NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/alt/irc/2532

Text File | 1992-07-26 | 3.6 KB | 66 lines

Newsgroups: alt.irc
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!sumter.cso.uiuc.edu!mda46419
From: [e-mail] (StarWatcher)
Subject: Re: Useless Bots
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: UIUC Actuarial Science Program
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:13:02 GMT
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Lines: 51

[e-mail] (Just some loser...) writes:
:
: Personally I think channel opping bots are useless.  What is the point?
: Having a robot sit on a channel and only op certain people?  Now
: that is what I call elitst.  I've had so many problems$with channel opping
: bots in the past.  This is one of the reasons I don't like them.

I'm sorry that you have had problems with the channel caretakers in
the past, but not all of them are that bad.  Take channel #bondage,
for example, which seems to draw more than it's fair share of drooling
net.geeks wanting to get a glimpse at the perverts.  The channel bot
is Monitor, who maintains a fairly long list of regular or semi-regular
channel denizens, and acts as the default inviter/opper.  Monitor also
does channel mode -i when the channel empties out, so that other
folks can use the channel, de-ops people who get op by joining
through a split (there have been many problems with this on that
channel), and makes a channel FAQ availible to anyone who wants one.

Now, given the nature of the channel, I think it should be fairly obvious
why it is normally invite-only.  It is true that we could get along without
a bot, having everyone ask ops for /invites, and trusting that opship will
be spread as needed.  In fact, on #bondage, this was done for quite
a while.  However, it does begin to get mighty old mighty quickly having
to rely on a human for an invite.  There were also times that all the ops
signed off without opping someone who would be staying behind -- resulting
in an invite-only channel with no ops, or the channel's only op(s) being
/away.  It got really annoying...so #bondage got op-bots...of which only
one (regularly) remains.

Is the idea of only opping certain people elitist?  Perhaps, depending
on who the bot recognizes.  I would have objections to a bot whose sole
purpose in life is to /invite and op one particular person to a (or
a few) channel(s).  I don't see any problems with bots with invite/op
lists of 50-60 people for one "regular" channel, especially if the bot
is being updated fairly frequently, and if the human channel ops are
willing to let new people on channel fairly regularly.   The bots in between...
*shrug* I haven't had to deal with them.

Of course, there is the obvious solution for people who have problems
with the attitudes of the op-bot or of the powers-that-be for a given
channel:  Tough!  If you don't like it, go form your own channel.
Yes, it sounds like a harsh answer, but it should be an obvious one.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Michael Adams (aka StarWatcher)        |    "To spend too much time in    |
|UIUC Actuarial Science Program        |     studies is sloth."          |
|[phone], [phone]       |          -- Sir Francis Bacon  |
|[e-mail] (NeXT mail accepted) |                      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|          The standard disclaimer is here...it's just invisible....          |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------