| View previous topic :: View next topic ? |
| Author |
Message |
Asmo
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 675
Location: Undernet
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:51 am?? ?Post subject: Undernet Introduces Chanfix
|
 |
|
Rumors have been going around for a while already on Undernet about the introduction of a Chanfix service introduction. A bot with the nick chanfix was online, but with a realname "Chanfix is not yet available on Undernet."
Yesterday, Undernet officially announced the new service with a network wide notice inviting users to join #Class and learn about the new service:
-LiveEvent- The UnderNet User Committee will be presenting a LiveEvent concerning ChanFix for users of the UnderNet and IRC. To attend, please type /join #Class now. Thanks, and please do not reply ;)
Chanfix is a service originated on the EFnet network, and is coded to help users maintain their ops on channels. EFnet traditionally never offered channel services, such as X on Undernet. On Undernet however, it is quite hard for users to get X on their channel because of the strict requirements. Especially for the smaller channels it is hard to get registered.
Chanfix, as it is implemented on Undernet, will automatically reop channels (with a minimum of 4 users) as they become opless. It will constantly gather data regarding who is opped, and will automatically reop the users with the highest score. Scores are kept together with the username the user is logged in with, not with the hostmask of the user. So at least one, but preferably a few users of a channel needs to be logged in to X for this service to work for that channel.
Update: The Undernet User Committee who organised the event have released the logfile for reference here.
_________________
Asmo
webmaster www.IRC-Junkie.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SebDE
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 34
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:03 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
Sry for me chanfix is only a masquerade for a bigger problem. Why even care for channels when you even have to look if the owner of a nick is really the usual owner of the nick? With all due respect, that's bs. The framework to handle all this probably is already invented: nickserv and chanserv in various implementations. Q or chanfix is just a sloppy way that can't hold up with the fine things real irc services offer.
_________________
IRC is an Addiction with No cure
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meij
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:45 pm?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Chanfix is not meant for channel management. It was design to stop takeovers and stop channels from becoming opless, not that its made takeovers impossible just _a lot_ harder. If Undernet (or EFnet for that matter) wanted services they would use them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SebDE
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 34
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:34 pm?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
Pfff, why even have chan takeovers or opless chans in the first place? Sry but for me w/o proper nick- and chan-services the whole thing is just pointless.
_________________
IRC is an Addiction with No cure
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rob
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:00 pm?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| SebDE wrote: |
| Pfff, why even have chan takeovers or opless chans in the first place? |
You seem to be missing the point all together. Channel take overs are inveitable, they always happen and it then is either up to the person who performed the takeover to either hand it over, ping out, the real owner seek oper assitance or just wait for it to become opless and get everyone to part. It cant be avoided and there will always be someone or someway a person can gain channel ops by mistake or intentional.
| Quote: |
| Sry but for me w/o proper nick- and chan-services the whole thing is just pointless. |
Undernet does not operate with nick services, it is a channel service with user accounts, it offers no nickname protection at all, *BIG* difference, and have you seen the requirements of undernet to get a channel service bot, some newly founded channels that have just under the requirements will benefit from chanfix whilst they build up their numbers to get a channel service bot in their channel.
Also having chanfix present it makes the opers jobs easier on the network and it overcomes the problem of one person claiming ownership while the other is opped and vise versa.
I think you need to oper on a bigger network in order to see how busy they really are and how this service eases the burden on opers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 128
Location: irc.nfinate-irc.org
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:47 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| rob wrote: |
| Channel take overs are inveitable [...] |
This doesn't have to be so. There are networks that deny mode changes on split servers when a channel that existed before the split(which is subsequently destroyed) is created before EOB (or equivilent). This tactic drasticlly reduces channel takeovers by denying op status in the event the creator is "riding a split". I've been on one such network for 10 years and since the invention of this feature channel takeovers are virutally impossible and are unheard of. AFAIK, UnderNet doesn't have this ability.
| SebDE wrote: |
| Sry but for me w/o proper nick- and chan-services the whole thing is just pointless. |
Then you don't belong on undernet style networks. Period.
| rob wrote: |
Also having chanfix present it makes the opers jobs easier on the network and it overcomes the problem of one person claiming ownership while the other is opped and vise versa.
[...]
I think you need to oper on a bigger network in order to see how busy they really are and how this service eases the burden on opers. |
It's been a long standing practice on "big networks" that opers are not to interfere with channel operations even during splits. This includes opping users claiming op status, simply because it's impossible to tell who is who, and yes I've opered on a Big 4 net. If users are becoming trouble makers opers have been known to join and monitor the channel until Services returns. It's best that during such times, opers should op no one but themselves and then only to "keep the peace" in the channel. During splits where Services are split .. opers have more important things to do than figure out who to op. Like do their primary job, which last I checked was to maintain the network.
Importance = network > giving ops to JoeUser
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SebDE
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 34
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:03 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| rob wrote: |
| SebDE wrote: |
| Pfff, why even have chan takeovers or opless chans in the first place? |
You seem to be missing the point all together. Channel take overs are inveitable, they always happen and it then is either up to the person who performed the takeover to either hand it over, ping out, the real owner seek oper assitance or just wait for it to become opless and get everyone to part. It cant be avoided and there will always be someone or someway a person can gain channel ops by mistake or intentional.
| Quote: |
| Sry but for me w/o proper nick- and chan-services the whole thing is just pointless. |
Undernet does not operate with nick services, it is a channel service with user accounts, it offers no nickname protection at all, *BIG* difference, and have you seen the requirements of undernet to get a channel service bot, some newly founded channels that have just under the requirements will benefit from chanfix whilst they build up their numbers to get a channel service bot in their channel.
Also having chanfix present it makes the opers jobs easier on the network and it overcomes the problem of one person claiming ownership while the other is opped and vise versa.
I think you need to oper on a bigger network in order to see how busy they really are and how this service eases the burden on opers.
|
You do seem to miss my point here. Channel taeovers are in fact inevitable. With Nick- & Chanservices. So for me it's still just a masquerade of a bigger problem. If you like to be unsure or have to check if someone is really the one you usually talk to, please it's your choice. I know I don't have to care about that and so I won't be on such networks. And especially not as oper to fix problems where there are good working technical solutions for years that fix the grounding problem and not only the symptoms. It's the same as in medicine, you feel better, but you are still sick.
| katsklaw wrote: |
| Then you don't belong on undernet style networks. Period. |
Exactly and I never will. I tasted from the sweet services sugger and got addicted 
_________________
IRC is an Addiction with No cure
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meij
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:30 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
|
You seem to miss the point that Undernet and EFnet dont want full channel and nickname services. This is a viable middle ground that allows the networks to function as they want while also stopping some of the annoying aspects of being on either of these two networks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asmo
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 675
Location: Undernet
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:43 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
Like others pointed out well enough above, theres a reason why networks offer different srevices: its called choice for you as user ;)
If you dont like netwirk A, then by all means go to network B that DOES offer what you are looking for...
If we would offer all the same, we could all fuse into one big network, not?
Nothing is "wrong" or "right" when it comes to services offered, its all based on preferences.
_________________
Asmo
webmaster www.IRC-Junkie.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 128
Location: irc.nfinate-irc.org
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:29 pm?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| meij wrote: |
| You seem to miss the point that Undernet and EFnet dont want full channel and nickname services. This is a viable middle ground that allows the networks to function as they want while also stopping some of the annoying aspects of being on either of these two networks. |
Undernet has full channel services .. it's called GNUWorld but not nick services. Personally I don't like the concept of chanfix and for my own personal reasons I will not discuss here. I do hang out on UnderNet a bit and have no problems sharing a network with chanfix because thus far the only channels I visit have X support.
My dislike of chanfix aside, I still think it's a bad idea to provide it to unsupported channels.
[IMHO] it will cause more questions asked than problems solved. The way I see it, the channel is either supported or not .. not kinda supported. If UnderNet truely cares about those that wish to gain support prior to getting X then they should lower the requirements a bit like for example lower supporters from 10 to 8. I understand that they wish to place services into established channels only, and that's their prerogative. I think it's dumb to add yet another server type to the net when lowering the requirements would most likely get a better reply from users and fewer questions asked to staff. [/IMHO]
I personally run a network using ircu/gnuworld and allow instant registration(no supporters needed). I do so because I feel the non-trouble making users honor me by being on my network, the least I can do is make their stay as enjoyable as possible and not requiring a whole roll of 'red tape' just so they can chat.
ciao,
kat
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meij
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:48 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: |
| Undernet has full channel services |
Ah sorry, i've only connected to Undernet a few of times.
I agree with Asmo, if you dont like the way the networks operated, your quite free to move.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SebDE
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 34
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:31 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| meij wrote: |
| You seem to miss the point that Undernet and EFnet dont want full channel and nickname services. This is a viable middle ground that allows the networks to function as they want while also stopping some of the annoying aspects of being on either of these two networks. |
I don't miss the point I just don't like it 
That's a slight difference o.0
| Asmo wrote: |
| If we would offer all the same, we could all fuse into one big network, not? |
Who wants all the same (services)? My point is that a chanfix is just a masquerade. Wouldn't you change your doctor if he/she would only treat your symptoms. Well knowing what the grounding cause is and how to treat that?
Tough, I wouldn't visit such a doctor in the first place :p
Also even with the exact same platform, networks wouldn't be the same. There are things like network policies, grown user/channel base and such. Some ppl don't like big networks, cause all the "good" nicks are taken... And as I wrote before there are different implementations of services, not to mention different IRCds
_________________
IRC is an Addiction with No cure
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asmo
Site Admin
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 675
Location: Undernet
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:36 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Wouldn't you change your doctor if he/she would only treat your symptoms. |
That is your opinion, in my opinion it is a service to those who don't want, or can't comply to the minimums of getting a channel registered for whatever reason.
It is, in my opinion, neither a "cheap" or "lightweight" channel service, nor is it a "mask" or taking away "symptoms" of any sort. It simply is a service provided to all our users.
Comparing it to a desease seems a totally out of place analogy here.
_________________
Asmo
webmaster www.IRC-Junkie.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rob
Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 11
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:38 pm?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: |
| rob wrote: |
| Channel take overs are inveitable [...] |
This doesn't have to be so. There are networks that deny mode changes on split servers when a channel that existed before the split(which is subsequently destroyed) is created before EOB (or equivilent). This tactic drasticlly reduces channel takeovers by denying op status in the event the creator is "riding a split". I've been on one such network for 10 years and since the invention of this feature channel takeovers are virutally impossible and are unheard of. AFAIK, UnderNet doesn't have this ability.
|
Your right which is why this about chanfix, not other networks that have what feature that others dont.
| Quote: |
| SebDE wrote: |
| Sry but for me w/o proper nick- and chan-services the whole thing is just pointless. |
Then you don't belong on undernet style networks. Period.
|
I'll second that.
| Quote: |
| rob wrote: |
Also having chanfix present it makes the opers jobs easier on the network and it overcomes the problem of one person claiming ownership while the other is opped and vise versa.
[...]
I think you need to oper on a bigger network in order to see how busy they really are and how this service eases the burden on opers. |
It's been a long standing practice on "big networks" that opers are not to interfere with channel operations even during splits. This includes opping users claiming op status, simply because it's impossible to tell who is who, and yes I've opered on a Big 4 net. If users are becoming trouble makers opers have been known to join and monitor the channel until Services returns. It's best that during such times, opers should op no one but themselves and then only to "keep the peace" in the channel. During splits where Services are split .. opers have more important things to do than figure out who to op. Like do their primary job, which last I checked was to maintain the network.
Importance = network > giving ops to JoeUser
|
Exactly, (AGAIN) which is why this is about chanfix, to overcome what you just said of importance. You've basicly said everything i did but in a different way, but i am pretty sure what i said was enough to clear it up
| Quote: |
You do seem to miss my point here. Channel taeovers are in fact inevitable. With Nick- & Chanservices. |
Again undernet does not use nickserv based services, you are abviously getting chan/nickserv mixed up with what isnt undernet services.
| Quote: |
Some ppl don't like big networks, cause all the "good" nicks are taken... And as I wrote before there are different implementations of services, not to mention different IRCds |
Thats the enjoyment of IRC, we as humans all share the same names, but what if we all claimed our name for ourselfs and noone else to have it, it isnt right, so owning a nick in the same theory isnt right, its first come first serve which a better, to try and overcome it, buy a shell, host a bouncer and leave it or online or ask the user using the nick if they would kindly change.... however this is getting a little off topic as it's about chanfix not a service that never/doesnt exist on undernet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SebDE
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 34
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:20 am?? ?Post subject:
|
|
|
| Asmo wrote: |
| Comparing it to a desease seems a totally out of place analogy here. |
Oh oh I'm sure a lot of ppl would call chan takeovers as a desease o.0
| rob wrote: |
| buy a shell, host a bouncer and leave it or online |
Why whould I do that? I don't throw my money out of the window. There are enough other things that make way more sense to spend money for
_________________
IRC is an Addiction with No cure
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
?
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB ? 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Internet Advertising | Butterfly Jigs | No Win No Fee | Warsaw Hotels | MPAA
|
???
