From: Upholder@uiuc.edu (THE Upholder of Truth)
Subject: Re: Useless Bots
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Reply-To: Upholder@uiuc.edu (THE Upholder of Truth)
Organization: The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:19:20 GMT

asamonte@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Just some loser...) writes:
>StarWatcher@uiuc.edu was telling me...

>>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.

>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. 

The stated purpose of Monitor is to invite and op trusted/semi-regular users
so that the channel can always be maintained properly.  As a channel that
is almost always +i (for reasons that have been stated earlier and are 
fairly obvious), there *HAS* to be a chanop that is responsible for inviting
people or the channel becomes worthless.

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... 

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


>>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.
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.

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)?

More importantly, how would this be handled?   Would having /on statements
become cause to be /killed?

I don't like the idea.
-- 
The Upholder of Truth		  	    I am not only ready to
Upholder@uiuc.edu (BSD/ASCII mail)          retract this, but also
jar42733@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (NeXT mail)    deny I said anything.  =)
wi.4173@wizvax.methuen.ma.us (anon. mail)   This is *NOT* CCSO's opinion.
Newsgroups: alt.irc