[IRCServices] Suspended Channels

[&quot]

Freezing the chan is all well and good, but in that case, why the use for the FORBID command?  
May as well make FORBID and SUSPEND as one command unless you make the new FORBID command with levels, which you could integrate SUSPEND functionality into.

Quinn
----------
> From: dreamer at darkness.gr
> To: IRCServices <ircservices at Snow.shadowfire.org>
> Subject: Re: [IRCServices] Suspended Channels
> Date: Sunday, September 17, 2000 16:34
> 
> Greetings all, 
> 
> &#009;I had the same idea before months. I believe that the best idea
> based on "channel suspension" is to "Freeze" the channel. 
> 
> That could be :
> Not allowing the users to join the channel,
> Preserve the access list of the channel, plus any akicks and levels
> settings.
> And for sure , never allowing a change in the access list of that channel.
> 
> If possible , an enforce could be implement, that will kick all users out
> of channel by the time of suspension. And also, a non strict suspend, that
> could let users to join the channel but totally freeze the levels and
> access lists could be an idea.
> 
> Regards,
> Nick Krassas
> 
> 
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Andrew Kempe wrote:
> 
> > I'm finishing off the implementation of channel suspensions. I was wondering
> > what the general feeling was regarding the effect a suspension has on a
> > channel.
> > 
> > Should a suspended channel:
> > - allow users to join?
> > - operate normally but prevent any setting or access-list changes from being
> > made?
> > - prevent changes from being made and not grant access as per the channel's
> > access list?
> > 
> > Would various levels of suspension be usefull? Would this be too confusing?
> > Should this be a level-based or flag-based system?
> > 
> > Your ideas would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Thanks, Andrew
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at ender.shadowfire.org
> with "unsubscribe ircservices" in the body, without the quotes.