disallow renames in lobby for normal users?

[Jools]

Lobby shows smurfs. At least tasclient does. Also there is a smurfs command in spads where you can detect them.

[abma]

Lobby shows smurfs. At least tasclient does. Also there is a smurfs command in spads where you can detect them.

this exactly shows why renames are stupid. there is many code to allow renames and many code written to detect renames, for the benefit of... uhm.. what?

[albator]

this exactly shows why renames are stupid. there is many code to allow renames and many code written to detect renames, for the benefit of... uhm.. what?

Fun...

Renaming to clan stack with your friend so you have FUN !

[Silentwings]

@Jools, !smurfs is only available to admins on most hosts.

@Abma, I completely agree that effort is wasted fighting other effort here. And I agree also that it would be better if players could not rename easily, especially not as a way to clanstack. But I don't want a situation where its easy to just make a new account but hard to rename... that will means people causing trouble often have rank 1 accounts (-> problems not solved), rank 1 accounts get a bad reputation, some hosts might ban, bad for newbies. We've only just got out of that trap, thanks to SLDB. As far as I can see, making it hard to create multiple accounts is not easy?

[luckywaldo7]

I don't see any purpose or benefit in blocking renaming.

Clan-stacking is an issue that belongs at the host/autohost level, not the server level. If it is undesirable to have tagged people be grouped together, the host should not balance that way.

[NeonStorm]

@Jools, !smurfs is only available to admins on most hosts.

Why is it blocked for some only if not accessible on all directly?
* You can open a private chat to another host to bypass your host's restrictions...

How about letting users join anonymously?
* They will be seen as "NewPlayer[.SomeNumber.]" and expire after a week/month of no playing (delete account data and make it accessible to a new one).

Why do we let the system balance+start in "one step" (timing)?
Players would not clan-stack if others can vote n for !start because of it.

[Jools]

@Jools, !smurfs is only available to admins on most hosts.

Yeah, probably. However, it's asy to change that, in spads it's in commands.conf.

I think most of us autohost owners have looked throught those commands and the levels they have, but it's really hard to know what is a good level for a particular autohost and a command. If there are no trolls, it's good to give users as much power as possible, but e.g. the !quit command should not be accessible to anyone, because it means shutdown the autohost, and if it's shut down it's quite complicated to restart it if it's not on local machine (I think many people can think !quit means exit the game, but that command is instead !stop)

I will make !smurfs available on my autohosts for everyone.

[Silentwings]

Why is it blocked for some only if not accessible on all directly?
* You can open a private chat to another host to bypass your host's restrictions...

No, you can't. Spads hosts will give the same account the same replies regardless of which channel you ask them through.

How about letting users join anonymously?
* They will be seen as "NewPlayer[.SomeNumber.]" and expire after a week/month of no playing (delete account data and make it accessible to a new one).

Iirc it was discussed before and nobody wanted it.

Why do we let the system balance+start in "one step" (timing)?
Players would not clan-stack if others can vote n for !start because of it.

Spads already offers host owners complete control over the amount of clanstacking its balance algos permit, irrespective of the launching sequence. It's much better to have the launching sequence as quick & as automated as possible.

However, it's easy to change that, in spads it's in commands.conf.

Commands like !smurfs reveal ip, things about hardware, etc to admins - (I think) these cannot be seen by 'normal' users who are not able to run those commands and imo we shouldn't let that kind of data be visible to anyone.

[Jools]

It gives:

ID Name(s) Online Country CPU Rank LastUpdate Confidence IP(s)

I would say ip is the most sensitive. If people know my CPU is 2400, what can they do with that information?

But you are right (and probably know more than me of these things). But yeah, revealing ip to everyone is probably not so good.

[Silentwings]

Maybe other commands can reveal more info too, I haven't looked hard.

[dansan]

bibim is very sensitive about privacy. I'm sure if you ask him, he can make the output of !smurfs configurable.

[bibim]

@Jools, !smurfs is only available to admins on most hosts.

Why is it blocked for some only if not accessible on all directly?

Each autohost admin is responsible for his host configuration. By default !smurfs requires privileged access.

* You can open a private chat to another host to bypass your host's restrictions...

By doing so you don't "bypass your host's restrictions". You simply use a different smurf database than the one of the host you are currently in, which doesn't necessarily give the same results.

bibim is very sensitive about privacy. I'm sure if you ask him, he can make the output of !smurfs configurable.

Actually it is already configurable through minLevelForIpAddr global setting.

[knorke]

But yeah, revealing ip to everyone is probably not so good.

Yes imo IP is private information and should be handled as such, as far as possible.
Atm it is not: For example in zK's admin channel people sometimes openly post IPs of trolls or where that IP is located.
Anyone can join that channel and read such chats.
Either who can see IPs must be much more limited or people must learn discretion.

[Jools]

Actually it is already configurable through minLevelForIpAddr global setting.

Right, and that has the default value of 130 (scale goes from 0 to 140), so for example in semprini only me, bibim, deadnightwarrior and knorke have that access. Maybe that's good then.

I also think we should take privacy seriously, we have users from all over the world, and they don't all live in democracies, so I think we should assuem as little as possible regarding what is vulnerable.

[aiphee]

Good idea is to allow user to set root of its name which he cant change, that would allow to change clan.

[NeonStorm]

How about give each user the choice to make information public, accessible to host, accessible to admins, private?

Or give everybody options to send incorrect data? Nobody can hide IP over lobby settings
But if someone knows the OS, sandboxing the lobby/spring in a way that it receives wrong data is possible anyway.

[Licho]

Strongly support blocked rename.
Technically its trivial to allow rename only for moderators.

There are very little need-based renames. Most reasons are troll/malevolent.

Renames cause problems to administration or players. Don't see a reason to keep it.

Regardless what the real "ID" is, what users see at first is only the name and thats what matters.

[knorke]

Renaming is needed for clans. Clans help form/grow the community so that is important imo.
Once the clan system from zero-k page is supported by more lobbies/pages and is in lobby protocol, then it would be a good replacement and renaming could be blocked or limited. But at the moment not yet.

[NeonStorm]

One idea is to let users rename only each 3 months.


Or let a user only rename if he gets some supporters?

The supporters verify that the name
* contains no insults or can report -1 the action
* it is clearly visible which was the old name
* is not similar to a mod-name (provide a list)

The verification request can be send in the mod/public chat and be a web-form.

If permission is granted (account-activity >20hours/days in total; other regular players) the user can confirm/apply his rename (or cancel it before confirmation).

[abma]

One idea is to let users rename only each 3 months.

sounds to complicated... why 3 months? why not 3 years? or 3 days?