Feature request while channel has NOOP flag set

You can post in here ideas and comments on how you think we could improve things on undernet.

Do you wish your channel ops to handle channel's protections via X while your channel has NOOP flag on ?

I am not sure
Total votes: 18
User avatar
Posts: 5
Location: Romania

Feature request while channel has NOOP flag set

Post by LordBmW »

"Banning one by one wasn't enough"

In different situations a channel manager has the decision to set the noop flag on for his channel. This means that his channel ops can't get their op status to perform any direct op command but they can kick,ban,voice etc via X. But in case of massive floods, +m,+r are mandatory. As of example, today, on #Jail, where NOOP flag was on to mark the death of channel's ex manager and keep a moment of silence and memorial, actual manager was offline when the channel was found under massive attack of floodbots while channel ops were looking and praying for an oper/cservice admin/or channel manager to be online. The problem was solved when finally the manager arrived, removed the flag and stopped the flood go any further.

What I am saying is that it would be great a new "emergency" command to be implemented on X (400+), which would work only if the "noop" flag is ON, something like /msg x emergency #channel (which would set +m,+r chanmodes) - it would be a lot of help to both users and ircops and such who receive and handle such requests who must be solved asap.
What do you, users, think about such a future feature?

Posts: 1

Post by Chip-Dm »

In my opinion is the NOOP flag is stupid, why adding ops if they cannot be opped?

If this flag is stupid then the use of it is also a bad choice for your channel to have it unmoderated or unrestricted to flood but with NOOP flag on?

Anyway as this command still exists, why can we msg X to voice, ban, kick etc while NOOP flag is on and we can't +m and +r the channel when is needed.

An implementation of a protection to the users is to make 400+ or 200+ channel ops be able to set channel +m or +r when is needed.


Posts: 8
Location: Cleveland OH, USA

Post by Jonny »

The channel should have not been left unmoderated with a noop flag. On a public IRC network with over 100.000 users floods should be expected. RIP Jail.
Jonny17 - #DMSetup member

User avatar
Posts: 186
Location: Panamá, Panamá City

Post by truenitos »

I vote YES !
...jonathan gabriel... a.k.a. Truenos

Posts: 122
Location: Coruscant

Post by Dooku »

When this flag is ON, X will not allow any other users to be opped.
I think the manager turned it on for other reasons, not for the operators to can't change any channel mode, I think it was set to look like a union.
X can't set channel modes like r or m, he can only set bans,change the topic, invite people with access and moderate the channel's limit. not even /msg x set mode #channel will not save the +r mode :o
You must join me, and together we will destroy the Sith.

User avatar
Posts: 5
Location: Romania

Post by LordBmW »

/msg x set mode will save the current channel modes as default.

I think you didn't read before posting, it was asked for a new command, and you are wrong, X is a client (marked as network service) that can perform modes, like you do, and it's obvious that, since as we speak it does perform modes like +b,v,o, X _could_ perform +m and +r as well, under some circumstances.

seeya :)

User avatar
Posts: 69

Post by Crosswing »

I see NOOP as a flag to quickly deop everyone in the channel and to disallow ops temporarily. While NOOP is on and there are no restrictive modes set, the channel is vulnerable, which is why the manager should be careful when and for how long he is using this flag. It's a bad idea to leave while NOOP is on. :wink:

So the bottom line: X does not need any additions regarding this matter, but channel managers should be more careful on the settings they change (and, as a quote from the AUP, the manager is responsible for everything going on in the channel). :roll:

Crosswing @ IRC
Dead account, don't bother contacting.

Posts: 639
Location: Backyard

Post by Spidel »

well it hasn't be added this flag for non-reason, was it? anyhow this flag is rarely being used i guess and once the manager tries to perfom it and see what actually it does, they'll disable it unless they don't forget to do that.

And while the channel is being flooded, what else you can do? and Noop flag is on? quite simple to set floatlim to the minimal values except floatperiod that one should be setted to the highest value possible while the channel is being flooded and im pretty sure they will not/can't join so quickly the channel, as X will not change the limit *ONLY* after the seconds that you've set on X's floatperiod will pass and the limit of the channel is full. But some people they got no idea how useful X's floatlim feature can be in flood cases. believe me its very useful and should be used IF noop ON is flag or in any other circumstances.

and oh yeah in mean while, the channel is being flooded either contact an irc operator or simply go in #report-abuse and make your reportments there.

P.S : and i bet that in like 200 seconds which is equivalent with 3 minutes and 20 seconds, you can manage somehow to prevent the thing to happen. but yeah it sucks if there's still free room for the bots to join or they're joining and parting, if you know what i mean. but mainly i'd recommend it if noop is ON.
"A wise man writes down what he thinks, a stupid man forgets what he thinks, a complete idiot punishes himself for what he thinks."

User avatar
Posts: 51
Location: London, United Kingdom

Post by Qxygen »

I channel manager should be aware of what happens when NOOP is set. I don't agree with such a command as */msg x set #channel mergency on/of* or whatever.. I t would mean too much work for something that is not necesarry. The only thing to do is handle the NOOP command with caution don't just activate it and after that complain that there is no command to do that and this. Disable it and everything will work just fine. If you can't disable it as you're a regular user in the access list and not the manager, well .... the manager should know what's expecting him when he enables the NOOP command.

What's the point of the NOOP command when users from the accesslist have no restraints and can do the exact same things as they would do if they had @ status. Everything is fine just the way it is.. Well , at least that's what I think regarding the matter :)