Seeing more MIA doesen't mean the system has flaws in it but managers not having read/fully understood the Registration Acceptable Use Policy.Be honest and tell me which ones of these 2 you see more frequently in the #CService, MIA situations or temp manager changes ? and lets not forget that most of them are rejected....
Lets put away the old rules and bureaucracy for a minute now and think clearly ...
Second, they're not rejected but eventually purged, only channel registration applications can be rejected. CService's main purpose is not to purge channels but to do it's best and keep them registered. However, as one clooful admin put it: We won't hesitate to empty the dustbin, if needed.
Don't give me "let's put away the old rules and bureaucracy" because exactly these "old" rules have kept this network one of the best. As for bureaucracy I can't really imagine what you mean by that in our case.
In case you haven't noticed, most of these channels have more than 7 499 on them so it doesen't apply. Also you should know better that X on your channel is not a MUST. Registration should be a tool for the experienced and more seasoned users who already have stable UNregistered channels and which want to benefit from CService's X priviledge on their channel (for extra security and control).Think about it.... we are not doing this for those that have more then 10 years experience on IRC, I think most of those ones know already the undernet and add trustful admins to their teams
I really wouldn't like anyone else on my channel to see these actions because it's my channel first of all.
We are, we have #CService with it's volunteers ready to assist all the guests, we have the X commands on the website and we're holding #opschool classes for each segment of these X commands weekly.We should do constructive things that help the new comers to understand X commands...
Again, there is a time limit that should be passed in order to be able to apply for a channel (10 days). This because new users that register an username are supposed not to be experienced regarding on how to register a channel or administer it. Lately all believe that X is a must for a channel, which is not true at all. (thusly many channels end up suspended for abuse or absent managers).
Revival wrote :
Not true, we don't advise them the temporary manager change only *after* MIA occurs. If I'm not mistaken it's stipulated in the AUP, which they sign as having read and understood before they proceed with their application.As dooku pointed out a fact above; in cservice we always suggesting people to appoint a temp manager after they faced to MIA, they were didnt know or forgot to do, no matter, we should consider the all possiblity. A channel management shouldn't wait manager's return to issue this command as it will be very late.
Also imho applying for a channel means you have asked a bit on how this works and what new features apply for a manager (500). This includes purge forms or manager changes.
Is it just me or you're contradicting yourself over and over again ? You've been mentioning the absence aspect throughout your last posts, claiming this is why other channel admins should be able to access the history log.I didn't ask what will happen if manager failed to login for more than 21+ days, this is another topic. I said managers are allowed to be away almost 21 days in this case manager will come back in during this period but will not receive the wanted logs as it's usage period will be expired after 14 days, and why channel management should wait for manager's return?
That's true, however there is ONLY ONE person taking the ultimate decisions on HIS/HER channel, thusly that person should be entitled in my opinion to know all history and decide who to add/remove basing his/her actions on that history.A channel can NOT be managed only by one person and since when u ban a user it shows your username next to the reason I don't see why should not other admins be able to see those things that happened less then 14 days ago
As a final remark: as most channels have more than one 499 (level that we consider as a co-manager) it wouldn't be quite wise to grant them access to this history. As spidel marked, it's up to the channel manager which persons he appoints as his trustworthy admins or co-manager, thusly it would be his/her responsability to be present often in channel politics and see the actions of all his appointed ops/admins.