IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Yes i am involved in this, yes I am a starting admin /judge.
Hope many more apply and volunteer their involvement. The more the better for a project like this.
I have admined for many many years already with servers in quake, cs, q3, bf.
I currently assist admin of 156 servers and official UWE servers. I don't even mind telling you which way i vote. I believe in feedback, transparency, and flexibility.
Regarding an appeal process. I agree that something like this would definitely be necessary, no one's perfect and stuff does happen. I think though that counter-evidence is the best way for an appeal to work. Somehow show that you weren't hacking/trolling. Then the admins have to re-evaluate with the new evidence and come up with the decision. No more than two appeals (not the same thing twice, gotta find more evidence if your first one fails).
invTempestJoin Date: 2003-03-02Member: 14223Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
I am also involved with this project as an admin / designer. My background consists of many years of admining / server op and competitive experience in TFC, CS, TF2, and NS/NS2.
My whole goal in this project is to help steer it in a direction that it is as least controversial as possible while retaining some level of anonymity and am happy with the progress we have made so far (This community is very very helpful). Like ma$$a$$ter mentioned, we are open to hear your ideas on how to make this better and we agree that transparency is good (for the most part), hence why I am making this post. This doesn't mean that the other admins should feel obligated to make a post if they don't want to - I just don't want to risk losing community confidence in this project if no one comes forward.
needs criteria of some kind, at least for trolling, like how big of a troll? I sometimes get in the mood to mess with my team, like I remembera while back, around last cc I chain vortices the chain for like 3 minutes straight, and I've been in some games where the commander beaconed us all back to base a couple of times to delay the endof the game. would these be bannable offenses? how about hopping into and out of the chair repeatedly before the match started, saw that last night. also how about trash talking? I think trolling should take more than one peace of evidence, depending on how bad the trolling is.
needs criteria of some kind, at least for trolling, like how big of a troll? I sometimes get in the mood to mess with my team, like I remembera while back, around last cc I chain vortices the chain for like 3 minutes straight, and I've been in some games where the commander beaconed us all back to base a couple of times to delay the endof the game. would these be bannable offenses? how about hopping into and out of the chair repeatedly before the match started, saw that last night. also how about trash talking? I think trolling should take more than one peace of evidence, depending on how bad the trolling is.
I agree. It's difficult to say what trolling is considering how often it's used incorrectly. Oh, did somebody make a judgement call in game and happened to turn out wrong? People call troll. It's difficult to say what is trolling and what isn't (obviously barring shit like unwarranted full recycle + scan spam)
invTempestJoin Date: 2003-03-02Member: 14223Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
The current project is focusing on mega trolls and aimbotters at the current time. Lesser trolls can still be reported but without multiple reports there would be no action taken. These people are better off handled on an individual server basis rather than a community driven ban list but this doesn't mean that you shouldn't report someone if you think they are trolling as each and every report on an NS2ID is added up and multiple positive trolling reports would probably lead to minor action taken.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
I'm also an admin on this project and, while no such project is perfect, its sorely needed in NS2.
As for the format, I think something like the U.S. jury system would work well. You know who are the jurors, but you don't know how they voted. Its a good balance between accountability and protection.
I like the idea of push and pull system and sound great all. That being said there always up and downs to the system, right down it being such a small user base bans can go quickly but also means things can go wrong much faster. Right now 3 push sounds good depending on the current number of voters but should be change when the pool gets larger.
Something needs to be done, Its not a bad idea just a little tuning down the fine details
i remember in the dark days of dota in wc3 you would run a banlist program that would allow you to build your own banlist, share it with others and subscribe to other banlists. Some banlist had a lot of credibility while other didnt and the one who built good credibility usually ahd the most subscribers.
Coding work behind the scenes continues on- slow and sluggish as it is only me and one other guy at the moment working on PHP behind the scenes -talks with a LUA coder to create a mod to insert the bans directly into the server upon map change are still on-going.
I've bumped the required vote count to "5" (still using the push and pull system) and am currently working on a display of votes on the main banned list view for the public. This will not show who voted what way, but rather just a number of in favor and not in favor votes.
totally agree with this, only if when I join a server with this mod, show a list of things that get me banned
and maybe there is a "level" of ban, like 1 for trolling, 9 for cheating. So admins can configure from what level the server will consider the ban list
totally agree with this, only if when I join a server with this mod, show a list of things that get me banned
and maybe there is a "level" of ban, like 1 for trolling, 9 for cheating. So admins can configure from what level the server will consider the ban list
I think tagging each ban with each reason for the ban (e.g. troll, cheat, hack, grief, racism, etc) would be helpful. It will allow server operators to selectively choose which bans they want to download/install on their server (maybe you want all the hacker bans, but don't care about the troll bans). We'd need specific definitions of what is and isn't included in each ban label.
At the moment It is designed to deal with the really egregious trolls and cheaters, anything else is really left up to the server admins. This is in no way designed to replace or substitute the presence of server admins, it's simply a tool among the already in place tools to assist the server operators by delivering a centralized list of problem players.
totally agree with this, only if when I join a server with this mod, show a list of things that get me banned
and maybe there is a "level" of ban, like 1 for trolling, 9 for cheating. So admins can configure from what level the server will consider the ban list
I think tagging each ban with each reason for the ban (e.g. troll, cheat, hack, grief, racism, etc) would be helpful. It will allow server operators to selectively choose which bans they want to download/install on their server (maybe you want all the hacker bans, but don't care about the troll bans). We'd need specific definitions of what is and isn't included in each ban label.
I'm sure we can separate the list out, shouldn't be too hard - I will work on including a drop down in the submission form to categorize each submission - that way it's not has hard to sort out later if this is do-able. Great Idea!
Trolling - Intentionally disrupting the normal flow of a game. This is primarily possible with the position of Commander. The most common method of trolling is to seize command of the chair and recycle necessary structures mid-game. Another method is in wasting resources on an excessive number of unnecessary buildings or actions (e.g. Repeatedly distress beaconing and scanning home base, spending all team resources on whips as soon as the match starts, etc.).
Hacking - I haven't the foggiest what people mean. I was under the impression that hacking in a game was somehow employing a program that intercepted your signals to the server and replacing them with more desirable ones. Are aimbots hacking? Or is there another more accurate label for them?
Vulgarity - Repeatedly verbally assaulting other players on the server in a hostile manner. Continuing to do so after being warned and asked to stop. This includes gender and racial slurs as well as general profanity in both text and voice communication.
I think that's really all that needs to get its own category. Unless there's some people out there that join servers just to take up space and deserve to be banned, I can't think of anything else.
yeah, the term hacking has been dubbed down to mean the employment of 3rd party tools designed to give the player an edge they otherwise would not have without it's use. Be it auto aim, ESP etc...
As far as the vulgarity , I really had not pictured the project being the police of the server, but rather the add on tool for removing agreed upon problem players. I personally would rather see server admins deal with things of this nature than this project take on that role.
Ultimately this project is going to address and encompass the demands of the community, so if the majority of the players would like to see something like this in the future added, than that's the road it will take regardless.
yeah, the term hacking has been dubbed down to mean the employment of 3rd party tools designed to give the player an edge they otherwise would not have without it's use. Be it auto aim, ESP etc...
As far as the vulgarity , I really had not pictured the project being the police of the server, but rather the add on tool for removing agreed upon problem players. I personally would rather see server admins deal with things of this nature than this project take on that role.
Ultimately this project is going to address and encompass the demands of the community, so if the majority of the players would like to see something like this in the future added, than that's the road it will take regardless.
I think I agree that at least for now, stick to hackers and maybe trolls.
Different servers have different age group targets (OldFarts say they're "mature" for example) and so they all have different requirements for the whole language thing. I only tossed something out there because Scardybob had Racism in his list.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Personally, I do not condone censorship.
So those who are repeatedly verbally assaulting others would still fall into the troll category for me.
There's a fine line between saying a word, and directing it towards an individual, and i don't think this system should attempt to walk that line. It would quickly lose it's credibility if someone felt they were banned for harsh language.
If they're intentionally disrupting another's experience in a harassing format they're a troll. If they use harsh language not directed at anyone, that's up to that server's policy.
Tldr: i don't think anything other than egregious trolls and hackers should be voted on as massasster said. Its a slippery slope to censorship.
Just reported a wallhacker and aimbotter, submitted video from my stream http://carefoot.tv
its the first video in my most recent.
I am having a hard time believing people are already hacking this game but the less the merrier.
Just use NS2Bans for hackers please if you pollute the list with 'bad manners' and such then they can receive local mutes or be voted out of command.
If you can't recycle all my buildings, scream at me or hack then that is enough.
People are scum on the internet for sure. But as a comedian who deals with hecklers in clubs once you expose them they shut up unless they are serious sociopaths, psychopaths or just have turrets syndrome. In which case it would be a case by case basis. I tell people to kill themselves in game, doesn't just say it for no reason usually if someone is screaming and is about to get a mute from me.
Overall I think just ban the hackers and trolling is a case by case basis always. Most trolling shouldn't require moderation. If they're trolling involves impersonation, defamation and death threats THEN lets talk about it. Because you don't need to ban them pursuing legal action is probably a smarter thing.
the system flagged your report because the NS2ID did not contain any numbers, I am assuming you put in a player name? You can only enter a NS2ID as the player names mean nothing in terms of ban files. Please do resubmit!
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
Personally, I think we should be as specific as possible with the ban tag as possible rather than just sticking with only a few general reasons. For example, rather than 'hacking' it should be something like 'speed hacking' or 'aimbot' or 'wall hack', etc.
Personally, I think we should be as specific as possible with the ban tag as possible rather than just sticking with only a few general reasons. For example, rather than 'hacking' it should be something like 'speed hacking' or 'aimbot' or 'wall hack', etc.
I am not sure if that may be asking a bit too much from the end user, expecting them to know exactly what kind of cheat they are looking at. Unless you meant on the admin side, marking it after it had been reviewed?
I am not sure if that may be asking a bit too much from the end user, expecting them to know exactly what kind of cheat they are looking at. Unless you meant on the admin side, marking it after it had been reviewed?
how are they going to make the judgment call to ban someone if they have no idea what the person is guilty of
I am not sure if that may be asking a bit too much from the end user, expecting them to know exactly what kind of cheat they are looking at. Unless you meant on the admin side, marking it after it had been reviewed?
how are they going to make the judgment call to ban someone if they have no idea what the person is guilty of
no.
you see what you want to see; if the user claims that a guy is wallhacking, the admin will assume that every time the player looks at a wall to scratch his nose, he's looking through the wall with a wallhack. the admins are already biased enough when looking at the suspected hacker demos even if they claim they aren't (as they are human after all).
edit: ideally, they shouldn't know why the person is being reported. if enough admins don't notice anything suspicious, the player is legit or there's severe incompetency with the admins. edit2: personally, if I was running this system I would toss in a hack report myself with a demo I know is legit (without the admins knowing, of course) every once in a while and see what the consensus is.
Comments
Hope many more apply and volunteer their involvement. The more the better for a project like this.
I have admined for many many years already with servers in quake, cs, q3, bf.
I currently assist admin of 156 servers and official UWE servers. I don't even mind telling you which way i vote. I believe in feedback, transparency, and flexibility.
My whole goal in this project is to help steer it in a direction that it is as least controversial as possible while retaining some level of anonymity and am happy with the progress we have made so far (This community is very very helpful). Like ma$$a$$ter mentioned, we are open to hear your ideas on how to make this better and we agree that transparency is good (for the most part), hence why I am making this post. This doesn't mean that the other admins should feel obligated to make a post if they don't want to - I just don't want to risk losing community confidence in this project if no one comes forward.
I agree. It's difficult to say what trolling is considering how often it's used incorrectly. Oh, did somebody make a judgement call in game and happened to turn out wrong? People call troll. It's difficult to say what is trolling and what isn't (obviously barring shit like unwarranted full recycle + scan spam)
I can't allow another Iron based horse... So here's a WaterHorse avatar for you:
:-D
As for the format, I think something like the U.S. jury system would work well. You know who are the jurors, but you don't know how they voted. Its a good balance between accountability and protection.
Something needs to be done, Its not a bad idea just a little tuning down the fine details
I've bumped the required vote count to "5" (still using the push and pull system) and am currently working on a display of votes on the main banned list view for the public. This will not show who voted what way, but rather just a number of in favor and not in favor votes.
Things are progressing, slowly , but surly.
and maybe there is a "level" of ban, like 1 for trolling, 9 for cheating. So admins can configure from what level the server will consider the ban list
I'm sure we can separate the list out, shouldn't be too hard - I will work on including a drop down in the submission form to categorize each submission - that way it's not has hard to sort out later if this is do-able. Great Idea!
Hacking - I haven't the foggiest what people mean. I was under the impression that hacking in a game was somehow employing a program that intercepted your signals to the server and replacing them with more desirable ones. Are aimbots hacking? Or is there another more accurate label for them?
Vulgarity - Repeatedly verbally assaulting other players on the server in a hostile manner. Continuing to do so after being warned and asked to stop. This includes gender and racial slurs as well as general profanity in both text and voice communication.
I think that's really all that needs to get its own category. Unless there's some people out there that join servers just to take up space and deserve to be banned, I can't think of anything else.
As far as the vulgarity , I really had not pictured the project being the police of the server, but rather the add on tool for removing agreed upon problem players. I personally would rather see server admins deal with things of this nature than this project take on that role.
Ultimately this project is going to address and encompass the demands of the community, so if the majority of the players would like to see something like this in the future added, than that's the road it will take regardless.
Different servers have different age group targets (OldFarts say they're "mature" for example) and so they all have different requirements for the whole language thing. I only tossed something out there because Scardybob had Racism in his list.
So those who are repeatedly verbally assaulting others would still fall into the troll category for me.
There's a fine line between saying a word, and directing it towards an individual, and i don't think this system should attempt to walk that line. It would quickly lose it's credibility if someone felt they were banned for harsh language.
If they're intentionally disrupting another's experience in a harassing format they're a troll. If they use harsh language not directed at anyone, that's up to that server's policy.
Tldr: i don't think anything other than egregious trolls and hackers should be voted on as massasster said. Its a slippery slope to censorship.
its the first video in my most recent.
I am having a hard time believing people are already hacking this game but the less the merrier.
Just use NS2Bans for hackers please if you pollute the list with 'bad manners' and such then they can receive local mutes or be voted out of command.
If you can't recycle all my buildings, scream at me or hack then that is enough.
People are scum on the internet for sure. But as a comedian who deals with hecklers in clubs once you expose them they shut up unless they are serious sociopaths, psychopaths or just have turrets syndrome. In which case it would be a case by case basis. I tell people to kill themselves in game, doesn't just say it for no reason usually if someone is screaming and is about to get a mute from me.
Overall I think just ban the hackers and trolling is a case by case basis always. Most trolling shouldn't require moderation. If they're trolling involves impersonation, defamation and death threats THEN lets talk about it. Because you don't need to ban them pursuing legal action is probably a smarter thing.
I am not sure if that may be asking a bit too much from the end user, expecting them to know exactly what kind of cheat they are looking at. Unless you meant on the admin side, marking it after it had been reviewed?
no.
you see what you want to see; if the user claims that a guy is wallhacking, the admin will assume that every time the player looks at a wall to scratch his nose, he's looking through the wall with a wallhack. the admins are already biased enough when looking at the suspected hacker demos even if they claim they aren't (as they are human after all).
edit: ideally, they shouldn't know why the person is being reported. if enough admins don't notice anything suspicious, the player is legit or there's severe incompetency with the admins. edit2: personally, if I was running this system I would toss in a hack report myself with a demo I know is legit (without the admins knowing, of course) every once in a while and see what the consensus is.