is there absolutely no chance at all to get a copy of ZeroBot?

lol dude.
even if he gave u a copy why would u want it. theres a good chance it sends out ur keys and pass's to him.

Why do you reply to my post? Only Skywing can answer my question. >:(

Actually, I can answer it too.

http://www.valhallalegends.com/skywing/
[quote]Like BinaryChat, ZeroBot is not being publicly distributed. Asking for it will most certainly guarantee that you will not receive a copy of it.[/quote]

Which you have just done. ;)

[quote]will most certainly guarantee...[/quote]
It gives you a portion of hope. ;)

most != almost

Most certainly means there is no chance whatsoever.

and NetNX - You obviously know nothing about skywing.. why would he want anybody's key? Why wouldn't he just get them from bnls which, last time I checked, has a bijillion logon's per day? Not that he does, but if he wanted to he could :-P

[quote author=NetNX link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=0#msg9843 date=1052816091]lol dude.
even if he gave u a copy why would u want it. theres a good chance it sends out ur keys and pass's to him.[/quote]As a current maintainer of Zerobot source code, I can tell you with absolute certainty that Zerobot has no facility for stealing cdkeys or passwords. Additionally, I can take a good guess as to why he wants it: between what Skywing originally designed and the enhancements I've put onto it, it's now a very effective channel moderation bot.

It was already a very effective channel moderation bot. Some of the enhancements you made were needed, some were not, and others have resulted in fighting within the clan. Random idle bans, leet name bans, all these new unban restrictions .. I don't like any of them. As a member I should be able to ban/unban anyone I want, even if the bot thinks the person would just be banned again.

The bot is not a clan member last time I checked. It shouldn't be able to override the wishes of members wanting to ban or unban a visitor.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=0#msg9894 date=1052863632]
It was already a very effective channel moderation bot. Some of the enhancements you made were needed, some were not, and others have resulted in fighting within the clan. Random idle bans, leet name bans, all these new unban restrictions .. I don't like any of them. As a member I should be able to ban/unban anyone I want, even if the bot thinks the person would just be banned again.

The bot is not a clan member last time I checked. It shouldn't be able to override the wishes of members wanting to ban or unban a visitor.
[/quote]While you are correct that Zerobot will decline to unban individuals it would promptly ban, recent versions (check changelog) provide a way to override that and force it to unban anyway. The ability to detect and decline was inserted after seeing many instances in which an individual would run afoul of something (perhaps a new tagged name joins), get banned, member would unban, and then proceed to have the name get banned again - because he didn't think to actually resolve the issue by safelisting it.

Random idle ban (which, btw, is neither random nor for idle) has been around for quite some time. It was only recently that it began identifying its actions under a unique ban reason ("random"). Leet name ban was an amusing idea that I put in, and has so far received very little direct feedback to me. If it bothers you after you see its internal ruleset, it can be removed or made controllable.

Also, just +F people so they won't be randombanned (or l33tbanned?)

[quote] has a bijillion logon's per day? [/quote]

I'm impressed. I knew BNLS was popular, but that IS a good stat ;)

**Gaahhh**, you trashed my post with of topic spamming!! That would make me the rightful owner of a copy of ZeroBot! ;)

I deserve that now! ;D

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=0#msg9866 date=1052846171]
last time I checked, has a bijillion logon's per day
[/quote]
Last time I checked, you never checked. But your guess is approximately right.

could we get an exact number ;)

Currently, there are 99 bots in the database. StealthBot, the most popular of which, has had over 4 million logins.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=0#msg9931 date=1052890573]Also, just +F people so they won't be randombanned (or l33tbanned?)[/quote]Yes and no, respectively. Random ban only works on "random users", the ones that the bot doesn't know at all. Leetban was modified a few days ago to honor +F, but the running copy of Zerobot at this time is too old for that. I'll put in controls on leetban to make it toggleable, unless someone objects to that too...?

My request is that the bot honor members requests. If a member wants to ban a non-member, it should ALWAYS be allowed. If a member wants to unban anyone, it should ALWAYS be allowed. The bot should not decide for a member what he means, what he wants, or whether it is a good idea. How does that sound?

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=15#msg9959 date=1052933467]
My request is that the bot honor members requests. If a member wants to ban a non-member, it should ALWAYS be allowed. If a member wants to unban anyone, it should ALWAYS be allowed. The bot should not decide for a member what he means, what he wants, or whether it is a good idea. How does that sound?[/quote]It sounds like that functionality has already been there a while. However, since no one seems to actually use the overrides, I'm thinking about making override the default and having an alternate set that does the checking. e.g. "unban naem" would work regardless, but the new command would work only if naem would avoid being banned upon reentering the channel. Acceptable?

I think we're on the same wavelength. Members know ban/unban, but might not be aware of all the toggles, rules of default, and so forth. Especially members who visit less frequently. When they ban a nonmember, the nonmember should be gone. When they unban some name, in full or with wildcard ( i.e. unban Grok* ), any banned names matching the name or wildcard should be unbanned.

The member should not have to be told to toggle something before his command will work.

Good:
<Member[vL]>: .unban God
<God was unbanned by [vL]>

Bad:
<Member[vL]>: .unban God
<From: [vL]> God would just be banned again. If you still want to do this, first toggle (some setting) and attempt the unban again.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=15#msg9961 date=1052937034]
I think we're on the same wavelength. Members know ban/unban, but might not be aware of all the toggles, rules of default, and so forth. Especially members who visit less frequently. When they ban a nonmember, the nonmember should be gone. When they unban some name, in full or with wildcard ( i.e. unban Grok* ), any banned names matching the name or wildcard should be unbanned.

The member should not have to be told to toggle something before his command will work.

Good:
<Member[vL]>: .unban God
<God was unbanned by [vL]>

Bad:
<Member[vL]>: .unban God
<From: [vL]> God would just be banned again. If you still want to do this, first toggle (some setting) and attempt the unban again.


[/quote]Though as a minor point of reference, the present limits on unban wildcarding seem to be related to the unbans being forgotten (and I haven't yet figured why this is happening, but it really shouldn't be). The new version (which isn't yet installed) has some diagnostic commands to hopefully let me figure why the unbanlist is shortening so quickly.

Also, I've been working on a script to let me harvest changelogs (which I've been keeping as comments in the source files). Once it's done, I'll try to make a habit of posting the changelog into /zerobotlogs/ (it *is* a log, of a sort! ;)) so that interested parties can see what's been changed / when new features were added/removed.

If you need to and test a version, I'll be home in a couple hours to assist.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1319;start=15#msg9982 date=1052951908]
If you need to and test a version, I'll be home in a couple hours to assist.
[/quote]Testing new versions requires Skywing, since he's presently the only one who can build them. This arrangement grew up in part because I can only build unoptimized forms of the bot (somehow optimization is not a "standard" compiler feature...), and in part because I can't directly install it even if I could build it. *shrug*

Regarding the script, it's working and the revision history is extracted -- but I can't write to /zerobotlogs/. For now, I've left the file in the Zerobot main directory (in which the logs directory resides) as corechangelog.log. If you don't mind moving it to the logs directory so that other members can see it, I'd appreciate it. It can be renamed if you want, but I think the .log extension needs to be kept.

On the bright side, due to asking him not work I found sending flowers worked like a charm.

bijillion isn't exact enough for you? :p