Wanting to join --

[Kp]

Also, once again, I'd like to voice my strong objection to protect/protectvl being turned on or off automatically.

This was originally added on Adron's request.  He disliked people leaving protect on overnight.

[Adron]

I.e. after whoever changed the settings from the defaults (no protect) has left and doesn't care any more, they will be reset to the defaults automagically.

[Arta]

Turning it off isn't so much the problem. It's turning it *on* automatically that pisses me off. This ties into what Grok was saying about automoderation.

[Adron]

Turning it off isn't so much the problem. It's turning it *on* automatically that pisses me off. This ties into what Grok was saying about automoderation.

Is it ever turned on automatically? I thought it only ever turned off by itself?

[Arta]

Yes, it does. Much to my irritation.

[Kp]

Is it ever turned on automatically? I thought it only ever turned off by itself?

It turns to whatever mode Grok / Sky / you last set it to. :p

[Adron]

Really? Follows a setting made by a N flag user?

[Kp]

Really? Follows a setting made by a N flag user?

Right; when the bot boots, it is set to off and assumes that an N flag wants it off until it sees otherwise.

[Adron]

Right; when the bot boots, it is set to off and assumes that an N flag wants it off until it sees otherwise.

It's a nice idea, but I'd actually prefer if it reset my protects as well to the off state. Would it be possible to have a separate command (for N users) to set the defaults? Setting the default state and the current, temporary, state are different operations.

I might want protect to be on during a conversation or something like that, to keep disturbances out, and then if I forget to turn it off, it would be nice if it turned itself off.

[Grok]

I agree with Adron.  Judging from feedback I get about the bot, I'd think most members wouldn't mind if it turned itself off after a time.

On the other point, about the N flags controling the 'default' setting, I disagree.  It's hard to keep a clan where the members are the most important people, and where leaders serve.  By giving leaders more moderation ability than members, it starts the appearance of a power hierarchy.  In a nutshell, leaders should have the ability to administrate member security, but generally the members should have equal channel moderation abilities.

I hope I said that in a way that made sense of what I was thinking.

[Raven]

Not even a silver bullet will be able to kill this thread.....

[Arta]

I completely agree, Grok. That said, I would support a command to set the default state - certainly that would be better than the current system - and I wouldn't really be bothered if i didn't have access to it

It's definitely important to maintain leadership as a position of service and not authority, but it's not out of line, IMO, for leaders to have access to a few extra commands besides those needed for administration. It's a question of finding a balance, I think.

[Adron]

You could also consider configuring / setting defaults for the bot to be "administration". It's not likely that that would be something that needs regular modifications. It could even be set in the configuration file.