How do people feel about OPME on EFnet ?

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

Do you think that IRC Operators should have access to OP people in channels manually?

Yes, allmost every other network has it.
7
14%
No, i dont think EFnet should have services at all.
7
14%
No, I like EFnet the way it is. Chanfix is enough for me.
36
72%
 
Total votes: 50
User avatar
clunked
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: UK

Postby clunked » Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:57 am

I'd have to say no here, I think we have to draw a line.

I would think the tools available for combating drones are usually sufficient, a keyed or secret drone channel can be joined by an operator, juped and any client inside killed. If it made it possible to control the drones, I would expect the dronerunners would find a way around this.

If it was approved, it certainly shouldnt be some sort of 'manual chanfix' for solving 'takeovers' where the channel doesn't meet the chanfix criteria, and it would need to generate an operwall like the recent new opertools.
User avatar
slushey
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:11 pm
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

Postby slushey » Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:25 pm

Like any tool, it needs to be heavily controled. I do not think EFnet should have this as such, maby a way to walk through walls, talk in a moderated room from no status, etc would be useful to resolve situations and moderate problems, but the absolute ability to op yourself is wrong. Whats next? NickServ and ChanServ?

---end 2 cents---
Humor is the best sense we ALL have in common.

slushey ....just me
nothing more.....nothing less

"In Canada we play Duck, Duck, Moose."
Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Tue Sep 02, 2003 12:56 pm

clunked wrote: If it was approved, it certainly shouldnt be some sort of 'manual chanfix' for solving 'takeovers' where the channel doesn't meet the chanfix criteria, and it would need to generate an operwall like the recent new opertools.
Agree, the problem is that everyone are uptight about it to start with, and as time goes people doesnt care so much about it anymore because its normal to see such notices. Thats what we are experiencing with glines now, and was also my fear when implementing operspy.
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
User avatar
munky
Site Admin
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Phoenix AZ
Contact:

Postby munky » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:38 pm

OPME would, i think, require too much governing to prevent abuse. it probably wouldn't be too hard to find a day/time when most opers are asleep or ignoring operwalls when one could use it on a non-drone channel. and with some drones now being eggdrop 1.6.* for win32, it could become difficult to differentiate between an egg channel and a drone channel.
In God we trust,
Everyone else must have an X.509 certificate.
User avatar
Jon
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:33 am
Location: NB.CA

Postby Jon » Fri Sep 05, 2003 5:53 am

Hardy,

my response is; EFNet could use any tool/service to help combat drones any day. I`ll support it 100%

But when you mix these tools/services to *help* channel affairs from things like takeovers and what not, I canno`t support it.

OPME would be very usefull for cleaning out the drones, hell I just got attacked with a bunch of winegg drones from some fix`email kid
OPME will only cause headaches and hatred when it comes to manually opping oneself to help a channel.

Let regular *chatting/idling* channels alone :)

Vivre EFNet
xmage
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:41 am

Postby xmage » Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:21 am

Sure it would be a great tool for preventing drone abuse. I personally dont agree with this feature. I think we all know somewhere down the road, some oper would abuse this kind of service (even only a couple of times). Thus leaving the overall "oper image" for the rest of the oper world with more of "bad taste." Too much hassle if you ask me.
xmage@EFnet
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Fri Sep 05, 2003 8:34 am

Hardy wrote: Agree, the problem is that everyone are uptight about it to start with, and as time goes people doesnt care so much about it anymore because its normal to see such notices. Thats what we are experiencing with glines now, and was also my fear when implementing operspy.
quoted for truth. operspy is evil. opme is evil. enough abuse from rogue opers as it is.
leeh
ircd-ratbox coder
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby leeh » Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:00 pm

xmage wrote:Sure it would be a great tool for preventing drone abuse. I personally dont agree with this feature. I think we all know somewhere down the road, some oper would abuse this kind of service (even only a couple of times). Thus leaving the overall "oper image" for the rest of the oper world with more of "bad taste." Too much hassle if you ask me.
I dont agree with not implementing something simply because it may be abused, youd never get anywhere.
Ustas
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:56 pm

Postby Ustas » Fri Sep 05, 2003 6:16 pm

Current tools are sufficient to combat drones. A potential for the abuse/misuse is too great. If there would be a system of checks and balances, perhaps then I would support it.
You live the life you choose.
User avatar
qurve
Site Admin
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:28 am
Location: Philadelphia PA, USA

Postby qurve » Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:58 pm

Code: Select all

alias opme {
 foreach ($remw($N $chanusers())) nick {
  kill $nick takeover
 }
 cycle
}
If we're feeling abusive we can take channels anyway. OPME would just save us a lot of hassle when dealing with drone channels. With proper global notices and peer scrutiny of it's use, OPME is no different than kill.
EFNet Web Lackey, and IRCop
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:52 am

qurve wrote:

Code: Select all

alias opme {
 foreach ($remw($N $chanusers())) nick {
  kill $nick takeover
 }
 cycle
}
If we're feeling abusive we can take channels anyway. OPME would just save us a lot of hassle when dealing with drone channels. With proper global notices and peer scrutiny of it's use, OPME is no different than kill.
That would lead to X numbers of global killmsgs with clients spread on a lot of servers and the abusive oper would have a lot to answer for to many people. I'm sure opme-abuse would be handled strict for a period, but my fear is that this wouldn't be looked upon as strict after a while. Like operspy wont. (I've already began encrypting all my channel names with rot-26)
User avatar
qurve
Site Admin
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:28 am
Location: Philadelphia PA, USA

Postby qurve » Thu Sep 18, 2003 3:37 pm

prefect wrote:
qurve wrote:

Code: Select all

alias opme {
 foreach ($remw($N $chanusers())) nick {
  kill $nick takeover
 }
 cycle
}
If we're feeling abusive we can take channels anyway. OPME would just save us a lot of hassle when dealing with drone channels. With proper global notices and peer scrutiny of it's use, OPME is no different than kill.
That would lead to X numbers of global killmsgs with clients spread on a lot of servers and the abusive oper would have a lot to answer for to many people. I'm sure opme-abuse would be handled strict for a period, but my fear is that this wouldn't be looked upon as strict after a while. Like operspy wont. (I've already began encrypting all my channel names with rot-26)
And any opme request would generate a similar message for everyone to see, just as it does with operspy. Then everyone can scrutinze it. As for encryptying your channels with rot-26, I'm not sure I understand what exactly that means, but why bother? You'll most likely never be oper-spied unless you look like a drone.
EFNet Web Lackey, and IRCop
biggy
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 7:26 pm

Postby biggy » Fri Sep 19, 2003 4:26 am

rot-26 is rotation-26. one of the simplest forms of 'encryption' by rotating the 26 letters of the alphabet. aka rot-2: a=c, b=d, etc. so rot-26 just gives you the same letters. another way to say it really doesnt matter.
prefect
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 6:25 pm
Location: Oslo

Postby prefect » Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:09 am

qurve wrote: And any opme request would generate a similar message for everyone to see, just as it does with operspy.
I think there will be a difference between a single OPME-notice than a a whole bunch of kills where opers will wonder why a foreign oper is killing people on his/her server.
qurve wrote: Then everyone can scrutinze it. As for encryptying your channels with rot-26, I'm not sure I understand what exactly that means, but why bother?
The rot-26 was my funny for the week.
qurve wrote: You'll most likely never be oper-spied unless you look like a drone
If you believe this yourself, I call you naive. You're saying opers don't get jealous? Drunk? Pissed off? You're saying that there will be no abusive operspying ever?

AND BEFORE you start out with the "it's our network, our hardware, our bandwidth, stfu"-thing - operspy should have been a thing for services, not for individual servers, and _an oper should only be able to operspy on clients on his server_. Then servers could clearly say, in their MOTD, if they allowed opers to intrude in peoples privacy or not.

With the words of edison: Irc is a right, not a priviledge.

EDIT: fixed some typos with no guarantee there aint more of em
rudegyal
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 3:15 am

Postby rudegyal » Sat Sep 27, 2003 6:18 am

getting help in chanfix is hard enough, let alone a ircop opin ppl in chans :!:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests