Hi,
Second thought - would it be possible to setup a 'moderation' team to
monitor the chat on the server in (semi) regular intervals? i could
imagine if there were a bridge between the servers and irc that you
would get a few people volunteering to join.
say this bridge merely bridges chat, an
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 22:21 +, Martin Spott wrote:
> Scott Hamilton wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 21:02 +, Martin Spott wrote:
>
> >> Whenever/whatever people are going to do about adding authentication
> >> support to MP servers, if they'd consider adding an interface which is
> >> ca
Scott Hamilton wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 21:02 +, Martin Spott wrote:
>> Whenever/whatever people are going to do about adding authentication
>> support to MP servers, if they'd consider adding an interface which is
>> capable of talking to an LDAP directory service (inetOrgPerson LDAP
>>
On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 21:02 +, Martin Spott wrote:
> Curtis Olson wrote:
>
> > Would it be bad if a user had a choice between the open free for all we
> > currently have and a more constrained and managed system (that someone has
> > taken the time to build and continues to manage.)
>
> No, o
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Would it be bad if a user had a choice between the open free for all we
> currently have and a more constrained and managed system (that someone has
> taken the time to build and continues to manage.)
No, offering multiple options to choose from is certainly not a bad
idea.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, AJ MacLeod wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
> Gene Buckle wrote:
>
>> Nanny state, FTW. *sigh*
>> Filter on the client side, only. Please.
>
> To equate this with the "nanny state" is complete nonsense and blowing things
> completely out of proportion. In
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Gene Buckle wrote:
> Nanny state, FTW. *sigh*
> Filter on the client side, only. Please.
To equate this with the "nanny state" is complete nonsense and blowing things
completely out of proportion. In addition, your preference for client-side
filtratio
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
> On 20 Oct 2010, at 18:10, Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
>> In that case you bandwidth payload for no good reason.
>>
> No worse than at present. As I said earlier, I would also put a filter on the
> sender to filter the "casual" profanity and make our exp
Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2010, at 18:10, Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
>
>> In that case you bandwidth payload for no good reason.
>>
>>
> No worse than at present. As I said earlier, I would also put a filter on the
> sender to filter the "casual" profanity and make our expected stand
On 20 Oct 2010, at 18:10, Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
> In that case you bandwidth payload for no good reason.
>
No worse than at present. As I said earlier, I would also put a filter on the
sender to filter the "casual" profanity and make our expected standard of
behaviour clear.
IMO a filter is
-Stuart
On 20 Oct 2010, at 18:10, Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
> Stefan Seifert wrote:
>> On Wednesday 20 October 2010 18:57:05 Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Implementing such a filter on the client side will open your eyes to the
>>> pitfalls of that quite quickly - i'll just compile fg myse
Stefan Seifert wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 October 2010 18:57:05 Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
>
>
>> Implementing such a filter on the client side will open your eyes to the
>> pitfalls of that quite quickly - i'll just compile fg myself, and apply
>> a patch which disables such a filter - now what you
On Wednesday 20 October 2010 18:57:05 Nathanael Rebsch wrote:
> Implementing such a filter on the client side will open your eyes to the
> pitfalls of that quite quickly - i'll just compile fg myself, and apply
> a patch which disables such a filter - now what you want to do?
>
> security by (cli
Gene Buckle wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
>
>
>> Oh dear ...
>>
>> http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary
>>
>> I was going to say that we could probably do a pretty good job at coming up
>> with a list ourselves, then I saw this site and realized I'm a complete
>> novice ...
>
Hi all,
L> Francesco wrote:
>
> why can't we use the flightgear phpbb forum accounts ?
> we already have a table containing users/emails/md5 passwords. the server
> could check for an user/password against this
> table (ok, not with a direct connection to the mysql db, but calling an
> ad-hoc
On 10/20/2010 7:39 AM, Curtis Olson wrote:
> It would not be dissimilar from the forum, or the wiki or any other
> CMS. All those systems need to deal with user management and
> authentication, and as soon as the flightgear MP starts ruling the
> world, we'll probably see spambots too. Once we
I'm not
aware of)/.
Mally
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis Olson"
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Ridding Multiplayer of Abusers
> It would not be dissimilar from the
> That stuff is unnecessary and in
>
> > real life you'd probably get your license yanked if you were caught using
> > foul language on the radio.
>
> Here, in Canada , its a $5000 fine and/or a year in jail.That,s a
> pretty good deterrent :).
When I had my first engine failure in RL, I rememb
It would not be dissimilar from the forum, or the wiki or any other CMS.
All those systems need to deal with user management and authentication, and
as soon as the flightgear MP starts ruling the world, we'll probably see
spambots too. Once we start attracting spammers then do we still consider
i
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Another thought. I know it would be a huge effort to setup a system with
> user id's and passwords, self registration, [...]
^
To be honest, I'd expect those who deliberately are being rude will
just create a new account after they
just a small idea:
why can't we use the flightgear phpbb forum accounts ?
we already have a table containing users/emails/md5 passwords. the server
could check for an user/password against this table (ok, not with a direct
connection to the mysql db, but calling an ad-hoc php page that verifies
u
> Would it be possible to start logging and saving (and publishing) MP
> messages somewhere so a person with a grievance would have some hard
> evidence to show what happened. Right now when push comes to shove,
> we are
> in a "he said/she said" situation. But if we logged every "message
> +
One account per IP address is not a good idea, because it is very well
possible for several independent people to use the same public IP
address. In IPv4 at least with NAT routers. I can think of examples in
student homes with a shared broadband connection. Or the clubhouse of
the flying club.
Hal V. Engel wrote
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 02:15:08 pm Vivian Meazza wrote:
> > Gary Neely wrote
> >
> > > A few additional details can be found by reading the relevant post as
> > > jackmermod in the FG forums:
> > >
> > > "I experienced a horrible attack over mp today. I ended up flying u
Gary Neely wrote
>
> A few additional details can be found by reading the relevant post as
> jackmermod in the FG forums:
>
> "I experienced a horrible attack over mp today. I ended up flying up
> on the attackers 6 o'clock in my F-14 and firing upon him with over 20
> Aim-9's in hopes of causin
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 18:51:37 Martin Spott wrote:
> Stefan Seifert wrote:
> > Very sensible words. Technical solutions usually don't work for social
> > problems.
>
> Exactly this is the point, and I'd like to add that the social problem
> we're currently looking at might be manifold
B
Instead of trying to put together a list, you should watch a video of George
Carlin's "Seven dirty words."
Censorship is not the solution to this kind of problem.
It is just too easy to come up with a way to be offensive, or to threaten
someone. If you decide to censor, then YOU take the res
Stefan Seifert wrote:
> Very sensible words. Technical solutions usually don't work for social
> problems.
Exactly this is the point, and I'd like to add that the social problem
we're currently looking at might be manifold
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just se
A few additional details can be found by reading the relevant post as
jackmermod in the FG forums:
"I experienced a horrible attack over mp today. I ended up flying up
on the attackers 6 o'clock in my F-14 and firing upon him with over 20
Aim-9's in hopes of causing him to lag. Luckily I caused hi
Promoting the concept of free market place of ideas here:
The multiplayer server source is open and anyone can setup their own server.
Sure the MP system is only fun when there are lots of people participating
...
But if someone wants to have their own private free for all and express any
opinio
Curtis Olson wrote:
> Would it be possible to start logging and saving (and publishing) MP
> messages somewhere so a person with a grievance would have some hard
> evidence to show what happened.
I do sense certain privacy issues by logging/storing/publishing
callsigns and MP messages (similarly
On Tuesday 19 October 2010 16:41:35 Mally wrote:
> ?Forgive my ignorance, but what happens at the moment? Does nobody say
> anything to the abusers? Doesn't peer pressure, good example and setting
> guidelines present a more realistic solution (realistic by comparison with
> what happens in real wo
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
>
>> A filter like this belongs in the client machine, not the server.
>>
>> It's not the job of a multi-player server to provide nanny services. If
>> the end user doesn't want to see adult language, t
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Gene Buckle wrote:
> A filter like this belongs in the client machine, not the server.
>
> It's not the job of a multi-player server to provide nanny services. If
> the end user doesn't want to see adult language, they're welcome to enable
> whatever filtering tha
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM, syd adams wrote:
> That stuff is unnecessary and in
> > real life you'd probably get your license yanked if you were caught using
> > foul language on the radio.
>
> Here, in Canada , its a $5000 fine and/or a year in jail.That,s a
> pretty good deterrent :).
>
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Curtis Olson wrote:
> Oh dear ...
>
> http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary
>
> I was going to say that we could probably do a pretty good job at coming up
> with a list ourselves, then I saw this site and realized I'm a complete
> novice ...
>
A filter like this belongs in the
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Reagan Thomas wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everybody,
>>> I recently was on Multiplayer, flying with a friend, minding my own
>>> business, when another pilot asked a gen
th an
automated system of blocking and control?
Mally
- Original Message -
From: "syd adams"
To: "FlightGear developers discussions"
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Ridding Multiplayer of Abusers
That stuff is unnecessary
On 10/19/2010 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
>> Hi Everybody,
>> I recently was on Multiplayer, flying with a friend, minding my own
>> business, when another pilot asked a general newbie question: "Where can I
>> find the Nimitz?". In only g
That stuff is unnecessary and in
> real life you'd probably get your license yanked if you were caught using
> foul language on the radio.
Here, in Canada , its a $5000 fine and/or a year in jail.That,s a
pretty good deterrent :).
Oh dear ...
http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary
I was going to say that we could probably do a pretty good job at coming up
with a list ourselves, then I saw this site and realized I'm a complete
novice ...
Could we also filter at the MP server level? It might be nice to filter at
the sending
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
> I recently was on Multiplayer, flying with a friend, minding my own
> business, when another pilot asked a general newbie question: "Where can I
> find the Nimitz?". In only good intent, I replied: "Look around the Golden
> Gate
Hello Jack,
I must say i am sorry for the experience you get on the Flightgear
Multiplayer Servers. I myself can fully understand your answer to the
question and not understand the reaction of another user.
If i am not mistaken an Ignore feature is to come in the next stable
release, which wil
43 matches
Mail list logo
