Alts to evade bans... - Earth Empires Forum

iccyh

Member
465

Dec 18th 2014, 15:50:31

A combination of realism and modding philosophy. If the alt breaks a rule, or makes a show of evading, then they'll get banned again. Otherwise, we don't care so long as the rules aren't being broken.

It isn't like it's time consuming or difficult to do it this way.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 15:52:56

You did not answer the original question :p

iccyh

Member
465

Dec 18th 2014, 15:54:22

I thought it was implied. Directly, then: no, it's deliberately done.

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 15:55:11

strong statement from someone who wasnt here when the forums were coded by DM.

or were you?

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

NukEvil

Member
4327

Dec 18th 2014, 15:56:27

I believe Requiem is asking about the fact that people are allowed to either still create alternate forum accounts, or are still allowed to use forum accounts not tied to a game account to post on the forums.

I also like that Tellarion closed the thread I posted on, then you (Iccyh) opened it back up just so you could have the final post on it, then deleted the post afterwards. Doesn't matter, as your post is still in the database anyways.

I am a troll. Everything I say must be assumed to be said solely to provoke an exaggerated reaction to the current topic. I fully intend to bring absolutely no substance to any discussion, ongoing or otherwise. Conversing with me is pointless.

tellarion

Member
3906

Dec 18th 2014, 16:00:00

Incomplete programming, more like it. Should tie forum handles directly to game accounts, and have a ban/timeout apply to all the handles, imo. Although making alternate handles is kind of part of the culture here :D

Nuke, he was writing the post when I closed it. After posting, he realized I closed it, so he deleted the post.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:01:05

Originally posted by iccyh:

I thought it was implied. Directly, then: no, it's deliberately done.

It wasn't deliberately done because pang didn't know it was possible till it happened...

Originally posted by mrford:

strong statement from someone who wasnt here when the forums were coded by DM.

or were you?

Not sure who is DM?

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 16:01:58

wait, so bans dont apply to all the handles? even the ones linked with your main?

damn, i need to elevate my troll game.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

NukEvil

Member
4327

Dec 18th 2014, 16:03:08

Dark Morbid; he lost his position as Forum Admin when he helped code the LAE site which was dedicated to running multis, and actively participated in discussions to get around the game security. And you get one guess as to who took over his position afterwards.

iccyh

Member
465

Dec 18th 2014, 16:03:37

NukEvil: I posted between when Tellarion replied and when the thread was locked, then deleted my post as soon as I realized the thread was locked. Rather hilariously, this is the same thing Jayr was complaining about; he posted between my reply and my locking, so I deleted his post; I'm just applying the same standard to myself.

mrford: I had reason to discuss this general topic with qz when asking about modding practices. Ask him if you want.

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 16:04:37

Originally posted by Requiem:

Not sure who is DM?

Dark Morbid

the dude that coded these new forums as far as i remember. he was removed from the admin staff because in FFA he and LaE used the information he gained as part of the dev team to make an elaborate proxy site built into their clan site http://www.legendsatearth.com, and used it to run hundreds of multies against the server. it was a really impressive setup having seen it after the fact. shame it was used for cheating.

he was removed from the dev team and nuke kinda took the forums over if i remember correctly. it was a long time ago.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

NukEvil

Member
4327

Dec 18th 2014, 16:05:11

So you can still post even after a thread is locked, just because you have a post input textbox?

Hmmmm...

FACT FACTS

New Member
14

Dec 18th 2014, 16:05:35

Originally posted by tellarion:

Although making alternate handles is kind of part of the culture here :D

THIS THIS THIS

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 16:06:27

Originally posted by iccyh:

mrford: I had reason to discuss this general topic with qz when asking about modding practices. Ask him if you want.

dont really care. you are still a terrible mod. and unless QZ said, "i deliberately coded the forums so people could have alternate accounts to evade bans" then you are full of fluff.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:09:02

Originally posted by NukEvil:

So you can still post even after a thread is locked, just because you have a post input textbox?

Hmmmm...

Lol I'm learning so many good tricks here...

iccyh

Member
465

Dec 18th 2014, 16:09:29

Ah I see, you don't care about the answer, you just care that *I* answered.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:12:21

You're not really qualified to answer IMO.

NukEvil

Member
4327

Dec 18th 2014, 16:12:54

Check it, ladies and gentlemen. Behold my power. I am able to post on closed threads now. I specifically remember coding a check to ensure that didn't happen. Looks like that was taken out.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:13:52

This thread isn't closed?

Edit: never mind lol. Goes back to my original question...

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 16:15:04

Originally posted by iccyh:

Ah I see, you don't care about the answer, you just care that *I* answered.

that isnt what i said at all.

you made a 2 part statement, i made a 2 part response. go back and try to understand again.

edit: to avoid the inevitable confusion on your part

i dont care that you asked qz how to be a mod, you are still a terrible mod

SECOND PART

unless qz said in your conversation that he intentionally coded the game to be this way, your statement of deliberate is not correct.

i hope this breakdown helps you understand

Edited By: mrford on Dec 18th 2014, 16:19:44

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

NukEvil

Member
4327

Dec 18th 2014, 16:15:09

No, check the Ban Iccyh thread.

Furious999

Member
1452

Dec 18th 2014, 16:16:02

I have mixed feelings about the forums here.

There is a whole bunch of ill natured stuff and a good deal of tasteless stuff also.

But we don't have kids here and the rather abrasive nature of the forums seems to suit the community which has created it so, hell, why not? There is nobody who doesn't stand up for themselves and few, or none, who withdraw hurt. :)

If the game ever had youngsters coming to play again some more heavy handed modding with effective forum bans would be good. But that is not really very likely.

I guess what I am saying is that we get the moderation that we deserve.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:16:52

Mr. Ford he is full of fluff if he sticks by its deliberately done... No question about that.

iccyh

Member
465

Dec 18th 2014, 16:22:28

I had a conversation with qz about this literally yesterday. If you're asking what the original intent was, no, I can't answer that and wouldn't pretend to be able to, but that isn't the question as I understood it.

Pardon me for trying to be helpful.

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 16:25:23

there is a difference in trying to be helpful, and just saying things that arnt true in a confident and factual manner. since you are a mod now, people will be stupid enough to believe you. stop making things up.

it is baffling just how far off base you constantly are in interpreting peoples responses to you.

Edited By: mrford on Dec 18th 2014, 16:28:47

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:29:00

You just tried to say they let this happen on purpose i.e. "Deliberately"

It's clear it was not an intentional thing lol... No programmer would allow such a thing to happen intentionally. Why even ban at that point? Just give out warnings over and over again lol...

I don't mind you trying to help but if you dont bring any thign of substance to the conversation just move on.

tellarion

Member
3906

Dec 18th 2014, 16:44:12

Deliberate feature when they coded the forums? Probably not.

Known issue/bug that qz and co made a conscious and deliberate decision NOT to fix? Yes, absolutely.

Qz is rather passive about modding and generally stays away from stuff that is controversial. How he manages to distance himself from the bs that goes on around here is pretty amazing to me :D

Point is, this has been known for at least as long as I've been back, and qz chose not to fix it.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:47:13

See iccyh that is a real answer. Take notes.

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 16:48:32

"deliberate decision" not to fix it? isnt deliberate decision a bit of a weird phrase?

more like "too much work to fix it for people who will get around it anyways." i dont see that as deliberate. maybe we have devolved into semantics.

it is cute how you 2 stick up for each other though. keep it up. he will need the support.

Edited By: mrford on Dec 18th 2014, 16:51:15

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 16:54:37

Yeah Ford at that point I think they will just devolve your argument into semantics so I probably woudn't go there.

Pang

Administrator
Game Development
5731

Dec 18th 2014, 17:02:24

I didn't read this thread but if we don't want you posting here we do IP+account bans.

Bans are pretty easy to evade regardless so long as we keep registration fully public and automated. If we require all accounts to be reviewed and accepted by a mod, that would fix the problem.

The goal is to have a self-policing community for the most part where the idiots are shouted down and marginalized. That's not going great.

-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

tellarion

Member
3906

Dec 18th 2014, 17:06:50

Originally posted by mrford:

Yes, deliberate decision. He decided not to because A) It's more work than it's worth(as you pointed out) and B) It's not really a priority for him because his views toward modding don't really necessitate it.

He pretty much said he recognized the issue and he decided not to fix/change it. I'm not arguing semantics, I'm telling you his response when this issue is brought up.

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 17:26:10

>.<

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 17:28:14

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 17:33:36

Pang are you trying to call me a idiot without calling me an idiot at the same time?

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 17:34:58

by your definition all decisions are deliberate. i dont see any anything in that decision making process that warrants the extra adjective in there for emphasis. it isnt like he coded the game that way initially. it wasnt a deliberate action, just a decision after the fact weather to correct an oversight or not.

we are arguing semantics. i suspect you really just wanted to keep your buddy iccyh's word in there lol. it is admirable.

carry on. iccyh is still a terrible mod.

Edited By: mrford on Dec 18th 2014, 17:37:53

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

SAM_DANGER

Member
1236

Dec 18th 2014, 17:47:31

Originally posted by FACT FACTS:

Originally posted by tellarion:

Although making alternate handles is kind of part of the culture here :D

THIS THIS THIS

I DISAGREE!

iZarcon

Administrator
Game Development
2150

Dec 18th 2014, 17:53:16

Originally posted by mrford:

strong statement from someone who wasnt here when the forums were coded by DM.

or were you?

DM did write a 'new' version of the forums, but it has been heavily altered/rewritten since then by a number of people including pang, qzjul, nukevil and myself. Most recently pang and qz ported it to this layout/etc.

-iZarcon
EE Developer

http://www.letskillstuff.org

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 17:56:26

fair enough

as a counter point, icchy wasnt around for any of that either. apologies for the misplaced credit though.

Edited By: mrford on Dec 18th 2014, 17:59:29

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

Requiem

Member

EE Patron
9092

Dec 18th 2014, 18:08:04

I guess thats what happens when you code forums from scratch and don't spend a ton of time on it :p

qzjul

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Dec 18th 2014, 18:23:36

Originally posted by tellarion:

The reason we *DON'T* do this is because that would encourage people to make new game accounts to ban evade. I would *MUCH* prefer ban-evasion to happen within a single game account, if they're going to evade anyway. Stops unnecessary polluting of the users table in the database.

Finally did the signature thing.

qzjul

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Dec 18th 2014, 18:25:49

Originally posted by NukEvil:

Check it, ladies and gentlemen. Behold my power. I am able to post on closed threads now. I specifically remember coding a check to ensure that didn't happen. Looks like that was taken out.

I gutted everything and reworked it all; probably missed that bit =/

Finally did the signature thing.

qzjul

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Dec 18th 2014, 18:28:25

Originally posted by mrford:

"deliberate decision" not to fix it? isnt deliberate decision a bit of a weird phrase?
more like "too much work to fix it for people who will get around it anyways." i dont see that as deliberate. maybe we have devolved into semantics.

Believe it or not, it was deliberate. My instinct always was that if we need to get to the point of banning alt-handles, we're probably heading straight for IP bans anyway, which avoids the issue of which accounts or handles are banned.

Finally did the signature thing.

Akula

Member

EE Patron
4106

Dec 18th 2014, 19:03:18

i liked the LAE setup :(

=============================
"Astra inclinant, sed non obligant"

SOL http://sol.ghqnet.com/
=============================

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 18th 2014, 19:04:04

yeah, it was a really good site. many good tools other than the multi page lol.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

tellarion

Member
3906

Dec 19th 2014, 13:20:09

Originally posted by mrford:

Speaking of arguing semantics, this is pretty much what you've been doing the whole time, lol. Iccyh used the word, people kept repeating the word and asking him about it, so I responded to how it was phrased.

PS: People make subconscious decisions as well.

I guess you'd prefer we said 'conscious decision' instead? Would that appease your semantic fetish?

mrford

Member
21,358

Dec 19th 2014, 14:35:56

you still dont get my point, and by this point you apparently wont since you seem to be suggesting synonyms. put whatever word in there you want.

Swagger of a Chupacabra

[21:37:01] <&KILLERfluffY> when I was doing FA stuff for sof the person who gave me the longest angry rant was Mr Ford

tellarion

Member
3906

Dec 19th 2014, 15:39:59

You started picking apart my statement, but apparently I'm the one that doesn't understand, so it must be my fault, right? Couldn't be that you are the one devolving into semantic arguments when the answer has been made abundantly clear.

You're saying that 'deliberate decision' is redundant. I disagree.

In either case, it doesn't matter: As both I and qz said, they decided not to change how this is handled after it popped up several years ago.

At this point, I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue..