While yes, a rogue SOp could do damage that AOps couldn't handle, other SOps would be immune to being removed from the list, and would be able to mitigate the damage caused for the most part. If the SOp in question could not be kicked or banned, then the other SOps would be powerless. In addition, the founder would also be unable to kick or ban the miscreant until such a time that he remembered to remove the SOp from the SOp list. This proposal creates far more room for abuse that would be harder to handle than it proposes to solve. On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:41 AM, James Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
If an Sop nick were to be compromised, the channel ops would no longer be able to handle the situation on their own, since that person would be unkickable and unbannable.
Well, I would say, the right solution here is to implement the best available reasonable methods to prevent compromise of the SOP nicknames, or to require further measures to authenticate SOP access, if necessary...
But if a SOP nick were to be compromised, they would most likely use SOP powers to delete the AOPs attempting to kick. Ops cannot really effectively deal with a compromised SOP login, period. They never really could..
In fact, the rogue SOP may use SOP powers to purge the AOP list completely and issue a mass kick, or perform an AKICK equivalent to *!*@*.*...
In the long run, if a nickname with high privileges is compromised by a bad person, there _will_ be a disruption to normal channel activity, until the abuse can get properly dealt with by the founder an/or a SA.
This just isn't realistic, and it wouldn't really solve the problem. People would just seek to compromise sop nicks more than aop nicks (which happens all the time anyway).
-- -J _______________________________________________ DALnet-src mailing list DALnet-src@lists.dal.net https://lists.dal.net/mailman/listinfo/dalnet-src