Community Ban List

ma$$a$$ter

<div class="IPBDescription">Server Operators working together</div><a href="http://es-gamers.com/ns2combanlist/" target="_blank">http://es-gamers.com/ns2combanlist/</a>

I have put together a VERY basic layout for server operators to start working together on bans..

<b>Idea: </b>
Take bans from across all servers and allow server operators to apply the bans to their own servers
(options: allowing server operators to see how many times a ID has been reported banned, Allow server operators to see who has report the ID banned and why, Allow operators to add a comment as to why the ID was banned)

The layout is clunky at best, It is VERY MUCH A WORK IN PROGRESS - its functional at the moment
(that is a hint for any PHP guys, your welcome to help out :*)

If this Idea takes off and it becomes something useful, I will give the site its own domain and continue to improve upon it.

At the current moment, Server operators are allowed to approve applications for users to report bans, eventually I would rather have a couple of admins of this process, but as it stands, its the best way to get the ball rolling.


If you find this idea useful, please pass the word around to other server ops.

ma$$a$$ter

I've already had some questions, so a quick clarification

It is not an auto-subscribe list, so no power is taken away from the server operator as far as bans, your server isn't forced to apply a list of banned ID's. The ID's are displayed and how many times they are reported is displayed, so if you so choose, you can hand pick the ones above 7 reports.. or 5 reports.. whatever.

I will be working on a button to export them to txt so they are easier to import into your banned file.

ZEROibis

I hope for first person spec and demo recording that is better before this. Currently for CS:S our community has a system of admins that review all perma bans along with an appeals process to ensure that actual hackers are banned and there is no funny business with who is being banned. This also allows for other communities to see our demos the reasoning and expiation for every ban and unban as they are also publicly listed on sourcebans and cross linked with the forums. Unfortunately, I do not see as of now how any band on anyone can be trusted without first person spec (other than ones that do not involve hacks) and a better demo recording system (needs to have server side recording and demos that always work).

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2044585:date=Dec 12 2012, 02:56 PM:name=ZEROibis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZEROibis @ Dec 12 2012, 02:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope for first person spec and demo recording that is better before this. Currently for CS:S our community has a system of admins that review all perma bans along with an appeals process to ensure that actual hackers are banned and there is no funny business with who is being banned. This also allows for other communities to see our demos the reasoning and expiation for every ban and unban as they are also publicly listed on sourcebans and cross linked with the forums. Unfortunately, I do not see as of now how any band on anyone can be trusted without first person spec (other than ones that do not involve hacks) and a better demo recording system (needs to have server side recording and demos that always work).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


The current theory and reasoning behind this type of list is as follows:

Player gets banned from my server - that is marked on the list when I enter his info, but only marked as a single report. You may be suspect of that ban, call it a fluke, a rage ban, whatever..

two days later, you notice player is now reported banned from 4 other servers.. I believe the FBI refers to that as "a clue". At this point, the players ID has been reported 5 times, each server op reporting he is a "cheater" or "troll" or whatever, you may consider adding this ID to your banned list, or you may hold out till more reported bans take place. It's up to you what you do with the list, but at least we have some communication as to who is being banned, and on how many servers.

Rothgar

The better option IMO would be to find out why UWE is not using the STEAM ID's in the standard format of STEAM_X:X

If it was you could look to integrate via plugin or otherwise with services such as SteamBans.com which has a massive database of known problematic players.

In addition to this it would be interesting to have a "community" ban list as stated above and your tracking of how many times a player has been banned is good but could be potentially exploited if someone starts servers on various IP's and reports etc, but IMO it really needs to have some clear rules, such as requirements for: proper demo recordings, screenshots etc clearly showing the person causing issues, their associated steam ID (again clearly identifying it's the same person) etc otherwise it will probably get ugly real fast.

Just my 2 cents.

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2044602:date=Dec 12 2012, 03:25 PM:name=Rothgar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rothgar @ Dec 12 2012, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The better option IMO would be to find out why UWE is not using the STEAM ID's in the standard format of STEAM_X:X

If it was you could look to integrate via plugin or otherwise with services such as SteamBans.com which has a massive database of known problematic players.

In addition to this it would be interesting to have a "community" ban list as stated above and your tracking of how many times a player has been banned is good but could be potentially exploited if someone starts servers on various IP's and reports etc, but IMO it really needs to have some clear rules, such as requirements for: proper demo recordings, screenshots etc clearly showing the person causing issues, their associated steam ID (again clearly identifying it's the same person) etc otherwise it will probably get ugly real fast.

Just my 2 cents.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Agreed - Server op requests for the community ban list need to be screened. As it stands right now, I am screening the requests (pending any) and attempting to verify the applicant is whom they say they are. You cannot, as a "standard user" just jump in and start reporting Steam Ids, this would indeed be bad. Under the "reason" section of the submission form for the Steam ID, you can put anything you like (IE a link to a photo, a video or simple text to explain why). This will help server operators pick and choose the ID's they wish to add to their own banned list.

I would agree on the plugins for this, but they give you little control, and as you stated Ns2 does not use the standard formatting.

Vitdom

Unless such a commercial distributed/joint banlist collaboration service utilizes a well designed Web of Trust submitter&submittee-trustscore listing together with means of high security asymmetric key signing & publishing, I look down upon all attempts to ban through, support or use such a system.

Distributively banning people from access to whatever, e.g. game servers is serious stuff. Unless the proper amount of verification work is executed the purpose of the service itself is defeated, i.e. to sort out the "malicious players" from the good players. E.g. SteamBans say they do a lot of verification work to make sure that the service keeps it's high quality database. But they're still open to improperly verified entries, submitted by e.g. malicious hackers, abuse of those with the privileges, simple mistakes, insecure opinions and even cases that are dynamically perceived differently over time.

A good Web of Trust implementation would allow everyone to publish bans, but each and every submitter would be a simple node with a unique and non-spoofable ID. Each submitter can then assign others a trust score, which is based on two things. 1. This trustee only submits accurate bans. 2. This trustee only trust non-malicious and by-own-experience submitters. The result is a nice web of trustscores, a web of genuine server administrators/dedicated submitters, and only the proper bans are highlighted. In the simple event that a ban/several bans would show to be inaccurate, and no evidence can be provided by the submitter, the trust for the submitter would be decreased, thus ruling him/her out of the trusted part of the web, and nothing else needs to be done.

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2044655:date=Dec 12 2012, 05:40 PM:name=Vitdom)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vitdom @ Dec 12 2012, 05:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044655"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A good Web of Trust implementation would allow everyone to publish bans, but each and every submitter would be a simple node with a unique and non-spoofable ID. Each submitter can then assign others a trust score, which is based on two things. 1. This trustee only submits accurate bans. 2. This trustee only trust non-malicious and by-own-experience submitters. The result is a nice web of trustscores, a web of genuine server administrators/dedicated submitters, and only the proper bans are highlighted. In the simple event that a ban/several bans would show to be inaccurate, and no evidence can be provided by the submitter, the trust for the submitter would be decreased, thus ruling him/her out of the trusted part of the web, and nothing else needs to be done.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


This is do-able, and with server admins backing my efforts - very achievable


as it stands now - you can click on a submitted ID to see who, and why they were added. IF you don't like the reason, or the person (or persons) submitting the ID, you don't have to do anything further with the ID.

fiveseven

I agree with vitdom.

The mistakes of such a system are a greater injustice than disruptive behavior - let the community suffer a burden rather than shifting it to a minority of false positives. A lot of admins are mature, reasonable people, and a lot aren't.

Also, how can this possibly work until there is a demo recording facility available to submit evidence of why someone was banned?

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2044696:date=Dec 12 2012, 06:41 PM:name=fiveseven)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fiveseven @ Dec 12 2012, 06:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044696"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree with vitdom.

The mistakes of such a system are a greater injustice than disruptive behavior - let the community suffer a burden rather than shifting it to a minority of false positives. A lot of admins are mature, reasonable people, and a lot aren't.

Also, how can this possibly work until there is a demo recording facility available to submit evidence of why someone was banned?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Fraps? Screen shots? Ect..

Also the current system is based on the preponderance of evidence rather then a single submission. Basing the community ban list on totality rather then singularity seems like a safer bet.

Lets face it, if a player is banned from 15 out of 30 enrolled (and trusted) servers, this is generally a safe bet you don't want this player on your server.

Mister Black

In any case, don't let Voogru submit their banned players w/o demos or whatever. They'll permaban people for holding down their voice key one second too long.

ZEROibis

<!--quoteo(post=2044602:date=Dec 12 2012, 03:25 PM:name=Rothgar)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rothgar @ Dec 12 2012, 03:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044602"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The better option IMO would be to find out why UWE is not using the STEAM ID's in the standard format of STEAM_X:X

If it was you could look to integrate via plugin or otherwise with services such as SteamBans.com which has a massive database of known problematic players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The steam ids they do use in game are the same except they are served as an integer instead of a string. The "NS2 ID" converts into a "STEAM ID" and vise versa. For example our community was CS:S before launching a server for NS2 and thus we used source bans for our admin system. As all the admins and reserved slot users were using the normal STEAM ID I made it so said steam ids were converted to NS2 IDs when sent to DAK. In addition I changed my forums so you can enter a NS2 ID and OR a STEAM ID. Only the STEAM ID value is stored in the sourcebans database but if no STEAM ID is entered it will convert a users NS2 ID into a steam id to store it. If both is found the value for STEAM ID is used.

sleeping

<!--quoteo(post=2044585:date=Dec 12 2012, 01:56 PM:name=ZEROibis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZEROibis @ Dec 12 2012, 01:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2044585"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I hope for first person spec and demo recording that is better before this.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I completely agree, aimbotting is out there, but its very difficult to tell currently. Only hacks that I can semi-accurately detect right now in 3rd person view is wall hacks. And even then I have to wait for 3-4 things to make sure the person is not just getting "lucky".

runner

Bad idea. When you get bad admins that ban people for trivial or dumb things, it's dumb to find someone can't play on a ton of other servers through nothing they've done.

TSADrone

Can't wait to end up on some janky ass banlist for being good.

Dwavenhobble

I support this idea.

1) it will shut down organised groups quickly
2) Peer reviewing of reports helps prevent abuse / crybabay admin abuse so if you get banned for a silly reason then it will be obvious.
3) Its optional for server admin so you can for example come here and explain yourself / appeal.

MGS-3

:) nice idea, i request operator ;)

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2047676:date=Dec 18 2012, 01:37 PM:name=MGS-3)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MGS-3 @ Dec 18 2012, 01:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2047676"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->:) nice idea, i request operator ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
added - thank you

MGS-3

thanks :D

CoTTon

It sounds like a good idea - This will work if all admins put "DETAILED" reasons as to why we should put that person on the community ban list and by providing the section of the server logs for the ban in question.

Would also like Operator status.

Thanks

Edit: instead of PHP i might be able to make a nice looking GUI database for you etc - but it will depend on my work sched etc- I will get back to you.

TechnIckS

Operator status here as well please.

Also, I know a ton of php/mysql. We should really get this going.
I can also host the mysql database if needed. At National Gaming we own all our server hardware.

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2048106:date=Dec 19 2012, 12:10 PM:name=wireaudio)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wireaudio @ Dec 19 2012, 12:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2048106"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Operator status here as well please.

Also, I know a ton of php/mysql. We should really get this going.
I can also host the mysql database if needed. At National Gaming we own all our server hardware.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


If your requesting operator status please attempt to use the "add steam ID" to the server operator list side, the APPLY for server op status link is inside -


Also - yes, could REALLY use some PHP assistance - spent the better part of my day trying to clean up the code today - its still an ugly front end - but its working to do its job.

ma$$a$$ter

disregard

woody

Please fix your registration issue as I would like to join this

Rothgar

<!--quoteo(post=2045103:date=Dec 14 2012, 07:31 AM:name=ZEROibis)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZEROibis @ Dec 14 2012, 07:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2045103"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The steam ids they do use in game are the same except they are served as an integer instead of a string. The "NS2 ID" converts into a "STEAM ID" and vise versa. For example our community was CS:S before launching a server for NS2 and thus we used source bans for our admin system. As all the admins and reserved slot users were using the normal STEAM ID I made it so said steam ids were converted to NS2 IDs when sent to DAK. In addition I changed my forums so you can enter a NS2 ID and OR a STEAM ID. Only the STEAM ID value is stored in the sourcebans database but if no STEAM ID is entered it will convert a users NS2 ID into a steam id to store it. If both is found the value for STEAM ID is used.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yeah, but when it's easy for them to just make it use the same format as the current standard and therefore make it a lot more compatible with existing systems, I don't see any benefits in them making it in an integer format?

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2049615:date=Dec 21 2012, 09:06 PM:name=woody)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (woody @ Dec 21 2012, 09:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2049615"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Please fix your registration issue as I would like to join this<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

wasn't aware of one - i will check on it

*edit - did check over the registration and did not find one - PM me if your still having issues.

Swiftspear

This is an incredibly terrible idea. In my opinion you shouldn't be within 50 feet of authority over banning on any server Mass based on your past statements. And this implementation is extremely prone to problems.

ma$$a$$ter

<!--quoteo(post=2050960:date=Dec 25 2012, 03:57 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Dec 25 2012, 03:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2050960"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is an incredibly terrible idea. In my opinion you shouldn't be within 50 feet of authority over banning on any server Mass based on your past statements. And this implementation is extremely prone to problems.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Thanks for your opinion

Omar - The Wire

Rather than restart the arguments here, I'll simply link.

<!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>If you are considering this, as a server administrator, you should read the thread below</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

What you do with your perspective on the debate is your right. Just feel you should read the arguments both for and against this.

<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=126317" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=126317</a>

Edit: Should be noted, it's not just master and I arguing, there is plenty of input for both sides in the thread after Page 1 / 2.

SquishpokePOOPFACE

If server admins want to share their ban list, they are free to. But they shouldn't expect anyone else to adopt their banlist without video proof + steam id through console for each entry.

ScardyBob

Is this still being used? If so, I'd suggest taking some pointers from SteamBans.