Forcing of the Master Banlist Ideas

[UnTrustable]

"This server does not enforce the master ban list." is a nice neutral message. However, newbies may not understand what this entails. Something specific like "This server does not enforce the master ban list, there may be hackers." would probably get the message across.

inb4 "that's unfair branding" ...

Or create a clear and general symbol that stands for cheating/hacking.
Like the <!> stood for Skulltag's "You fail it !", but one for cheating/hacking.

[Qent]

"Warning: This server is using a customized ban list."

[Konda]

We need something that will make everyone understand what it means.
"Warning: This server might not have the known hackers and scumbags banned."

[Fluffles]

Exactly a message like that would be perfect. then people can choose whether or not to treat the matches on that server official, maybe even have one server in a set of servers which has a white list, so people can either steer away from that server or join up.

[TheHelten]

@ Earlier: If you randomly download Zandronum with little to no idea how it works, you should read up. Most people seemingly understand what a "Master Server" is.

Also, perhaps optionally it could list the people being whitelisted. That way, slower joiners can avoid banned folk in a more personal term...

[Llewellyn]

"This server does not enforce the master ban list." is a nice neutral message. However, newbies may not understand what this entails. Something specific like "This server does not enforce the master ban list, there may be hackers." would probably get the message across.

inb4 "that's unfair branding" ...

Or create a clear and general symbol that stands for cheating/hacking.
Like the <!> stood for Skulltag's "You fail it !", but one for cheating/hacking.

That gave me an idea, what you could do instead of the "This server does not enforce the master ban list" thing is put the <!> symbol next to any players who join the game who are currently being whitelisted (on the scoreboard like where the bot symbol goes.) Or maybe both.

[Ænima]

"This server does not enforce the master ban list." is a nice neutral message. However, newbies may not understand what this entails. Something specific like "This server does not enforce the master ban list, there may be hackers." would probably get the message across.

inb4 "that's unfair branding" ...

Or create a clear and general symbol that stands for cheating/hacking.
Like the <!> stood for Skulltag's "You fail it !", but one for cheating/hacking.

That gave me an idea, what you could do instead of the "This server does not enforce the master ban list" thing is put the <!> symbol next to any players who join the game who are currently being whitelisted (on the scoreboard like where the bot symbol goes.) Or maybe both.

That's an awesome idea.

[Tenchu]

IMO un-enforcing/whitelisting servers being separated in the server listing from enforcing servers like I said suggested earlier should get the message across pretty clearly. However if server launchers did pop up with a message saying "Warning: This server does not fully enforce the master server's banlist. There may be malicious players.", it should have a check box in the window for "Do not show this message again for this server" so that you don't have to deal with the box popping up every time you want to connect to the server.

[Valance]

"This server does not enforce the master ban list." is a nice neutral message. However, newbies may not understand what this entails. Something specific like "This server does not enforce the master ban list, there may be hackers." would probably get the message across.

inb4 "that's unfair branding" ...

Or create a clear and general symbol that stands for cheating/hacking.
Like the <!> stood for Skulltag's "You fail it !", but one for cheating/hacking.

That gave me an idea, what you could do instead of the "This server does not enforce the master ban list" thing is put the <!> symbol next to any players who join the game who are currently being whitelisted (on the scoreboard like where the bot symbol goes.) Or maybe both.

You're kidding, right? Servers being branded is enough, humiliating individual players by branding them is just wrong. It's the server owners choice to whitelist the master banlist, let them deal with the the branding. A masterbanned player who takes advantage of playing on the whitelisting servers shouldn't be targeted because of something the server owner decided to do.

[TheHelten]

You're kidding, right? Servers being branded is enough, humiliating individual players by branding them is just wrong. It's the server owners choice to whitelist the master banlist, let them deal with the the branding. A masterbanned player who takes advantage of playing on the whitelisting servers shouldn't be targeted because of something the server owner decided to do

Perhaps not, but them being the true exception to the rules after being banned is already a side-step, I'd say. However I have to disagree about user branding being proper... Server extensions seem like enough. I propose an auth-system be put in place first, then the worries of masterbanned users coming on w/o ban evading would decrease; only afterwards there should be more work on the server's end to ensure everything is ok. No, users shouldn't be branded, but servers need neutral labels based on it. Hell, while we talk about rights of serv-ops, make the label optional (but not to ignore this feature, it pops up after highlighting the whitelist box.)

[-Jes-]

I agree with Ten.

Make joining an un-enforced server give the warning:
"Warning: This server does not fully enforce the master server's banlist. There may be malicious players."

Or, at least, something to that effect.

[Jenova]

@Valence

I think if anybody is going to argue against the master banlist, they shouldn't be doing it while hiding behind a proxy and bogus email address. This is really stupid and only burdens the people who actually want a free master banlist. If you're going to argue about such a large change, at least have the decency to use your actual name, especially when claiming that you've played the port for many years.

[Llewellyn]

You're kidding, right? Servers being branded is enough, humiliating individual players by branding them is just wrong. It's the server owners choice to whitelist the master banlist, let them deal with the the branding. A masterbanned player who takes advantage of playing on the whitelisting servers shouldn't be targeted because of something the server owner decided to do.

No, I'm being quite serious. If you're going to let players play with known hackers/cheaters/trolls etc. then you should have the decency to let the players know who they are in advance. Someone who has been banned for years could go onto a server that has whitelisting as "Player" and no one would know if he was a player evading via whitelist or just another player aliasing. He (or she) could easily go onto said server with other players and start hacking (again.) That's actually probably the most that will come out of this feature TBH.

[Qent]

Having a "<!>" next to your name wouldn't be humiliating anyway, since other players know that either you're whitelisted for a good reason, or you really ought to be banned.

[Jenova]

Just a heads up, I retract my previous opinion and I am fully in support of the master banlist. Edit OP post please.

[Tenchu]

Fluffles I gotta give you props for making this topic but this isn't going to happen. Even though there was a surprising amount of support for this, but because a few major players are against it; it's not going to happen.

And really now that I really think about it, even though I am in support of giving server admins ultimate authority over their own servers, honestly who on the master banlist would they whitelist? Me? Danzoa? Those are about the only two I could see being justified. I understand it's the principle of the matter like Fluff said but really all this fuss is basically over two people. Konar/Metal aren't going to be bothered over two people and I don't blame them.

[IdeIdoom]

Like everyone who supported said , there should be a warning when joining an un-enforced Server.

I am thinking of something along the lines of VAC secure and non-VAC secure servers on steam.

Something like that, yeah.
Anyway, I am supporting this.

[Eonfge]

The master server can be configured to also show servers that don't enforce the master ban list (it just has to be restarted with a different command line option). I explicitly implemented this possibility because I don't like the idea of enforcing the ban list either.

Good guy Torr Samaho, proposing power to the people. I support the idea and would like to see Zandronum healthy and liberal.

Edit: I also support the idea that servers that follow the Master Ban List are marked as such, and that Doomseeker (and IDE) allow you to sort on servers following the MBL, or that ignore the MBL.

[Dynamo]

Yawn. Can't be bothered to see if I already posted here but regardless, I also support the idea of showing servers that don't enforce the master ban list. I don't agree however that this alone makes Zandronum "healthy and liberal" as it's basically being done for one or two people just as Tenchu's above post demonstrated. Still I do think they have a right to play on other servers because hey, it's a game. We created this to let people have fun, so they should have fun even if they did their mistakes. Just not on the official servers (i.e. standard priv) I guess but that'll be entirely up to the server administrators to decide.

[Fluffles]

If there is a full decision from the administrators about this if they can post that would be great. This thread has gone on long enough and I'd love to see what you guys think as a whole?