I did a major search on the boards and couldn't find anywhere where this has been suggested yet, which shocked me.

There's /aop, /avoice, /ignore and even /protect. But why isn't there an /akick?

I would GUESS that's because servers have akicks. You could manipulate mirc in different ways to get an auto kick list currently, but that might not answer your question or satisfy your need for now.

Most servers have auto ops, auto voices, ignore features and even auto protections. This feature would just accompany mIRC and would be helpful especially when services are down for whatever reason (as why we use the other commands, amongst other reasons).

Oh, Im not saying it wouldnt be helpful to users, just giving a possible reason why they're not in already. As far as most servers and auto voice feature, I wouldnt know that as dalnet (my only network) does not use it at all. They DID for about a day and realized that it was pointless and removed it, however, this is NOT about what one network hs over another etc, this is about your suggestion and if it was implemented, I might even use it. At worst I dont see the harm in adding it

I think whenever something new is being added to mIRC it should be assumed that the network the feature is going to be used on does not have Services.

What kind of functions would /akick have? (Apart from the obvious auto kick of someone) - Would you like to see a customisable akick reason? Or have a simple /akick list and leave the more complicated stuff to blacklist scripts.

Personally I think this is a good feature to have, it could easily follow the pattern of the other internal mIRC lists and would be a welcome addition in my eyes. I would like to see individual reasons for each entry, but perhaps that's a bit too "script like" to be a default feature?

Regards,

Yeah I understand

I just help in Scripting channels, and having to write a "blacklist" for people just to akick nicknames (or use services) seems annoying. Why not just have a command which does it for you exactly the same as /aop or /avoice.

Some features might include:

/akick #channel nick!ident@host [n] Reason here.

Where n is the ban type, and the rest are self explantory. You could write a ban nick addon in just that command.

/akick #channel *badnick* 2 Bad nickname!

yeah I know what ya mean about help channels and people wanting scripts etc. personally, could simply use a customized ignore, on join, and kick ;-) but hey, that's jsut me. Like I said, Im not against this addition, but as menatlity said, filling in the request a little more is a good thing so people have a clearer idea of what you want


EDITED

Yes, as you made fuller in the last post *smack - read idiot read lol* I HATE it when I do that lol

Possibly because in combination with "auto rejoin on kick" (admittedly one of my pet rants) on the part of the kickee, this could cause chaos if the akicking op was away from keyboard. At least a scripted option is more likely to automatically ban after X rejoins.

PastMaster

Ah, due to my being a DALnet user I'm used to the thought of an "AKick" being an auto-ban-and-kick thing, rather than just a simple kick from the channel on its own (because of the ChanServ AKick feature).

If the idea here was to have /akick ONLY kick a user, then I wouldn't agree with it for the very reason PM pointed out. However, if /akick was intended to ban and then kick the user, I am in support of it (and if the ban is set first, 'auto-rejoin when kicked' is negated).

In light of this, perhaps the command name is more appropriately /aban?

Regards,

As shown in my example above I did suggest a ban feature in it, otherwise yes it'll cause problems.

Why I called it /akick is because /akick sounds a whole lot better than /aban. It's the same that people use /kb instead of /bk when they are actually banning first instead of kicking (most of the time).

I saw the example, just responding to PM's interpretation

Yes, /akick does sound a whole lot better and would definitely be easier for me - but if you strictly comply to the rules of language, "auto kick" would imply you kick the person and don't ban them. Perhaps /akb?

I don't think it's really a matter of super importance though, and I'd hate to dwell on the naming of a command for it's technical meaning heh :tongue:

Anyway, in conclusion, I think the feature's a good idea and would be used by quite a few people..and would probably improve upon what some networks already offer due to the available -x switch that I assume is proposed (as many networks don't have +e for exception bans).

</2cents>

Regards,

*grin*

Well personally I am even more adamantly opposed to the idea of an auto ban... for the same reasons expressed in the earlier rant

PM