[QUOTE=Sonador;48612999]I don't quite understand what that means. Isn't there a central point where you're pulling the history from? If not, what's the point?[/QUOTE]
If you haven't looked into blockchain technology before, think of it as a way of everyone storing data together (which can never change) into a big cloud which works like bit-torrent, where everyone participating drip-downloads the pieces of shared history from each other
The information that goes in is proven to be from a specific server-owner because their website HTTP certificate was used to "sign" the data they are adding. It proves that the server doing the banning was the one who added the ban.
So long as your own server has a list of public-certificates of the servers that they trust (which can be obtained automatically from the website of the named server where the infraction took place), they can use that to verify that a ban / warn or kick was done by that server, and use that to help them make a decision regarding banning a player permanently when they are caught doing something bad on their own server.
People will be less inclined to do things across multiple servers that would draw negative attention to their history and admins can decide for themselves if someone really is a douchebag according to other servers' history for that player.
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;48613008]If you haven't looked into blockchain technology before, think of it as a way of everyone storing data together (which can never change) into a big cloud which works like bit-torrent, where everyone participating drip-downloads the pieces of shared history from each other
The information that goes in is proven to be from a specific server-owner because their website HTTP certificate was used to "sign" the data they are adding. It proves that the server doing the banning was the one who added the ban.
So long as your own server has a list of public-certificates of the servers that they trust (which can be obtained automatically from the website of the named server where the infraction took place), they can use that to verify that a ban / warn or kick was done by that server, and use that to help them make a decision regarding banning a player permanently when they are caught doing something bad on their own server.
People will be less inclined to do things across multiple servers that would draw negative attention to their history and admins can decide for themselves if someone really is a douchebag according to other servers' history for that player.[/QUOTE]
This is a really interesting method, thanks for explaining it to me.
Let's make skidcheck 3.0. Let's blame him for creating a banlist and create one ourselves. best idea.
Please, Don't let kids decide, people are just gonna add people they don't like.
I personally hate the idea of a global ban list with a passion, but if you're gonna make it anyway here's some suggestions to make it manageable.
Whenever a server owner bans someone, they must select one of 50+ spicific categories such as "Mass RDM", "FailRP", "Lua Chams", etc. These categories must be searchable and extensive, as well as gamemode-spicific. Then, whenever a server owner installs this banlist, they will select the ban categories to import from the master list. Obviously it doesn't make sense for a PVP server to import the Mass RDM banlist, you get the idea.
Next implementation:
Procedural banning across multiple servers.
First ban you're banned from only the server you were banned from.
Second ban you're banned from 20 randomly selected servers running the list
Third ban 50 randomly selected servers
You get the idea. This creates a (somewhat) automated appeal system, and ensures no single crazy admin can fuck someone over.
Another important component to consider is a felonysheet. When a player joins, admins are given a numerical list of servers they're banned from and a count of each category they were banned for, just so they have a heads up.
The ban list (if there is one) needs to be shared, write-only, provably linkable to the server that did the ban. Lastly, it must not be automatic.
Randomly banning is just as pointless as random arrest.
The server owner needs to be able to:
A) See that someone is having a negative impact on other players
B) Check what other servers have said about that player
C) Decide what to do about it.
D) What they did gets recorded, just as above.
The log doesn't even need to last longer than 5 years so it wouldn't grow too huge.
being on an automatic banlist on a server i've never joined usually piques my interest enough to join back on an alt and [sp]minge the shit out of it[/sp]
[T]http://i.imgur.com/SuZkO2Q.png[/T]
Horrible idea. There's nothing wrong with the way things are done now. If someone is going to be a bad person, they're going to get banned anyway, and if they're not, then there's nothing to worry about in the first place.
This idea also has huge potential for abuse, no matter how many safeguards you try and throw at it, none of them are landing. Most servers in garry's mod are home to terrible admins, a lot of them pay for it to, and you'll see why there's internal failures inside most Gmod communities by taking a look on their forums as a result. Most bans and reports are out of anger or annoyance, and I can't even begin to tell you how many people get in trouble with server administrators as somebody lying in a convincing way, twisting truths. I used to do it all the time to get people banned from servers. Kill a player for no reason, they report me, tell an admin they called me a nigger and made threats to me or something and they end up getting banned instead.
And then what's to stop me from being a dick and hosting a bunch of GMod servers and either automatically or manually flagging people to get them ever closer to being fucked out of playing gmod?
[editline]5th September 2015[/editline]
Oh and enjoy watching Gmod's already dwindling population take a nosedive as a result. It's an old as fuck game now anyway, this stuff doesn't matter anymore so just leave it be.
[QUOTE=polivlas;48618221][T]http://i.imgur.com/SuZkO2Q.png[/T][/QUOTE]
It's pretty easy to find out whether a player is using a family shared account as well as locating the owner of the used library.
It is just hilarious how i am banned by that list for something i didn't do kewl
How about this?
Instead of a global ban list, we could instead have a reputation system where (registered/privileged/whatever) people could provide feedback on how the player interacts, attached to a +2, +1, +0, -1, or -2 score attached with a description on why they got the score. Each player would have their own page with a list of all ratings on it as well as the total accumulated score. Perhaps servers could blacklist players with extremely low scores? Perhaps certain individuals would be allowed to delete false reviews? Perhaps the score attached to a review had a lifetime, and expired after, say, 3-6 months? Or perhaps the score could be hidden, and shown only to the server the player is trying to connect to, that way players are not judged based on score, and biased admin decisions would be impossible.
This way, something is there to counter negative scores, and one person ruining a person's playtime for all servers would be much harder to accomplish.
This is just an idea, and perhaps with a little tweaking and brainstorming, this could turn into something that really works.
How about instead of that we leave moderation up to individual servers and not try to create wide scale moderation?
[QUOTE=FPtje;48611778]No matter what you do or how you implement it, there is always someone with the ability to add someone they hate. In your idea, gonzalog, you put mechanisms in place to prevent server owners from abusing it, but there are no mechanisms that prevent YOU from adding people manually in the database.
You would have access to the database, so you have a final say in who is on it and who isn't. You can remove a friend from a couple of servers' lists if you think it was unfair. You can also add someone you hate the same way, faking evidence.
It's down to your promise not to abuse your power as the developer as the addon. That's the core problem with every ban list addon I've seen so far. Your idea is really good in looking like it's well managed, but the power you would have yourself makes it not.[/QUOTE]
That's what i meant with i wouldn't be able to handle it, i know that i can disagree with people, that's why i would like to choose someone to have credentials on this, if you can't trust on me, well...Let's trust on someone else
[QUOTE=Exho;48620682]How about instead of that we leave moderation up to individual servers and not try to create wide scale moderation?[/QUOTE]
As we talked before (If you were following both threads correctly)
ALL server owners are free to choose what stuff use on their server, since nobody wants to play with minges/hackers/skids, and moderators won't be always online to moderate their server
[QUOTE=gonzalolog;48621372]ALL server owners are free to choose what stuff use on their server[/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean it's a not bad idea.
I can't see any scenario where this wouldn't leave complete power to a group.
[QUOTE=tyguy;48621680]I can't see any scenario where this wouldn't leave complete power to a group.[/QUOTE]
I just gave the solution on page 1. Nobody's looking at it.
[QUOTE=TeamEnternode;48620565]How about this?
Instead of a global ban list, we could instead have a reputation system where (registered/privileged/whatever) people could provide feedback on how the player interacts, attached to a +2, +1, +0, -1, or -2 score attached with a description on why they got the score. Each player would have their own page with a list of all ratings on it as well as the total accumulated score. Perhaps servers could blacklist players with extremely low scores? Perhaps certain individuals would be allowed to delete false reviews? Perhaps the score attached to a review had a lifetime, and expired after, say, 3-6 months? Or perhaps the score could be hidden, and shown only to the server the player is trying to connect to, that way players are not judged based on score, and biased admin decisions would be impossible.
This way, something is there to counter negative scores, and one person ruining a person's playtime for all servers would be much harder to accomplish.
This is just an idea, and perhaps with a little tweaking and brainstorming, this could turn into something that really works.[/QUOTE]
Terrible and easily abused. My friend Awcmon is banned from CSGO Lounge because his steamrep was shit because one day he decided to have fun and change his name to Valve GMBH. So now an arbitrary SteamRep rating is restricting his access to all sorts of Source related sites just because he changed his name to something that somebody thought was scamming.
man with hat and Exho,
Why do you think that a decentralized peer-to-peer, write-once blockchain-like ban-history with events signed with the host key of the server that did the banning is a bad idea?
Or do you disagree with the whole concept of a banlist? (Which is also clearly a valid point of view).
I disagree with the concept of a global banlist entirely. I've had experiences with MCBans in Minecraft and its led me to believe that global ban lists are an awful idea that are easily abused. I don't even play multiplayer Minecraft anymore because 3 year old bans can still get me banned from servers and refused from whitelists.
Leave moderation to the individual servers, please
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;48634115]man with hat and Exho,
Why do you think that a decentralized peer-to-peer, write-once blockchain-like ban-history with events signed with the host key of the server that did the banning is a bad idea?
Or do you disagree with the whole concept of a banlist? (Which is also clearly a valid point of view).[/QUOTE]
The whole concept is just bad. Doesn't matter how you iterate it, it will always be abusable. In your concept, if I was a server owner, I could lie about the reason for kicking/banning you and then other naive owners (yes, the same people who used HeX's dumb shit in the first place) would see that you spammed props, hacked the server, made everyone admin, and had child porn for a spray.
Then they'd ban you because you spammed props, hacked the server, made everyone admin, and had child porn for a spray. Except you didn't, they're just retarded.
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;48634115]man with hat and Exho,
Why do you think that a decentralized peer-to-peer, write-once blockchain-like ban-history with events signed with the host key of the server that did the banning is a bad idea?
Or do you disagree with the whole concept of a banlist? (Which is also clearly a valid point of view).[/QUOTE]
No encryption in the world can counter the fact that people lie and abuse their position. In bitcoins, the main example for blockchain mechanics, the human decision is how much money to spend on a certain thing. In peer to peer ban lists, the human decision is who gets denied the right to play on connected servers (that may or may not have your specific ban list turned on).
People lie. The idea that the system would be "self controlling" and that server owners wouldn't use "bad" banlists is naive at best. All the information about whether any ban is valid comes from the people who banned them. There's literally nothing else but their accusation and their "proof".
Never judge someone solely on evidence that is produced by the accuser. People lie, especially when they hate someone.
Even in the unlikely event that it's well designed, well maintained, and not abused, I feel like it would just end up being a waste of time and another source of drama.
[QUOTE=FPtje;48634292]No encryption in the world can counter the fact that people lie and abuse their position. In bitcoins, the main example for blockchain mechanics, the human decision is how much money to spend on a certain thing. In peer to peer ban lists, the human decision is who gets denied the right to play on connected servers (that may or may not have your specific ban list turned on).
People lie. The idea that the system would be "self controlling" and that server owners wouldn't use "bad" banlists is naive at best. All the information about whether any ban is valid comes from the people who banned them. There's literally nothing else but their accusation and their "proof".
Never judge someone solely on evidence that is produced by the accuser. People lie, especially when they hate someone.[/QUOTE]
I get what you're saying but the idea is not to have it as an auto-ban but rather a thing someone can look at for themselves once a player misbehaves - although I agree that it could end up being abused by someone just making that their "ban list".
Fair point.
I still don't think that Hex's script should be blocked directly from within DarkRP though, it's going to be a cat and mouse game. Surely an external ban-list would be the kind of thing that facepunch studios would disallow (maybe) - but it shouldn't be for other addon developers - otherwise everyone will start putting code in their own addons to block competing addons, etc.
Why not throw out the idea of using scores and instead have it opinion based?
Admins would have a list of players with their ratings alongside them (much like the ratings on Facepunch). As players go from server to server, players can give them ratings (e.g. hacker, prop killer, RDMer, funny, child, etc.).
This way admins can get a general idea for what that person is like and decide on what to do themselves.
[QUOTE=_RJ_;48635295]Why not throw out the idea of using scores and instead have it opinion based?
Admins would have a list of players with their ratings alongside them (much like the ratings on Facepunch). As players go from server to server, players can give them ratings (e.g. hacker, prop killer, RDMer, funny, child, etc.).
This way admins can get a general idea for what that person is like and decide on what to do themselves.[/QUOTE]
The following contains both pros and cons, so please don't take it as an argument / criticism, but rather as more fuel for the debate:
...
That's the same thing as what I was proposing - the general idea is that an admin, upon receiving a complaint (or positive feedback in your example) in-game about a player, would be able to fine-tune their decision-making about whether a player should be perma-banned by checking what [i]a range of other servers[/i] have decided to do with a given player over a certain period of time.
If the same player has been kicked for similar reasons from 5 different servers then it's not so likely that there's a huge conspiracy against that player - unless you believe the Big Server Men were behind it. (I love the irony that such an organization formed after the actual original theory, btw...)
The positives of this are that players would eventually disappear from the shared list (if the blockchain algorithm were set to truncate older entries) and they would have to have managed to get banned or kicked or negative ratings from several servers before the next admin decides whether they really are a troublemaker or not. It allows an admin or moderator on any given server using the data to judge the actions of the player "in light of past crimes" so as to decide whether they want them to continue playing there or not.
The end result is unfortuantely the same, though. Once someone gets a bit of a reputation on maybe 2 servers, the third is less likely to give them a chance and it will snowball.
If there is enough of a time-limit on the history of the players' reputation score (or kick/ban history) built into the p2p algorithm, players will not have a negative mark against their name forever, and in order to be considered bad on the list, they would have had to have been considered negatively by a range of servers.
Finally, it is sadly true however, that as with any other ban list, some servers will just decide "anyone who appears anywhere on this list is automatically banned".... But then I doubt any server that you would want to play on (one that's run by more mature individuals) would make that kind of a decision anyway.
Bans should be kept private to the servers/networks they originated on. This whole idea seems to stem from people being too lazy to administrate their own servers.
What about this system is going to prevent me from saying I'm 1000 servers and banning a certain person 1000 times in the database? What if, as a form of protest or malicious action, I registered thousands of random bans for thousands of random steamids?
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;48635672]The following contains both pros and cons, so please don't take it as an argument / criticism, but rather as more fuel for the debate:
...
That's the same thing as what I was proposing - the general idea is that an admin, upon receiving a complaint (or positive feedback in your example) in-game about a player, would be able to fine-tune their decision-making about whether a player should be perma-banned by checking what [i]a range of other servers[/i] have decided to do with a given player over a certain period of time.
If the same player has been kicked for similar reasons from 5 different servers then it's not so likely that there's a huge conspiracy against that player - unless you believe the Big Server Men were behind it. (I love the irony that such an organization formed after the actual original theory, btw...)
The positives of this are that players would eventually disappear from the shared list (if the blockchain algorithm were set to truncate older entries) and they would have to have managed to get banned or kicked or negative ratings from several servers before the next admin decides whether they really are a troublemaker or not. It allows an admin or moderator on any given server using the data to judge the actions of the player "in light of past crimes" so as to decide whether they want them to continue playing there or not.
The end result is unfortuantely the same, though. Once someone gets a bit of a reputation on maybe 2 servers, the third is less likely to give them a chance and it will snowball.
If there is enough of a time-limit on the history of the players' reputation score (or kick/ban history) built into the p2p algorithm, players will not have a negative mark against their name forever, and in order to be considered bad on the list, they would have had to have been considered negatively by a range of servers.
Finally, it is sadly true however, that as with any other ban list, some servers will just decide "anyone who appears anywhere on this list is automatically banned".... But then I doubt any server that you would want to play on (one that's run by more mature individuals) would make that kind of a decision anyway.[/QUOTE]
I don't quite like the idea of someone's ban/kick record being available to other server owners/admins as those are issued by people with the power to do so. I think a sort of rating/opinion system would be the best compromise if anything were to be made, anything else would be too much.
[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;48635672]
Finally, it is sadly true however, that as with any other ban list, some servers will just decide "anyone who appears anywhere on this list is automatically banned".... But then I doubt any server that you would want to play on (one that's run by more mature individuals) would make that kind of a decision anyway.[/QUOTE]
So we call it a ban list, but servers that actually use it as a ban list are ones you shouldn't want to play on?
[QUOTE=sasherz;48636254]What about this system is going to prevent me from saying I'm 1000 servers and banning a certain person 1000 times in the database? What if, as a form of protest or malicious action, I registered thousands of random bans for thousands of random steamids?[/QUOTE]
The fact that the data being entered onto the list would be signed cryptographically using the private key of the https certificate of the server on which the incident occurred. The client would be able to use the public key from the website to verify the signature of the data.
[QUOTE=FPtje;48637284]So we call it a ban list, but servers that actually use it as a ban list are ones you shouldn't want to play on?[/QUOTE]
Call it an incident log then.
I'm not arguing FOR having a ban list. I'm saying that for those of you that want one, it would need to be decentralized. That remove the power of the owner of the list to be the controller of it.
After that, I'm saying that server owners should remain responsible for deciding who to ban (which already happens). This "incident log" would give them better information to make [b]their decisions as to what to do with that player on their own server after an incident has occurred[/b] as well as see for sure which particular server was the one that issued the ban / kick / warn / reputation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
