-X- #audio is registered by:
-X- DrSatan - last seen: 11 days, 20:52:55 ago
#audio slang H@x ~slang@slang.users.undernet.org :0 slang
#audio End of /WHO list.
Even the X parted, i think because of the shame
Thanks for your time!
CService allowing an unused channel to remain registered
CService allowing an unused channel to remain registered
Is it fair that an empty registered channel to have X, a channel with no activity, without that of the manager(when he login) ? I spotted a few channels that have no activity whatsoever, but the manager still keeps it.. I know what you will say, that the manager registered the channel, so he can do whatever he wants with it, even keep it "on hang" ; but I don't know Undernet will grow if channels are kept empty because the manager can't make some time to manage his own channel. To me it seems like a waste of Undernet resources. The channel I'm talking about is #audio
-X- #audio is registered by:
-X- DrSatan - last seen: 11 days, 20:52:55 ago
#audio slang H@x ~slang@slang.users.undernet.org :0 slang
#audio End of /WHO list.
Even the X parted, i think because of the shame
Thanks for your time!
-X- #audio is registered by:
-X- DrSatan - last seen: 11 days, 20:52:55 ago
#audio slang H@x ~slang@slang.users.undernet.org :0 slang
#audio End of /WHO list.
Even the X parted, i think because of the shame
Thanks for your time!
Last edited by slang on Mon Jul 12, 2010 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Code: Select all
--------------------
slang@IRC (Undernet) _ _
o' \,=./ `o
Welcome to the end of the thought process. (o o)
-----ooO--(_)--Ooo---
The guidelines require the manager login once every 21 days, because we can only monitor if they have logged in, not if they have been in the channel, and while we do have plans to rectify that situation, there isn't anything we can really do about "abandoned" channels where the manager still logs in within the 21 day requirement.
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
I see this more then fair !!!
Why would it need improvements ? That manager struggled to gain the service after one week or even more with supporters... why would it need even more demands in order for him to remain in charge of that channel ? Lets not forget how "fast" was to get the bot on a channel, some even re-applied for at least 5 times in different time periods and with different teams (supporters) so they could gain X.
Its not like all the sudden thousands of users rushed on undernet and they desperately need some abandoned channels. I must admit that maybe there are just a few cases but imagine this: if you put even more rules and moderate even more on a network that is loosing users daily... we will not end in a convenient position
Why would it need improvements ? That manager struggled to gain the service after one week or even more with supporters... why would it need even more demands in order for him to remain in charge of that channel ? Lets not forget how "fast" was to get the bot on a channel, some even re-applied for at least 5 times in different time periods and with different teams (supporters) so they could gain X.
Its not like all the sudden thousands of users rushed on undernet and they desperately need some abandoned channels. I must admit that maybe there are just a few cases but imagine this: if you put even more rules and moderate even more on a network that is loosing users daily... we will not end in a convenient position
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
Dooku wrote:I see this more then fair !!!
Why would it need improvements ? That manager struggled to gain the service after one week or even more with supporters... why would it need even more demands in order for him to remain in charge of that channel ? Lets not forget how "fast" was to get the bot on a channel, some even re-applied for at least 5 times in different time periods and with different teams (supporters) so they could gain X.
Its not like all the sudden thousands of users rushed on undernet and they desperately need some abandoned channels. I must admit that maybe there are just a few cases but imagine this: if you put even more rules and moderate even more on a network that is loosing users daily... we will not end in a convenient position
I think the point you are missing, Dooku, is that the channel sits empty.
Empty, as in NO users are in it.
Seems like a waste to me, but no one asked me
And xplora has answered the question satisfactorily, AFAIAC.
~Eenie
Just a small fish in a big sea 
Dooku, the intent of the guideline is that the manager should be joining the channel, therefore the change we are hoping to make is to be able to monitor that the Manager is joining the channel, and not just logging into their username.
xplora @ undernet.org
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
Past Co-ordinator
Undernet Channel Services Committee
xplora wrote:Dooku, the intent of the guideline is that the manager should be joining the channel, therefore the change we are hoping to make is to be able to monitor that the Manager is joining the channel, and not just logging into their username.
Almost sounds like Big Brother, checking what channels a channel manager is in. However, I do see it as a good thing to be able to see if a channel manager has been joining his own channel.
~Eenie
Just a small fish in a big sea
Yea but lets face it, who ever joins once at every 21 days in order to avoid his/her channel from being purged is joining that channel also, the fact that he/she quits immediately after that its another something else.
So what actually could be useful would be to track the managers and how much time they spent since they last login or something like that.
Make an average and then decide if the manager should be asked if everything is OK or I don't know something like it.
So what actually could be useful would be to track the managers and how much time they spent since they last login or something like that.
Make an average and then decide if the manager should be asked if everything is OK or I don't know something like it.
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
Eenie wrote:Almost sounds like Big Brother, checking what channels a channel manager is in. However, I do see it as a good thing to be able to see if a channel manager has been joining his own channel.
~Eenie
it might be something that would be needed (BigBrother reference) Undernet went one step up with TOR bans and DnsBLs.. but.. there is still MUCH more steps to climb to make it the perfect network..
like adding Usermodes/channel modes.. regex matching for bans/glines, ability to channel managers to enable/disable specific commands to X and channel. like BAN and +Q (anti kick) .. much much more to do.. a.s.a.p. before irc is extinct...
Go to hell with your questions, my time is done here. It was fun, but this network is sooooo corrupted by morons, its not worth it.
Unfortunately I think this is kind of off-topic but to be honest I would never vote for that, since as you said IRC is dieing right ? then how would you bring it back among the current trends since you put even more weight on it ? like user and channel modes, as far as I know undernet is one of the "lightest" network and that's one of the things I love about it.
Do you believe a new user is willing to start learning so many commands, service commands and such when other applications and services does everything these days ?
Back in the old days users didn't had a choice, now they do, so if we like to maintain and to grow back this net we should attract new people with unique facts and with light/understandable/easy to use services.
Do you believe a new user is willing to start learning so many commands, service commands and such when other applications and services does everything these days ?
Back in the old days users didn't had a choice, now they do, so if we like to maintain and to grow back this net we should attract new people with unique facts and with light/understandable/easy to use services.
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.
There are users who don`t know about how to purge a channel or how to change the manager. I think that is better to notify they somehow... with channel topic or... smt else to remaind they if they dosn`t need the channel anymore, they can change the manager or purge it..
slang wrote:Is it fair that an empty registered channel to have X, a channel with no activity, without that of the manager(when he login) ? I spotted a few channels that have no activity whatsoever, but the manager still keeps it.. I know what you will say, that the manager registered the channel, so he can do whatever he wants with it, even keep it "on hang" ; but I don't know Undernet will grow if channels are kept empty because the manager can't make some time to manage his own channel. To me it seems like a waste of Undernet resources. The channel I'm talking about is #audio
-X- #audio is registered by:
-X- DrSatan - last seen: 11 days, 20:52:55 ago
#audio slang H@x ~slang@slang.users.undernet.org :0 slang
#audio End of /WHO list.
Even the X parted, i think because of the shame
Thanks for your time!
Heh, actually X will part when there is none in the channel anyways..but it doesnt mean it's not registered
In your case slang, just look for another chan the time we will look for a solution
