[IRCServices] Suspended Channels

[&quot]

First off, please don't mail this list with HTML/Rich Text emails - only use
plain text.

Secondly, FORBID drops the channel prior to rendering useless. This means
that all the channel information is lost. It is not the best solution to
temporary channel closures.

I see the following 3 main states:
1. To be able to freeze a channel's settings but still allow people to join
it. Users are not granted any access based on the access lists - all users
are deop'ed upon joining. AKICKS and mode locks are enforced.
2. Allow the channel to function as per usual, but no changes may be made to
its settings or access/akick lists.
3. Put the channel into a FORBIDen state except that it does not loose its
information.

Your comments and reasoning are still welcome :)

I'll be finishing this off next weekend. Hopefully I'll have worked out how
to implement this best by them - flags or levels - so as to suite everyone.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ircservices at Snow.shadowfire.org
[mailto:owner-ircservices at Snow.shadowfire.org]On Behalf Of Dr. K. Hawkes
Sent: 17 September 2000 18:28
To: ircservices at Snow.shadowfire.org
Subject: Re: [IRCServices] Suspended Channels


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,
>
> 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.


---------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at ender.shadowfire.org
with "unsubscribe ircservices" in the body, without the quotes.