An easier way for the owner to prevent himself being banned

Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Mar 6 2008, 1:44 pm
In response to Keeth
Keeth wrote:
The IsBanned() procedure is based on the key that is hosting the world's pager-ban list.
This will easily stop people from hosting the game if a certain key has been pager-banned.

> world
>  New()
>   if (IsBanned("Guy"))
>    world.log << "Guy is banned?"
>    world.log << "I don't think so, sir."
>    world.log << "DELETED"
>    del(src) // kill the world...
>   ..()
>

This will only work of the key is pager-banned before the world is run.

You'd probably have to put it in a separate procedure that is run often to make sure they don't ban the person after starting up the world.


I thought people said this was impossible, like in the first reply.
Mar 6 2008, 1:46 pm
In response to Obs
It's impossible to stop people from disallowing you connection to the game, because there are a hundred other ways to stop people from joining.

Rather than in-game things, they can simply not allow connections from a certain place to their computer.

You can stop people from pager-banning you.
You can stop people from using in-game methods to ban you.
You cannot stop people from using other means to stop you from joining the game.
Mar 6 2008, 1:50 pm (Edited on Mar 6 2008, 2:01 pm)
In response to Airjoe
We might as well not lock the doors in our homes either. I mean, criminals can break in anyway, right?

This applies if you had given the criminal the key in the beginning.

"Here's the key to my house. Now don't come in and steal stuff while I'm gone. Those are the rules. If you plan on breaking the rules, do not take this key. I'll set it down right here on the ground."

You can't expect them to follow the rules just because you told them to.
It's not like you made them sign a contract saying "I won't".
You gave them the resources, they'll do what they want with it, and you should expect it.
Mar 6 2008, 3:27 pm
In response to Keeth
Keeth wrote:
This will only work of the key is pager-banned before the world is run.

You'd probably have to put it in a separate procedure that is run often to make sure they don't ban the person after starting up the world.

This solution is useless against the almighty hostban, which can't be touched by teh code.
Mar 6 2008, 3:37 pm
In response to Audeuro
Audeuro wrote:
Keeth wrote:
This will only work of the key is pager-banned before the world is run.

You'd probably have to put it in a separate procedure that is run often to make sure they don't ban the person after starting up the world.

This solution is useless against the almighty hostban, which can't be touched by teh code.


How about if when the world starts up it requires someone (such as a vicious iron dictator with no mercy) to log in and give it his blessing with his own key before the world will actually work or do anything?


How about if that process was automated ?



Key Forge?
Mar 6 2008, 3:39 pm
In response to Obs
That indeed would work. But, as usual, there are many ways it could still be exploited.
Mar 6 2008, 3:40 pm
In response to Audeuro
By forging a key
Mar 6 2008, 7:13 pm
In response to Keeth
It's not about having the criminal not steal from my house, it would be the criminal locking me out. That's why I still have my key, so I can get back in to my house. And if they try to lock me out, then I take their key away.


Understand?
Mar 7 2008, 2:37 am
In response to Obs
Obs wrote:
Doubt it will work.

His suggested way could easily work. Just that it's circumventable like the rest of the approaches, including somehow using shell(), but that's a bad idea to begin with.

Also to clarify, pager-bans can be stopped with world.IsBanned(). Bans from Dream Daemon however, can't be.
Mar 7 2008, 5:06 am
In response to Airjoe
Airjoe wrote:
Understand?

I don't quite think you understand. The house is not yours to begin with; it's the hosts'.

It's like giving away free sofas and telling anybody that gets one that they should always let you in their homes.

Then, you come blundering into my house late at night. Respecting you enough, I accept this, but then you start annoying me. I proceed to kick you from my house, but you bring up the aformentioned rules and tell me to give back "your" sofa.

-- Data
Mar 7 2008, 5:12 am (Edited on Mar 7 2008, 6:55 am)
In response to Android Data
Then how come hosting a private server of WoW is illegal then?
Mar 7 2008, 5:20 am
In response to Dragonn
Dragonn wrote:
The how come hosting a private server of WoW is illegal then?

Because of two reasons:
1) The source-code of the server or the binaries of the server may have been decompiled or otherwise come into possession of others without permission. Note that this does not apply when the server software is simply rewritten from scratch with public knowledge as in some cases (like Ultima Online, I think) happens.
2) Companies like Blizzard tend to use EULA's more often, because they like to put up restrictions for their end-users even though this is only more likely to piss them off rather than do any good.

Likewise, there is an EULA for Windows Vista that prohibits you from installing it in a virtual environment without permission and there's also an EULA for RealPlayer which prohibits you from using it to manufacture nuclear weapons (I'm not kidding, it actually says this in the EULA.)

EULA's are meant to restrict what users do with things they already own and I firmly believe they should be shot down just like all those other dumb ideas like region codes for DVDs.

Note that people tend not to listen to EULA's because of the very definition of them, so even if BYOND Staff implements way to do what you ask people will just use their firewalls to ban you, completely bypassing your own systems. Even if BYOND Staff make an official BYOND Rule(TM) out of this, people will still break it!

In conclusion, EULA's are stupid, EULA's are stupid, EULA's are stupid.

-- Data
Mar 7 2008, 6:11 am
In response to Android Data
Android Data wrote:
Dragonn wrote:
The how come hosting a private server of WoW is illegal then?

Because of two reasons:
1) The source-code of the server or the binaries of the server may have been decompiled or otherwise come into possession of others without permission. Note that this does not apply when the server software is simply rewritten from scratch with public knowledge as in some cases (like Ultima Online, I think) happens.

And that aside, Blizzard has not distributed their server code. Had they distributed their servers for public use and then tried to bait-and-switch the licensing of those servers, people would be justifiably pretty annoyed. But Blizzard retains absolute control of its servers; i.e., the hosts all work for them.

2) Companies like Blizzard tend to use EULA's more often, because they like to put up restrictions for their end-users even though this is only more likely to piss them off rather than do any good.

Likewise, there is an EULA for Windows Vista that prohibits you from installing it in a virtual environment without permission and there's also an EULA for RealPlayer which prohibits you from using it to manufacture nuclear weapons (I'm not kidding, it actually says this in the EULA.)

EULA's are meant to restrict what users do with things they already own and I firmly believe they should be shot down just like all those other dumb ideas like region codes for DVDs.

Agreed. However EULAs do serve one and only one important purpose: They clarify how many "software licenses" are granted (i.e. if it's an end-user version or one designed for multiple computers in a school/office), and any copyright issues arising from redistributing the software. This is not so much an agreement, though, as merely the terms of use. I think if a user chose to challenge one of these things they'd win in a heartbeat because the average Joe doesn't speak legalese and can't interpret the "agreement" well enough to actually agree to it properly--yet they're forced to do so to use the product at all.

None of the legitimate things EULAs actually do, though, are what Dragonn wants to do with his own terms for hosting. His model is to implement the illigitimate things EULAs do--namely to exercise unjust control over the end user on issues where the author frankly has no legal or moral basis to do so.

Lummox JR
Mar 7 2008, 6:59 am
In response to Lummox JR
Well. With those last two posts the situation has been fully explained to me. But I still would like some kind of hub-banning for individual hosts instead of just the hub password system.

If you dont remember what my hub-ban was:

You can enter keys into the hub ban list, if world.host of any server = one of those keys you entered, the server either doesnt appear, closes its port, or shutdown is called. (I'd prefer all 3, choosable)

I should probably start a new topic to suggest hub-bans but if its going to be something that will never be considered for implementation I'd like Lummox to tell me right here before I go posting it.
Mar 7 2008, 7:25 am
In response to Dragonn
Just drop the topic. It's worthless and you've already spammed an entire forum with it.
Mar 7 2008, 7:44 am
In response to Android Data
Android Data wrote:
Airjoe wrote:
Understand?

I don't quite think you understand. The house is not yours to begin with; it's the hosts'.

So you obviously didn't understand the analogy. Okay, we'll continue with yours.

It's like giving away free sofas and telling anybody that gets one that they should always let you in their homes.

Almost. I'll loan you a free sofa, under the condition that I can sit on that sofa when I want, and that you must abide by whatever rules I set for that sofa, such as not eating on it, drinking on it, or being a complete [expletive deleted] on it.

Then, you come blundering into my house late at night. Respecting you enough, I accept this, but then you start annoying me. I proceed to kick you from my house, but you bring up the aformentioned rules and tell me to give back "your" sofa.

No, I don't come in blundering late at night, I come back telling you to quit spilling your food all over the sofa that still belongs to me. Sure, kick me out of your house, but I'm taking the sofa with me.
Mar 7 2008, 7:45 am
I've begun writing a library to put power back into the hands of the owner.

Mar 7 2008, 7:47 am
In response to Airjoe
Airjoe wrote:
Almost. I'll loan you a free sofa, under the condition that I can sit on that sofa when I want, and that you must abide by whatever rules I set for that sofa, such as not eating on it, drinking on it, or being a complete [expletive deleted] on it.

This is not the case here. Host files are downloaded, and then you own the copy you have. You can't loan computer software, only physical objects.

No, I don't come in blundering late at night, I come back telling you to quit spilling your food all over the sofa that still belongs to me. Sure, kick me out of your house, but I'm taking the sofa with me.

As I said, the sofa does not belong to you. In fact, you duplicated your sofa using a duplicator machine, and then you gave your sofa to me.

-- Data
Mar 7 2008, 7:51 am
In response to Dragonn
Dragonn wrote:
You can enter keys into the hub ban list, if world.host of any server = one of those keys you entered, the server either doesnt appear, closes its port, or shutdown is called. (I'd prefer all 3, choosable)

I should probably start a new topic to suggest hub-bans but if its going to be something that will never be considered for implementation I'd like Lummox to tell me right here before I go posting it.

This probably won't be implemented for a few reasons:

  • It wouldn't be effective; hosts could change keys very easily.
  • It'd be just another customization element that is seldom-used, which is the opposite direction we've been going in.

    I can see some utility in this kind of thing of course, but really this sort of system is usually more requested by people who limit hosts to just a few individuals who work for them. For those cases there actually are other ways of controlling who can host.

    Lummox JR
Mar 7 2008, 7:57 am
In response to Airjoe
Airjoe wrote:
I've begun writing a library to put power back into the hands of the owner.

And how do you intend to do that?

If you use world.Export to retrieve a list of allowed hosts from the internet, I can bypass this easily by making my own computer check my own list.

If you use world.Export to connect to a central server and verify a list, again, I can make my own central server which verifies and make my own computer check that server instead.

If you require the host to login, I can try to bypass this by making my key.txt file accept a login as the host. Connections from my own computer won't be verified by the hub so I may then be able to use this to login under your key. I'm not too sure if this will work, but even if it doesn't, the whole idea still doesn't have any merit because it requires the owner to be constantly present.

In the end, it doesn't even matter, because I have ultimate power: my computer is the host, therefore, I can route internet traffic to where-ever I like.

But go ahead and make your library. I won't use it, and I won't host games people make that do use it, even if they want me to host*. And I will encourage others to follow in my footsteps.

Creator > Host, my ass. If you don't want me to host, don't give out the host files. Or just implement systems like the one you're going to develop, since I don't want to host after that.

-- Data

* You will probably reply and say that you wouldn't want me to host either, and that you don't care. In that case I have some irony for you: the leftovers of people that will host will be the targets you want to block.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5