Mar. 17th, 2005 @ 04:06 pm
I noticed that the MOTD currently displays this:
Bypassing passwords on private servers is against List Server Protocol.
Anyone found to being doing so may find there ability to play JJ2 online
limited or disabled. They could also find themselves blocked from major
community events like Anniversary Bash, Tournaments etc.
This seems contrary to Monolith's draft rules proposal. As far as I can see, bypassing passwords on private servers has absolutely nothing to do with the list server itself. The consequences are not detailed, but I assume "ability to play JJ2 online limited or disabled" means a ban from the list server. While I have no problem with programming changes to hide private servers on port 10057, I think banning from public list servers for what happens in a private communication between two individual computers is beyond its jurisdiction. Analogous would be removing a site from a search engine database because it hacked another site in the database.
My thoughts were the same when Nimrod presented this to me. I don't agree with this idea or MOTD.
I agree, and it was me the one who suffered this, I was with someone on a private server and we were invaded by password skippers who take advantage of Contrabandent list because of being outdated and displaying the private address of the servers.
Even if the "big" problem comes from the game, Contrabandent only helps people to skip password servers.
I agree with the MOTD at all, because password skipping it's something it shouldn't be done, and people seem to not be listening to this.
Yes, people shouldn't be skipping passwords, but this isn't something for the list servers to get involved with.
The service of the list servers is a passive public service. It has one very simple job of allowing people to get a list of JJ2 servers currently online. Modifying user's access to the list servers based upon actions outside the list servers is not something the list servers should be dealing with. Plus things like community events should be completely unrelated to the list servers.
It's impossible to completely hide your IP if your server is listed on the list servers, so if you really don't want people joining your server, then host it so it's not listed.
Well, for the record the MOTD was taken down, at least until we debated this some more.
The purpose of the MOTD was to stress to users that bypassing private games isnt really acceptable (similar to cheating, renaming or crashing). I did put threats in there, and although I most likely wouldnt enforce them the threat was there to make people feel its a serious issue.
Quite frankly I think it is a serious issue, but there is no one person/group who has ultimate control over this. People seem to pass on their compliants to me thinking its my job and well, no one else seemed to want to do so I put my foot down.
Then again, why would you want someone to be able to play online who blantly abuses the game?
I'm pretty sure making threats isn't going to help at all. Either people will simply ignore it, or they could possibly challange it and bypass passworded servers more often. Then if they actually get banned from the list servers, they'll have reason to complain that this is unjust control over what should be a public service.
If someone who openly goes in and breaks passworded servers turns round and says that they have a right to use this service, there terribly mistaken. Nor should anyone take them seriously.
They should get treated like Crashers, Renamers and Cheats do, public rejection.
The list server may aim to be a "public" service, but the fact remains its hosted by private individuals at a cost to them, and I know for a start I'd rather not have a list server that supports people who abuse the game.
Maybe not threats, but this is a bit similar to the CD key disabling on games from Blizzard, for example, on games like Diablo II, people keep getting disguised as channel admins or Blizzard staff and stealing CD keys.
So, yeah, that doesn't mean the service has a bug, but it just helps to make it, it's a bit similar in this case.
In games like Diablo II if you do things like stealing CD keys, makes your account and CD-Key disabled, so in this game it should be, the total banning to bad users to access list server, or, at least, baning them from official events.
Or as the less damage, just a threat.
And about what Mono says, yes, many people will stop, and others, will keep doing it... but they should know what they get.
On the other hand, I'm sure that this ammount of password skippers didn't even get an original copy... but besides that, even if they paid, if they skip password servers they don't lose the right to lose features from the game? What is this then?
In games like Diablo, people can lose even a game they have bought, so it means you paid for nothing, and that's the worst thing that it can happen.
So what are we going to do, let password skippers to skip servers like always with no kind of restrictions? wow, they could even laugh at us now I think.
Besides, even, if these cheaters asked for support... should we give them even the satisfaction that they will have it? I think no
Indeed, something this brought to my attention is...
They abused the private server feature! As far as im concerned as soon as they abused it they lost there "right" to the list servers.
|Date:||March 19th, 2005 09:12 pm (UTC)|| |
There's quite a difference between being banned from official servers for stealing CD keys (a rather illegal activity) and being banned from unofficial listing services for entering servers against the will of the host.
If you want to be technical, there is really no "skipping" or hacking going on. JJ2 does not ask for nor require a password to join games. Checking passwords is a voluntary activity on the part of the client. While deliberately not using this feature to join private servers may be immoral, it is not in any way an illegal activity.
Because of the decentralized nature of JJ2 Internet play, I would not support bans from the list server even for illegal activity that doesn't concern it. For example, would you ban people from the list server for using JJ2 games to exchange warez links? I would think not.
|Date:||March 19th, 2005 09:16 pm (UTC)|| |
I would support some kind of blacklist for cheaters, hackers, password avoiders, etc. People can report offending IPs (and give proof, such as AJJ2 logs), someone can compile them and distribute the list to be added voluntarily to hosts' ban lists. It's not that I agree with this kind of activity, it's just that I disagree with enforcing against it through the list servers.
The idea of a blacklist is indeed an interesting one and perhaps even if the list servers wouldnt enforce it, perhaps we should recommend it to hosts? Or even help compile it :)
This is kinda what the last part of the MOTD is about, the hosters of events could have a copy of this blacklist and could enforce it, as there own choice.
|Date:||March 19th, 2005 06:34 pm (UTC)|| |
I object to the use of the MOTD for the display of messages that are not supported by any existing rules or the truth. I think MOTDs shouldn't be used for messages that aim to misinform. I'm pretty concerned with how this is shaping out.
Why does it misinform? for the following reasons:
* Empty threats are technically misinformation
* "ability to play JJ2 online limited or disabled"
From conversation with you (Nimrod) it seems you want to call your listserver "JJ2 online" so this message is correct technically. However, this still is misleading as it gives the appearance people would be unable to play jj2.
* Any reference to private servers banning people who do this is informing people in a bad way when no such policy has been made, even when the message may be correct technically. It's based on nothing and so misleading. I'm also worried by the use of threats that people who do this will be banned from a public community-supported reunion like the Anniversary Bash which also makes no use of the jj2 functionality of hosting private servers.
Also, what is the List Server Protocol and where is it to be found? On what basis was it made?
List Server Protocol to me is how the list server was designed to be used, what is being done is clearly not how it was designed to be used.
You say empty threats, although I/we most likely wouldnt enforce them, the threats are still there to warn people its a serious matter.
I also never said they couldnt play JJ2, I said they couldnt play "JJ2 Online" which as u said urself is what I class as playing jj2 on the list servers.
I hope that clears up what was meant by the MOTD.