People switching names to avoid ignore, then using third party programs to spam

[Animate Dreams]

Attached is a log of one of these events. I don't think you need me to point out who I'm talking about. Since I'm not a netop, I can't be sure that any of these people are the same people, so I'm just making an educated guess.

spam.log

[Hakaku]

Private chat, can't do anything about it.

[Animate Dreams]

Last time I checked, Both name-changing to avoid ignore with the intent of cross-zone spamming

 

"Cross zone Spamming - Following a local zone ban, repeatedly

switching names to avoid ?ignore, then spamming or har!@#$%^&*ing zone

staff with cross-zone messages, after a warning to stop. Maximum 7

day net ban for first offence."

 

and using third party programs

 

"Cheating - Performing any action that an unmodified client is

incapable of performing. Developing, distributing, or promoting

cheat software. Minimal 90 day net ban for first offence."

 

were offenses punishable by netbans.

[Hakaku]

Yes, but private chats (i.e. ?chat=Name1,Name2,Name3) remain unmonitered and cannot be dealt with. As it has been said in the past, to avoid this, you have no choice but to rename your chat and move on with life, or confront the player in question yourself.

 

A public chat is a chat channel that is actively promoted by a zone, and everyone is allowed to join. Spamming on any of these would be cross-zone spamming, since it's directly !@#$%^&*ociated with staff and players originating from that zone. If a ban is put into effect, it's holds an even stronger argument. [Think Spyed, who was banned, and still spammed Devastation's chat multiple times. - Despite all the evidence, and a plead by several players and staff, he was never Net-Banned. -- Days later he erased ssforum's general chat]

 

Cross zone Spamming - Following a local zone ban, repeatedly

switching names to avoid ?ignore, then spamming or har!@#$%^&*ing zone

staff with cross-zone messages, after a warning to stop. Maximum 7

day net ban for first offence.

There's no zone in question, and you fail to mention any local bans or warnings. To top that, once again, private chats cannot be monitered by zone staff.

I'm also guessing this is all referring to Penis chat, a chat which was founded before the zone SSCI Penis, and technically started off as invite-only.

[Animate Dreams]

There's no such thing as "invite-only" chats in SubSpace. The chat isn't private. It's been advertised for in basically every SSC zone and on SSForum. But this isn't a matter of public or private chats - it's a matter of rules being violated. Also, there IS a zone in question, and I shouldn't have to mention any local bans. Using a 3rd party program to spam with is a bannable offense whether it's in a zone's public chat or in a private chat. Under what you've said, were he harr!@#$%^&*ing me via PM, there would be no question... but because he's harr!@#$%^&*ing me in a chat, which is public and affects many people other than me, it's no longer a bannable offense? That doesn't make the least bit of sense.

[Hakaku]

Invite implies that the original person of the chat invited other players to join, rather than run around asking everyone to join the chat.

True you can argue there's no such feature on the SSC biller possible to manage a chat channel, but it doesn't mean you can't "invite" someone to a chat. That'd be like saying it's impossible to invite a friend (only him/her) over to your house, because anyone else can break into the house.

 

The zone in question was not mentioned in the original post, and you posted in the SSC Network subforum. If your point was to say that the player was spamming, then there's no need for that here. If you actually want something done about the player, then post information, or else no one will know what you are refering to. You can't expect every net-op to know the name of your chat and zone, and deduce solely from a chat log which can easily be manipulated (just because you bring up the SSC policy)

 

Public vs. Private chat changes a lot. Some squads, notably in TW, have to change their chats regularly to avoid such nonesense. Requesting a ban from staff will result in "change your chat", even if a staff member would be part of that squad.

 

What I'm trying to insist is that, private chat spamming occurs very often, and almost nothing is done about it. I pulled out the Spyed one, because that was a zone chat, which never resulted in a netban either ; just to end up in a huge scene thereafter on ssforum. Some staff on here had an attachment to him, which is how Spyed managed to get ignored when the requests for his ban were made.

 

 

As for the "third-party program", I fail to see it. Continuum allows up to 20 macros, so you can easily spam the same message about 60 times in a row, it all depends on the keyboard configuration that allows you to access them faster or slower. - If you want to disable duplicate messages (aka macros), then disable them through Continuum's options.

[Hoch]

I think there is some confusion about what is meant by a

public and private chat and how the rules apply to either

of these in situations where a player is cross-zone spam-

ming.

 

First of all, as mentioned previously, all chats designated

with ';1;,;2;, etc, are private chats (red chats). All other

chats are public, i.e. blue public chats, yellow team chats.

The distinction between public and private lies in the fact

that private chats are given a name. For example, 'happy'.

Only those told the name of the chat will be allowed to use

it, whereas anyone can use a blue or yellow chat. Whilst

the person that created the chat may not realise that it is

a private chat because he gives it out to everyone none-

theless it is one. This equally applies to zone-specific chats,

i.e. 'DSB'. In the latter example, the chat is openly distrib-

uted but is a private chat.

 

Secondly, the rules governing cross-zone spamming lays

down a regime, or course of direction which must first be

taken before the offence becomes a netbannable offence.

The first thing that must be done is that a player suspected

of violating the netban offence must first have been banned

locally. This is easy to verify because a Bang Administrator

can just read a zone's banlist.

 

The rule then goes on to qualify what cons!@#$%^&*utes cross-zone

spamming after a local ban. This is qualified in four ways.

Firstly, it refers to repeatedly switching names to avoid ?ignore.

The crux of this first qualification repeatedly is switching names.

This means that one single incident is not enough. The second

qualification is to avoid the ?ignore. In most instances a player

can be ?ignore, but this may not always be the case, e.g. zone

specific chat. The third qualification is that the player must either

spam or har!@#$%^&* zone staff with cross-zone messages. No defini-

tion of to spam or har!@#$%^&* is given, but this determined at the

time of the events occurring. In any event, there has been a

slight relaxation on the 'zone staff' qualification. Anything which

disrupts general gameplay to the wider zone population may in

certain instances fall under the rule. The fourth and final qualifi-

cation is that the player must have been warned to stop doing

what he is doing.

 

Applying the difference between a public and private chat to the

rule against cross-zone spamming we arrive at the following. No

mention of the form in which a player cross-zone spams is given

in the rule. However, built in the rule is implicit recognition that it

be done in a form whereby a player ignores the ?ignore command.

But this must be read with the other qualifications mentioned in

the rule, i.e. do not read it in isolation. On this basis, there may

be instances other than a player sending private messages when

he can be netbanned, provided all the other qualifications have

been met.

 

Unless or until the player has been banned locally and performs

acts within the definition cons!@#$%^&*uting cross-zone spamming and

the afore qualifications, then there is no netbannable offence. In

my opinion, in the instant case, there is simply not information for

me to say whether this chap should be netbanned. But I would ex-

pect to see a local ban first before proceeding.

 

 

-Hoch

[rootbear75]

actually, hoch, as far as i know, zone sponsored chats are moderated by the zone they represent, and stuff said an them can be punishable by only local bans

[Maurauth]

Last time I checked, Both name-changing to avoid ignore with the intent of cross-zone spamming

 

"Cross zone Spamming - Following a local zone ban, repeatedly

switching names to avoid ?ignore, then spamming or har!@#$%^&*ing zone

staff with cross-zone messages, after a warning to stop. Maximum 7

day net ban for first offence."

 

and using third party programs

 

"Cheating - Performing any action that an unmodified client is

incapable of performing. Developing, distributing, or promoting

cheat software. Minimal 90 day net ban for first offence."

 

were offenses punishable by netbans.

 

I fail to see how Samba broke either of these rules.

Firstly, he wasn't locally banned from anywhere, he didn't spam local staff, and he wasn't actually warned to stop spamming

Secondly, he wasn't performing an action that an unmodified client can't perform. He also wasn't working on or distributing any sort of hack.

[MikeTheNose]

actually, hoch, as far as i know, zone sponsored chats are moderated by the zone they represent, and stuff said an them can be punishable by only local bans

 

 

So you're saying that a BanG admin who helped create the rules doesn't know the rules?

[PoLiX]

One issue that bothers me with this... We do have 1 "rogue" ssc server who allows many non-listed ssc "dev" zones, and these zones have harbored a lot of this cross zone spamming from what I have been pmed by many players in the past. I sent most to the ban ops, and it went silent for a while, but it seems it has begun again. If the SSC rules say a local zone must 1st ban before a net-ban, than these zones can be used to do many of the things not allowed on ssc, and noone has any sight or control over it. I'm not attacking this server personally, but just saying that the rules that the "Subspace Council" says it upholds can all be broken and loopholes used. I'm all for development and private development... but why is it a non-listed "development" zone can get ssc with 0 pop, and not even a finished zone, yet the few (yes few) non-ssc who'd deserve a shot, are denied any chance at it...

 

This is really the issue here. The cross zone spamming Animate would of been fightable had he changed names, but it looked as if multiple names we're on at once. And it'd look as if the zone has settings specifically to allow spamming.

[rootbear75]

actually, hoch, as far as i know, zone sponsored chats are moderated by the zone they represent, and stuff said an them can be punishable by only local bans

 

 

So you're saying that a BanG admin who helped create the rules doesn't know the rules?

no, i just know hyperspace moderates their chat, and i moderate DBZ's chat when im on

Edited October 29, 2007 by rootbear75

[»Maverick]

rootbear I think you may be referring to a local chat (made local by the server settings) which can be moderated since it's zone specific.

On the other hand, I have seen people getting netbanned for spamming on the DSB chat... Still, the offender should be banned in the zone itself first.

[Hakaku]

Just to make sure no one read wrong my original post, by public/private I was refering to ?chat=Zone1,name1 ; and not regular in-game chat.

 

I don't see why it was removed, most likely because of the SVS related incident, but this was SSC's policy before MTN rewrote it:

 

We can netban for it if its a real problem. But that really only applies to zone chats. Staff and squads can always just change the chat.

I guess I should probably explain my posistion on this to be clear.

 

Netbanning for cross-zone spamming is only to be done in the most severe of situations. This rule can apply to a chat channel but there are some restrictions on that.

 

1) You may not network ban someone for cross-zone spamming any chat that could be made local with no problems or a chat that could easily be changed (Staff, Squad chats, etc).

 

2) The spamming must be extremely excissive. Using one alias to spam your chat does not qualify for a network ban. Using multiple aliases to continually avoid ?ignore while spamming your chat does qualify. Also for it to be considered extremely excessive the spam must last for a considerable duration and be quite rapid.

 

3) If the ban is ever disputed because of the questionable nature of this type of network ban I need to have a log of the event which if the ban was warranted should be easy to get.

 

SVS

This both backs up my original zone chat vs. private chat claim, and would explain why zones have requested netbans on certain players in the past, and have continued to do so up until now.

[rootbear75]

rootbear I think you may be referring to a local chat (made local by the server settings) which can be moderated since it's zone specific.

On the other hand, I have seen people getting netbanned for spamming on the DSB chat... Still, the offender should be banned in the zone itself first.

no i meant ive been sitting in star wars or dbz, and since hyperspace has a no swearing rule, any swearing is punishable by a fine or a local ban (?chat = hyperspace)

[Animate Dreams]

Let me see if I can address all the issues here. It could've all been different people. They weren't logged into my zone(they logged into 17th Parallel, for reference), so I couldn't exactly run an alias check on them, or even check their IPs. But this is just ONE occurence. I'm sure you guys realize that these aliases weren't the players' normal aliases, but ones they had switched to, to avoid ignores. In past(and future) occurences, the names were different yet again. I can see how, given the one log I posted, you wouldn't know for absolutely sure that they were trying to avoid ignores, but I think it's pretty obvious, and I can always provide more logs, if you guys want.

 

I can !@#$%^&*ure you that everyone involved has been asked to stop spamming, multiple times. I can show you logs of that, too.

 

There haven't been local bans because I don't know how to ban a player who's not in your zone. Not on subgame, anyway. They were in 17th, like I said. The first thing I did was try to ban them, and once that didn't work, I went to 17th to try to talk to a staff member there, to see if they'd silence/ban the user. That's worked in the past for me. But there's rarely anyone in 17th, and there weren't any staff when I went to ask. You're right, Polix, the zone IS set up to allow spammers, or at least allowing him to spam. I don't have timestamps, but there weren't any breaks in messages. Maybe once I get to talk to a 17th op, that will change, but at the moment, there's nothing I can do. So even though I didn't ban them locally, I DID exhaust my options. And we all know a local ban wouldn't deter them at all.

 

So they switched names to avoid ignore, were asked to stop spamming, and I did everything I could to stop them myself. I think that fits the rules. And even if it doesn't... this is the next step. I can't do anything else myself, so the only possibility is to talk to the netops. It's even possible the rules on this need to be re-evaluated. I mean, should one person have the power to make one chat unusable? You can say, "Just change the chat name," but that doesn't work if you want the chat to be open to the public. You'd have to closely guard the chat name, and you wouldn't be able to tell everyone you wanted. This is especially bad for zones who want their chat to be known to everyone. But even outside of zone chats, we all know that SS is a community game... and chats help create communities, or just, you know, give them places to chat. They shouldn't be allowed to be ruined by spammers.

 

Now, I could think of dozens of ways to solve this problem by making simple modifications to the client, whether by allowing for chat owners or by adding an option to block chat messages when there are multiples, or ignore.txt automatically blocking messages by all aliases of any names listed... but all of those options lie outside of our power. So here's a possible solution:

 

First offense: Warning by zone staff in the zone offense took place in, or by netop

Second offense: Local ban(like an hour) in the zone the offense took place in, placed by zone staff or netop

Third offense: One day netban

Fourth offense: One week netban

Fifth offense: One month netban

 

So you get the idea. The only way they can really get !@#$%^&*ed up is if they ignore staff multiple times. This isn't something that is going to affect innocent players minding their own business, but I think it would effectively solve my problem and any other people's problem with spammers.

[X`terrania]

I'm voting that all of the low-ranking SSC servers be taken off of their network. They do nothing but cause problems. For the past few months Animate and a few others have been spamming various "private (just like their chat) chats", and now I'm seeing that the spam they are receiving is only payback, and it is probably well deserved. If it was spamming done in something like EG's public chat, then I'd go ahead and give the good ol' OK for the netban, but this is completely different. Edited October 30, 2007 by X`terrania

[MikeTheNose]

Animate Dreams....look at my signature.

[Hakaku]

I think the irony of the fact that you want to open your chat to the public, but won't, is funny:

1. Actually open it, and your zone to the public. Elsewise, it remains private chat. Change the chat, or leave it temporarily until you decide to open the zone.

2. If you're so keen on this SSC-ness, you shouldn't promote swearing and racism. A game for the community, means a game accessible to everyone. Some people take racist attacks more personally than others do. (If you bothered reading the spam, you'd know that you're inviting the type of people who like to purposely piss off others by throwing fits, or shouting racist comments, personal attacks, or spam)

3. What makes your yet-to-be-zone chat more prone to spam attacks than other zone chats?

 

As a zone owner, you must envisage these things before they happen. - I don't disagree that the current SSC policy is much more loopy than it used to be, and that spammers don't help in the development of any zone. But I will disagree on what you chose to allow in the first place ; and as long as the chat remains private, under SSC policy, nothing can be done (if you decide to change that though, then it's easier to support your side in the future).

[X`terrania]

Sorry for this, Death+, but I have to mention it. The other night Death+ was holding dueling tourneys and stated that whoever could beat him could get whatever they wanted (ie; he'd pull strings and get them a staffing position somewhere, or he offered to host their zone+bot hosting on the SSCI network.)

[rootbear75]

oh god.... do NOT bring that up... im still having nightmares of what i have to do...

[X`terrania]

oh god.... do NOT bring that up... im still having nightmares of what i have to do...

 

Nah, you don't have to do it anymore. Just admit that what he was trying to do is wrong though.

[rootbear75]

sweet

[X`terrania]

I would also recommend that if the population of SSCI Penis wants a public chat, they should make a new one. There have been many people in the private chat known as "penis" before the zone was ever made, it was used for a squad awhile ago as well.

[Animate Dreams]

I think the irony of the fact that you want to open your chat to the public, but won't, is funny:

1. Actually open it, and your zone to the public. Elsewise, it remains private chat. Change the chat, or leave it temporarily until you decide to open the zone.

2. If you're so keen on this SSC-ness, you shouldn't promote swearing and racism. A game for the community, means a game accessible to everyone. Some people take racist attacks more personally than others do. (If you bothered reading the spam, you'd know that you're inviting the type of people who like to purposely piss off others by throwing fits, or shouting racist comments, personal attacks, or spam)

3. What makes your yet-to-be-zone chat more prone to spam attacks than other zone chats?

 

As a zone owner, you must envisage these things before they happen. - I don't disagree that the current SSC policy is much more loopy than it used to be, and that spammers don't help in the development of any zone. But I will disagree on what you chose to allow in the first place ; and as long as the chat remains private, under SSC policy, nothing can be done (if you decide to change that though, then it's easier to support your side in the future).

I'm not saying that only zone chats should get this privilege. I'm saying people who are spamming ANY chat repeatedly, even after being told to stop, should have action taken against them. So it has nothing to do with zone chats or non-zone chats.

 

As for your second point, I agree with you as far as wanting "a game accessible to everyone". Where you misstep is when you seem to think racists don't count as everyone. I don't want a game that is accessible to everyone that passes your "people test", I want EVERYONE, even the racists. That's freedom of speech. You should actually be SUPPORTING me, because as it stands, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop people from running in chats and spamming "!@#$%^&*" over and over. Chats are one thing that give different people places to go and not be bothered. What I'm talking about is PROTECTING that. I'm sure you'd like a place to go on SubSpace where people can't say !@#$%^&*, and I don't think you'd be very happy if you had to leave one of your chats because people were spamming it. That's why we need some way to protect against that. We seem to agree on some level, at least.

 

Of course, we can't have netops tied up trying to moderate every chat in SubSpace, but spamming is easily identifiable, and easily dealt with, and won't take much time at all. Since this is something that would be restricted to repeat offenders who are switching aliases specifically to avoid ignore lists, it's not something that innocent people are going to get pinned with, and it's not something that can really be abused and used as an excuse to ban innocent people. If you dislike the racist spammers on Penis, Hakaku, then why are you against stopping them?

 

Also, wtf did you mean by this line?

"I think the irony of the fact that you want to open your chat to the public, but won't, is funny"