rule needed: permaban ban evaders

[o11c]

There is a glaring shortcoming in our current rules: people can evade bans with no penalty.

If someone is banned, that means they did something wrong and are not supposed to be allowed to play until the ban is over. But, they GMs have told me that they will take no action in this case, because it is not against the rules.

Please give the GMs power to permanently ban anyone who does.

[MrWhoYouKnow]

While your at it i dont think Developers should have @kick in their @40 commands as you see the link underneath they abuse it constantly and use it for things other then developing such as abusing players and kicking for their perspective of the rules which is not right, warping to candor instead of paying the fee of the ferry which i think is unfair completely.
But you know as a player ill probably be ignored since o11c says hes part of GHP now and he is more trusted then the players. He can kick anybody he wants at anytime he wants for HIS opinion of the rules and not the written ones.

What kind of game are you running here? clearly not a good one thanks to some abusive "GHP"

But, they GMs have told me that they will take no action in this case, because it is not against the rules

ok if calling someone a chicken is abusive then please tell me because this part of the "GHP" says he was offended for being called a chicken and a man, which his character is... a man.

You should pick mature people to be in your Group because you clearly have babies in them considering he feels offended being called a chicken.

Link: http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 20&t=14949

[Freeyorp101]

Bans are to be made against a person, not account. Cite: [1][2][3]


---Freeyorp

[DefinitelyNOTMrWho]

Bans are to be made against a person, not account. Cite: [1][2][3]


---Freeyorp

And how do you know who that person is? I think what you are trying to say is you should ban an IP not an account. The thing is many people have dynamic ips and they can change their ip simply by disconnecting are reconnecting to their isp network.

I don't think it's ok to ban a specific person. This is a role-playing game, maybe that person plays a role with a specific char. If you ban, lets say a begger char, maybe the person has another char which is not a begger and thus he won't beg with that char.

I think you shouldn't let o11c change the rules, he clearly has no idea what games are about. Already people are talking about the abuse that goes on here. By making communist rules you are only driving people away from this game.

This is my opinion.

[Freeyorp101]

Bans are to be made against a person, not account. Cite: [1][2][3]


---Freeyorp

And how do you know who that person is? I think what you are trying to say is you should ban an IP not an account. The thing is many people have dynamic ips and they can change their ip simply by disconnecting are reconnecting to their isp network.

Given that repeated ban evasion was present in this specific case, adding the dynamic IP range to the login-server reject rules isn't an unlikely outcome. This is still being discussed.

I don't think it's ok to ban a specific person. This is a role-playing game, maybe that person plays a role with a specific char. If you ban, lets say a begger char, maybe the person has another char which is not a begger and thus he won't beg with that char.

Bans are to be made against a person, as has been clarified on multiple occasions (links provided in above post for those that are able to read them)

I think you shouldn't let o11c change the rules, he clearly has no idea what games are about. Already people are talking about the abuse that goes on here. By making communist rules you are only driving people away from this game.

I don't see how a rule change is necessary. Bans are already to be made against a person, so evasion only serves to escalate matters to login-server rules or firewall rules.


---Freeyorp

[DefinitelyNOTMrWho]

Have you ever considered more players play from that ip class? Maybe it's better to ban a specific country or maybe ban the lower half of the equator.

In the case of "name calling" , the accunt gets banned for a period of time, I don't see why it's necessary to ban the ip. Maybe the person has another account on which he doesn't call people names and just plays the damn game.

What ever happened to the "ignore" or "nuke" function? Isn't it more simple just to ignore a person? Maybe people like the whole drama thing and get into verbal fights just to see who ends up getting banned.

I myself have been lured into verbal fights by "sleeper trolls" and I myself end up getting banned and not the "sleeper trolls".

I think ip banning should be done for afk botting. That is the real problem of this game, not me calling someone stupid. I know this whole rule changing is directed at me for the simple fact you made me the black sheep of the server.

[Freeyorp101]

Have you ever considered more players play from that ip class? Maybe it's better to ban a specific country or maybe ban the lower half of the equator.

We do check the size of the block associated with the range, and who would be affected by it. In this case, it's only a class D range that would be affected in one case, and a pair of class Cs in the other. No connections from either block other than the specific ips in question (or are known alts of the person in question anyway) have ever connected to the server.

In the case of "name calling" , the accunt gets banned for a period of time, I don't see why it's necessary to ban the ip. Maybe the person has another account on which he doesn't call people names and just plays the damn game.

If said person just wants to simply play the game, that's fine. If that person insists on provocative behavior, either directly or through sockpuppeting, that's not fine.

What ever happened to the "ignore" or "nuke" function? Isn't it more simple just to ignore a person? Maybe people like the whole drama thing and get into verbal fights just to see who ends up getting banned.

Both functions are indeed recommended for bystanders affected. But abuse, spam etc are still against the rules and banable.

I think ip banning should be done for afk botting. That is the real problem of this game, not me calling someone stupid. I know this whole rule changing is directed at me for the simple fact you made me the black sheep of the server.

When repeated ban evasion occurs, then yes. People are given a chance to respect an account based ban first, as there is no chance of negative side effects with such a ban. This applies with all bans. Though I would be understanding when it comes to automatic bans, depending on the circumstances.


---Freeyorp

[DarkWater]

We do check the size of the block associated with the range, and who would be affected by it. In this case, it's only a class D range that would be affected in one case, and a pair of class Cs in the other. No connections from either block other than the specific ips in question (or are known alts of the person in question anyway) have ever connected to the server.

Still will not help. I could get the same range of ip's as a gm, if I really wanted to. It would not be too hard to do. I could get a shifting ip that changes every 10 minutes if I wanted to.

The simple problem of telling one person from another is nearly impossible. The only thing you can do to stop this behavior is to start charging for accounts. There is simply no other way to filter out the "good" accounts from the "bad" accounts.

Until there is a direct "price" to pay, in order to get new accounts, there is zero ways you can stop a troll from trolling. You can also make it so you can only accept isp issued email addresses. Most ips limit the accounts to 7-10 isp email accounts. It also makes it so you can know the direct internet service provider of the user. It would be easier for you to directly handle hostile people.

Most isp have a terms of service cause that resembles something like this.

"violate the rules, regulations, terms of service, or policies applicable to any network, server,
computer database, service, application, system, or Web site that you access or use;"

With the requirement of the isp email account, you can report the violation of the "tos" of your service, to their isp. This would make it so the people that do this behavoir has some skin to lose.

But even this will not stop the most persistent trolls, you are still going to have to require payment for accounts to truly cost them.

[yubabax116]

But even this will not stop the most persistent trolls, you are still going to have to require payment for accounts to truly cost them.

Which wont happen anytime soon...its a open source game.

[Freeyorp101]

We do check the size of the block associated with the range, and who would be affected by it. In this case, it's only a class D range that would be affected in one case, and a pair of class Cs in the other. No connections from either block other than the specific ips in question (or are known alts of the person in question anyway) have ever connected to the server.

Still will not help. I could get the same range of ip's as a gm, if I really wanted to. It would not be too hard to do. I could get a shifting ip that changes every 10 minutes if I wanted to.

If things go too far and there are legitimate users affected, I'd simply add functionality for account specific ip ban exemptions to the login server. Since ip bans are already handled by the login server, such functionality could be hacked in with very little effort.

The simple problem of telling one person from another is nearly impossible. The only thing you can do to stop this behavior is to start charging for accounts. There is simply no other way to filter out the "good" accounts from the "bad" accounts.

I would sooner move to manual account activation or take the service offline than start requiring payment. Not only is charging is not an option, but every successful multiplayer free to play game contradicts your claim.

Until there is a direct "price" to pay, in order to get new accounts, there is zero ways you can stop a troll from trolling. You can also make it so you can only accept isp issued email addresses. Most ips limit the accounts to 7-10 isp email accounts. It also makes it so you can know the direct internet service provider of the user. It would be easier for you to directly handle hostile people.

You can see the immediate provider in whois lookups anyway. If people start relying on proxies, we can set up BOPM. We already block tor exit nodes since flood attacks that originated from that vector a few years back.


---Freeyorp

[Crush]

Which wont happen anytime soon...its a open source game.

Open source does not mean non-commercial. Nobody would (or could) stop you from creating a TMW server which requires a paid subscription to play on.

There was, in fact, already someone who wanted to create a pay-for-perks TMW server on the Philippines. He failed. But not because we refused to support it, he failed because his business strategies were moronic.

Still, there are no plans to monetize TMW, at least not on the official server.

[Platyna]

As Freeyorp already cited, there is no need for such rule, as the policy is that ban for a person (per service), not for an account.
Ban evasion results in a permanent ban from the service and this is to be exercised by all available resources (and yes, we know what are open proxies, but we also know how to check if user uses open proxy and block him automagically).

Regards.