Longer nicks!
I'd like one with 12 characters (firstname and lastname), but since Efnet doesnt let me do that I normally just dont connect, simply as that.
All other servers I use let me have nicks with 12 characters.
Your EFnet wishlist
Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators
*here since er.... I think 2002
*I'm there for the reason of all the emulation network (mainly Emulation64
) is there.
-nick/topic lenght
-ChanServ/NickServ... (working ones).... just annoying when you get no ops in a channel and sometimes it takes days before we see CHANFIX appear...
at least make Nickserv delete accounts if they aren't active for some weeks...
same for channels
but if it doesn't happen , well too bad, I tried.
*I'm there for the reason of all the emulation network (mainly Emulation64
) is there.
-nick/topic lenght
-ChanServ/NickServ... (working ones).... just annoying when you get no ops in a channel and sometimes it takes days before we see CHANFIX appear...
at least make Nickserv delete accounts if they aren't active for some weeks...
same for channels
but if it doesn't happen , well too bad, I tried.
Suggestions
Been on IRC since 1995, first on #lafayette (now #337), many other channels.
Friends keep me on IRC... MySpace has nothing on IRC's friends networks (and fuck trees ;-)
I expect to be 90 and still on IRC, via a cortical scanner.
Further devolution of our userbase into morons (we keep losing large numbers from the top 1/3 of users, in my opinion)
Things to improve:
Something like +h is a good idea: voluntary host obfuscation is a great idea. BNCs can be used for this but it's one of the main reasons non-geek users leave; they get scared of being identified by their hostmasks and credit the antagonist as a 'hacker' with more ability than they actually have. I think this should be server-side and not configurable, but assigned by the server and reassigned to each subsequent connect from that ident@hostmask.
Chanfix is good. The structure of it is much better than any chanreg style setup and does well in practice (in my experience).
There should be the addition of a 'nickreg' ability. No passwords, but the user should be able to msg nickreg to have the nickname tied to the hostmask. Other users can use this nickname, but if this user comes online from the registered hostmask within a set period (7-30 days) then the user can /msg to nickreg to have the user asked to change the nickname. If the user won't, after a set interval a second msg to have the user killed can be sent. This should be restricted to a single nickname per hostmask, and if the user doesn't come online to renew the registration (simply being active on that nickname from that hostmask) the registration expires. I think this would provide the useful functions of nickname registration without there being large numbers of locked-up nicknames.
I agree with the concept of a muted user mode. This makes more sense than having to +m and mass +v, and remember to +v joining users or set a botnet to do so. I'd like to see this have a timed expiration mode as well.
I'd like to see the ircd ISPs sell vanity DNS spoofs; I could see the small income from the users purchasing these helping to offset the costs of running the EFNet ircd. I would also like to see purchasable packages of usability, including multiple connections from the same hosts and so on, allowing 'legitimate' botnets to be purchased. I believe this may currently be against the EFNet modus operandi, but I feel it's something, especially if implemented on several servers, which would be beneficial to EFNet in allowing the providers of the service to benefit from the BNC/VHost business.
Other than that I feel that EFNet is the top IRC network out there; I believe strongly that it's going to be around for a long time. I'll probably be here in some form or another for the forseeable future.
love and peace.
-cheez
Friends keep me on IRC... MySpace has nothing on IRC's friends networks (and fuck trees ;-)
I expect to be 90 and still on IRC, via a cortical scanner.
Further devolution of our userbase into morons (we keep losing large numbers from the top 1/3 of users, in my opinion)
Things to improve:
Something like +h is a good idea: voluntary host obfuscation is a great idea. BNCs can be used for this but it's one of the main reasons non-geek users leave; they get scared of being identified by their hostmasks and credit the antagonist as a 'hacker' with more ability than they actually have. I think this should be server-side and not configurable, but assigned by the server and reassigned to each subsequent connect from that ident@hostmask.
Chanfix is good. The structure of it is much better than any chanreg style setup and does well in practice (in my experience).
There should be the addition of a 'nickreg' ability. No passwords, but the user should be able to msg nickreg to have the nickname tied to the hostmask. Other users can use this nickname, but if this user comes online from the registered hostmask within a set period (7-30 days) then the user can /msg to nickreg to have the user asked to change the nickname. If the user won't, after a set interval a second msg to have the user killed can be sent. This should be restricted to a single nickname per hostmask, and if the user doesn't come online to renew the registration (simply being active on that nickname from that hostmask) the registration expires. I think this would provide the useful functions of nickname registration without there being large numbers of locked-up nicknames.
I agree with the concept of a muted user mode. This makes more sense than having to +m and mass +v, and remember to +v joining users or set a botnet to do so. I'd like to see this have a timed expiration mode as well.
I'd like to see the ircd ISPs sell vanity DNS spoofs; I could see the small income from the users purchasing these helping to offset the costs of running the EFNet ircd. I would also like to see purchasable packages of usability, including multiple connections from the same hosts and so on, allowing 'legitimate' botnets to be purchased. I believe this may currently be against the EFNet modus operandi, but I feel it's something, especially if implemented on several servers, which would be beneficial to EFNet in allowing the providers of the service to benefit from the BNC/VHost business.
Other than that I feel that EFNet is the top IRC network out there; I believe strongly that it's going to be around for a long time. I'll probably be here in some form or another for the forseeable future.
love and peace.
-cheez
I don't think banning or restricting non idented clients would be a good idea. Heck, my client comes on sometimes with no ident, and a lot of my bots do at times also. I would see chaos if that were installed. And also it would probably prompt me, my channels and the users to leave also.AndroSyn wrote:Perhaps try /mode #channel +b *!~*@*lordares wrote: The only thing I would like to see is a channel mode to restrict non-idented clients from entering.
-Aaron
Since early '92, perhaps late '91, when relay was no longer functioning well and MUDs didn't cut it for an urbane guy.
*pointing at screen while typing*
Don't screw with efnet. Chanfix was dumb enough. If you want to add some sort of easy 'half op' thing - that works. It's clamored for constantly. Go too far, and you'll lose those of us that insidiously make things entertaining. Empower channel operators enough so that they can enforce their own noise, if they deem it necessary. Make it a bit easier to do so. But freedom is lost when IRCops and server ops of note become involved. I've seen it a bazillion times. Let them feudally lord their own perceptions, be it their servers or their specific channel redoubts. As they always have.
No overarching coding.
If your intentions are other than some sort of fear of ossification, well then. Hit it up and see the results. You'll regret it in ten years.
The file sharers, the mentation folks, the locals that congress, the technophiles, the lonely, the hobbyists. They have their own cubbyholes.
We all do.
Remember what efnet was founded for. And why.
*pointing at screen while typing*
Don't screw with efnet. Chanfix was dumb enough. If you want to add some sort of easy 'half op' thing - that works. It's clamored for constantly. Go too far, and you'll lose those of us that insidiously make things entertaining. Empower channel operators enough so that they can enforce their own noise, if they deem it necessary. Make it a bit easier to do so. But freedom is lost when IRCops and server ops of note become involved. I've seen it a bazillion times. Let them feudally lord their own perceptions, be it their servers or their specific channel redoubts. As they always have.
No overarching coding.
If your intentions are other than some sort of fear of ossification, well then. Hit it up and see the results. You'll regret it in ten years.
The file sharers, the mentation folks, the locals that congress, the technophiles, the lonely, the hobbyists. They have their own cubbyholes.
We all do.
Remember what efnet was founded for. And why.
What would you suggest to help recruit more of these sorts of people? And, are other populations of users (not the AOLers, y'all have made that abundantly clear) antithetical to these groups, or can they coexist in the network peacefully?PuttyWad wrote:If your intentions are other than some sort of fear of ossification, well then. Hit it up and see the results. You'll regret it in ten years.
The file sharers, the mentation folks, the locals that congress, the technophiles, the lonely, the hobbyists. They have their own cubbyholes.
We all do.
Remember what efnet was founded for. And why.
Some days I look back and go" That’s 14 years of my life I can't get back” So unless efnet is going to pay me child support or something I suggest we move forward with small changes. Out of all the years on this ship I'd have to say the biggest boat rock was services coming to efnet. People hated it when it came now they seem to love it. I will not say the same about nickserv/chanserv. I geek with bots/tcls for fun. If you take that away from me I will be forced to interact socially again. That’s not good.Wohali wrote:What would you suggest to help recruit more of these sorts of people? And, are other populations of users (not the AOLers, y'all have made that abundantly clear) antithetical to these groups, or can they coexist in the network peacefully?PuttyWad wrote:If your intentions are other than some sort of fear of ossification, well then. Hit it up and see the results. You'll regret it in ten years.
The file sharers, the mentation folks, the locals that congress, the technophiles, the lonely, the hobbyists. They have their own cubbyholes.
We all do.
Remember what efnet was founded for. And why.
I way to register ownership of channels may not be a bad idea, but certianly dont make it a requirement.
-dotslash@efnet "LONG LIVE WRAITH!"
Really Needed
+ SSL support (for those of us on wireless networks)
+ Universal server configurations.
----- Same max topic size
----- Same max nick size
----- Same settings dealing with flooding and everything else
Would Be Nice
+ Half/Helper Op
+ Hostname Hiding/ Masking (whatever it is called). It won't made a difference when it comes to bans because most people have a dynamic IP and will just reset their modem so it changes. What it will do is protect those of us with slower internet from having our lines flooded and then having our channels stolen.
Luxuries
+ Services (Nickserv, Chanserv, BotServ, MemoServe, etc)
I have been on EFnet since 2002
+ SSL support (for those of us on wireless networks)
+ Universal server configurations.
----- Same max topic size
----- Same max nick size
----- Same settings dealing with flooding and everything else
Would Be Nice
+ Half/Helper Op
+ Hostname Hiding/ Masking (whatever it is called). It won't made a difference when it comes to bans because most people have a dynamic IP and will just reset their modem so it changes. What it will do is protect those of us with slower internet from having our lines flooded and then having our channels stolen.
Luxuries
+ Services (Nickserv, Chanserv, BotServ, MemoServe, etc)
I have been on EFnet since 2002
Last edited by 4516 on Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:44 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests