By Chevy on May 15, 2007

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


Sign in to comment.
WatsonN   -  Jul 21, 2009
DaNzO   -  Jun 14, 2007

It\'d have to be on a BOT.

So if the bot had it


something like that i\'d imagine...

|MELIORITE|   -  May 15, 2007

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.

Bouncer   -  May 15, 2007

The code is so anyone can op, deop, voice, devoice themselves through someone else. The code was not intended for only the person who has it to use. It is meant for everyone to use. Which btw, why have it notice the person who just op\'d, deop\'d, voiced, devoiced themselves?

Lindrian   -  May 15, 2007

Oh dear god, cant edit my posts, however, forgot a ) in the end of the if check, my bad.

Lindrian   -  May 15, 2007

Id say:
add a delay

after the text event, the very beginning:
set -u10 $+(%,delay,.,$nick)

and then as a check,

if ($($+(%,delay,.,$nick)) {

|MELIORITE|   -  May 15, 2007

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.

Lindrian   -  May 15, 2007

Sorry, forgot to post usage. Just:
+v nickname
-h nickname

Basically just what you got, but with better checks etc.

Also, \'my\' script will alow to deop others and yourself (the one who requested to deop/devoice etc)

Lindrian   -  May 15, 2007

Eh, what if you aint op? You can use $istok() here aswell..

on *:text:*:#: {
if ($istok(+v +h +o -v -h -o,$1,32)) && ($nick($chan,$me,o)) && ($2) && ($2 ison $chan) && ($2 != $me) {
mode $chan $1 $2

All checks you need for a script to work properly.

Chase   -  May 15, 2007

looks good i just scripted simpler to that

Are you sure you want to unfollow this person?
Are you sure you want to delete this?
Click "Unsubscribe" to stop receiving notices pertaining to this post.
Click "Subscribe" to resume notices pertaining to this post.