It seems like the only useful use case I can think of with this feature
is to create a private steam group of admins for a server. Then any
user the admins block would be kicked from the server. However, if it's
only checking blocked users of connected players this wouldn't be
altogether useful.
What exactly were the use cases Valve saw when coming up with this
feature, Rich?
On 3/15/2012 11:48 PM, dmex wrote:
One problem I see is for semi-large groups like ours:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/mypayload
1) If one member has all the admins blocked, none of the admins will
be able to join the server.
2) If the member gets removed from the group there's nothing to stop
them from creating a F2P account, re-joining the group (since it's
public) and causing the same problem all over again.
3) If a user is blocked from a server, they'll just create and use a
F2P account, avoiding the block entirely.
Result:
An annoying feature that's doing nothing other than allowing users to
grief others and endless problems for admins.
Users should never be permitted to block other users from servers they
do not own or control, I think it's been well established in the past
that something like that will be abused.
We have around 12 admins, only one has access to the server console,
if he's not around it could be a few days before the member preventing
the admins from joining is removed but they could just rejoin the
group using a F2P account and cause the same issue. If anything this
feature should allow admins to give extra's to group members e.g.
allowing sprays or in-game voting options if they are disabled, not
blocking people from joining because of some other idiot.
Just my 2c.
_______________________________________________
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please
visit:
https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
