On Wed, 15 May 2002, Alexander Maassen wrote: > Kev, I'm not sure, but shouldn't this be limited to local channels > only ? Otherwise you could get fights between admins and servers, and > I doubt you folks would want that. > > My other question regarding this is: Why would you want to limit > opmode's in certain channels ? > > Smells the same to me like CSC thinks about certain features in > gnuworld: Trustworthyness of an oper. > > If an admin wants to know whats done by his oper on the server he can tell his > opers not to touch certain channels, and instead of Q: lines I'd > rather propose hacklogging. With some little parse scripts an admin > could make him warn through email if someone evades his decisions. > Less CPU usage I guess.
This was in response to a current discussion to make it impossible for opers to interfere with certain channels. Don't think of it as looking at opers as untrustworthy, look at it as a way for admins to "remind" their opers that they shouldn't do something. Stacy Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://pfft.net/stacy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Famous last words: I can get a world record for doing this.
