ONLY voting doesnt make any sense, If ONLY voting were needed then CSC would vote it by themselves. Obviously topic opened to debate

Everything seems ok but only one thing is confusing me, Majority of users voting 500 level requirement to perform that command but same majority also voting 2 weeks log recording, thats not a logical point coz managers are allowed to be away for 21 days but in this case manager will come back after 15-20 days but will not see any recorded logs as it's duration will be expired.

If you insistly voting on 500 level requirement then recording duration must be 3 weeks at least equal to MIA starts. According to me, If CSC wants to provide such a command named history in order to let channel management check their channels up by themselves when a massban gonna be occurs or any access removal then CSC should choose the most useful values\times\methods to provide maximum usability with it.

I would like to see 495 level requirement to issue this command and 1 weekly log recording will be enough and would be more useful if could you let us to see those recorded logs through website.

Best Regards/RevivaL

[Spidel]

Apparently ONLY voting doesnt make any sense, If ONLY voting were needed then CSC would vote it by themselves. Obviously topic opened to debate

Everything seems ok but only one thing is confusing me, Majority of users voting 500 level requirement to perform that command but same majority also voting 2 weeks log recording, thats not a logical point coz managers are allowed to be away for 21 days but in this case manager will come back after 15-20 days but will not see any recorded logs as it's duration will be expired.

Says who? The question was how long the log should be kept on X's data base. That doesn't mean if the manager fails to login for 17 days or more, he won't see the history of the channel. He just won't see the first two weeks as he was MIA.

And to be honest regarding to what i said above, i don't know if this is what you meant too.

As for going away; responsable managers or those who care about their registered channel, should be aware about AUP.

[dontuta]

Verry good ideea, and a nice command. But how about history command?

It is certainly an idea that is being very strongly considered, however since it involves storing and making public information which was not previously recorded, there was some concern raised over privacy issues. This is why we felt it would be best to provide some opportunity for users to comment on the command before implementing it. We'd like to find out first if there are any major objections to it and also at what level people would like it to be available(In particular, 450+, 500 only, or somewhere in between). If you haven't already done so, please feel free to post your comments on this in the topic for it.

/msg X AUTHHISTORY View auth history for an account.
The AUTHHISTORY suggested here, and the HISTORY being surveyed are 2 different things, AUTHHISTORY would be about tracking your login history, ie extending your LAST LOGIN info to show the last 5+, that kind of thing. The HISTORY being surveyed is about channel tracking of command usage such as adduser/remuser/modinfo (excluding modinfo invite), suspend/unsuspend, and ban/unban.
This is my suggestion. Thanks

[MrEen]

Apparently ONLY voting doesnt make any sense, If ONLY voting were needed then CSC would vote it by themselves. Obviously topic opened to debate

Everything seems ok but only one thing is confusing me, Majority of users voting 500 level requirement to perform that command but same majority also voting 2 weeks log recording, thats not a logical point coz managers are allowed to be away for 21 days but in this case manager will come back after 15-20 days but will not see any recorded logs as it's duration will be expired.

If you insistly voting on 500 level requirement then recording duration must be 3 weeks at least equal to MIA starts. According to me, If CSC wants to provide such a command named history in order to let channel management check their channels up by themselves when a massban gonna be occurs or any access removal then CSC should choose the most useful values\times\methods to provide maximum usability with it.

I would like to see 495 level requirement to issue this command and 1 weekly log recording will be enough and would be more useful if could you let us to see those recorded logs through website.

Best Regards/RevivaL

Only one thing is confusing me with your reply. You spend two paragraphs going on about the length of log not being long enough, then suggest an even shorter log.

MrEen