--- On Thu, 12/31/09, Kobi Shmueli <kobi@DAL.NET> wrote:
From: Kobi Shmueli <kobi@DAL.NET> Subject: Re: [DALnet-services] RFC Services Access and Bahamut Interaction To: "James Hess" <mysidia@gmail.com>, dalnet-services@lists.dal.net Date: Thursday, December 31, 2009, 11:19 AM
But... Logically, turning on "UNSECURE" should provide access to every ChanServ command to the founder (except special ones like drop / set founder,). When UNSECURE is on and one of these are true: *If IDENT is disabled, when the channel is currently registered to an address mask instead of a NickServ nickname , and the online user matches the Founder address mask/pattern that was set. *If IDENT is _disabled_ , an actual NickServ nickname is listed as founder, and the online user is ACC 2 or higher to the founder nickname (through an access list match or identify). *OR: If IDENT is enabled, and the user is identified to the founder nickname
If UNSECURE is off, then all founder-level commands, such as 'SOP', 'SET', , etc, should require identification with ChanServ, regardless of NickServ ACC level.
That's an intersting idea, although if people don't trust themselves with founder access, they can add their secondary nick as SOP/AOP (I know a few founders are already doing it).
That a new list, or rather, 'founder flag or level' for the access list of some sort should be in order.
I would suggest a /ChanServ MANAGER command. which would work the same way as the SOP, AOP commands.
But provide most founder commands to a person identified with NickServ on the list, and have all other SOP properties.
Interesting idea, what do others think about it?
I'd suggest getting rid of the "unsecure" command altogether. I like the ChanServ "manager" idea. Maybe have a new level of op status added ChanServ MOp (Manager Operator), or alter Successor to be automatically added to the SOp list (and give them access to commands to act upon in the absence of the channel founder; such as getting rid of unruly SOps). Limit the altered Successor or MOp entry to one nickname, so a founder knows exactly who changed their channel. Perhaps an access entry match could be dangerous with such a status level, but so is a founder access match. Then you'd have to get into power level between altered successor/MOp and founder access matches. PapaSmurf