.-ban seems to require +m(master) privileges
I've noticed this ages ago, but it didn't bother me, since I usually have at least master privileges. At first I thought it's an error caused by some of my scripts, but ... after looking at the channels.mod, this doesn't seem to be the case.
So, my question is - is it supposed to work like this or should it be considered a bug?
This is the new home of the egghelp.org community forum.
All data has been migrated (including user logins/passwords) to a new phpBB version.
For more information, see this announcement post. Click the X in the top right-corner of this box to dismiss this message.
All data has been migrated (including user logins/passwords) to a new phpBB version.
For more information, see this announcement post. Click the X in the top right-corner of this box to dismiss this message.
.-ban behaviour
.-ban behaviour
Limp Bizkit rulez
Re: .-ban behaviour
I don't believe it is supposed to work like that, nor do I believe it is a bug.Narf wrote:.-ban seems to require +m(master) privileges
I've noticed this ages ago, but it didn't bother me, since I usually have at least master privileges. At first I thought it's an error caused by some of my scripts, but ... after looking at the channels.mod, this doesn't seem to be the case.
So, my question is - is it supposed to work like this or should it be considered a bug?
Why would looking at channel.mod have anything to do with your scripts? ... I don't understand what you meant there.
If it were me, I think I'd comment out *all* scripts, in eggdrop.conf.
Be sure that *none* are loading.
Then restart the bot.
Next, log in the partyline, with a user account that does not have +m.
Perhaps even create a temporary account, and give it +o.
Then, try : .-ban
What does it reply with?
If it replies with: Usage: -ban <hostmask|ban #> [channel]
then it is replying properly to a user with +o.
And since you've loaded *no* scripts this time, it is a script that was causing it. Now, onward to loading them one at a time, testing after loading each - to find out which is causing the symptom you've observed earlier.
If it replies with: What? You need '.help'
then we'll have to think about it some more.
I hope this helps.
Global operators can only add and remove channel bans as global masks are restricted to masters and above. .+/-ban for #channel bans works normally, though. While it's not documented and not exactly logical, this is by design and is not a bug.
Personally I think global operators should be allowed to set global bans/exempts/invites, but we should discuss it with the other developers.
I don't mind answering on this forum, but you can use our Trac to report bugs and request features. We're open to discussion and actually lack enough feedback.
Personally I think global operators should be allowed to set global bans/exempts/invites, but we should discuss it with the other developers.
I don't mind answering on this forum, but you can use our Trac to report bugs and request features. We're open to discussion and actually lack enough feedback.
Well, thanks. I sure would.pseudo wrote:Global operators can only add and remove channel bans as global masks are restricted to masters and above. .+/-ban for #channel bans works normally, though. While it's not documented and not exactly logical, this is by design and is not a bug.
Personally I think global operators should be allowed to set global bans/exempts/invites, but we should discuss it with the other developers.
I don't mind answering on this forum, but you can use our Trac to report bugs and request features. We're open to discussion and actually lack enough feedback.
Limp Bizkit rulez