--- "Brian A. Stumm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Valve may think a 1 week ban is the appropriate punishment. I may > think a > 1 month ban is a better punishment. Since I provide the server and > make no > money from it I should have a right to refuse service to anyone I > want, > including those detected cheating.
I dont see them stopping you from doing this. they just made it less easy to do than it was. > If valve is going to include > anticheat > technology in their software they should allow me, the server admin, > to > decide what to do with the information it obtains. Why? you made the choice to run secure. You can run HLG or CD if you want. no one is forcing you to run VAC. You know this, and I feel stupid telling you, because I know you know this. > A global ban > system for > cheaters is cool but also allow the server admin to do what they feel > is > the correct course of action as well... See my response above. > When Valve pays me to run a > server > they can tell me how to run it, until then I think its my choice on > who > may and may not play on my servers and for what reasons... See my response above again. Also, try thinking of it this way... considering the direction things are going in, maybe the fact that Valve doesn't charge to run a server (i.e., force each server instance to have a cd-key) is enough reason to let them do what they want with their software. Don't get me wrong, I want this functionality too. But you aren't looking at it from a logical perspective. Statements like "When Valve pays me to run a server they can tell me how to run it" are just silly. No one is telling you how to run your server. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
