FYI L2+ Ops

[Rudemeister]

Since Priit wasn't so kind as to leave a user guide laying around for BanG, there have been certain things we've had to figure out on our own.

 

I'm sure you're all familiar with the dreaded common mid. They are even more of a !@#$%^&* to cope with when one appears in a netban. They create much unneccesary work for you, trying to find an alternative to banfreeing a bevy of users, or having to remove the mid altogether.

!@#$%^&*uming you create these bans locally before copying them to the network list, it pays to check the banID, specifically the Users with same ID: field. If the number of users with the same mid is significantly greater than the number of users with the same IP, or if the number with the same mid is stretched over more than two timezones, chances are you have a common mid on your hands. In these cases it's better to leave the IDdata active on the netban to avoid having as many caught in that netban because of the mid.

I don't know how it actually works because my predecessors had less of an idea, but despite it's inability to block the IP if the mid is changed, it moreoften than not will still allow users of the common mid to access the network. Hence you would be helping out BanG admin, whose work I assume is comprised mostly of common mids needing removed. Even if your guy does evade the netban, the more evasions you ban with IDdata, the harder it gets for your target player to cir!@#$%^&*vent them (as I hope was the case with passive+).

 

This might be a case of the "Duh" for some older Netops, but I know there are quite a few of you out there who hadn't thought of it before. I just felt compelled to post about this as it there is yet another example of these common mid netbans (2301) recently made that has 229 nicks across 9 different timezones blocked. As fortune would have it, I have the same target banned with IDdata days beforehand that can replace 2301 should MG not have the IDdata active on their local copy.

On a side note, I have been collaborating with SuperGM007 and a few other BanG Ops across the network to maximise our effeciency in keeping those undesirables in check. This involves the pooling of banlists, with which you can then cross reference against your own. There was once talk of a web interface for aliasing across the whole network, but we're all fully aware of the speeds at which these projects take shape, so this is possibly the next best thing to it. PM me if you're interested in combining your powers with us, Captain Planet style, or even if you have no idea what the !@#$%^&* I'm talking about and want to find out.

[L.C.]

PM me if you're interested in combining your powers with us, Captain Planet style

Done.

[MikeTheNose]

As the BanG Admin, let me know if I can do anything to help.

[Confess]

FYI rudemeister is rudy ingame.

[PoLiX]

MM... just finally read this thread... here is another one... for those trying to read through past net-bans and such...

 

?listban -* #id #wanted

IE: ?listban -* #2200 20 :: Will list 20 net-bans starting from #2200.

 

Not sure how well known, but figured i'd share it. There was another syntax to cause that also, more of a bug, but I forget how.

[Aceflyer]

On a side note, I have been collaborating with SuperGM007 and a few other BanG Ops across the network to maximise our effeciency in keeping those undesirables in check. This involves the pooling of banlists, with which you can then cross reference against your own. There was once talk of a web interface for aliasing across the whole network, but we're all fully aware of the speeds at which these projects take shape, so this is possibly the next best thing to it.

 

First off, I realize this is an old thread, but its content is still very much relevant, so I don't feel too bad about 'bumping' it.

 

I agree that being able to cross reference banlists across various SSC zones is a good method of maximizing efficiency in keeping undesirables banned. However, while the current system (designed by Rudy) is great, it does have a major shortcoming - it isn't "real-time".

 

It might be possible to improve on the current system by having a system of "reciprocal BanG access" in participating zones, where the main BanG op (and only the main BanG op) at each zone has L3 access at the other zone for purposes of being able to view bandata in "real-time". (Why L3? L4 can't view IP addresses.) I'm reasonably sure the main BanG ops at most SSC zones can be trusted not to use L3 access at another zone to ban people, or otherwise abuse this access by using it for anything other than the purpose of getting bandata. Besides, the system would only be set up between zones where both zones are willing, so no zone would be 'forced' to grant access to an op they might not trust.

 

Thoughts? Or is this proposal completely ludicrous for some reason I may not have thought of?

[Resol]

Isn't this the way they did it before?

 

I am fairly positive, when I was running a zone, (ALTEC . hosted) I was level 3 BanG Op.

 

Maybe this was just something that Altec . did differently then the rest.

[Rudemeister]

It becomes a matter of trust. They may be a high level BanG operative in their primary zone, but can you really trust them not to screw things up in your own?

What happens if they are fired from their primary zone? Do you want to risk a rogue operative stalking across the network?

 

This is why you have L0's anyway. If their role wasn't only about resolving netban tickets, it'd be quite easy for them to do exactly what it is I've been attempting with my jury rigged setup. Of course a network wide aliasing system couldn't go astray in that regard... But again, pipe dreams. We make do with what resources we have.

[»freakmonger]

I agree with Rudy about the BanG Op.

 

But the network wide aliasing system is very doable and only requires the cooperation of zone owners/head sysops. I have one in place for SSCC (just have to add 1 more zone to it). I have very strict control on the access to the SSCC Alias Database. Of course the system could be improved if the alias system was put directly into the biller but I use Bots for SSCC. It's been tested for awhile now and hasn't had any problems. Of course now that I said that, I'll have ungodly problems in the near future lol.

[Aceflyer]

But the network wide aliasing system is very doable and only requires the cooperation of zone owners/head sysops. I have one in place for SSCC (just have to add 1 more zone to it). I have very strict control on the access to the SSCC Alias Database. Of course the system could be improved if the alias system was put directly into the biller but I use Bots for SSCC. It's been tested for awhile now and hasn't had any problems.

 

Agreed; the SSCC bot-run alias database system is terrific.

[Hoch]

These days the most serious offenders are net-

banned. As the BanG Administrators (myself and

MTN) can view bans in any zone on the SSC net-

work, I do not think individual zones adding BanG

Op's from other zones will accomplish much. I

also express a similar view that Rudy put forward.

 

However, as FM has already mentioned what

would be more beneficial for all is intra-zone co-

operation on alias information. Recently I raised

this with FM and plan to do so with others when

time allows for it.

 

Cheers,

 

-Hoch

[Aceflyer]

It becomes a matter of trust. They may be a high level BanG operative in their primary zone, but can you really trust them not to screw things up in your own?

What happens if they are fired from their primary zone? Do you want to risk a rogue operative stalking across the network?

 

True, when put this way it does appear to involve an unacceptable compromise of security.

 

However, as FM has already mentioned what

would be more beneficial for all is intra-zone co-

operation on alias information. Recently I raised

this with FM and plan to do so with others when

time allows for it.

 

Cheers,

 

-Hoch

 

This sounds very promising, thanks Hoch!

[»Lynx]

I'm willing to help, if it's needed.

[Samapico]

However, as FM has already mentioned what

would be more beneficial for all is intra-zone co-

operation on alias information. Recently I raised

this with FM and plan to do so with others when

time allows for it.

 

Cheers,

 

-Hoch

So..like... a bot plugin that all the zones use and they all connect to the same database to provide information on people that come in?

[»freakmonger]

each zone has its respective alias bot/bot ops, but the bot connects to one central database.

 

Right now, SSCC Zones are allowed 3 bot ops for the SSCC Alias Bot.

 

I've had this going on for awhile now, just testing with SSCC Zones before I took it out to the other zone owners.

[»Lynx]

Wasn't there also that bot based statistics thing a few years ago, which even showed logins, last word said, most lines said... and loads of other bull!@#$%^&*... I remember it also having an alias database, but it was also really un-stable.. :S

[candygirl]

each zone has its respective alias bot/bot ops, but the bot connects to one central database.

 

Right now, SSCC Zones are allowed 3 bot ops for the SSCC Alias Bot.

 

I've had this going on for awhile now, just testing with SSCC Zones before I took it out to the other zone owners.

 

The Alias Bot works good and thanks freakmonger

[Samapico]

Wasn't there also that bot based statistics thing a few years ago, which even showed logins, last word said, most lines said... and loads of other bull!@#$%^&*... I remember it also having an alias database, but it was also really un-stable.. :S

17th had a plugin like that some time ago... It also showed ship usage, and a bunch of other stats. It was taken off due to high bandwidth/hardware usage, I believe.

 

Would there be a way to merge data from other alias databases? Like we have a pretty big alias database in 17th, that was mostly active like 3-4 years ago. I guess it could only work if it has ALL the same data fields...

[»Lynx]

Is there an alias database which doesn't have any problems with clashes, I've not seen any.

[Aceflyer]

Would there be a way to merge data from other alias databases? Like we have a pretty big alias database in 17th, that was mostly active like 3-4 years ago. I guess it could only work if it has ALL the same data fields...

 

Seems that it would be helpful if you (representing 17th Parallel) were willing to "combine your powers" (i.e. the alias data) with some of us as per Rudy's OP in this thread.

[Aquatiq]

This sounds like a really good idea, I'm not a l2 op but I know if a guy is like suspected of testing a cheat and switching names/zones all the time it'd be a good way to track him (though it's really easy to spot 99% of them on sight lol) :]

Also good for taking out cross-zone spammers and the like. Well all this kind of goes without saying o_O

Edited April 2, 2008 by Aquatiq

[Hoch]

I'm still on holiday in the US. When I get back home

to London next week I'll start to formulate what I had

in mind. Though, from what I have read so far I am

very encouraged by the amount of interest.

 

Cheers,

 

-Hoch

[candygirl]

MM... just finally read this thread... here is another one... for those trying to read through past net-bans and such...

 

?listban -* #id #wanted

IE: ?listban -* #2200 20 :: Will list 20 net-bans starting from #2200.

 

Not sure how well known, but figured i'd share it. There was another syntax to cause that also, more of a bug, but I forget how.

 

wow i did not no there was that many netbans.

[Aceflyer]

MM... just finally read this thread... here is another one... for those trying to read through past net-bans and such...

 

?listban -* #id #wanted

IE: ?listban -* #2200 20 :: Will list 20 net-bans starting from #2200.

 

Not sure how well known, but figured i'd share it. There was another syntax to cause that also, more of a bug, but I forget how.

 

wow i did not no there was that many netbans.

 

2459 at last count. Lots of bad 'players' out there. <_<

[rootbear75]

MM... just finally read this thread... here is another one... for those trying to read through past net-bans and such...

 

?listban -* #id #wanted

IE: ?listban -* #2200 20 :: Will list 20 net-bans starting from #2200.

 

Not sure how well known, but figured i'd share it. There was another syntax to cause that also, more of a bug, but I forget how.

 

wow i did not no there was that many netbans.

 

2459 at last count. Lots of bad 'players' out there.

a lot of those are also evaders