Eggheads: +a channel vs chanuser modes

ClubCX clubcx at
Tue Apr 8 21:27:29 CST 2003

A common misconception is that many networks do not like bots. In my
experience, it has simply been that networks do not want *abusive* bots,
which flood services, and generally make a nuisence of themselves. I've had
no problem in getting permission to run bots on many scores of networks. One
network notorious for being difficult on issues like this is DALnet, but we
were quite easily able to get permission for 40 clones from them when we

On networks that allow warez, these form the biggest of the channels,
followed by significantly smaller chat channels that normally peak at 500
users. I've never encountered a channel of this size that didn't use at
least one bot. In many cases, the largest (chat) channels on networks use my
bots. Bigger channels are bigger temptations for people to attack, and
channel protection is in most cases #1 priority.

One of the best reasons for using bots for op/voice lists is simply that the
bot is usually more stable than channel services. While a bot may be online
for months at a time, channel services are usually down at least once each
week, for a variety of reasons. ChatNet is affectionately known as being 50%
bots, and this payed off when K9 started disappearing intermittantly, until
it was recoded over a year later.

----- Original Message -----
From: Kass Lloyd
To: 'Eggdrop Discussion List'
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 2:44 AM
Subject: RE: Eggheads: +a channel vs chanuser modes

 EFnet, your right works under the premises of no ownership of anything.
And the way you keep ownership is via bots. There are several bot
tolerant servers on EFnet, and the admins don't care if you run them so
long as they are on the proper servers and are non-abusive.

Unless I'm mistaken the vast majority of networks with services do not
like bots and the HUGE channels on those networks do not even use bots.
You are correct to use bots for the "grunt" work of channel management,
like flood prevention, swear word kicks, and entertainment value. But I
feel you're wrong to use eggdrops for op/voice/ban on a network with
services. The services are usually better at handling the op/voice/ban
of users.

-----Original Message-----
From: eggheads-bounces at
[mailto:eggheads-bounces at] On Behalf Of ClubCX
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 9:38 PM
To: Eggdrop Discussion List
Subject: Re: Eggheads: +a channel vs chanuser modes

EFnet, the example you gave, doesn't even support channel ownership.
are you to put a bot in an 'equal rights' channel that you don't own,
alone 25? How much are these people paying for something that's against
network policy in the first place? $50? $75? $100? These networks want
to be about chatting, not about bankrupting yourself in order to
yourself as a god above all the other chatters.

Channel Services, pretty much everywhere, are for the sole purpose of
registering an owner of a channel, to prevent takeovers. Bots do all the
hard work, keeping op/voice/ban lists, protecting the channel from
and other questionable content (advertising, profanity, clones), and any
reference and entertainment that needs to be available 24/7 (such as
market data, dictionary services, calculator, etc). There's also logging
you mentioned.

----- Original Message -----
From: Kass Lloyd
To: 'Eggdrop Discussion List'
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 2:01 AM
Subject: RE: Eggheads: +a channel vs chanuser modes

On a network without services, if you want to keep your channel, you
have to have bots. Check out EFnet. To protect the large popular
channels they employee botnets of 25-50+ bots in a single channel to
protect it.

On a network with services there is no NEED for a bot for channel
protection. The bot then serves as a novelty factor or as a utility for
logging channel events.

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 01/04/2003

More information about the Eggheads mailing list