Descriptive Problem Summary:
Numbered Steps to Reproduce Problem:
Code Snippet (if applicable) to Reproduce Problem:
I kicked a few people as to recreate the event and instead of just booting them it added them to the bans list as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgAzGN_WUAY it helps to put it from 360P to 720P and put it in full screen mode
Expected Results:
The person to get kicked and come right back
Actual Results:
The person got kicked and even upon removing them from the bans list they were still banned until I shut down dream daemon and reopened it
Does the problem occur:
It occurs every time
I don't know I haven't tried
Same as above
Same as above
So far every time
Dunno It's never occurred for me before
Workarounds:None that I know of
ID:101291
 Sep 1 2010, 7:06 pm
|
|||||||||||||
Not a bug
| |||||||||||||
|
Sep 1 2010, 8:36 pm
|
|
Lummox JR
   |
This is intended behavior. If you have reason to kick someone, it's a sure bet you probably don't want them back immediately. A kick applies a ban for the rest of the session.
|
Stupid imo kick should be like a boot verb there is a ban command for a reason in which you can set the time for which they are banned you don't need to ban them when they get kicked it's annoying thanks to this retarded feature 2 of my friends now think I'm an asshole BYOND has yet again managed to fail if this is what I get for being a member fuck you too no offense meant BYOND in General not you.
| |
I don't see why you're getting so upset over the way a feature was implemented; it certainly doesn't justify the profanity. Since it was first introduced it has always worked this way, and in fact it's well documented. This is really the most sensible way for it to work, since obviously if you're kicking out a troublemaker you don't want them back immediately, but if the infraction was minor you might not want to ban them forever, just for the session. If you have some reason to really want to kick out a user only temporarily and you don't have a game verb to do it, a simple workaround is to use Dream Daemon's kick and then immediately unban the user. This, too, is mentioned in the help file for Dream Daemon.
If the kick didn't include an auto-ban, many more people would be annoyed because it would be letting users back in right away who they really wanted to keep out. Kicking out friends is the exception, not the rule. Normally if you want to kick someone out it's because they're not welcome in that session anymore. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
I don't see why you're getting so upset over the way a feature was implemented; it certainly doesn't justify the profanity. Since it was first introduced it has always worked this way, and in fact it's well documented. This is really the most sensible way for it to work, since obviously if you're kicking out a troublemaker you don't want them back immediately, but if the infraction was minor you might not want to ban them forever, just for the session. If you have some reason to really want to kick out a user only temporarily and you don't have a game verb to do it, a simple workaround is to use Dream Daemon's kick and then immediately unban the user. This, too, is mentioned in the help file for Dream Daemon. This is horrible logic. The point of kicking someone is to get their attention to give them a proverbial slap on the wrist. What you are describing as an "intended feature" is considered bad administration everywhere else I have ever been. The process goes: Warn, kick, ban, possible second longer ban if you're generous, then permaban. | |
If you want someones attention and they aren't listening to you, then as a member of staff on that game, you suck at it.
If they're breaking a rule, a session kick is a nice small punishment for rule breaking. If you're randomly kicking people to lol at them (Or to show that you have some power verbs), then it's your own problem. The only reason I see a kick feature that allows a user to log straight back in would be kicking AFK players to free up space, which by the sounds of it, you weren't doing. Your process is your own opinion, it doesn't have to be like that, some game owners might decide, do one thing wrong and you're gone. Every game has different processes for their punishments. For example I wouldn't generally warn anyone, if someone was breaking a rule, they'd be punished, there would be a list of rules there that players should of read, if they didn't read them then tuff. | |
I think its safe to say that the kick function should have some options such as a setting that determines if the kick should last for the entire session until reboot or if the kick is simply an ejection from the current connection as described by the OP.
| |
I think if you need to kick players for an event to work you fail
| |
Spades_Neil wrote:
This is horrible logic. The point of kicking someone is to get their attention to give them a proverbial slap on the wrist. What you are describing as an "intended feature" is considered bad administration everywhere else I have ever been. Sorry, but it appears that your idea of "kick" that you get from playing all those rips is different that that of the developers of this software. What you are asking, if you were to phrase it in a more mature way (and you know, as a question), is for there to be a "boot" and a "kick" option, the former being just a forced logout that does not ban them and the latter being the one that bans them for the session. Seeing as Lummox is the guy who does a lot of the work on these kinds of things (I believe he does most of it, but I'm being careful here because I don't remember the different roles that he and Tom play and don't want to step on any toes), I would think it in your best interests to try to phrase your posts a little better if you want anything you say to be taken seriously into account as a feature for BYOND. | |
The way it works now should be fairly straightforward and flexible, but we may have overlooked something. Basically the server and the host should both have access to the same ban list, which is set through the 'ban.txt' file. So when you ban a person in game, the ban is added to 'ban.txt' and should display on the DD GUI. Similarly, when you ban a person in DD, the ban is added to 'ban.txt' and the game can access the ban through IsBanned() or GetConfig(). Also, you should be able to manually edit 'ban.txt' and have those changes update DD (although I'm not 100%) on this.
Now based on the other report, I suspect there is a bug where a person could be banned via IP but that is not showing up in the DD GUI. But I'll need confirmation of that. We are open to changing default behavior here. I think it makes sense that the 'kick' should do a session ban (which the host should be able to alter), but I'm not the one hosting a bunch of games so what do I know. | |
An easy solution to make both parties happy would be to possibly have it as a popup asking whether you want it to boot them for the session or just do a warning kick, which is what I assume the OP uses it for.
| |
In the next release, kicks will still be session bans but they will not be sticky. I have also added something to add a reason to the ban, just to show that it was a kick.
| |