An command at X that can enable / disable the takeovers a

capsunel · Post by **capsunel** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:31 pm

I guess a good ideea is to make on X a command like :
/msg x enable #chan takeover , /msg x disable #chan takeover

xplora · Post by **xplora** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 10:50 pm

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Etherfast · Post by **Etherfast** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:45 am

I guess he's trying to say X should have some command to disable the massbanning of a certain channel.
This was already discussed in the forum. Please use the [url=http://forum.undernet.org/search.php]Search[/url] function above.

Furthermore, this is not Channel Service, moving it to Suggestions and improvements.

The-Judge,
Please don't reply threads with 'lol', 'yeah' and so on, unless you have something on-topic to say.
What you're doing is called off-topic and it's not recommended within forums.

The-Judge · Post by **The-Judge** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:05 pm

sorry Etherfast but i have to say only this as a reply to what you have said:

xplora wrote:?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

CrazyEgg · Post by **CrazyEgg** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:37 pm

/msg x enable #chan takeover , /msg x disable #chan takeover

msg x to make takeover # giving op @X and make the channel mtsnlkpr 1 <blank>
and pushmode +b *!*@*

Is an Idea!

~~~~~~~~~~~
Lets Make W the official takeover bot of undernet!~!~!~!~!~!~!

LoLÂ³

Crosswing · Post by **Crosswing** » Wed Jul 05, 2006 9:02 pm

Can you guys come with better replies, like explaning him the cause of takeovers and direct him to a related post? The only helpful reply was from Etherfast, which actually understood what capsunel was trying to say.

Everyone is allowed to express their ideas as far as I know and I believe this forum isn't a place to make fun of others.

For capsunel:
I guess such feature is not needed, since you can prevent takeovers by wiesely choosing your ops.

xplora · Post by **xplora** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:03 am

The-Judge wrote:sorry Etherfast but i have to say only this as a reply to what you have said:
xplora wrote:?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hey, I'm not Etherfast

And even Etherfast doesn't really know what this guy is after...

capsunel you are going to have to explain what you mean, since I can think of a few different possibilities, but all of them might not be what you are asking :(

ZeroSlasheÂ® · Post by **ZeroSlasheÂ®** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:34 am

I agree with Crosswing, why need a takeover command in the first place? X is on the channel and it can't be banned or locked out the channel, it can't be deopped or whatever.

Etherfast · Post by **Etherfast** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:38 am

Indeed, but having your channel massbanned and every user should join it again is a PITA especially when your channel isn't so small.

ZeroSlasheÂ® · Post by **ZeroSlasheÂ®** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:48 am

Well true, but instead of making a 'takeover' command, why not make a 'enable maxban protection' ?

Mitko · Post by **Mitko** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 9:58 am

ZeroSlasheÂ® wrote:Well true, but instead of making a 'takeover' command, why not make a 'enable maxban protection' ?

This was really really really really really really over-discussed. So lets not talk about that in this thread, if it was really opened for that purpose (preventing massbans via X) then it will be locked. There are at least a few other threads that I can see at the moment regarding this.

Etherfast · Post by **Etherfast** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:05 am

As taking over a registered channel means massbanning it, and this topic wants to stop that, therefore we'll end in discussing the massban command being enabled or disabled.

So, capsunel, either explain your post more clearly or this topic will be locked.

ZeroSlasheÂ® · Post by **ZeroSlasheÂ®** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:08 am

If it has been

really really really really really really over-discussed

Then lock it, because it's the same darn thing as the massban protection stuff. I don't see why there should be a takeover protection when, as it has been said before so many many many many many times, when you @ someone, it has to be a trusted person!

CrazyEgg · Post by **CrazyEgg** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 10:54 am

still capsunel not answer what meaning with takeover command via x.

probably he think to be disable the command /msg x ban # *!*@* ......
and not accepted chanmode like +k.

for example in one eggdrop you can make a protection to prevent a ban type *!*@* on channel.Probable he think that X is eggdrop bot.
Also probably the problem what make him think that command is a small channel where they op everyone and some kids without access to X pushing chanban *!*@* and via script they kick all users out.(that is NOT takeover).

conclusions:
Register channel with X is not posible to be takeovered.manager come online and just with simple invite via x can resolve it.(even and op can do that and i DONT mention set # mode command via x).
Exemptions:manager password stolen,op or manager password given to someone else.
Propose:
capsunel go to http://cservice.undernet.org/docs/xcmds.txt and try to read the X commands.
Also make /whois X and you discover the most helpfull command:)

The End.

P.S. Crosswing sorry cause i dont make seriously the post and my answer was not solemn.You are right.Here is the place for any ideas.

Wolfyx · Post by **Wolfyx** » Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:12 pm

You guys are debating based on presumtions
I think it's best you wait for the guy to explain his thoughts

An command at X that can enable / disable the takeovers a

An command at X that can enable / disable the takeovers a

Login • Register