Community Ban List

[-PR-Sandbag]

Just puting out the feelers for how people might like to see a community ban list operated?

• As a forum topic here?
• As a text document hosted somewhere that Server admins can just cat to or from?
• What kinds of conditions would need to be met before you would subscribe to it's use? For example our community have a zero tolerance policy towards bullying and all forms of prejudice - that's a paddlin.
• What criteria need to be met before calling haxor?

 

[XxDanclarke96xX]

I think if anyone is constantly trolling or annoying players they could hit a ban button at the top, this would open up a page asking for a reason why, after say 30 people have banned a person, the forum admins could have a look at all of the reason and if most of them are for the same then a ban should be warrented and the players account/posts voided.

*cough* benzilla *cough*

EDIT - also there should be an option for a forum pages creator (the person who originally started it) to refuse certain players the ability to comment, this can be done by typing the players name into a small box when editing the main article, kind of similar to when you are sending a private message (when you start to type the name and it gives you similar names to make the search easier).

 

[-PR-Sandbag]

That then requires that person to have annoyed/hacked/griefed X numbers of servers before anything occurs, which kinda defeats the purpose of a community ban list.

It\'s to prevent everyone from having to have dealt with that individual. EG: If they\'re banned on NASS they\'re banned on PR-Gaming.

We had a guy come in and spawn camp - and then somehow refaction the spawn\'s home base and destroy spawn. This is the type of person I would gladly add to my banlist - if another admin let me know about them.

 

[Wade]

i really like this idea a lot then it is troll at own risk. it would kinda be like an updated blacklist type thing? If so then that would be cool especialy if the ban list was updated by the mods or schema so people could get updated lists of knowen impossible to deal with trolls

 

[Morrigi]

It\'s not gonna happen for the same reason it never really worked with Minecraft. Regardless of intentions, systems like this are generally either abused or simply don\'t work.

One of the main reasons for this is that \"griefing\" will mean 50 different things to 50 different people. A ban for \"griefing\" could, in reality, mean anything from disagreeing with an admin, to definding yourself against someone who is actually griefing, to being falsely accused, to actually griefing in the sense of breaking things that aren\'t yours for no other reason than to piss people off.

It is impossible to set a standard for what constitutes griefing, so a significant proportion of bans due to alleged griefing are, not actually considered griefing by a large portion of the rest of the community.

There is also a large body of people who fall into the appeal to authority: \"Well, he was banned, he must mean he\'s a dick.\" This, of course, ignores the fact that there are plenty of shitty admins in the gaming world and plenty of shitty servers. As StarMade grows, it will be no different.

In the end, it is likely that either the system will not be considered to catch enough griefers and thus be considered useless, or it will catch too many innocent people and be considered unfair, corrupt, and so on, and few servers will use it.

 

[Qweesdy]

Hi,

Hehe. If this worked, then -PR-Sandbag would be capable of banning any number of innocent players on all servers just with a little cut&paste. This would make -PR-Sandbag the most successfull greifer ever! ;-)

Note: I am joking. I don\'t know anything about -PR-Sandbag (they might be a good/honest person for all I know).

 

[Raichor]

Perhaps the list should be ordered by severity of the offence. For example section griefing: maybe ordered by number of blocks destroyed, and admins can set the parameters of what severity of offence to ban and under what sections of the list to ban.

There would be sections for each type of server with sub sections that apply to the general rules such as no trolling or griefing.



Genereal Server section



Griefing

-Severity by blocks

Trolling

-Severity judged by server admin community, Admin would write what they did, and other admins vote on severity from a set scale.

Hacking

-Severity judge by degree of hacking on a scale of 1 to 5

1- Minor Hacks e.g. Credit hacks

2- Semi-Minor Hacks e.g. Spamming hacks

3- Semi-Major hacks e.g. Movement hacks

4- Major hacks e.g. Griefing tools / Lag switches

5- Destructive hacks e.g. Closed down server / force admin



Build server section



Griefing

-Higher severity than general server. depending on blocks

Trolling

-same as general server.

Open warfare (not allowed on some build servers, can be deselected)

-Severity depending on average of two scales: Number of ships attacked : Severity of attack

Number of ships:

1- 0 to 3

2- 4 to 7

3- 8 to 12

4- 13 to 14

5- 15+

Severity:

1- Little Damage (0% to 10% of ship/s destroyed)

2- Minor Damage (11% to 20% of ship/s destroyed)

3- Major Damage (21% to 40% of ship/s destroyed)

4- Detrimental Damage (41% to 65% of ship/s destroyed)

5- Catastophic Damage (66% to 100% of ship/s destroyed)

Hacking

-Same as general

And so on for Sections; Event server, RP server etc.

General server should cover most of the criteria people are looking for though.

Note: These values are just an example.

 

[jjaquinta]

I wrote up a patent application for a system to deal with this. It didn\'t get approved so I can share with the world. It\'s probably too heavyweight for this. But it might give some people food for thought.

For this, the only thing I think that would be workable is to be simple, and to give control to individual servers.

1) Anyone can \"vote down\" anyone else for any reason. They have to use their registered name and the target\'s registered name. This is tracked centrally in a database which just ensures that you can\'t vote multiple times.

2) Servers can query the list for a list of names, or individual names, with a specific negative vote rating or higher.

Something as simple as this removes any complex categorization of behavior. It, essentially, comes down to \"how many people has this person pissed off\". Which isn\'t that unreasonable a metric. And, each server can decide how seriously they take the number. Some servers might want to have a \"no second chance\" policy and ban anyone with 1 or more down-votes. Another might decide 16 is a better number, etc.

No, it isn\'t perfect. Clever people with think of clever ways of messing with it. But I think it is workable, would improve things, and is at least a starting point.

 

[-PR-Sandbag]

I really like the sound of that - I\'ll check it out over the weekend. Thanks

 

[-PR-Sandbag]

This would only work if the people maintaing it agreed about some basics, and people had a place to go appeal.

 

[-PR-Sandbag]

.

 

[jjaquinta]

It\'s not hard to do. I can write the server code for it if you like. The only thing I\'m unclear about is how to authenticate. I.e. to make sure that the person reporting it is really the person reporting it. If StarMade doesn\'t have an authentication API, it could be done on a server basis. I.e. the owner of the server would sign up for a ban-list ID and would be responsible for making sure the user is a valid user.