Page 1 of 4

How do people feel about OPME on EFnet ?

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 1:45 pm
by Hardy
How would you feel if EFnet decided to implement commands letting a IRC Operator op people in a channel?

What should be the allowed reason for such a tool, and how should abuse of that tool be handled?

Do you think this is something every oper should have, should it be locally implemented on each servers and given operflags, or should it work the same way as chanfix access, where each server is restricted to "3 admins" on services.int ( now its beeing used for chanfix ).

If its a local tool, logging of the event would be local also and at the discression of the admin, while if its a global tool on services.int it would be globally logged.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:00 pm
by HM2K
I've voted, although my vote is kinda biased, since I liked efnet the way it used to be 4 years ago, without services at all, such as CHANFIX...

although recently I did have a channel taken from me, due to an internal take, which has still not been resolved, and some kind of OPME bot would have helped...

But then again, who are opers to say who gets ops here or there... etc...

It just wouldn't be Eris Free anymore, you have to remember its priciples...

I believe that admins could get ops via mods on hybrid anyway if they really wanted to... but what do I know, i'm just an luser.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:38 pm
by Pills
I liked it how the vote was written. ONLY have it for taking over drone channels, where you often need ops to delete the drone program.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 6:40 pm
by Gozem
No, i dont want opers, admin or anyone to be able to op them self or anyone in any channel. However i do like the feature of some opers/admisn having the abillity to take over a (drone-) channel. A "vote" like G-line works. However there needs to be stated poilcies for acceptable use before its taken onto EFnet. Glines are missing that. Fix G-lines first and adopting that policy for taking over drone-channels shouldn't be much work.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:40 pm
by Haul
Pills wrote:I liked it how the vote was written. ONLY have it for taking over drone channels, where you often need ops to delete the drone program.
If you wanted to use it to clean drones, perhaps the IRCD should prevent opers who obtain ops in this way from opping other users, deopping the current ops, kicking the current ops, and banning the current ops. This way drones could still be cleaned but there's no potential for the oper to abuse or takeover the channel.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:42 pm
by corrupt
As for everything, OPME has its pros and cons. It would be great for combating drones, since ops are sometimes required to command them (and to keep the original runners from using them). This is the only valid reason that I could think of for it's usage however.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:26 pm
by seiki
I'm not sure how I feel about OPME.. would prolly get abused..

Opers have masskills and klines to make the drone channels empty, and we can simply cycle for ops. It's certainly a 'cowboy' approach to the DDoS drone problem though, which adds fuel to the fire..

-seiki

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:03 pm
by Hardy
Someone asked me on irc, and because i might have been a bit diffuse in my first post i thought i should mention it here.

There is no such vote on the table at the moment, so thats not why i posted asking these questions. Its merely a question regarding a tool that has been discussed by a lot of people. After we added operspy some have wonderd why we dont take the next step also to have all the opertools we can have.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:16 pm
by Pills
The vote I'm referring to failed to pass by one vote. It didn't fail per se, as it came out at exactly 50%, but you need > 50% to pass.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:18 pm
by sev
It just wouldn't be Eris Free anymore, you have to remember its priciples...
HM2K, "Eris Free" refers to "no Eris", not "freedom" in general or whatever it looks like you're referring to.

Anywho, the fewer ircd services, the better. Oper involvement in channel matters could lead to bad things down the road - not worth it in my opinion.

Nice to see innovative ideas presented to the userbase for opinion, though.

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:50 pm
by HM2K
Errr Hi, I think you need to read up on EFnet's history...

Anyway in short:

Eris was a server or someone who ran a server, who wanted to have services on the network, so the others formed Eris Free Network without that server/person. This provided a network without such services, hence why we should stick to that... hence I have a clue what I'm talking about, thats why my comment wasn't to do with 'Freedom'...

Thanks

PS. Details may not be completly acurate, but you get the idea...

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:26 am
by sev
Thanks for the response, I'm quite familiar with efnet's history, and you are way off. Type "efnet history" into google..

Anyways.. Your syntax was unclear, I was simply clarifying.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:11 am
by Pills
HM2K wrote:Errr Hi, I think you need to read up on EFnet's history...

Anyway in short:

Eris was a server or someone who ran a server, who wanted to have services on the network, so the others formed Eris Free Network without that server/person. This provided a network without such services, hence why we should stick to that... hence I have a clue what I'm talking about, thats why my comment wasn't to do with 'Freedom'...

Thanks

PS. Details may not be completly acurate, but you get the idea...
Where in the world did wanting to have services come into the equation? Nickserv was on EFnet until about 1995 or so (not that it did much). Chanserv wasn't invented yet when Anarchy net and EFnet split.

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 8:53 am
by HM2K
Hmmm, my mistake, I re-read this history last night after my submittion, though I swear I read it somewhere, oh well never mind, I must have dremt it... lol, but you get my point... but I guess its irrelivant now...

Cheers

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2003 9:36 am
by Hardy
My reply to my own thread would be that i really dont want opme implemented. I see advantages but efnet is efnet because of the way it is.. chanfix is accepted in the community because its automatic, the record cant be alterd manually and that leaves close to no room for error.

Adding opme just to handle drone channels is one thing, but im afraid the usage will expand to handle other areas after some time. just as glines have. Glines was originally voted in by Europe is a mandatory service for "emergencies", when no local oper was available on the server the abuser was. Even tho i dont necessarily disagree on the current usage of it to kline spammers and such without tracking down a local oper first, i still dont like to see a tool such as glines beeing used that way without an agreement for it first.