Hi Sry did I get here too late.

Damn missed the sign that says READ THE DAMN THREAD IDIOT.

I had to read the whole damn thread and was just about to shout across the forum 'someone forgot to put up the sign'

And I hear...

HEY mate some bloke put a sign up here, IT says READ THE THREAD IDIOT.

Ah well at least we is all visiting the fridge.

That Scawen still does just tells me hes still thirsty.

I agree if the server community was together on this, the devs would have no need to act, but it would be nice to know, and they do, listen to the community and would act to revoke if the community asked for it.

It is only complicated to write in few words, as basically it means an automated collection system servers subscribe/agree to, and then an overview consideration of the collected shared data, to see if there are persistent offenders that need singling out and manually adding. Not all server admins need to be a part of the overview, thats all.

This ties in with the automated collection and ease of use point of view, as well as the reserved proceed with caution on global bans activation point of view.

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

Hi

Good to see the 'lets get it together' invite SamH.

Hopefully it will fruit.

If it boils down to identical ideals, but disimilar approaches, then maybe the collection part of the system can be run by the Clean Servers Club. A community of Server Admins who operate 'Clean Servers', meaning all bans and poor behaviour WILL be reported, it will also promote Clean Driving and insist on Clean Racing at all times and encourage newbies to both learn and skill themselves up. All bans being them one day, instant, or longer term considered-after-review-type bans, will be past onto the the next part of the system.

The banning implimentation can then be taken up by the Anti-Crash Association who will both review the shared banned lists and search out persistent offenders and deliberate wreckers, these will then be put forward to the developers for licence review under the licence contract we agreed when we paid for the S2.

This will give equal enforcement to the two similar but different wrecking that goes on, the newby over keen novice type or inconsiderate driver type wrecking, and also give solid community gathered weight against those deliberate persistent wreckers to encourage the developers to enforce server wide licence bans.

Only once licenses have been agreed to be enforable by the Devs, will they start to really do something positive for the dedicated 'Fordmans' in our community and make use of the defunct points system concept and work towards super-licenses.

IMHO

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