[IRCServices] Desired behavior of channel suspension?

[&quot]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelmar K. Firesun" <kfiresun at ix.netcom.com>
To: <ircservices at snow.shadowfire.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [IRCServices] Desired behavior of channel suspension?


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Church <achurch at achurch.org>
> To: <ircservices at ender.shadowfire.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 10:59 PM
> Subject: [IRCServices] Desired behavior of channel suspension?
>
>
> ] ... SNIP ... [
>
> >
> >      - Should a suspended channel be treated like a forbidden one (no
> > one can enter it) or an unregistered one (it can be used, but Services
> > won't do anything do it)?  [forbidden]
> >
>
> I think it should be treated more as a modeless channel.  First person
> to enter it is deoped.  After that services treats it as if the channel
> is unregistered, but forbids people from registering it (obviously)

I would dissagree with "modeless" I believe that the channel should be:

 +t so users cannot "have fun" with setting the topic to something childish
or obsene towards IRCops because the channel is suspended.
+n to prevent outside messages.
+s to keep the channel off the channel list and out of users /whois as a
measure to prevent any type of attraction drawn to the channel.

Optional:

+m to really make the users usage of the channel pleasant <EG>.
+i to keep the channel user count at the max of 1


My $0.02,

Dryder


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