Absolutely right, I didn't realise Sourcebans also allowed local-only bans. I was under the impression it was purely a community-driven system with no actual control over local bans.
On 10/12/2009 6:25 AM, msleeper wrote: > You have to think of it this way: there are at any given point in time > about 3,000 TF2 servers online and usually around 10-15k players playing > the game. A player being banned from your 2 or 3 or however many servers > is literally a drop in the massive bucket of potential places to play. I > think that the -minority- of servers/server ops/communities share > banlists and ban people wholesale based on steam group and friend lists. > > In my experience, most of the people negatively affected by a wholesale > banning - IE a player who was in some group "on accident" or whatever - > will either flat out not care and find another server, or come to your > site asking WTF and to be unbanned. And this latter group is far smaller > since there is such an abundance of servers for people to play on. > Umbrella banning people based on conduct or steam group membership isn't > the best solution, but when a large amount of players seem to be > assholes it's easier to just block possible trouble makers than wait for > them to come find you. And again, they're only an unban request away > from playing on the server. > > Also FYI, what you were talking about sounds a lot like SteamBans so you > might want to look into that. Unfortunately SteamBans doesn't consider > things like "being the owner of a myg0t steam group" or "calling server > admins names" a bannable offense, but that is were community based > bannings are great. > > > On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 06:09 +0800, Shane Arnold wrote: > >> I have a problem with community-created banlists, and their adoption by >> server owners (i.e Sourcebans). For example, for my short duration on >> these lists I have seen entire groups, associated groups and their >> members banned due to the wrong-doings of one person. Not only this, but >> some of those bans have been on the basis of misconduct, not neccesarily >> cheating or hacking. But again that goes back to my point of server >> owners being allowed to do their own thing. >> >> Of course if this method of blanket-banning becomes popular, then that >> will mean there is a possibility that those who have been banned >> incorrectly (for just "being" in a targeted group, associated with, or >> have had their account stolent, e.t.c) would find less and less servers >> that they can play on. It's not a great idea. >> >> I believe a better system is a readily-accessibly, ingame (or website >> based for gaming communities) user-content driven ban system, such as a >> method to integrate an ingame chat trigger that could send a Steam chat >> request to a specified SteamID or ChatID (which is provided for in the >> Steam SDK and it's steam:// protocol), or a simple webform that players >> can use via the Steam WEB window, or add a review request to a queue or >> something similar for review. That way, when cheating/misconduct is >> experienced on a particular server, the administrator could then add the >> relevant details to a banlist, which would apply to their own servers, >> instead of unneccesarily blanket-banning. >> >> I believe admins should be more responsible for their own servers, >> instead of relying on a community-driven system that can be abused. >> >> On 10/12/2009 5:47 AM, Phillip Vector wrote: >> >>> Oh.. I agree fully. If someone decided to implement a swear ban >>> plug-in, I would be all for it for the server owners who wanted it. >>> >>> The only issue I would have is if the maker of said plug-in said that >>> swearing is cheating and everyone should ban these people. Then >>> provide the server owners with a list of people who cursed calling >>> them cheaters. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Shane Arnold<clontar...@iinet.net.au> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Haha, oh ouch. >>>> >>>> Anyway, as msleeper said, server owners can do what they like with their >>>> servers. >>>> >>>> On 10/12/2009 5:31 AM, Phillip Vector wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Yeah. it's not like he's running some kind of list of people he feels >>>>> are cheaters and making it seem they deserve to be banned from all the >>>>> servers for something like idling.. I also bet he isn't setting up a >>>>> server just to catch said idlers either. :) >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:15 PM, msleeper<mslee...@ismsleeperwrong.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> But as I said, your rules are your rules and that is A-Okay with me. I >>>>>> don't care what other people do on their own servers, and since I don't >>>>>> play there it doesn't matter if I understand why you want to control >>>>>> peoples' language in an M rated game. It's your server, more power to >>>>>> you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>>> please visit: >>>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>> please visit: >>>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
