This is not good for your room but oh well if you all like it go right ahead and use it theres two different sets here and there fastly coded.
When someone types +o it will mod them when someone types -o
it will deop when some one types -v it will devoice and of course +v is voice i would not use this if i was you but your choice.
#Auto On
on *:TEXT:*+v*:*:mode # +v $nick | .notice $nick You Have Been Given Voice In #
on *:TEXT:*-v*:*:mode # -v $nick | .notice $nick You Have Been Given Devoice In #
on *:ACTION:*+o:*:mode # +o $nick | .notice $nick You Have Been Given Op In #
on *:ACTION:*-o:*:mode # -o $nick | .notice $nick You Have Been Deop'd In #
#Auto End
We can see that anyone can use it to give themselves op, voice etc in a chan. That does not change the point that an @ should be included (see my earlier message), because if whoever holds the script is deopped the will keep getting messages like \" you are not channel operator\". Personally, its not a script I would use, but that is another matter. The point about why having the script notice the person requesting the op, voice etc is a good point. Once a person makes the command, it is self evident whether or not it has been executed... the only reason I can see it being of use is that somebody can potentially pm the script holder or bot and request op in a chan without looking in there and be informed of the result: /msg +o <#chan>. I still see this as incomplete.
I don\'t understand why you haven\'t included \"on @:\" as an opening because that would avoid error messages if the script tries to work when not ops. Secondly, its gonna be a flood war of op and deop if any user can remotely use this script because of the user level set at . Thirdly, why swap from TEXT to ACTION for the commands from voice to opping? Kinda confusing for s simple brain like mine to remember if i have to use a remote action or text.