Anope IRC Services

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?  (Read 7917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MeiR

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« on: June 02, 2009, 06:49:17 PM »

I wonder why can't founders put\remove owner mode on\from others, through ChanServ.
Security reasons maybe? It isn't an extra privilege I think, since mode +q can simply be put instead from ircd.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 08:22:16 PM by MeiR »
Logged

Naram Qashat

  • Team
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 192
    • CBX's Sprite Animations
Re: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2009, 09:05:31 PM »

Yes, it's for security reasons.  This probably won't be changed even when we have multiple founder support, unless someone has a really, really good reason for a change.
Logged

MeiR

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2009, 09:11:25 PM »

but what are the reasons?
It's excatly as /cs protect.
so what if +q is the highest level?
as i said, it can simply put with ircd rawmode.
Logged

Amanda Folson

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
  • O_O
    • ZomgIRC
Re: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2009, 09:15:01 PM »

But setting +q on someone isn't quite the same as founder. Having +q wouldn't enable them to mess with the channel settings while being a true founder would.
Logged

MeiR

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 49
Re: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2009, 09:20:11 PM »

That's also what i said in my post, Amanda.
Read carefully ;]
I meant only putting +q on a nick, same as "/cs protect | op | halhop | voice #chan nick"

Edit: Ah, u replied to Naram Qashat, sorry :)
Logged

djGrrr

  • Anope User
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
    • http://www.p2p-network.net/
Re: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2009, 03:52:23 AM »

I would really like to see this feature in anope 1.9, there is is absolutely no reason not to have the owner mode (+q) be just as standard as any of the others, with AUTOOWNER OWNER and OWNERME access levels and such, default of being disabled of course but still there.

This is not to be confused with the founder, only the true founder can make any changes to the channel (unless of course the SET level is changed). Not having this does not increase security in the slightest bit, to think that is totally naive. The +q channel mode does not give users some superpowers or something, its simply another level of op separation, which is always useful.

It doesn't make sense to have to use a module (which is basically just a hack) to do something that clearly should be part of the core and is a very very simple thing to add.
Logged
P2P-NET Network Staff

Charles Kingsley

  • Contributor
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1405
Re: Nick argument to /cs owner & /cs deowner ?
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2009, 04:11:06 PM »

I'm inclined to agree really as +q does not mean founder, perhaps up until now it's been badly branded as that.

I would see this as a further extension to the Access Levels system which is put in to make the managing access less blunt than xOP.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up