I think its a great idea, but requires carefully thought out implementation.
I love how PunkBuster has the ability to serve streaming community banlists such as http://www.pbbans.com/
Offtopic, but here's a little something about pbbans.
This project has potential to actually work, unlike PB ban lists which are dangerous abominations. Because PB ban lists are merely collections of PunkBuster cheat detections from server logs, it would be ridiculously simple for a malicious server admin to issue false bans.
VAC doesn't have this problem because they always ban detected cheaters and keep track of the bans globally on their side.
PunkBuster only kicks and logs to a file, with some exceptions (cheats trying to, and often succeeding in completely disabling PunkBuster) that becomes PunkBuster global bans. The rest has been left to the community to pick up the pieces.
Because this doesn't rely on using what's only claimed to be a line from a log file as evidence from any source, it would be a feat to end up as like that.
I think its a great idea, but requires carefully thought out implementation.
I love how PunkBuster has the ability to serve streaming community banlists such as http://www.pbbans.com/
Offtopic, but here's a little something about pbbans.
This project has potential to actually work, unlike PB ban lists which are dangerous abominations. Because PB ban lists are merely collections of PunkBuster cheat detections from server logs, it would be ridiculously simple for a malicious server admin to issue false bans.
VAC doesn't have this problem because they always ban detected cheaters and keep track of the bans globally on their side.
PunkBuster only kicks and logs to a file, with some exceptions (cheats trying to, and often succeeding in completely disabling PunkBuster) that becomes PunkBuster global bans. The rest has been left to the community to pick up the pieces.
Because this doesn't rely on using what's only claimed to be a line from a log file as evidence from any source, it would be a feat to end up as like that.
However keep in mind this is only based on speculation, you dont have a screenshot client submitting actual screenshots from the hackers game, you dont have settings checking to check for exploits of the game engine and so forth. You dont have *actual* evidence of anything.
aim bots are typically easy to spot. it'd be even easier with hit sounds. the best q3 players in the world have like a 60 percent accuracy with lightning gun. at a certain point, increasing accuracy in aiming falls second to positioning and awareness... at a certain point your.accuracy is just good enough.
Grouping has been put into place, the submission form was updated to reflect the change, grouping will be done by "wallhack" "aimbot" "multihack" (wall and aimbot) and "server troll" - the Server side subscription tool was updated to reflect the grouping, you can remove from the group inside the LUA you wish to not have added to your server. IE: if you wish to not have server trolls included in to your ban section, simply remove server trolls from the array in the LUA. Some people insist on submitting server trolls, so a special grouping was added to filter these from the cheat submissions.
Some users found the form a bit too complicated , friendly reminders were added to assist users in submissions, such as the block requesting the Ns2ID was not designed to support your thoughts and observations...
Stats were added to the front page - in case you were curious about what was hiding in the database.
Some minor layout changes were made, clicking on your current avatar lets you update it to a new one (The IronHorse addition)
Admins are requested to vote - quite a few submissions have been added to the system and are pending review.
If you are interested in being an admin/judge for the site, please contact me with your qualifications.
IE: if you wish to not have server trolls included in to your ban section, simply remove server trolls from the array in the LUA. Some people insist on submitting server trolls, so a special grouping was added to filter these from the cheat submissions.
Is there a detailed tutorial/step by step for how to do this anywhere? Might be worth making a little something at very least.
IE: if you wish to not have server trolls included in to your ban section, simply remove server trolls from the array in the LUA. Some people insist on submitting server trolls, so a special grouping was added to filter these from the cheat submissions.
Is there a detailed tutorial/step by step for how to do this anywhere? Might be worth making a little something at very least.
IE: if you wish to not have server trolls included in to your ban section, simply remove server trolls from the array in the LUA. Some people insist on submitting server trolls, so a special grouping was added to filter these from the cheat submissions.
Is there a detailed tutorial/step by step for how to do this anywhere? Might be worth making a little something at very least.
If this becomes what it aspires to become (i.e. a de facto anti-cheat program), the supposed argument of it being voluntary will go right out the window, since no server will bother checking the videos or wondering whether or not to use it. And if it doesn't, well, I'm not sure whether it's been worth the trouble. Especially with the 'voluntary' addition of a troll section, this might all really go to hell.
We'll see where this goes. I'm not being too optimistic.
Yes, i think the same. im banned from a server yet, and imagine if that server op vote me because he think "i use cheats", at least i hope he had a video and when the other guys see it the ban-hammer will do justice.
Yes, i think the same. im banned from a server yet, and imagine if that server op vote me because he think "i use cheats", at least i hope he had a video and when the other guys see it the ban-hammer will do justice.
I'm not sure exactly where your headed with this -
But the whole Idea behind the way we did things was to allow people not associated with you or the server admin (or player recording you) to review what was recorded as an independent 3rd party.
The set up is by no means an "anti-cheat program" - It's simply a gathering point for those accused of cheating to be reviewed (both by public players, and site admins).
invTempestJoin Date: 2003-03-02Member: 14223Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
The intended goal of this program is to create a community wide ban list of known cheaters (aimbot, wallhacks, etc..). It has recently been expanded to cover server trolls as well due to community demand.
Yes, i think the same. im banned from a server yet, and imagine if that server op vote me because he think "i use cheats", at least i hope he had a video and when the other guys see it the ban-hammer will do justice.
No server owner or operator has access to "inject" bans into the system without it first being voted on by the admins (most of which have already come out and are known community members). So claims of being setup or banned by a single disgruntled admin on xyz server can't happen unless the report contains ample evidence and receives 5 "yes" votes with "0" no votes, which is public information on the site.
If this becomes what it aspires to become (i.e. a de facto anti-cheat program), the supposed argument of it being voluntary will go right out the window, since no server will bother checking the videos or wondering whether or not to use it. And if it doesn't, well, I'm not sure whether it's been worth the trouble. Especially with the 'voluntary' addition of a troll section, this might all really go to hell.
We'll see where this goes. I'm not being too optimistic.
There is already a system in place to allow server ops to subscribe to only the particular ban list they prefer as outlined by ma$$a$$ter.
All the submissions and evidence is clearly visible to everyone on ns2bans.com. We invite everyone interested in how it works to create an account and view the reports and put forth your own opinion (public votes have the potential to cause a re-vote by the admins on a given report).
Being banned for being a troll needs to have specific guidelines as well (if it doesn't already).
One big one is that someone should need multiple troll submission before being put on the ban list......
Being banned for being a troll needs to be targeted to find the habitual trolls who seem to hit up some NS2 servers and not against someone who just had a bad day and did it once or against some complete rookie.
invTempestJoin Date: 2003-03-02Member: 14223Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
The current objective, in regards to server trolls, is to only target the repeat offenders or "mega trolls".
Having a single bad day and ruining the games of others by itself won't get you added to the list (this is best taken up on the individual server level) but do this multiple times and get reported and you may find yourself with a week ban (exact specifics are still being worked on). The idea here is to take care of repeat offenders and let people report potential sour apples for others to look out for.
make mega trolling a 3 month ban, a week seems too short to me. in the grand scheme of things, aimbotting ruins an entire game, megatrollling ruins a game, wallhacks just make it more challenging for my skulk.
Being banned for being a troll needs to have specific guidelines as well (if it doesn't already).
One big one is that someone should need multiple troll submission before being put on the ban list......
Being banned for being a troll needs to be targeted to find the habitual trolls who seem to hit up some NS2 servers and not against someone who just had a bad day and did it once or against some complete rookie.
Basically, the griefers who mass recycle, spam obs/med/ammopacks to blow money, etc. We probably should use 'griefer' instead of 'troll', as that's more relevant to what we're talking about.
There is already a system in place to allow server ops to subscribe to only the particular ban list they prefer as outlined by ma$$a$$ter.
My entire point was that if this service becomes as big as it wants to be, the perceived choice is false. If it becomes as famous a mod that almost every server includes it, no head admins will bother checking the videos or votes because the bans come from such a 'reputable source'. And who in their right mind would choose not to include the troll section, when it so handily rids your server of base-recyclers, lerk egg droppers and annoying people with no extra effort?
At which point the service has too much power in their hands and all talk of it being voluntary is just justifying rhetoric.
By "head admin" I assume you just mean admins with voting power? Sorry but I"m not going to blindly vote to ban some one from potentially the majority of ns2 servers just because I "trust" the person. I might do it if I operated a single server and a trust worthy source said "hey ban this steam id i clearly saw him cheating earlier" but that's 100000% different then banning them from EVERY server. There is a reason videos required to be submitted, for us to watch them.
At which point the service has too much power in their hands and all talk of it being voluntary is just justifying rhetoric.
The power of the list comes from the community, why would you not want some say to choose who you play with on public servers? The community is able to report them, vote on them and potentially remove them from servers they play on. It's not mob rules, it's simple power of the people.
Personally I agree most things should be taken care of on a individual server level, but some times things like "griefing like it's your second job" warrants being blocked from ruining as many games as you choose. A few players have added this tactic into their arsenal because it can be more disruptive than using cheats alone.
I think it goes without question to say that stupidity and griefing are not the same. If acting like a jerk was bannable than half the internet wouldn't be able to play online games.
As you can see by the posts made by the admins of the list, they have their head on straight, they are not out to mass ban as many people as they can in the quickest amount of time. Some of the starter ID's on the list are of well known disruptive player(s) and these received some rather quick acceptance into the list, but this was because everyone knew who was being submitted. Some times you can build a reputation that leaves that bad of a taste in peoples mouth.
I think the most interesting facts (stats wise) so far are the public votes are generally lining up with the admin's votes. This tells me that we are on the right track. A safety net is being setup to catch when these votes (public vs admin) are so skewed that it makes you double take at it. This will cause a revote on the admin side.
By "head admin" I assume you just mean admins with voting power?
By head admins I mean the people who run a server and have to make the decision of whether to use your mod or not, as in people having nothing to do with the list, but know it to be 'reputable' so of course they use it.
//Edit: I just registered on the site for the first time, and the very first video I checked was 1-minute long (who needs more proof?) video of combat, where the spectated guy shot at 4 (imagine, FOUR! Talk about enough samples) different aliens, missing a lot and only managing to kill one of them, and the battle occured at close quarters in a cramped corridor where the marines would know exactly where the aliens were coming from.
This guy has been added to the list with accusations of aimbot and wallhack with 5 YES votes from the jury of 12 individual admins. Amazing.
I seriously hope that server providers will be smart enough to steer clear of this project and recruit capable admins to keep their server clean within THEIR rules, as it should be.
////Edit: Been looking at more videos. Half of those are no proof at all, and some even feature just mediocre play from the one being spectated. This is fucking atrocious.
Some of the starter ID's on the list are of well known disruptive player(s) and these received some rather quick acceptance into the list, but this was because everyone knew who was being submitted. Some times you can build a reputation that leaves that bad of a taste in peoples mouth.
Yeah.... as I stated above.. people actually in THE KNOW are aware of these NS2ID's, and they are associated with a particular player(s).. there is really no need for any video of this player as he is THAT well known amongst the people who actually need to know. But that's cool- don't read before you post.
All you have managed to accomplish with your rant is to prove you have absolutely no idea what is actually happening, who well known cheating/griefing players are and furthered my point of letting people who are more aware of things do the judging.
Yeah.... as I stated above.. people actually in THE KNOW are aware of these NS2ID's, and they are associated with a particular player(s).. there is really no need for any video of this player as he is THAT well known amongst the people who actually need to know. But that's cool- don't read before you post.
So this service ISN'T about providing evidence in the form of spectated videos and having a group of esteemed individuals vote on a ban based on said evidence? This is about "yeah, I know this guy, saw him cheat a week ago. Even though this video doesn't show anything, let's ban him anyway. After all, we are IN THE KNOW".
Goodness christ you're shooting your own idea in the foot here.
I was first actually only afraid of the worst-case scenarios and didn't like the principle behind this banlist and thought that you might very well pull this off you did it right, but after checking the site and listening to you, I'm well assured that you're hammering a nail in your own coffin.
Yeah.... as I stated above.. people actually in THE KNOW are aware of these NS2ID's, and they are associated with a particular player(s).. there is really no need for any video of this player as he is THAT well known amongst the people who actually need to know. But that's cool- don't read before you post.
So this service ISN'T about providing evidence in the form of spectated videos and having a group of esteemed individuals vote on a ban based on said evidence? This is about "yeah, I know this guy, saw him cheat a week ago. Even though this video doesn't show anything, let's ban him anyway. After all, we are IN THE KNOW".
Or they are people that have been mentioned on this forum multiple times with admins from different servers mentioning them. IE: cheaters who are well known.
Yeah.... as I stated above.. people actually in THE KNOW are aware of these NS2ID's, and they are associated with a particular player(s).. there is really no need for any video of this player as he is THAT well known amongst the people who actually need to know. But that's cool- don't read before you post.
So this service ISN'T about providing evidence in the form of spectated videos and having a group of esteemed individuals vote on a ban based on said evidence? This is about "yeah, I know this guy, saw him cheat a week ago. Even though this video doesn't show anything, let's ban him anyway. After all, we are IN THE KNOW".
Or they are people that have been mentioned on this forum multiple times with admins from different servers mentioning them. IE: cheaters who are well known.
See my previous post. Because this is exactly what this service is trying to get rid of, i.e. banning people because they're known cheaters and instead provide some actual evidence.
I know what your attempting to say, and I respect your opinion, but know when your kicking your own behind.
Most of your "argument" has already been addressed in previous posts, I get that you may not have read the entire thread as there are a bunch of posts... Please, feel free to go back and read.
I wont further address your current path, however should you come up with an idea or suggestion, I welcome the discussion on it.
For those new to the game, or not quite understanding why, I will say this. There are a hand full of ID's, some even belonging to the same player, that are so well known they are blocked from even official servers. These ID's are so well known they were the first ones submitted into the system. It goes without saying, that these ID's will NOT receive the standard treatment . These ID's are the EXCEPTION to the rule, NOT the norm because the player or players behind these ID's have gone out of their way to cause the most harm they could with these accounts.
I think I agree that some of the videos submitted are a little short. Perhaps a minimum time would help? Doesn't guarantee quality proof, but maybe a little more quantity.
The main thing I look at in the videos is the minimap. Just seeing the reticule of the accused follow the red dots that are only there because of the spectator UI when he should have no way of knowing that they're there, is suspicious. Then seeing the periodic lock or snap that's unnatural is even more suspicious.
Regarding the whole "known" thing. I for one will immediately switch to spectator if I see the name inv. Joe! on any server from now on. Just seeing that he's had like 4+ accounts with the same name every time is enough to convince me that a red flag needs to go up.
I wonder, is there any way to get a link to the accused's profile to show up automatically with the input of the NS2 id? Hours played is no indication of skill, but if someone has 2 hours played in NS2 and they're going 10-0, it would only serve to back up the accusations. Whereas if someone has 600 hours and they're performing well, it doesn't mean they're not cheating, it just means that people should take a closer look.
On the other hand, taking a closer look should be what the admin's do regardless of hours played. So I'm not too sure this is a good idea after all. Thoughts?
Yeah.... as I stated above.. people actually in THE KNOW are aware of these NS2ID's, and they are associated with a particular player(s).. there is really no need for any video of this player as he is THAT well known amongst the people who actually need to know. But that's cool- don't read before you post.
So this service ISN'T about providing evidence in the form of spectated videos and having a group of esteemed individuals vote on a ban based on said evidence? This is about "yeah, I know this guy, saw him cheat a week ago. Even though this video doesn't show anything, let's ban him anyway. After all, we are IN THE KNOW".
Or they are people that have been mentioned on this forum multiple times with admins from different servers mentioning them. IE: cheaters who are well known.
See my previous post. Because this is exactly what this service is trying to get rid of, i.e. banning people because they're known cheaters and instead provide some actual evidence.
Except if you look at those threads, there is already plenty of evidence on them......
Most of your "argument" has already been addressed in previous posts, I get that you may not have read the entire thread as there are a bunch of posts... Please, feel free to go back and read.
I've followed the entire thread, and in no point has anyone said that certain individuals can be prosecuted with no evidence since "they are so well known". This is fighting against the very principle you are trying to create, and what will ensure that this kind of mentality will not be abused in the future, if it's made possible in these "obvious" cases?
Also, I think you need to have your database arranged according to the NS2ID and not according to certain videos, if you're going to have this mentality. Looking at a video of a guy killing a cyst and then missing all his shots and seeing 10 admings voting ban on him because he is a well-known cheater in other videos is only going to undermine your authority.
And just for the record, I wasn't even talking about this person you are talking about. The first video in the list of bans is by no means conclusive evidence, and he is not this "Inv. Joe" fellow.
I've followed the entire thread, and in no point has anyone said that certain individuals can be prosecuted with no evidence since "they are so well known".
These "well known" guys have plenty of evidence, just not necessarily on ns2bans. Just because you bury your face in the sand and say "theres no evidence" doesn't mean there is not plenty of evidence out there that you are not aware of, but that many people and admins are aware of.
Update -
Dragon provided us with an updated LUA code adding white listing
the console command sv_listns2bans was in the previous version, I just failed to notice... (epic failure on my part, sorry).
White listing will be done inside the ns2bans.json file. A white listing array has been provided, simply fill in the ID's you would like to white list as follows:
[ "firstid", "secondid", "andmore" ]
Comments
This project has potential to actually work, unlike PB ban lists which are dangerous abominations. Because PB ban lists are merely collections of PunkBuster cheat detections from server logs, it would be ridiculously simple for a malicious server admin to issue false bans.
VAC doesn't have this problem because they always ban detected cheaters and keep track of the bans globally on their side.
PunkBuster only kicks and logs to a file, with some exceptions (cheats trying to, and often succeeding in completely disabling PunkBuster) that becomes PunkBuster global bans. The rest has been left to the community to pick up the pieces.
Because this doesn't rely on using what's only claimed to be a line from a log file as evidence from any source, it would be a feat to end up as like that.
However keep in mind this is only based on speculation, you dont have a screenshot client submitting actual screenshots from the hackers game, you dont have settings checking to check for exploits of the game engine and so forth. You dont have *actual* evidence of anything.
Grouping has been put into place, the submission form was updated to reflect the change, grouping will be done by "wallhack" "aimbot" "multihack" (wall and aimbot) and "server troll" - the Server side subscription tool was updated to reflect the grouping, you can remove from the group inside the LUA you wish to not have added to your server. IE: if you wish to not have server trolls included in to your ban section, simply remove server trolls from the array in the LUA. Some people insist on submitting server trolls, so a special grouping was added to filter these from the cheat submissions.
Some users found the form a bit too complicated , friendly reminders were added to assist users in submissions, such as the block requesting the Ns2ID was not designed to support your thoughts and observations...
Stats were added to the front page - in case you were curious about what was hiding in the database.
Some minor layout changes were made, clicking on your current avatar lets you update it to a new one (The IronHorse addition)
Admins are requested to vote - quite a few submissions have been added to the system and are pending review.
If you are interested in being an admin/judge for the site, please contact me with your qualifications.
yeah I went over it http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/129892/ns2bans-subscription-tool here- not very in-depth but rather just an overview. Let me know if you think I need to go into more detail
maybe against bad players.. yeah.
We'll see where this goes. I'm not being too optimistic.
I'm not sure exactly where your headed with this -
But the whole Idea behind the way we did things was to allow people not associated with you or the server admin (or player recording you) to review what was recorded as an independent 3rd party.
The set up is by no means an "anti-cheat program" - It's simply a gathering point for those accused of cheating to be reviewed (both by public players, and site admins).
No server owner or operator has access to "inject" bans into the system without it first being voted on by the admins (most of which have already come out and are known community members). So claims of being setup or banned by a single disgruntled admin on xyz server can't happen unless the report contains ample evidence and receives 5 "yes" votes with "0" no votes, which is public information on the site.
There is already a system in place to allow server ops to subscribe to only the particular ban list they prefer as outlined by ma$$a$$ter.
All the submissions and evidence is clearly visible to everyone on ns2bans.com. We invite everyone interested in how it works to create an account and view the reports and put forth your own opinion (public votes have the potential to cause a re-vote by the admins on a given report).
One big one is that someone should need multiple troll submission before being put on the ban list......
Being banned for being a troll needs to be targeted to find the habitual trolls who seem to hit up some NS2 servers and not against someone who just had a bad day and did it once or against some complete rookie.
Having a single bad day and ruining the games of others by itself won't get you added to the list (this is best taken up on the individual server level) but do this multiple times and get reported and you may find yourself with a week ban (exact specifics are still being worked on). The idea here is to take care of repeat offenders and let people report potential sour apples for others to look out for.
If you have suggestions please let us know.
make mega trolling a 3 month ban, a week seems too short to me. in the grand scheme of things, aimbotting ruins an entire game, megatrollling ruins a game, wallhacks just make it more challenging for my skulk.
My entire point was that if this service becomes as big as it wants to be, the perceived choice is false. If it becomes as famous a mod that almost every server includes it, no head admins will bother checking the videos or votes because the bans come from such a 'reputable source'. And who in their right mind would choose not to include the troll section, when it so handily rids your server of base-recyclers, lerk egg droppers and annoying people with no extra effort?
At which point the service has too much power in their hands and all talk of it being voluntary is just justifying rhetoric.
The power of the list comes from the community, why would you not want some say to choose who you play with on public servers? The community is able to report them, vote on them and potentially remove them from servers they play on. It's not mob rules, it's simple power of the people.
Personally I agree most things should be taken care of on a individual server level, but some times things like "griefing like it's your second job" warrants being blocked from ruining as many games as you choose. A few players have added this tactic into their arsenal because it can be more disruptive than using cheats alone.
I think it goes without question to say that stupidity and griefing are not the same. If acting like a jerk was bannable than half the internet wouldn't be able to play online games.
As you can see by the posts made by the admins of the list, they have their head on straight, they are not out to mass ban as many people as they can in the quickest amount of time. Some of the starter ID's on the list are of well known disruptive player(s) and these received some rather quick acceptance into the list, but this was because everyone knew who was being submitted. Some times you can build a reputation that leaves that bad of a taste in peoples mouth.
I think the most interesting facts (stats wise) so far are the public votes are generally lining up with the admin's votes. This tells me that we are on the right track. A safety net is being setup to catch when these votes (public vs admin) are so skewed that it makes you double take at it. This will cause a revote on the admin side.
By head admins I mean the people who run a server and have to make the decision of whether to use your mod or not, as in people having nothing to do with the list, but know it to be 'reputable' so of course they use it.
//Edit: I just registered on the site for the first time, and the very first video I checked was 1-minute long (who needs more proof?) video of combat, where the spectated guy shot at 4 (imagine, FOUR! Talk about enough samples) different aliens, missing a lot and only managing to kill one of them, and the battle occured at close quarters in a cramped corridor where the marines would know exactly where the aliens were coming from.
This guy has been added to the list with accusations of aimbot and wallhack with 5 YES votes from the jury of 12 individual admins. Amazing.
I seriously hope that server providers will be smart enough to steer clear of this project and recruit capable admins to keep their server clean within THEIR rules, as it should be.
////Edit: Been looking at more videos. Half of those are no proof at all, and some even feature just mediocre play from the one being spectated. This is fucking atrocious.
Yeah.... as I stated above.. people actually in THE KNOW are aware of these NS2ID's, and they are associated with a particular player(s).. there is really no need for any video of this player as he is THAT well known amongst the people who actually need to know. But that's cool- don't read before you post.
All you have managed to accomplish with your rant is to prove you have absolutely no idea what is actually happening, who well known cheating/griefing players are and furthered my point of letting people who are more aware of things do the judging.
So this service ISN'T about providing evidence in the form of spectated videos and having a group of esteemed individuals vote on a ban based on said evidence? This is about "yeah, I know this guy, saw him cheat a week ago. Even though this video doesn't show anything, let's ban him anyway. After all, we are IN THE KNOW".
Goodness christ you're shooting your own idea in the foot here.
I was first actually only afraid of the worst-case scenarios and didn't like the principle behind this banlist and thought that you might very well pull this off you did it right, but after checking the site and listening to you, I'm well assured that you're hammering a nail in your own coffin.
Or they are people that have been mentioned on this forum multiple times with admins from different servers mentioning them. IE: cheaters who are well known.
See my previous post. Because this is exactly what this service is trying to get rid of, i.e. banning people because they're known cheaters and instead provide some actual evidence.
I know what your attempting to say, and I respect your opinion, but know when your kicking your own behind.
Most of your "argument" has already been addressed in previous posts, I get that you may not have read the entire thread as there are a bunch of posts... Please, feel free to go back and read.
I wont further address your current path, however should you come up with an idea or suggestion, I welcome the discussion on it.
For those new to the game, or not quite understanding why, I will say this. There are a hand full of ID's, some even belonging to the same player, that are so well known they are blocked from even official servers. These ID's are so well known they were the first ones submitted into the system. It goes without saying, that these ID's will NOT receive the standard treatment . These ID's are the EXCEPTION to the rule, NOT the norm because the player or players behind these ID's have gone out of their way to cause the most harm they could with these accounts.
I think I agree that some of the videos submitted are a little short. Perhaps a minimum time would help? Doesn't guarantee quality proof, but maybe a little more quantity.
The main thing I look at in the videos is the minimap. Just seeing the reticule of the accused follow the red dots that are only there because of the spectator UI when he should have no way of knowing that they're there, is suspicious. Then seeing the periodic lock or snap that's unnatural is even more suspicious.
Regarding the whole "known" thing. I for one will immediately switch to spectator if I see the name inv. Joe! on any server from now on. Just seeing that he's had like 4+ accounts with the same name every time is enough to convince me that a red flag needs to go up.
I wonder, is there any way to get a link to the accused's profile to show up automatically with the input of the NS2 id? Hours played is no indication of skill, but if someone has 2 hours played in NS2 and they're going 10-0, it would only serve to back up the accusations. Whereas if someone has 600 hours and they're performing well, it doesn't mean they're not cheating, it just means that people should take a closer look.
On the other hand, taking a closer look should be what the admin's do regardless of hours played. So I'm not too sure this is a good idea after all. Thoughts?
Except if you look at those threads, there is already plenty of evidence on them......
I've followed the entire thread, and in no point has anyone said that certain individuals can be prosecuted with no evidence since "they are so well known". This is fighting against the very principle you are trying to create, and what will ensure that this kind of mentality will not be abused in the future, if it's made possible in these "obvious" cases?
Also, I think you need to have your database arranged according to the NS2ID and not according to certain videos, if you're going to have this mentality. Looking at a video of a guy killing a cyst and then missing all his shots and seeing 10 admings voting ban on him because he is a well-known cheater in other videos is only going to undermine your authority.
And just for the record, I wasn't even talking about this person you are talking about. The first video in the list of bans is by no means conclusive evidence, and he is not this "Inv. Joe" fellow.
These "well known" guys have plenty of evidence, just not necessarily on ns2bans. Just because you bury your face in the sand and say "theres no evidence" doesn't mean there is not plenty of evidence out there that you are not aware of, but that many people and admins are aware of.
Dragon provided us with an updated LUA code adding white listing
the console command sv_listns2bans was in the previous version, I just failed to notice... (epic failure on my part, sorry).
White listing will be done inside the ns2bans.json file. A white listing array has been provided, simply fill in the ID's you would like to white list as follows:
[ "firstid", "secondid", "andmore" ]
The new LUA code will be published shortly.