PDA

View Full Version : Annother nasty cheater report



Chas0r
9th April 2006, 22:05
Ok, I just started to play some hidden again when I noticed a really annoying cheater.
I was on #UCT-Phase 2 Labor(hidden)(www.half-life2-gaming.de), where I noticed a guy shooting damn accurate and fast. At first I assumed black hidden, but he seemed to use plenty of cheats.
Most obvious was a speed hack, which you can easily see in the demo. I also had the feeling that he always knew where the hidden was.
Due to not playing any source games except Hidden I'm not up-to-date about currently known Source-hacks, but he seemed to have just anything (speedhack, aim-assistance, whatever)
he played as "f*uck you n*ggers" (kind name) and "ranked numero uno". This is his ID:
# 13 "ranked numoro uno" STEAM_0:0:9900073 32:42 153 0 active
Here (http://www.share.am/dl/680154655/cheat.rar) you can see the demo.
I'd suggest banning him everywhere, hoping this will prevent him from playing (i honestly don't think so)

RaideR
9th April 2006, 22:29
i cant get the demo sorry.

But if this really is the case.

abuse@steampowered.com will be more than willing to submit you demo for viewing by steam cheat doctor type peeps. They will then be able to look deeper than you ever could, posibly resulting in a Steam Ban.

"for people out there this is NOT a VAC ban, this is a specific ban and is allways with a reason, such as 'Proven Cheater - Stream Account has been Suspend indefinatly'."

VAC Bans are automatic, and can not be added by humans, that was there choice

M_C
9th April 2006, 22:39
I've seen the demo, very conclusive. He's gone.

Cyborg
9th April 2006, 22:50
i think this is the first time m_c has been pleased with a "BAN HIM!" thread. ;)


it is a new era in life. nice catch btw chasor

Ayrehead
9th April 2006, 23:00
though it didnt involve cheating I just got off that server, and man constant team killing, couldnt even play a round

Chas0r
9th April 2006, 23:41
Well maybe its worth a report to valve, but I think there's a general problem with cheaters. If they can cheat, they can also easily bypass a global ban by using illegal steam accounts or whatever.
As you can see in the demo he was like "lol, go and report this ID, no problem for me"

EmeralDragon
10th April 2006, 01:25
Well maybe its worth a report to valve, but I think there's a general problem with cheaters. If they can cheat, they can also easily bypass a global ban by using illegal steam accounts or whatever.
As you can see in the demo he was like "lol, go and report this ID, no problem for me"


You'd be suprised. Most cheaters/exploiters don't know much more than to look up scripts on the web.

Sure, there are some exceptions, but the general rule of thumb is that they are simply script-kiddies, and a steam ban would certainly ruin thier fun for atleast awhile (until they beg their parents enough to buy them another copy).

I'll look into adding this player to our (quickly growing) ban list.

Ang3lu5
10th April 2006, 09:49
I'll look into adding this player to our (quickly growing) ban list.
How about developing a web-based banned list for hidden (and other steam games maybe) to get them all banned from every server?.

I think about in a way like this:
Every server admin may register his server in the database and can add their banned id's (or maybe uploading the banned.cfg) with demo and/or screenshots and reason to the "Global Banned List". The system checks if the id's are already existing and compile them into one big banned.cfg which can be downloaded so everyone who wants to relay on this list can get it and update his server (cronejob maybe :) )

I created such a script approx one year ago, so if i find my code i could "reopen" my project and adding more stuff because it just has basics of that i mentioned above.

hutch
10th April 2006, 14:32
script-kiddies
the bane of my meaningless exestence.
they steal my scripts all the time
they are bull****


glad i got that out of my system :D

edit°
10th April 2006, 14:37
How about developing a web-based banned list for hidden (and other steam games maybe) to get them all banned from every server?.

I think about in a way like this:
Every server admin may register his server in the database and can add their banned id's (or maybe uploading the banned.cfg) with demo and/or screenshots and reason to the "Global Banned List". The system checks if the id's are already existing and compile them into one big banned.cfg which can be downloaded so everyone who wants to relay on this list can get it and update his server (cronejob maybe :) )

I created such a script approx one year ago, so if i find my code i could "reopen" my project and adding more stuff because it just has basics of that i mentioned above.

I've talked about it with other admins but the problem is that people ban for different reasons and punishments vary for the same offences. I personally think that it would bring more good than bad to the community but thats because when I'm admining I've started having a zero-tolerance policy. I don't need a great amount of convincing when someone I know in the community says "X and Y were TKing earlier", other admins require solid proof from people who they'd trust implicitly when it came to anything else.

These discrepancies make what you're suggesting not really possible, sadly.

Ang3lu5
10th April 2006, 16:55
i think we should at least give it a try. maybe we can find "one line" about handling cheaters / tks or whatever with a few server admins at the beginning. you can call it beta-test if you like ^^ and if it works maybe others jump in too. but if we really start and compiling a "global" banlist the single admin is more responsible for his/hers decision of ban a player as before.

M_C
10th April 2006, 17:33
How about developing a web-based banned list for hidden (and other steam games maybe) to get them all banned from every server?.

Not enough trust. Too many idiots would add people they don't like. As you can see by assholes that make accusations without proof, in other threads, your web based ban list would also be abused and therefore, could not be trusted.

edit°
10th April 2006, 17:42
I think he meant the contributers would be admin folk, not plebs, but I agree about there not being enough trust even between admins.

MiasmicAnomie
10th April 2006, 17:53
Not enough trust. Too many idiots would add people they don't like. As you can see by assholes that make accusations without proof, in other threads, your web based ban list would also be abused and therefore, could not be trusted.


It'd have to be a committe-like thing. Submit demos, share information, and vote 'yes, ban this guy' or 'no, wait a while, get more info'.

If the demos / evidence / etc were made public after a 'yes' ban was voted, there'd be trust, because everyone is able to verify themselves.

It would take longer to get the bans in place, though.

(Note that I have no power whatsoever to decide whether or not the DEADCLAN servers would or could take part in something like this)

M_C
10th April 2006, 18:15
Then there's the trust issue of who's on the committee. I don't see a way that'd I'd trust especiually after all of the accusations without proof, in other threads, based on ego. Some "admins" (usually the kids) think they are king **** because they have rcon somewhere and it goes to their heads. We've all seen it. ;)

MiasmicAnomie
10th April 2006, 18:31
Then there's the trust issue of who's on the committee. I don't see a way that'd I'd trust especiually after all of the accusations without proof, in other threads, based on ego. Some "admins" (usually the kids) think they are king **** because they have rcon somewhere and it goes to their heads. We've all seen it. ;)


Well, I think that having the voted on proof go public (or at least, made available to people who are actually using it) after a 'yes' vote would mitigate that. I see something like this as workable *if* it's started by a group of admins who already trust each other. E. G. "You can use our list if you want, and the reasons for people being on are list are all out in the open - but don't expect to get a vote just because you're an admin somewhere and you decide to use our list".

It would have to have fairly narrow scope for the reasons edit posted, though. Maybe cheaters and repeat egregious teamshoot / tk'ers only - and have the rules for eligibility of an entry decided on and laid out in black & white in advance.

SteamBans seems like a great idea in this vein, but I see problems with 'you never know why' (e.g., no way to independently verify).

edit°
10th April 2006, 18:39
Then there's the trust issue of who's on the committee. I don't see a way that'd I'd trust especiually after all of the accusations without proof, in other threads, based on ego. Some "admins" (usually the kids) think they are king **** because they have rcon somewhere and it goes to their heads. We've all seen it. ;)

I haven't seen any of these admins on the forums.

And surely having this banlist thing would serve as a way to cut out all that proof bollocks. At the end of the day all the admins I've seen on the forum have had nothing but the best interests of the mod and the community at heart. If the deadclanners ban someone and say "banned for TKing" I know it was a TKer that was banned. End of.

Sure this is open to abuse but I don't know any admins on here who would bother.

Ging
10th April 2006, 18:56
I think the important thing is to have the list checked and verified by a group of people. It'd require a bit more work than just making it a fully automated tool, but having a man in the loop is always good.

Allowing admins to filter the lists they recieve - so say, they only get the list of entries with a verified demo, making links to the demos available (either to the public, or upon request) would also be reasonable.

There's certainly ways around having to worry about 'ego' or anything else - it just requires a bit of sensible thought and planning.

M_C
10th April 2006, 18:58
Well, I think that having the voted on proof go public (or at least, made available to people who are actually using it) after a 'yes' vote would mitigate that. I see something like this as workable *if* it's started by a group of admins who already trust each other.
The only way I can see is, if every vote requires proof and a "global ban" would require a unanimous vote Would there be some sort of oversight or what? How large of a committee? It'd have to be large enough to make sure cliques don't form. Then we have the problem of deciding who gets to be ON the committee. :eek:

MiasmicAnomie
10th April 2006, 19:06
The only way I can see is, if every vote requires proof and a "global ban" would require a unanimous vote

Well, I see it as every vote requiring proof to begin with. Otherwise, there's no proof to make available after a yes vote, and there'd be nothing for anyone to independently verify.

I was thinking supermajority, but unanimity probably works just as well.

cliques tend to form in larger bodies, not smaller ones.

M_C
10th April 2006, 19:23
Cliques form in *any* sized body but a larger one would be harder to get a unanimous vote based on a clique. A group of 3 could easily become abusive if a clique were to form, where 7 would be harder to get a unanimous vote, for example. I know I'd want to be on, NOT to ban people but to ensure the innocent players are not. I've seen way too many accusations without proof lately to not be suspecious of cliques in these forums. I'd want at least one admin from deadclan too, depending on how big the committe was, I'm sure everyone would agree with that at least. ;)

MiasmicAnomie
10th April 2006, 19:28
Cliques form in *any* sized body but a larger one would be harder to get a unanimous vote based on a clique. A group of 3 could easily become abusive if a clique were to form, where 7 would be harder to get a unanimous vote, for example.

If the committee started voting bans for people that were unjustified, no one would use it. This is why the proof of bans needs to be open. End of problem.

M_C
10th April 2006, 19:37
That would largely depend on what servers were represented by the committee. If it's a group of 3 small servers, you're right. However, hypothetically, if a clique were to form with deadclan/smokey/etc that type of "damage" would be significant, even if the rest of the servers didn't use the list, IMHO.

DISCLAIMER: That said, based on EVERYTHING I've experienced from Scott, porchy and deaclan in general, I have no reason to believe that would happen with them, it's just an example of multiple popular servers. ;)

edit°
10th April 2006, 20:14
That would largely depend on what servers were represented by the committee. If it's a group of 3 small servers, you're right. However, hypothetically, if a clique were to form with deadclan/smokey/etc that type of "damage" would be significant, even if the rest of the servers didn't use the list, IMHO.

DISCLAIMER: That said, based on EVERYTHING I've experienced from Scott, porchy and deaclan in general, I have no reason to believe that would happen with them, it's just an example of multiple popular servers. ;)

I'm not being funny, but is there a reason that the smokey's server mods are in the first list but not the second? :confused:

We're as fair as anyone else and the fact that the servers stay relatively trouble free is evidence of it.

ThunderDan
10th April 2006, 21:55
| Steam ID | Aliases | Language | TKs | Hacks | Scripts |
| 0000001 | Bob | | X | | |
| 0000002 | Mike | | | X | |
| 0000003 | Cindy | | XXX | | |
| 0000004 | Dan | XX | | | |
| ****** | ***** | | | A | A |
| 0000006 | Ging | XXXXX | | | |
| 0000007 | Paco | | | XXXX | |

I think with gings idea a simple table with each X and A being a link to a demo or screen shot - which ever is appropriate - where X is proof that has been voted on and excepted and A is Accusations that have not been voted on yet - therefore no posting information about the suspect. A simple submission for could be devised for anonymous supmission. The table could be searchable so that only Hackers are shown, or only language abuse with 3 or more offenses would show.

I think something along those lines would be very helpful. Having each person that post I saw X person doing this and here is their ID is a bad way of handling it

M_C
10th April 2006, 22:05
I don't think the mechanics of the process are as big of an issue as who's on the committee and the rules such as proof and voting.

That said, your format seems ok on the basis of "X" and "A" being links to proof in a searchable database. That way, a player coudl check his ID, see the proof against him and then respond or not accordingly. I suppose we'd need a way to challenge a ban/vote, too. That could be a simple comment box where they could try to explain, leaving contact info or links as needed.

edit°
10th April 2006, 22:55
This all sounds like a waste of time to be honest. A rediculously beurocratic way of going about doing a simple job. If it comes to checking for demos for every single decision and everyone needing to vote on it you might as well stick with the ****ing forum as it is now.

Ging
10th April 2006, 23:15
As long as there's some way of flagging something as 'disputed' it would only take a single person to verify any one demo. Have verification require a login, so you can see who verified a particular claim, then if you don't think you trust that person, you can check the demo and either verify it again or tag it as disputed.

No matter what, it'll require a fair bit of work to keep clean - but all such things do.

MiasmicAnomie
10th April 2006, 23:15
Well, I don't really see a beauracracy. I see a nice little webapp where people who have the perms to do it give a 'yes I think this is a cheater', 'no, I don't', and based on that it does or does not throw the id into the list, and make the proof available (or not) when whatever threshold is met.

On the other hand, you're probably right, it's probably too complex / not really needed at the scale we're at now.

Edit: Ging's got a point there, too.

M_C
10th April 2006, 23:19
It all depends on demand. When enough admins want to use a centralized list of proven cheaters, etc it'll be worth the effort. It's not a bad idea, with the right set of rules and committee members.

RaideR
10th April 2006, 23:29
Well, i can write a ban script updater from a website really easy :)

If you run the server with exec hidden_ban_list.cfg

which is a ban list file on the server, and have a cron job on your server to run a shell script that wgets a URL lets say. http://www.hiddenbans.org.uk/live_files/current_bans.cfg and then copys it over the top of the hidden_ban_list.cfg.

This would work and apply bans across servers adopting the ban list.

HOWEVER, this does raise a security issue, as the admin of the ban list would be able if not watched, put in a, rcon_password overide for example and gain admin on all the servers in the scheme. Hence, i sujest that if possible hidden-source.com host the ban file.

Just an idea!

M_C
10th April 2006, 23:35
The database could also output a list to copy/paste in your console/banlist. It wouldn't be automated but it would ensure no odd commands get in any list. If you automate it then the database would still only build a list of banned id's not a rcon_password command.

RaideR
10th April 2006, 23:38
Well that would be sensible, you can have the option, just to view the ban list, view the ban list for a ban file or download it.

Pick and Choose with the option to automate.

TBH Im thinking about running it, so in all fairness im not going to start passing rcon commands :P. I will even submit my steam id to the public, so if they feel im being "missleading" then they can ban my id :P

Like and act of good faith :P

Regards,
RaideR

M_C
10th April 2006, 23:45
There are a lot of things to consider. How long are bans and proof kept? Demos take a lot of space. Who's/how many on the committe to vote? Term limits? How to submit? Who can submit? How to dispute? I'd suggest FreeBSD with mysql db and Apache for security and stability.

RaideR
10th April 2006, 23:58
Yes these are all important points.

1. Anyone may submit a demo and request for checking.
2. Demo KEPT as proof, i have 75GB of Disk space :P
3. Each server admin who adopts the ban list will get 1 vote. when a new demo is recieved we then have a period of 48 hours for all admins to vote YES or NO to ban the user.

In the even of YES the follow is applied.
4. BAN IS NEVER ENDING for CHEATING! - The % weight of the ban is posted with the ban, for example

RaideR - Date Banned - 8/9 Admins Voted to Ban this User - Open and Contest this ban.

5. If we do not have more that 2 admins voting yes. i.e. only one admin votes, the automatic responce is NO to banning them. We may however in the even of a auto no vote at a more appropieate time.

6. If BAN is for TKing or Bad Language. Ban is listed and will expire after 2 weeks.

THis way the system cant be abused!

M_C
11th April 2006, 00:05
I'm not sure about any list that doesn't require unanimous votes to ban.

Ging
11th April 2006, 00:15
There's probably no need to keep the demo's forever - if the item remains un-disputed for a period of time (say 2 months) than delete the demo and tidy up the entry (so it can no longer be disputed and what not).

The system shouldn't enforce ban time periods - it could provide recommendations, but it should ultimately be up to the server admins to control that aspect of it.

In fact, it should only be a method of providing information - let it generate a ban list, but filtered by admins choice (so you can, say, get a list with verified cheaters, but ignore tk'ers or disupted entries). More like a reference system than an automated ban system.

At least, that's my take on it!

M_C
11th April 2006, 00:21
In fact, it should only be a method of providing information - let it generate a ban list, but filtered by admins choice (so you can, say, get a list with verified cheaters, but ignore tk'ers or disupted entries). More like a reference system than an automated ban system.

At least, that's my take on it!
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Instead of it being a centralized ban list, ran by a few and subscribed by many, it should just be a centralized database of proof/id's etc. Each admin could vote on accusations, if they want, and each admin/server could set it's own requiremnts for a cusomized banlist based on each admins criteria. That way if deadclan wants a list of ID's with 70% votes to ban they get that and if *I* only want a list of ID's with 100% votes and without tk's, that's the list my server gets. If smokey only wants ID's that deadclan voted yes to or if they don't want ID's that I voted yes to, that's what they get. Everyone gets what they want. Well, maybe nothing less than 51% or something, you'd have to have *some* limit or some abusive admin would pull a list of any accusation no matter what.

RaideR
11th April 2006, 00:26
great idea ging, that makes a hell of alot of sence. Maybe making a custom ban list for each admin that they can set.

banlist?cheats=YES&TKers=NO&time_cheaters=7&time_tkers=2

That would ban Cheaters listed and not TKers, and ban cheaters for 7 days.

You could then config your auto updater or, generate a report on the website accordinglky

Payback
11th April 2006, 00:48
You people almost make too big a deal out of it. This isn't putting someone on death row, it's banning them for cheating at a video game. We don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even a "preponderance of the evidence". Just ban cheaters, permanently.

Ging
11th April 2006, 00:50
you'd have to have *some* limit or some abusive admin would pull a list of any accusation no matter what.

That's just it - it's up to the admin to pull whatever information they want, if they want to be overzealous then so be it. It might be reasonable to say that new entries (with 0 votes / verifications / whatevers) cannot be listed.


Just ban cheaters, permanently.

It's proving that they are cheaters which is the issue and giving easy access to that information. Banning anyone accused of cheating isn't the answer, this discussion is aiming for a point where admins can make the decisions themselves based on available information.

M_C
11th April 2006, 00:55
I disagree, there has to be reasonable proof to ban somebody for good or you'll see accusations without proof as we've seen here before. Even some of the proof we've seen turned out to not be as conclusive as we've hoped. It has to be at least a majority vote to even show up in the db. Part of the options could be the banlist?cheats=YES&TKers=NO&time_cheaters=7&time_tkers=2&voteratio=75 for example. It should be limited to 51-100% though. ;)

EDIT: or it could require 3+ votes to show up as an alternative?

ThunderDan
11th April 2006, 01:58
Wow - I see this exactly as Ging does - I think.

Lets take the phone book for example.

If I wanted to I could call block every number in there, but as someone who wants to use the phone I wouldn't do that. This list is similar - it's not an all knowing you must ban who it says you must. Just recommendations.

And yes the point of databasing this would be searchability. If I want my server to ban only hackers cause I love to swear like a sailor, and I believe TKing people keeps the US government, who spy on my gaming habits, from drafting me - then I'll only pull hackers from the list. <- btw - I kid you not about the gov't. In america's army I make sure I do bad. I don't need anyone knocking on my door.

I think that a useful feature to other admins would be to be able to see which servers ban which people. When you select a user from the list to ban it would leave a "print" and people could say hey 10 other server ban this Id maybe I should too.

And for verification that the user accessing this data is doing such for a server. Which is important because we don't need everybody and their brother saying oh yeah I'm a dead clan, smokey, TI, M_C (whatever server you run) admin... Server properties can be logged and the contact email that's in the server.cfg file will be sent an email when someone tries to setup an account. So only a real admin of that server can register their account. And there'd have to be a limit of one account per server (possibly sub accounts for each admin just for forum/chat purpose.)

And for M_C no accusation would be accepted without proof a .dem or jpeg would be required for each submission - it would be to the admins discretion from there

M_C
11th April 2006, 02:01
My point is that we dont make accusations without proof we shouldn't be banning on a 10% vote either.

ThunderDan
11th April 2006, 02:36
My point is that we dont make accusations without proof we shouldn't be banning on a 10% vote either.

That would be each server's decision and people would probably stop playing on servers that banned random people. Like I wouldn't vote to ban someone over cursing, but racial language I would. You should be allowed to ban the cursing person even if 90% of admins felt it was fine.

Also, with BHS, I'm very lienient on that - I've seen 4 demos that people are for sure the person has BHS, but to me its not enough, cause they only include 2 kills in the demo. Someone else might find that perfectly suitable to issue a ban.

There was one recently where 2 other admins posted that they thought they were hacking I believe you were one of them, but the demo included showed the accused hacker shotting at the guy only after he started slashing and the other kill was the guy shotting at a steam vent and getting lucky. So, If I and the other two adins where polled you'd have 66% in favor of a ban. (BTW - are you guys aware you can change perspective and even use third person(kinda) while viewing demos)

I also don't ban on - well the guy admitted he had it (screenshot of said admitance). Some people are just saying that cause the idiot won't stop accusing him and you want the moron to shut up. So - this is not proof to me.

My point being is that - it is a collection of proof. Where each admin gets to be their own judge as to what justifies a ban/ partial ban/ gimping of said player when he joins next time.

M_C
11th April 2006, 02:41
If an admin is going to ban at 10% votes, they don't need a list or proof. There needs to be a minimum standard of proof to even show up in the search as far as I'm concerned. I don't think we need to give unreasonable admins any help.

ThunderDan
11th April 2006, 02:59
Maybe we should get a thread going to see how many admins would be interested in something like this, and if enough are interested we could all get together on Teamspeak and figure out what if anything should be created.
Clearly you and I are interested in this topic - I think edit, MiasmicAnomie, Ging, and Raider are interested too.

M_C
11th April 2006, 03:03
Not all of us use teamspeak. A thread will do. ;)

MiasmicAnomie
11th April 2006, 04:08
HOWEVER, this does raise a security issue, as the admin of the ban list would be able if not watched, put in a, rcon_password overide for example and gain admin on all the servers in the scheme. Hence, i sujest that if possible hidden-source.com host the ban file.

Just an idea!

That's not actually an issue. Just have the update script ensure that every line matches /^ban-id.*$/.

Local admin makes sure the script actually does that when it pulls the ban list - on *his/her* side, and no worries.

Ang3lu5
11th April 2006, 06:24
it seems that i started a hot dicussion about that :)
unfortunally my old sources are gone so i have to start again.

now the big question for me is:

do you want me to start coding some basics (not all features posted in this thread will be in at the first release, but there were some nice ideas that should be included later) or not?

the rest about who ban's at ?% or how to sort the ban list and so on can be changed later after we found a solution

M_C
11th April 2006, 06:46
You can start coding anything you want, we'll look at it at least. ;)

Ging
11th April 2006, 10:29
There needs to be a minimum standard of proof to even show up in the search as far as I'm concerned.

Again, that is there perogative, just as it is yours to not list anything without 100% agreeance...

Of course, for a working demonstration of just such a system, we need to look no further than steambans.com.

edit°
11th April 2006, 10:57
That way if deadclan wants a list of ID's with 70% votes to ban they get that and if *I* only want a list of ID's with 100% votes and without tk's, that's the list my server gets. If smokey only wants ID's that deadclan voted yes to or if they don't want ID's that I voted yes to, that's what they get. Everyone gets what they want. Well, maybe nothing less than 51% or something, you'd have to have *some* limit or some abusive admin would pull a list of any accusation no matter what.

Why would we possibly want this? If you're only banning people who you're 100% sure about it would make no sense. Are you hinting that we would let your ideas and way of posting get in the way of our desire to keep the hidden TKer and dickhead-free? I think you're being a bit silly here if this is the case.

I don't think I've ever gotten proof of TKers or teamwounders, I've just seen them doing it and got rid of them, or changed the auto ban from a month to permanent in HLSW. I have no reason to lie about this. If you can't trust the other admins in the scheme it all becomes pointless, because the only way you're going to benefit from this scheme is by having things automatically updated into your banlist.

Without this idea negating the need to trawl through proof in the form of multiple demos and screenshots, how does it possibly save time or have any benefits over the forum as it stands now?

To be honest, I'm fair, I have no reason to be otherwise and anyone who's been here more than five minutes would know (this may be why you're dubious M_C). If I see a TKer, I get rid of them, if someone is teamwounding - they get a warning or two and then I get rid of them. Theres 65 people banned from our servers in total, theres no proof for any of them that I can recall - thats 65 tkers/teamwounders that you can get waltzing into your servers because you can't take mine and Dead Inside's word for it.

Ego and abuse of power doesn't come into it. The servers have been up for about 5 or 6 months, 65 people isn't the mark of an abusive admin in that time really is it :rolleyes:

Maybe its because I'm from yorkshire but I like to have things out in the open and dealt with so we can skip all the paperwork and political bollocks.

M_C - which admins do you feel aren't up to being a part of this system and why? I don't know any abusive admins on the forums. If it is me (as I feel you keep hinting at), we can talk it out and maybe you can persuade me to start getting demos of every niggly little thing or I could explain to you why I don't feel the need. Either way it would be better than playing word games and maybe this idea could get closer to being realised.

My only problem with you being a part of this thing would be that you seem to want it to be a way of you keeping tabs on how other people admin their servers rather than a way of being given the heads up by a private group of admins who you can trust. Outside of that and your inexplicable hatred for people you see as campers I wouldn't have a problem taking your word for it and making sure that TKers and morons don't make their way from your server after being kicked into ours.

There were no :rolleyes: s or digs here, this is a disclaimer so that the mods can see that I've not taken a poke at you or anyone else.

MiasmicAnomie
11th April 2006, 17:03
Of course, for a working demonstration of just such a system, we need to look no further than steambans.com.

I don't really understand why SteamBans keeps the proof private. It would help a lot in people having confidence in them if other people could take a look at the proof they have, for only banned steam IDs. They just say 'We have the best demo viewers' and leave it at that.

It also seems like their system is overly complex, and it seems like it's overly complex because they're trying to keep the banned list private - but they're automatically leaking individual steam IDs out anyway. It doesn't make sense to me. Yeah, the ban list changes all the time - but just write something that will trickle the updates out to the servers using it.

(edit: Now that I think about it, a mod that does a quick 'ok/not ok' request to a centralized database isn't bad at all.)

Ang3lu5
11th April 2006, 19:03
here is my very first version
http://www.ultima-net.org/index.php?nav=banlist

just 2 things working right now -> display "proofed" violations and download whole list as zip

i haven't got too much time today. i will try to expand some features tomorrow

M_C
11th April 2006, 19:52
Again, that is there perogative, just as it is yours to not list anything without 100% agreeance...

Of course, for a working demonstration of just such a system, we need to look no further than steambans.com.
It's also some people's perogative to report cheaters without any proof and we don't facilitate that so there's no reason we couldn't set a minimun voteratio spec for display either. Just because an admin *wants* a list that's virtually unverified, doesn't mean we have to give it to them. IMHO.

EDIT: Besides, admins will have a user/pass to vote on reports, if they want to ban something they voted on, on their own server, that's up to them. ;)

Ang3lu5
12th April 2006, 17:43
I have updated my "preview" a bit with custom filter option for banned.cfg download and a wireframe of a detailview for each steamid listed

www.ulitma-net.org

M_C
12th April 2006, 17:47
I have updated my "preview" a bit with custom filter option for banned.cfg download and a wireframe of a detailview for each steamid listed

www.ulitma-net.org
404 I assume it's a typo and it should be:
www.ultima-net.org? ;)

EDIT: It seems ok but what if there are 40 admins confirming an accusation? Maybe just a vote ratio yes/no count and if you click that it expands to show who voted how and read internal comments? Additionally, I really think we need a way to filter by approved ratios from 51-100%

Admins with a login will still be able to see unapproved demos and vote, even ban on their own server, the app just wouldn't generate a list of under 50% approved ID's.

Ang3lu5
12th April 2006, 17:49
you are right :P

MiasmicAnomie
12th April 2006, 17:54
I have updated my "preview" a bit with custom filter option for banned.cfg download and a wireframe of a detailview for each steamid listed

I like it, although when I hit the 'generate custom list' with CV and TK selected, it looked like I only got the two CV.

you might want to change the test steam IDs so that they won't be actual steam IDs, though - it'd be a shame if someone happened to see it and didn't catch that they were test ids.

M_C
12th April 2006, 17:56
I like it, although when I hit the 'generate custom list' with CV and TK selected, it looked like I only got the two CV.

you might want to change the test steam IDs so that they won't be actual steam IDs, though - it'd be a shame if someone happened to see it and didn't catch that they were test ids.
I selected everything but languange and got the same 2 you got. ;)

Or just use proven cheater's ID's :D

Ang3lu5
12th April 2006, 18:01
i will change that ids :P

and there seems to be an error in the query .. it works on my local mashine. i will correct it.

EDIT: OK that was fixed