Forcing of the Master Banlist Ideas

[Konar6]

Before that, let me just sneak in a little clarification (again) because there is still confusion on what the master banlist actually is. Not to spoil Tenchu's "petition", just to make it very clear what exactly we are discussing here. I've had a player (who even posted in this thread) on IRC that was confused about the master banlist on private, unadvertised servers...
No, the master banlist only applies on public, advertised servers. You can absolutely host a server dedicated to all the masterbanned cheaters if you want - as long as you keep it private.

And from another thread:

Would I be right in saying that servers don't have to go through the master server, like a doom connector server? or would I be wrong :/

That's right. You don't need the master to host servers.

[StrikerMan780]

I have someone that I know who is master-banned, but I wish to add a single exception for that one person as they been playing clean on my server. They haven't used hacks or violated any other rules on my server because he knows I'd personally shove a boot in his ass. So, having my server not be visible on the master is quite annoying... really killing any opportunity to gather any players. Besides, the server is running in COOP. (But even when I hosted Duel, things were fine.)

Kind of BS to force me to make the server invisible to everyone just because I want to play with a single person who's masterbanned, and hasn't been misbehaving at all on my own servers.

In short, I'd like to see a whitelist file for Zandro, that allows an admin to exclude single IPs/Ranges from the master banlist for the one server.

[Tenchu]

In short, I'd like to see a whitelist file for Zandro, that allows an admin to exclude single IPs/Ranges from the master banlist for the one server.

Ha. Good luck.

[mifu]

Yo

I support this idea but to prevent a server cluster becoming what Cyberhunter's playground became, a few things will need to be in place.

I personally do not mind the freedom for server hosters to host the way they want but if someone is going to abuse that privilege and allow misc behavior then this could end badly.

I know that players can just stop playing in those servers but that does not stop the reports that may come in.

Aslong as they are branded somehow and maintained nicely, then this should be fine.

Also note this change could break things with the upcoming account system in proposal, though I am not sure about that yet

[Qent]

I support this idea, and I think that if a server fills up with cheaters and the admin doesn't do anything/isn't available, then it should be stricken from the master server.

[Tenchu]

Aslong as they are branded somehow and maintained nicely, then this should be fine.

Agreed. Server launchers should mark non-enforcing servers, such as a change in the server icon or a pop-up that says something along the lines of "WARNING: This server does not enforce the master server banlist. Connect anyway?" (with an option to disable the pop-up of course).

[jwaffe]

Just coming in to say that as the admin of the [IFOC] servers, I support having servers be able to opt out of the master banlist without being hidden from the master server. I don't have a use for the option at the moment, but I see it as an important feature that should be available. I also like the whitelisting idea.

[L1T]

My vote goes to allowing people to have their servers show up on the master list if they opt out of the master ban list as well. This is limiting our scope of choice.

[Watermelon]

One thing I was working on was allowing people by default to have the master banlist parsed, but have the option to change the external ban file parsing to something else. People for example could point it to Grandvoid's ban list (as an example) or any other clusters banlist instead of the master.

The admins should still control the ability to decide who gets hosted on the master list or not (so someone doesn't let hacking/extreme actions go to extreme levels)