From: asamonte@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Just some loser...)
Newsgroups: alt.irc
Subject: Re: Useless Bots
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:51:04 GMT
Organization: Nothing worth mentioning...

Upholder@uiuc.edu (THE Upholder of Truth) was telling me...
>>Your main argument for the robot is for invite purposes?  Then why doesn't
>>it jsut do that instead of oping people?  What's the point there?
>
>The point is, if they are trusted enough to be invited without consulting
>the others on the channel (because they are on a list of 'trusted' users)
>then they are truested enought to also be opped. 
>

Why do they need to be opped if they ahve a robot to take care of the channel?
Seems to eliminate the usefulness of people ops.


>Take the following as an example:
>
>MyBot is sitting on channel #Just-people-for-MyBot which is +i and MyBot
>is the only operator.
>
>luser OwnerOfBot ask for and is given an invite because he is trusted by
>MyBot, but MyBot doesn't op him.  Now we have a person on the channel who
>isn't operator and a bot who is.  The Bot is at this point the only one who
>can invite.. and if the bot never ops anyone, then the bot will always be
>the only one who can invite... 

So?  I know all about jenbot2/monitor code.  You can instruct the robot to 
invite manually.  It's not that hard.  It saves a lot of mode traffic.

>I see more problems with the scenerio than with a bot that ops those people
>it invites....
>

I don't
 
>>>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.
>
>>There is also another obvious solution who have problems with
>>op bots (just a valid as yours) get rid of them all.
>
>Call me paraniod, but I don't like the idea of 'banning' anything.

But you do like the idea of invite only channels, which is basically
banning from a channel.

>I dislike most bots as much as anyone, but the problems inherent 
>in tracking and killing all bots and enforcing such a 'ban' would
>*IMHO* cause more problems than the bots currently do.

You're right...it WILL be a problem to do that.  I'm not out to 
get rid of them all.  I'm just out to discourage people from making
stupid ones that do basically nothing (or something a person can do easily)

>So you ban bots.. no biggie.. I merely add the 'bot code to my
>client .ircrc... now am I a person (as I'm using the client.. msging,
>talking, etc|) or a bot (as all the bot code is being used as well)
>or a cyborg (as I'm both a bot and a person)?

I've done this on occasion.  It's not as much of a bother because it's not
a separate cpu using process.  Sorry if I seem to be stuck on that aspect.
It's jsut that my sys admin here is very keen on it, and I know the effects.

But your exmaple just won't appeal to anyone...beause most robots are there
for VANITY purposes...peopel like seeing themselves logged in as another 
robot process.

-Alex

-- 
| "I don't want the world, I just want your half." - TMBG                      |
| "Fuck me gently with a chainsaw." - Heather                                  |
|                                                                              |
|  smead@hypnos.calpoly.edu                     smead@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu  |
Newsgroups: alt.irc