Forcing of the Master Banlist Ideas

[Catastrophe]

Epic confusion, I guess what he meant to say is keeping his feature off by default(Which is not using the master ban list.).

[Metal]

I support this idea. But I do not agree with keeping the master server list disabled by default.

[legion]

I support this idea. But I do not agree with keeping the master server list disabled by default.

actually I think the idea was to keep the master server list -en-abled by default

[Fluffles]

Sorry yes it is very confusing saying it either way. Basicly the master server will be enabled as default and server admins will have the option to input in there own list, so it'll only be available to server admins who know about it, want to modify it slightly!

[-Jes-]

I really don't think anyone around here is opposed to this.

This isn't exactly ZDaemon, you know. :D

[Fluffles]

I'm going to be away for a week but I'm still very interested in what is going to happen from this idea, if any developer or moderator could say what will happen, if it's going to be implemented or not. Just post here please. I wont be able to reply for a while unless I grab a internet connection.
Many thanks, Fluff.

[Fluffles]

Just a bump to see if there is any news on this

[Empyre]

I like the idea of still forcing all servers to load the master banlist but allowing a server to override individual bans with a whitelist, but I also agree with the idea that there should be a warning in the browsers for such a server. Maybe a special character could be added by the master server to the beginning of the server name that could not otherwise be there, so any server browser (doomseeker, ide, any others that might exist) would automatically display it without having to be modified, as long as it is capable of displaying that character.

[Valance]

I definitely agree with this.

After witnessing how ZDaemon politics go down (and even on Skulltag sometimes), I can definitely say that forcing masterbans on every server without the server owners consent is kind of unfair. If a server owner chooses to spend their own time and resources to host servers for the benefite of the players, they should have the final call on who gets to play on their servers and who doesn't.

HOWEVER, that's not to say it shouldn't be regulated. I agree that forcing of the master banlist should be enabled on servers by default, that much should be obvious. It should only be when the server owner wishes to change it that the master banlist isn't enforced or a master ban is whitelisted.

As for the indication of an un-enforcing/whitelisting server on server launchers, I'm on the fence about that one. While I understand the logic behind it, I get that you want to warn players, but it almost feels like the beginning of unfair labeling. If the server owner wants to whitelist a master ban there's really nothing wrong with that and it does seem rather unfair to brand them as such.

[Llewellyn]

As for the indication of an un-enforcing/whitelisting server on server launchers, I'm on the fence about that one. While I understand the logic behind it, I get that you want to warn players, but it almost feels like the beginning of unfair labeling. If the server owner wants to whitelist a master ban there's really nothing wrong with that and it does seem rather unfair to brand them as such.

Well, you can view it as unfair to brand a server that is intentionally allowing players who are known to play unfairly play, but I see it as the other way around, as it being unfair for me if I don't know that I could be joining a server with four aliased known hackers.

[Nati46]

Allowing the server admin to still use the banlist while allowing him to whitelist IPs of people whom he deems worthy of playing in his servers would be very benificial while still allowing him to keep away the other offenders without extra work (If this wasn't mentioned yet - wasn't reading throughoutly)
Thanks for bringing this up fluffles, as you can see this is something many people would like

[Valance]

As for the indication of an un-enforcing/whitelisting server on server launchers, I'm on the fence about that one. While I understand the logic behind it, I get that you want to warn players, but it almost feels like the beginning of unfair labeling. If the server owner wants to whitelist a master ban there's really nothing wrong with that and it does seem rather unfair to brand them as such.

Well, you can view it as unfair to brand a server that is intentionally allowing players who are known to play unfairly play, but I see it as the other way around, as it being unfair for me if I don't know that I could be joining a server with four aliased known hackers.

I can easily understand both sides of the argument, but now that I think about it more in-depth, I can see why a lot of people would want it. I don't think it'd be too much of an issue on the competitive servers as most everyone knows each other and knows what's what, but for the regular, coop and non-competitive servers I can see why it'd be helpful as most players on servers like those don't know any better. I suppose if I had to chose I would support it rather than oppose it.

[Watermelon]

Allowing the server admin to still use the banlist while allowing him to whitelist IPs of people whom he deems worthy of playing in his servers would be very benificial while still allowing him to keep away the other offenders without extra work (If this wasn't mentioned yet - wasn't reading throughoutly)
Thanks for bringing this up fluffles, as you can see this is something many people would like

I think this is an interesting idea (where whitelist over-rides a masterban). That way the master banlist can still be applied everywhere, but with exceptions to one's own server.

[Valance]

Allowing the server admin to still use the banlist while allowing him to whitelist IPs of people whom he deems worthy of playing in his servers would be very benificial while still allowing him to keep away the other offenders without extra work (If this wasn't mentioned yet - wasn't reading throughoutly)
Thanks for bringing this up fluffles, as you can see this is something many people would like

I think this is an interesting idea (where whitelist over-rides a masterban). That way the master banlist can still be applied everywhere, but with exceptions to one's own server.

I think that actually might be what TC was referring to. I don't know the mechanics of the lists and how they're employed by the Skulltag/Zandronum server, but I think the idea was that an IP on a servers whitelist would not only whitelist the IP from any ranges on the servers banlist, but the master server's banlist as well. Thus giving the server owner more flexible control over their server. This idea would be especially useful for situations in which the server owner didn't want to un-enforce the entire master server banlist, only certain master bans.

[Jenova]

This idea has been suggested and approved of months ago. At the time, nobody seemed against it. Any word from a dev, will this make it into Zandronum release?

[Konar6]

Making the official server capable of whitelisting master bans is just half of the presented goal to drag the control to server admins. The master still blocks IPs banned on it from getting the server list. IMHO this would have to be addressed as well, so that this proposition would at least have a good use - allowing legit players caught in bans meant for someone else.

Or can anyone give an actual example why would someone want to whitelist banned cheaters on their server? And quite ironically this thread was made by one of them.

[Qent]

Then server hosts would be unable to make their servers invisible to cheaters but visible on the master. Instead, servers could opt to broadcast to an alternate master that does not apply the banlist.

[Nati46]

Then server hosts would be unable to make their servers invisible to cheaters but visible on the master. Instead, servers could opt to broadcast to an alternate master that does not apply the banlist.

I think that this would create an unnecessary disparity between server clusters. Instead, OP's idea along with the ones mentioned above would be easier and would remove any hassle.

[Fluffles]

Making the official server capable of whitelisting master bans is just half of the presented goal to drag the control to server admins. The master still blocks IPs banned on it from getting the server list. IMHO this would have to be addressed as well, so that this proposition would at least have a good use - allowing legit players caught in bans meant for someone else.

Or can anyone give an actual example why would someone want to whitelist banned cheaters on their server? And quite ironically this thread was made by one of them.

Not all players who get banned on the master server list. Some do get banned for some sort of misbehavior to other players. Yes they dont deserve to go onto every server as they are known to misbehave but if the server admins trust that one player they should be able to whitelist them onto only there servers. Also cheaters are generally banned from games to stop griefing players, if they are allowed on one server which everyone knows allows certain IPs to join then they have been warned they could be griefed.

[Frits]

I'd agree but only if servers get branded for not forcing the masterbanlist.
The staff doesn't consist out of nazi's that ban for crappy reasons.

Also, the masterban list is right there so i'm asking: point out 1 person that got banned for a horrible reason. This would clearly help your argument and pretty much convince me.