Forcing of the Master Banlist Ideas

[Ænima]

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.

inb4 tenchu posts here

[Fluffles]

It's abit like having punkbuster enabled on servers and ones which dont but this method is even more condense so it's not like "lets make servers so everyone whos banned can join them" it's just "lets make an exception to this server for one or two people we feel should play on our servers". Maybe to make everyone happy as previously suggested from a couple people in this topic make it so it strictly says whitelist enabled on the server title.

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.

I shouldn't need a specific example, it's about the principle of the issue and giving server owners the power over their own servers they deserve to have.

[Jenova]

There are no negatives to the forcing of the master banlist. In some cases, I, or even other server hosts, may wish to let cheaters play on their servers. I run a service for the community that let's anyone host their own server. Some of these players may with to play with their friends who were masterbanned. Danzoa for instance wasn't banned for cheating, but was masterbanned for being an asshole.

A system which allows you to use dynamic http banlists (which was also suggested before) as well as an optional master banlist isn't going to harm anyone. Players who don't want to play with cheaters won't play on servers that disable the master banlist. This would also allow for true community-based third party banlists. For instance, someone could create their own banlist that only bans cheaters, not people like Capodecima or Danzoa. This would allow servers owners who are lax on bad attitudes only ban true cheaters from their servers.

Likewise, a server could not ban cheaters at all. Who cares? Who the hell is going to play on a server that doesn't ban cheaters?

[Torr Samaho]

Any word from a dev, will this make it into Zandronum release?

Changing the order in which the different lists are checked to let the local whitelist override the master banlist is trivial. I could easily sneak this in immediately, but I won't until the admins clearly state that they want this to be handled like this. Also it's important to note that letting the server whitelist parts of the master's banlist makes the whole hiding system pointless. If this is done, a server can just whitelist the whole master banlist which is equivalent to not enforcing the master banlist at all. This server won't be hidden though, unlike those who do the same with "sv_enforcemasterbanlist 0". Therefore, if we change the whitelisting, I will also let the servers not report their sv_enforcemasterbanlist setting to master which will completely disable the hiding. Since we opened the source the whole hiding system became pointless anyway...

In short, convince the admins and I'll change the whitelist order and end the hiding.

[Valance]

Any word from a dev, will this make it into Zandronum release?

Changing the order in which the different lists are checked to let the local whitelist override the master banlist is trivial. I could easily sneak this in immediately, but I won't until the admins clearly state that they want this to be handled like this. Also it's important to note that letting the server whitelist parts of the master's banlist makes the whole hiding system pointless. If this is done, a server can just whitelist the whole master banlist which is equivalent to not enforcing the master banlist at all. This server won't be hidden though, unlike those who do the same with "sv_enforcemasterbanlist 0". Therefore, if we change the whitelisting, I will also let the servers not report their sv_enforcemasterbanlist setting to master which will completely disable the hiding. Since we opened the source the whole hiding system became pointless anyway...

In short, convince the admins and I'll change the whitelist order and end the hiding.

One of the major points behind this whole deal is that servers shouldn't be hidden for not enforcing the master banlist. They should be allowed to broadcast weather or not they are unenforcing/whitelisting. And with a branding on the server launchers letting players know of it, there's really no problem.

As for getting admins approval, just about every moderator or admin (except one I think) who has posted here have stated that they support it. But I'll obviously let the admins make the call on that.

Likewise, a server could not ban cheaters at all. Who cares? Who the hell is going to play on a server that doesn't ban cheaters?

At the end of the day, I think this is one of the strongest basic arguments. With the server launcher branding, players WILL know if a server is unenforcing or whitelisting, they will have the choice to join or not. If they want to join, they can. If not, they don't. Why the hell shouldn't there be a choice for server owners?

[Empyre]

What about my idea of having the master server add a special character to the beginning of the name of a server that doesn't enforce the entire master ban list? That method would't require a rewrite of any server browser.

[AlexMax]

I've long championed the idea of allowing servers to whitelist masterbans and HTTP-distributed banlists in the past. But why have both a master banlist and HTTP banlists? Why are two systems necessary? Why can't the master banlist be just another http-distributed banlist that is set by default?

[Torr Samaho]

As for getting admins approval, just about every moderator or admin (except one I think) who has posted here have stated that they support it. But I'll obviously let the admins make the call on that.

I have seen a lot of mods and admins individually voicing support to end the hiding, but I have yet to see that they explicitly state that the team made any decision. If it is just about ending the hiding, they simply need to restart the master with a different option anyway. Since this didn't happen so far, apparently the final decision has not been made. Changing whether a server can use the master banlist, but still whitelist parts of the master is entirely different and requires changes in the binary. I have yet to see noticeable support for this from the admins. I personally think this should be changed, but this decisions is up to the admins.

What about my idea of having the master server add a special character to the beginning of the name of a server that doesn't enforce the entire master ban list? That method would't require a rewrite of any server browser.

Once servers can whitelist part of the master banlist this is technically more difficult and still relies on the honesty of the server admins. Since the source is open, one could just slightly alter the source and the server wouldn't report this anymore.

I've long championed the idea of allowing servers to whitelist masterbans and HTTP-distributed banlists in the past. But why have both a master banlist and HTTP banlists? Why are two systems necessary?

I don't think that two systems are needed.

[Empyre]

I was assuming that the master server would not display servers that are modified. If they modified the code, it is technically a new port, and no longer Zandronum, so they would need their own master server.

[Torr Samaho]

I was assuming that the master server would not display servers that are modified. If they modified the code, it is technically a new port, and no longer Zandronum, so they would need their own master server.

How should the master know that the source a server uses is modified? The master has to rely on the information the server voluntarily sends to the master and you can easily manipulate what a server sends.

[Empyre]

How does Zandronum know when protected lumps in a wad are modified?
Maybe use a checksum? I hope checksum is the right word, or at least has a clear enough meaning.

[Ænima]

OP is Tenchu

GG

[Qent]

How does Zandronum know when protected lumps in a wad are modified?
Maybe use a checksum? I hope checksum is the right word, or at least has a clear enough meaning.

A hash, but on one hand you have people like Konar6 compiling legitimate custom versions of Zandronum that you do not want to ignore, and on the other hand someone could make a custom build that simply lies about having the correct hash and so is undetectable by that method.

[Tenchu]

OP is Tenchu

GG

Since when did you turn into a shitposter? After being banned for a quite a while yourself I didn't expect to see this kind of behavior out of you. First off all I'm not even banned on the forums, my account is perfectly fine as evident by me even replying to your idiot post. Secondly Fluffles is a well-known active competitive player, the fact that you seriously thought that he was me proves that you're an idiot.

That being said, fuck you and hop off my dick you fucking insect.

[Ænima]

wow, a pretty hostile response for someone who claims to be innocent. i also never said that you were banned from these forums. hurrrrrrrr.

it's pretty obvious that you either used fluffles' name/account or got him to post this for you.

1.) fluffles hardly ever posts. like, ever. seems kinda odd that he suddenly starts posting again, not for clans, not for competition, but for this. hmmmm.
2.) you've started threads exactly like this before. twice on skulltag and once on altdeath.
3.) for some reason, you're hellbent on getting yourself whitelisted.

look dude, personally i don't really care if you succeed in getting this proposal passed or not. but the fact that you're using dirty tricks to mask your true intentions is retarded and desperate.

[Tenchu]

If you don't care about this, then why are you wasting our time with your bullshit? If there's anyone who's hellbent on doing something it's you trying to uncover some massive conspiracy that doesn't even exist. You're right I've tried bringing this to the public eye before, and even met with success, but in the long run it never ended up happening and I gave up long ago on it. And while I will admit the creation of *this* topic stemmed from a discussion Fluffles and I had in #idl one night, I did not have any part in the creation of it - that was all him. And if you still want to question that, well then you can refer to the second part of my first post.

[Ruin]

Take it easy gentlemen.

[Captain Izayoi]

Not having the option to opt out takes all of the responsibility out of server administrators. You cut off their authority. The master ban list should be a guideline, not the law.

[Ænima]

A masterban is a masterban. You get banned for idiocy or hacking? Tough luck. Play offline or in private servers. Server hosts shouldn't be able to decide who gets pardoned and who doesn't.

If your server whitelists masterbannees, it should either be visibly branded as such ("warning: this server doesn't wholly enforce the master banlist"), or it shouldn't be broadcast at all.

[legion]

A masterban is a masterban. You get banned for idiocy or hacking? Tough luck. Play offline or in private servers. Server hosts shouldn't be able to decide who gets pardoned and who doesn't.

If your server whitelists masterbannees, it should either be visibly branded as such ("warning: this server doesn't wholly enforce the master banlist"), or it shouldn't be broadcast at all.

server hosts should be able to decide who plays and who doesn't on their servers, because guess what, they run and pay for the servers, and you do not. I do agree that servers should have some sort of indication of whether or not it is enforcing the main community banlist, however