From: asamonte@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Just some loser...)
Subject: Re: Useless Bots
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 10:06:32 GMT
Organization: Nothing worth mentioning...
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content

StarWatcher@uiuc.edu was telling me...
>asamonte@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (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.

I'm quite familiar with the Monitor code, you don't have to lecture me on it.
Actually I think #bondange is one of the most well 'moderated' channels. But
do we really NEED this moderation on most channels?  I don't think so.  
#hottub...a place of bots galore is a public channel where everyone is welcome
to come and talk, but a bot on this channel just ops a selected few just so
they can be op, not because of the nature of the channel.  I figure most of
the people who are on #bondage like the security of the channel.  Other places
I think not.  Still #bondage can be managed just fine w/o Monitor.

>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

Haha, I love this.  Depending on who the bot ops varys it's elitist state?
Sounds like  'If It doesn't op me, it's elitist.'


>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?

>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.


-Alex

-- 
   __o o__
   \( v )/   
    /___\    lrwxrwxrwx  1 ctuel           0 Apr 17  1990 .clue -> /dev/null
     ^ ^     
Newsgroups: alt.irc