Correct, This is a perfect case for why you shouldn't post when you have the flu, haven't slept and are under the influence of multiple pharmaceuticals.
In which case, I would like to say that SourceBans sounds like a lovely solution for admins, while SteamBans is the one I dislike. On 10/12/2009 6:56 AM, msleeper wrote: > Wait hold on, I think you mixed up the 2 names. > > SourceBans is a SourceMod+MySQL based banning plugin. It is useful to > track bans and provide a lot more ban support than the built in > banned_users.cfg. It is local-only. It's also useful if you have > multiple servers and don't want to sync your banfiles, since again it is > all done through MySQL. > > SteamBans is the public ban software, where admins have to apply to be > able to submit bans and such things. > > > On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 06:51 +0800, Shane Arnold wrote: > >> Absolutely right, I didn't realise Sourcebans also allowed local-only >> bans. I was under the impression it was purely a community-driven system >> with no actual control over local bans. >> >> On 10/12/2009 6:25 AM, msleeper wrote: >> >>> You have to think of it this way: there are at any given point in time >>> about 3,000 TF2 servers online and usually around 10-15k players playing >>> the game. A player being banned from your 2 or 3 or however many servers >>> is literally a drop in the massive bucket of potential places to play. I >>> think that the -minority- of servers/server ops/communities share >>> banlists and ban people wholesale based on steam group and friend lists. >>> >>> In my experience, most of the people negatively affected by a wholesale >>> banning - IE a player who was in some group "on accident" or whatever - >>> will either flat out not care and find another server, or come to your >>> site asking WTF and to be unbanned. And this latter group is far smaller >>> since there is such an abundance of servers for people to play on. >>> Umbrella banning people based on conduct or steam group membership isn't >>> the best solution, but when a large amount of players seem to be >>> assholes it's easier to just block possible trouble makers than wait for >>> them to come find you. And again, they're only an unban request away >>> from playing on the server. >>> >>> Also FYI, what you were talking about sounds a lot like SteamBans so you >>> might want to look into that. Unfortunately SteamBans doesn't consider >>> things like "being the owner of a myg0t steam group" or "calling server >>> admins names" a bannable offense, but that is were community based >>> bannings are great. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 06:09 +0800, Shane Arnold wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I have a problem with community-created banlists, and their adoption by >>>> server owners (i.e Sourcebans). For example, for my short duration on >>>> these lists I have seen entire groups, associated groups and their >>>> members banned due to the wrong-doings of one person. Not only this, but >>>> some of those bans have been on the basis of misconduct, not neccesarily >>>> cheating or hacking. But again that goes back to my point of server >>>> owners being allowed to do their own thing. >>>> >>>> Of course if this method of blanket-banning becomes popular, then that >>>> will mean there is a possibility that those who have been banned >>>> incorrectly (for just "being" in a targeted group, associated with, or >>>> have had their account stolent, e.t.c) would find less and less servers >>>> that they can play on. It's not a great idea. >>>> >>>> I believe a better system is a readily-accessibly, ingame (or website >>>> based for gaming communities) user-content driven ban system, such as a >>>> method to integrate an ingame chat trigger that could send a Steam chat >>>> request to a specified SteamID or ChatID (which is provided for in the >>>> Steam SDK and it's steam:// protocol), or a simple webform that players >>>> can use via the Steam WEB window, or add a review request to a queue or >>>> something similar for review. That way, when cheating/misconduct is >>>> experienced on a particular server, the administrator could then add the >>>> relevant details to a banlist, which would apply to their own servers, >>>> instead of unneccesarily blanket-banning. >>>> >>>> I believe admins should be more responsible for their own servers, >>>> instead of relying on a community-driven system that can be abused. >>>> >>>> On 10/12/2009 5:47 AM, Phillip Vector wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Oh.. I agree fully. If someone decided to implement a swear ban >>>>> plug-in, I would be all for it for the server owners who wanted it. >>>>> >>>>> The only issue I would have is if the maker of said plug-in said that >>>>> swearing is cheating and everyone should ban these people. Then >>>>> provide the server owners with a list of people who cursed calling >>>>> them cheaters. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Shane Arnold<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Haha, oh ouch. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, as msleeper said, server owners can do what they like with their >>>>>> servers. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/12/2009 5:31 AM, Phillip Vector wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah. it's not like he's running some kind of list of people he feels >>>>>>> are cheaters and making it seem they deserve to be banned from all the >>>>>>> servers for something like idling.. I also bet he isn't setting up a >>>>>>> server just to catch said idlers either. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, msleeper<[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But as I said, your rules are your rules and that is A-Okay with me. I >>>>>>>> don't care what other people do on their own servers, and since I don't >>>>>>>> play there it doesn't matter if I understand why you want to control >>>>>>>> peoples' language in an M rated game. It's your server, more power to >>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>>>>> please visit: >>>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>>>> please visit: >>>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>>> please visit: >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>> please visit: >>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
