Sorry I totally mis-read that. I've been working too many hours this week 
With only more to come this weekend. Sorry :s
With only more to come this weekend. Sorry :stbh at this point I'm not sure what I should do. I don't want to duplicate effort, and CrazyICE is keen to get his system up and running. I don't think server admins are going to want to be running between a global ban list and their own bans file, which our system would be. I can see that getting pretty messy if the logic got confused.
I really don't know much about CrazyICE's solution yet. If it's better than ours, I'm happy to defer and join that one. I'm concerned at the idea of a committee of server admins determining ban durations on our servers. I'm principally concerned with developing a system to provide wrecker AWARENESS between servers rather than dictating/being dictated to, who should and who shouldn't be banned, and for how long.
Different servers have different definitions of what's acceptable and when that line is crossed, what the consequences are. The system would need to cater for those intricacies and be that granular. If that's what the system will do, I'd be interested in looking at it.
However, what I'm looking for isn't going to come down to a global bans file because one of those takes no consideration for individual servers and their perspectives on the matter of dealing with wreckers.
I really don't know much about CrazyICE's solution yet. If it's better than ours, I'm happy to defer and join that one. I'm concerned at the idea of a committee of server admins determining ban durations on our servers. I'm principally concerned with developing a system to provide wrecker AWARENESS between servers rather than dictating/being dictated to, who should and who shouldn't be banned, and for how long.
Different servers have different definitions of what's acceptable and when that line is crossed, what the consequences are. The system would need to cater for those intricacies and be that granular. If that's what the system will do, I'd be interested in looking at it.
However, what I'm looking for isn't going to come down to a global bans file because one of those takes no consideration for individual servers and their perspectives on the matter of dealing with wreckers.
(thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
I'm all for a flexible solution. And I don't know anything about how those ban-lists work, tbh. So I'm just thinking from a user's perspective and I could imagine that with the SamH-solution there would be a place where all participating servers were listed and maybe - to pick up Kev's idea - classified as to how strict the banning is.
An automated solution would definitely work, depending on what your definition of "work" is. I can't deny that I'm cautious because I can see so many variables in considering a ban that an automatic global ban makes me shrink away.
Even though wreckers are on the increase at the moment, I think it's unlikely to be a permanent trend. It's almost a fever pitch with the BMW arriving, and the physics changing so significantly for the better, there's a window of time where we were always going to be inundated by new licencees - some of them with absolutely no clue and no regard for driving responsibility or accountability. It'll happen again in the future, I'm quite sure, with the final release of S2 and later with the advent of the new S3 alpha, and so on.
With 400+ servers in the list, you'd think that wreckers would have a blast, but a lot of them are sitting empty (including ours at the moment, most of the time) and those servers aren't where the wreckers want to be. If you remove the empties there aren't many populated servers left. I don't think it would take much to drive the message home, if we pulled together as server admins and presented an effective, united front.
But at the same time, the LAST thing I want to do is risk banning (even for a day) an established and normally good driver, who's just having an off day.
When our servers DO get busy, I don't think the number of wrecker reports we receive is difficult to handle. It's really not much effort to download and review an MPR, and make a judgement call between our admins. We're not exactly inundated with reports, tbh.
The important thing is that when we DO receive a report, the action we take is likely to extend beyond just the Hard Disk in our server, and might just get a message firmly to where it needs to be, while ensuring that the MAJORITY of racers never even have to witness an individual wrecker who destroyed a race on another server, in a galaxy far away.
Even though wreckers are on the increase at the moment, I think it's unlikely to be a permanent trend. It's almost a fever pitch with the BMW arriving, and the physics changing so significantly for the better, there's a window of time where we were always going to be inundated by new licencees - some of them with absolutely no clue and no regard for driving responsibility or accountability. It'll happen again in the future, I'm quite sure, with the final release of S2 and later with the advent of the new S3 alpha, and so on.
With 400+ servers in the list, you'd think that wreckers would have a blast, but a lot of them are sitting empty (including ours at the moment, most of the time) and those servers aren't where the wreckers want to be. If you remove the empties there aren't many populated servers left. I don't think it would take much to drive the message home, if we pulled together as server admins and presented an effective, united front.
But at the same time, the LAST thing I want to do is risk banning (even for a day) an established and normally good driver, who's just having an off day.
When our servers DO get busy, I don't think the number of wrecker reports we receive is difficult to handle. It's really not much effort to download and review an MPR, and make a judgement call between our admins. We're not exactly inundated with reports, tbh.
The important thing is that when we DO receive a report, the action we take is likely to extend beyond just the Hard Disk in our server, and might just get a message firmly to where it needs to be, while ensuring that the MAJORITY of racers never even have to witness an individual wrecker who destroyed a race on another server, in a galaxy far away.
And this is and has always been the only workable solution.
I have been asked to vote on if this is a good thing or the possible death of LFS.
It certainly it is a shame that some feel it may have come to this, and maybe the LFS community as a whole feels things are not that bad - yet. But in a sense, the wider the community support for this initiative the better for LFS users as a whole.
I agree the banning system must be seen to be fair and allow genuine keen but idiot drivers some redemption, taken as a given and should really be a defence against those deliberate wrecking Emos who just enjoy the mayhem they cause until they are booted.
Of course the questions are on how to ensure this, and that driving issues do not spill into banning issues.
I do think this should take the form of server owner/admins grouping together to build a ban database and collectively decide how to tackle the situation and how they approach the developers for support.
SamH and others are obviously far more aware of the problem and the solution. Certainly an expansion of the collection of the data between server admins will help, and maybe that will proove to be enough to issue a Group ban rather than review of individually sent in replays. eg the persistent wreckers will show up very quickly by the regular occurance on the banned today shared listing. (or whatever is used or shared) after all it is the persistent wreckers we wish to eliminate, saviour from idiocy is another issue.
Within our community it is obvious the will is there for the community to look after the driving aspect of online behaviour, and maybe whatever this initiative system is called, it will police the communities general online behaviour.
We all, teams clubs and hosts, will need to watch progress carefully during the implementation, as those servers who are not party to the collective group wide ban will become known and singled out by the wreckers. On the bonus side as the ban is community wide smaller servers will not be individually targetted.
Once this does take hold, then the community has a strong voice to the developers to include the database management and ban implimentation into the server software, (even if that just becomes an INFO option symbol {VSQPR mp} in the multiplayer server-listing) therefore meaning all servers become eventually protected and the wreckers will become a thing of the past.
The alternative to this is of course fully private passworded servers, and that would be even more of a threat to LFS community.
Lets be open and welcoming and tolerant as a community and then beyond a firmly defined line, we share all the tools and data needed to ensure we stay that way.
IMHO
It certainly it is a shame that some feel it may have come to this, and maybe the LFS community as a whole feels things are not that bad - yet. But in a sense, the wider the community support for this initiative the better for LFS users as a whole.
I agree the banning system must be seen to be fair and allow genuine keen but idiot drivers some redemption, taken as a given and should really be a defence against those deliberate wrecking Emos who just enjoy the mayhem they cause until they are booted.
Of course the questions are on how to ensure this, and that driving issues do not spill into banning issues.
I do think this should take the form of server owner/admins grouping together to build a ban database and collectively decide how to tackle the situation and how they approach the developers for support.
SamH and others are obviously far more aware of the problem and the solution. Certainly an expansion of the collection of the data between server admins will help, and maybe that will proove to be enough to issue a Group ban rather than review of individually sent in replays. eg the persistent wreckers will show up very quickly by the regular occurance on the banned today shared listing. (or whatever is used or shared) after all it is the persistent wreckers we wish to eliminate, saviour from idiocy is another issue.
Within our community it is obvious the will is there for the community to look after the driving aspect of online behaviour, and maybe whatever this initiative system is called, it will police the communities general online behaviour.
We all, teams clubs and hosts, will need to watch progress carefully during the implementation, as those servers who are not party to the collective group wide ban will become known and singled out by the wreckers. On the bonus side as the ban is community wide smaller servers will not be individually targetted.
Once this does take hold, then the community has a strong voice to the developers to include the database management and ban implimentation into the server software, (even if that just becomes an INFO option symbol {VSQPR mp} in the multiplayer server-listing) therefore meaning all servers become eventually protected and the wreckers will become a thing of the past.
The alternative to this is of course fully private passworded servers, and that would be even more of a threat to LFS community.
Lets be open and welcoming and tolerant as a community and then beyond a firmly defined line, we share all the tools and data needed to ensure we stay that way.
IMHO
(thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
Just a thought.. Would there be some sort of appeals system? EG. Someone believes they are banned for the wrong reasons, would there be any way to appeal the ban?
How would that work?
Also. if this is a Ban file (like normal on every server), will it need to be updated each time a bad is added? Given out to server admins to upload to thier servers?
Or will something be automated, or am I getting completly the wrong end of the stick?
Cheers
How would that work?
Also. if this is a Ban file (like normal on every server), will it need to be updated each time a bad is added? Given out to server admins to upload to thier servers?
Or will something be automated, or am I getting completly the wrong end of the stick?
Cheers
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious here, but say your system really took off Sam and every admin from Brazil to Japan joined the Clean Racers Club, community awareness skyrockets and people from 50 different servers start reporting wreckers.Now all these reports would then have to be judged by each individual admin, in accordance with his own banning standards? Wouldn't that be too much work for most admins? (I'm just assuming I understand how your system is set up which I'm not totally sure I do).
So what you'd need is some sort of system that would allow an admin to make an informed decision about a supposed wrecker without actually having to watch the .mpr. In example, you could make some sort of 'wrecking severity scale' that allowed each admin that had seen the replay to give the supposed offender a score on that scale, and perhaps make a comment about the offender as well. In that way, admins pressed for time could peruse the offender list, and add the worst of them directly to his own ban list if he so desired, and in other cases review the comments for further reassurance that the ban would be warranted, or even watch the replay in cases where doubt still existed.
Well, just an idea..maybe I'm talking out of my arse here, but of nothing else I hope my probably ignorant display is amusing at least
So what you'd need is some sort of system that would allow an admin to make an informed decision about a supposed wrecker without actually having to watch the .mpr. In example, you could make some sort of 'wrecking severity scale' that allowed each admin that had seen the replay to give the supposed offender a score on that scale, and perhaps make a comment about the offender as well. In that way, admins pressed for time could peruse the offender list, and add the worst of them directly to his own ban list if he so desired, and in other cases review the comments for further reassurance that the ban would be warranted, or even watch the replay in cases where doubt still existed.
Well, just an idea..maybe I'm talking out of my arse here, but of nothing else I hope my probably ignorant display is amusing at least
Ugh this is starting to sound like someone's full time job =P 
Sounds like a good idea, I like it =)
(Yes I am good at useless posts
)
Sounds like a good idea, I like it =)
(Yes I am good at useless posts
) (thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
I actually made a 'system' this morning, a very simple web interface to add a ban for x amount of time together with a small reason and an mpr. The list of bans gets downloaded every so often and bans are added thru insim, /ban <username> <time>. On every request for the list, expired bans get deleted.
The web interface currently lives at http://lur.h1x.com/lfsmbl/.
Problems include the obvious "who can add a ban", and the fact that my insim daemon this runs on is still unreleased and undocumented.
The web interface currently lives at http://lur.h1x.com/lfsmbl/.
Problems include the obvious "who can add a ban", and the fact that my insim daemon this runs on is still unreleased and undocumented.
That's a given, I'd say. Although I have to admit that the one time someone requested an unban (with a lengthy explanation of how some relative had used his S2 licence while he wasn't looking, during a birthday party at his house), life ban reduced to 2 months, and was back and wrecking at the VERY next opportunity.
CrazyICE's idea, I think (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) is to automatically add bans to a server's banlist, based on a multi-server, committee-review-driven global banlist that is generated either on demand, or during a periodic WGET/chronjob, automatically installed on a team's server and instantly functional on update.
My idea is a little different, although I recognise the convenience that CrazyICE's solution affords, I'm just tending to err on the side of caution (perhaps overly), for fear of good people getting bad deals.
I think a combination of the convenience of CrazyICE's solution and the cautious approach my solution presses can be found. I think, perhaps, for convenience a one-click ban.
To try and communicate a very basic long-term solution, which I think mixes both mine and CrazyICE's combined might look like, I put together a quick mockup of a report detail page: http://www.ukct.net/wreckmockup.asp
Obviously it's pure theory, and I haven't spoken yet with CrazyICE on collaborating. Let's see what the future holds
(Less wreckers, I reckon!)I think the ideas being proposed by both SamH and Crazyice, are more in line with a community based shared ban file. SamH has a system already and Crazyice wishes it to be globally shared and hopefully has some form of automation envisaged.
Naturally this will not be shared on a ban by ban basis, but one based on time. Even if it is automated collect data, the ban file still needs to be downloaded and inserted into the server. Automated update checking prior to server activation or scheduled maintenance would be perfect, but something maybe only achieved with developers help in server/license software.
This means there will be a natural filter from the rash or instant type single day bans, say for instance the server admin was interupted repeatedly during a race brief and the driver had to be banned to prevent him re-disrupting. The single day ban will most likely never actually get onto another server prior to boot up anyway. These types of bans can still remain the sole discretion of the individual server admins.
The Community of the Clean Servers Club, would issue guidelines on ban types how and for what to impliment them, one would expect anyway.
Also the ban by review of the MPR will remain the sole discretion of the individual server admins too. It will only need to be the banned user name that is shared, and then only those who have warranted a longer term ban become a part of the shared ban list file. Users who repeated appear on the shared ban file, will soon become known, these can then be targetted on the CSC servers and by the developers licence admin as persistent wreckers. If longer term bans do not prevent repeated offences then the license can be revoked.
The need therefore for extra burden of work for the admins is no more than they do themselves already, any appeals they wish to impliment, will also lift a group wide ban, but at least the info and user names will have been highlighted, and the user brought to the communities attention.
The full server community support is needed for this to be a success and therefore making things easier or at least no harder for server admins is a must.
IMHO
Naturally this will not be shared on a ban by ban basis, but one based on time. Even if it is automated collect data, the ban file still needs to be downloaded and inserted into the server. Automated update checking prior to server activation or scheduled maintenance would be perfect, but something maybe only achieved with developers help in server/license software.
This means there will be a natural filter from the rash or instant type single day bans, say for instance the server admin was interupted repeatedly during a race brief and the driver had to be banned to prevent him re-disrupting. The single day ban will most likely never actually get onto another server prior to boot up anyway. These types of bans can still remain the sole discretion of the individual server admins.
The Community of the Clean Servers Club, would issue guidelines on ban types how and for what to impliment them, one would expect anyway.
Also the ban by review of the MPR will remain the sole discretion of the individual server admins too. It will only need to be the banned user name that is shared, and then only those who have warranted a longer term ban become a part of the shared ban list file. Users who repeated appear on the shared ban file, will soon become known, these can then be targetted on the CSC servers and by the developers licence admin as persistent wreckers. If longer term bans do not prevent repeated offences then the license can be revoked.
The need therefore for extra burden of work for the admins is no more than they do themselves already, any appeals they wish to impliment, will also lift a group wide ban, but at least the info and user names will have been highlighted, and the user brought to the communities attention.
The full server community support is needed for this to be a success and therefore making things easier or at least no harder for server admins is a must.
IMHO
macaw, that's very well reasoned and extremely sensible, IMO.
I think a multi-level variation, a combination of CrazyICE's system and my system, to meet the needs of any and all server admins is achievable. If we combine the two concepts, we can make it very much easier for a server admin to use the system.
I think a multi-level variation, a combination of CrazyICE's system and my system, to meet the needs of any and all server admins is achievable. If we combine the two concepts, we can make it very much easier for a server admin to use the system.
my main idea was to create a big global BAN file, which can be downloaded
by any server admin!
and the next step might be to implement this ban file automatically
into server which are running my provider software for dedi servers
(http://lfsdedi.crazyice.net). So serveradmins can choose if the update
should be done automatically or not!
if i'm honest, i don't really know what SamH's idea is all about! but i'm going
to read through all those threads or get in contact with him (ICQ, MSN...).
but i think also, creating 2 different things (or more) is just a wast of time and
knowledge....
so merging all the ideas and creating a big project which consists of all
our ideas would be much better...
so i hope we can find togheter and start one of the first very big projects
of LFS where different developer come togheter ....
so first of all, i stop developing my site http://aca.crazyice.net
i think we should sit togheter and discuss all our ideas...
the we should start with the big project!
i think wi'll get it....
I'm sure...
by any server admin!
and the next step might be to implement this ban file automatically
into server which are running my provider software for dedi servers
(http://lfsdedi.crazyice.net). So serveradmins can choose if the update
should be done automatically or not!
if i'm honest, i don't really know what SamH's idea is all about! but i'm going
to read through all those threads or get in contact with him (ICQ, MSN...).
but i think also, creating 2 different things (or more) is just a wast of time and
knowledge....
so merging all the ideas and creating a big project which consists of all
our ideas would be much better...
so i hope we can find togheter and start one of the first very big projects
of LFS where different developer come togheter ....
so first of all, i stop developing my site http://aca.crazyice.net
i think we should sit togheter and discuss all our ideas...
the we should start with the big project!
i think wi'll get it....
I'm sure...
1
2
[Idea]: Global BAN file
(39 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG