[IRCServices] Suspended Channels

[Ciarán Reilly]

Soz for my rich text post, I'd forget the Newsreader was set to reply to
posts using the format in which they were sent :)

As for suspension again...... the one drawback with forbid is that the
channel is permanently unusable. At the minute, when a user violates net
policy and you want to suspend their room, forbid is the only option, and is
kind of a rough way of doing it since the only way of reversing it is to
drop the chan, not always appropriate. Theres a definate need for a suspend
option, and for it to have different levels and be seperate from Forbid.

My proposals for the suspend 'levels' would be something similar...

Lev 1. Users may join the Channel, users on the Access list may op up etc,
BUT the channel database will be in a sort of 'read-only' state, meaning no
changes can be made to access / akick lists etc, the topic and modes will be
locked, ChanServ will ignore all commands except op deop and identify. This
would be useful for a channel you want preserved in it's current state
without interfearence from anyone, for whatever reason. Would it be possible
to allow Channel founders access to this suspend level ? therefore allowing
them to 'freeze' their room and not allow people on the access lists to make
any changes ? or is this too much of a stupid idea / security nightmare ?

Lev 2. Users may join the Channel, but no one may get ops etc, not even
those on the access list or the channel founder, ChanServ will ignore all
commands and again the topic and modes will be locked.

Lev 3. Channel totally locked out, no users at all may join the channel,
just like forbid, only this is easily reversible without the need to drop
the channel....

Thats just my suggestions.....

BTW, will SA's and S Root still be able to make changes to channel databases
while the suspend mode is in place, thus over riding it, or will they be
required to first remove the suspend THEN make the required changes ?


Hope some of this is helpful.

Cheers,

Ciarán.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Kempe" <andrewk at icon.co.za>
To: <ircservices at Snow.shadowfire.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 8:50 PM
Subject: RE: [IRCServices] Suspended Channels


> 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.


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