Forums Feature Suggestions Part message

We have quit message, but why no part message? I know you can do this using /part, but it isn't everyone that knows how to do that. Just like you can set quit message from the mIRC Options, part message should be set too. When using on PART, it works, but you get a You are not on channel #channelname error.

There are only 3 reasons I've ever seen anyone use part msgs:
1.) To curse and or yell at someone in the channel without having to listen to their comments.

2.) To say goodbye

3.) To spam

#1 your suggestion wouldn't address because you most likely won't be cursing everytime you part a channel, just when you get mad at someone. #2 imho is a useless reason for it, why not just say "goodbye" before typing /part? The only one I see this feature promoting is #3, and I don't think anyone wants that.

Sorry if this is kinda off-topic, but you made me remember something really odd, that I used a lot before.. and it's still there.

If you use something like "on me:*:part:#:{ part # blah }" and part clicking the X button, or shift+clicking the switchbar button, or using alt+z, it will actually part with "blah" as the message parameter, although it causes a 442 raw reply as well ("you're not on that channel").
The "custom part" is sent before the default one.. but if you use a command, it's not. So, this doesn't work using /part, /raw or anything else .


Note that this was tested on UnderNet, but it must work on most networks, since it's the first time I tested there. I used to use it on BRASnet (the network I hang on) before, but now it doesn't accept part messages anymore.

Strange, I think.

So wouldn't these be applied to quit messages as well?

Then why have quit messages if you're so against part messages

LOL, I really didn't read this part before posting my first post here..

It's bad enough we have scripts flooding the channel with 3 lines of icky colors and webpage urls whenever the user closes mIRC... I think the last thing we need is to see this each time they close a channel.

You can, /part #channel message
You have to use the channel name, hasnt ever failed me

Read the post, he's talking about an option to have a part message in mIRC Options > IRC > Messages like there is for quit.

Yup, the network I hang on was forced to drop part messages because of stupid spamming and nonsense. Next step should be (IMHO) dropping quit messages, but I believe this would be much harder.

actaully its not. they can force all quit messages to whatever they want, or just not allow them

I'm mean it's harder to deal with the consequences . They (the admins) would lose a lot of senseless people because of such a change and I'm sure as hell they wouldn't want this to happen..

I don't recall ever saying I think the quit msg option a good idea, so I fail to see your point.

However, as was seen with 6.1, removing features that people have come to know and love (regardless of how "insignifigant" or "useless" they may seem) only causes problems. Therefore, rather than saying that the quit msg should be removed, which will likely alienate those people who already use it, I figure it is better to just say the part msg shouldn't be added.

Granted, all the "automatic" part messages I've seen are 99% of the time spam, annoying ascii art, blinding colours and frankly 'automatic' (meaning they have no relevance to the conversation at hand) - many bots/scripts use the part message to relay information to a channel (why its parting etc.) without having to send two lines to the server. Obviously this has nothing to do with a 'default' part message for when we part a channel by closing the window, however I feel it shows part messages aren't useless when used appropriately.

Given many IRCds have modes to squelch part messages, scripts can be written to filter part messages, and this functionality already exists in a kludge, shouldn't users be given the option to specify a default part message? Maybe it could be written in so it will override any on *:part messages too (ie: it will trigger first), as I'm sure many script users don't want to be walking billboards for their scripts author, just as we don't like reading said spam.

I should only see a user's part message, when they knowingly meant to include a part message... using their own time, energy and effort to hand type that part message. If they cant be bothered to do this, why should I be bothered to read it.

Even a default part message of "good bye" is devoid of all meaning, because it was automated. It would be the same as printing "good bye" on the backs of all your t-shirts, then passively turning and walking away from me in mid conversation. To me, that's more rude than "Talk to the hand."

The only reason someone would want a part message, is so they stand out from everybody else's plain and messageless parts. Lets be unique and different and attract attention to ourselves! Yeee!

/part good bye. ... say it with meaning.

Yes, it's very rude, as is every 'Thanks for the op $nick', 'my asl is %asl', 'download this script at %url', 'welcome to $chan $nick' and every other auto-whatnot thrown into a script as a 'feature'.

But the fact is, to some people, this is IRC. They downloaded 'that' script so they could stand out and look cool amongst their peers. To many people a script is more about its colours and popups and yes, auto-whatnots, than its 'useful' features. Who decides what those features are? Hopefully, sooner-or-later they'll change what they look for in a script, or pray write their own without the features considered rude.

My point wasn't that the feature is rude, it can be rude, it will be rude, it will be abused. The feature is already there. There are many people on IRC, many different likes/dislikes, age groups, and (mis)conceptions on what is rude, helpful, a 'feature' or a P.I.T.A. Nobody should be allowed to dictate their opinions on them, tell them they should/shouldn't have this and that. If you don't like those people and their features, don't chat with them, ignore them, don't visit 'their' channels and moderate them from you own. Maybe one day these people will change on their own accord and stop cramming URLs, useless part messages and other rude propaganda down our throats.

Rather utopian really..

I feel that its up to the network admins to decide whether to enable it or not. If they think its senseless, they would have disabled it long time ago.

Well then, if you're talking about a script, nothing stops the script from wrting its own code to have a default part message.

... which brings us back to the first post in this thread. :tongue: