There are some interesting social issues, as well as technical issues of trust bubbling to the surface here. I'll throw an idea out, and I look forward to seeing it shredded to bits. :) What if the concept of established chains of trust, much like SSL certs are accepted, was established based on Steam ID? Before you flame on about SSL/X509/etc., let me admit that I'm no expert -- I know there are a lot of differences with the below suggestion.
This is a little far-fetched and not easily implemented today, but it may be a worth discussion. What if there were independent "clearing houses" that determined the legitimacy of a particular Steam ID and established a chain of trust that server ops could choose to subscribe to or not? Obviously this would have to be implemented with server plugins on participating servers. It would be a multi-tiered approach. You have players, server operators, and Steam ID Authorities. The downstream flow is that "Steam ID Authorities," those who determine what Steam ID's are accepted as non-cheaters, and server ops, who choose to be the second layer of trust by accepting that set of Steam ID's as valid, establish a level of trust for regular players. Steam ID Authorities must establish a policy for grievances against certain Steam ID's and this is where it gets tricky -- there is a potentially abusable system where the upstream data of who is naughty and nice can be manipulated. If Steam ID Authorities (known as SIA's from now on, I'm tired of typing all that crap out) mandate a quorum, or certain number of subscribing server ops that report a Steam ID as a cheater, then an easily abusable system of upstream reports of trust by hackers may (not guaranteed, but this is based on trust!) be avoided. This isn't a perfect approach, and if anyone can suggest a better way then please do so. The biggest problem is that the SIA's get bogged down in deciding which server ops are trustworthy or not. It would definitely require vigilance on the part of SIA's, but a history of whether server ops can be trusted or not must be determined. There have to be far fewer operators that run hack-friendly servers than ops that are sick and tired of cheaters. Why worry about checking CVAR's and the presence of hacked DLL's when you can get an angry mob of people together and burn cheaters at the stake? :) There are certainly issues with my suggestion that are unresolved and unexplained, but I'd like to hear if anyone else thinks this may be worth investigating. Sorry for the long read and if you don't feel like contributing a suggestion then just don't reply. Thanks. -- Alex On 10/25/05, Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Putting cheaters on MSNBC isn't going to help anything, just like > tossing people with drug addictions in prison. It's a waste of > resources, time and money. > > > > >None, as an avid gamer, server admin, clan leader and defender of our > >country I understand what will take to move gaming to the next level. If > >you have a better way I would love to hear it. Don't bitch about how to > >improve things unless you have a better way to get there. > > > >Crazy_One > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list > >archives, please visit: > >http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
