privacy: always ask players for permission on being snooped about mud

[lfaoro]

using the snoop command should always ask the player if he agrees on being snooped.

example:

# imm view:
snoop lionheart
[waiting for Lionheart's approval...]
msg1: Lionheart has accepted your snoop request.
msg1: Lionheart has denied your request for snoop.

# player view:
[Rynald requests your permission for snoop] (Yes/No)
msg1: You accept being snooped by Rynald.
msg2: You deny Rynald's snoop request.

since we're asking for permission, we should allow ALL Imm levels access to the snoop command.

RFF (request for feedback): @Tocharaeh @loran4d

[tacospls]

With permission, I think it'd be cool for all imm levels to get access to the command. It comes in handy for them to be able to see what's going awry for themselves, rather than having me try to explain the problem with my less than amazing grasp of the game mechanics.

[Tocharaeh]

One problem here is that snoop also acts as a function to help monitor possible cheating going on.

I propose the following:

1. Snoop (player)
   Only shows actions. Not emotes. No says. No socials. Maintains player privacy.

2. Snoop (player) complete
   Shows everything.
   Requires consent of player in question.

[Rynald4d]

It's hard to say what's private and what's not when using snoop. I'd pick privacy over catching cheaters if I had too, but we have other ways of detecting cheating.