From: dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Doug McLaren)
Subject: Re: Useless Bots
Organization: Doug's House of Disco
Keywords-Comment: ????????????????????????????
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:55:51 GMT
X-Posted-From: dopey.cc.utexas.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Bs23Gt.FMo@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarWatcher@uiuc.edu writes:

>Then the channel would not be a reasonably "open" one.  Is there a way
>to code a bot to "invite all people except those who have been jerks
>on this channel before, or who have harassed regular channel users
>in /msg's under various nicks"?  That kind of bot would, IMHO, be too
>cumbersome to write and maintain to be practical.

Not difficult at all ...
My bot Tubster does this.  He has a list of #hottub regulars, with an access
level for each.  The lowest access level can get invited, the next can have
bans removed that affect them, the next will be opped if they aren't already.
The next access level, for the more trusted regulars, can have the bot leave,
can have all bans removed, and can have the channel unlocked (if it gets locked
somehow (+pstiml 2...))  Anybody who abuses the channel (mass kicking, lots
of flooding etc ...) will be automatically temporarily removed from his user
list.
Next command I'm going to add will allow the trusted regulars to add new users
to his list.  (It's already in there for me, but I need to add more security
and error-trapping to it if I open it up for general use ...)

Oh ... he's written entirely in IRCII scripts.  And he doesn't use any huge
amount of CPU time (about 3% of the CPU on this Sun Sparcstation.)

Elitist?  perhaps, but I really don't think so.  I usually will add new people
to the list if they ask, unless I know them to be troublemakers.  The access
list already has about 100 people in it, and is growing.  Once I finish the
adduser command, other people will be able to add new people to his list.
(oh ... access is controlled via user@host, and sometimes the nick must be
correct too (depends on the person ... I usually give higher access if they
are using their correct nick, and a little lower if they are using a different
nick ...)

I think the bot works well.  I have programmed him to only op people who don't
have op already, and he will attempt to op two or three people at once if
possible.

I wrote this bot in an attempt to reduce the number of bots that were doing
auto-ops on the channel, and I like to think I have succeeded.  It was getting
quite out of hand when a person would join the channel and immediately get
opped by eight bots. (and I'm NOT exaggerating ...)
And it has been successful.  Most of these auto-opping bots are gone now, or
at least don't stay on the channel when their master's are away.  My bot has
become the 'semi-official' server of the channel (nothing's ever completely
official on #hottub ...)

>And what happens 
>when the bot's home mainframe dies unexpectedly?  You are left with
>a channel with no ops, necessitating the channel-hopping two-step to
>get an op, or an inability for the bot to get back on channel when its
>home machine comes back up.

Then Tubster dies.  But the op lives on.  People seem to insist on always
having op on #hottub.  Right or wrong, this is the way things have turned out.
If I were to try and keep the op to myself or a very few people, I would make
a lot of enemies very quickly.  So most people have op.  It's hardly an ideal
situation, as the mass kickers (who love #hottub, probably for this very
reason) can usually get op from somebody ... but so be it.  That's the way
it is ...




-- 
The opinions stated above are mine (and quite possibly mine alone!)  However,
 for a brief time, and a nominal fee, they can be yours too.  Operators are 
standing by! Call Now! DouG McLareN, dougmc@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, DemoN on IRC.
Newsgroups: alt.irc,alt.politics.kibo