Request: Allow Bans for Death Dodgers

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

I would like us to be able to ban people who dodge deaths by logging out while being shot/running away from players. It's exploiting the system, they are using the logout mechanic to dodge a player death. I don't care about bugged zombies or whatever, but if someone is caught simply logging out to avoid a player death I should be able to ban them from my server.

[Legacy (DayZ) 1091]

You can do it anyways, your bans are your own if comes down to valid reason. Though I am unsure if rocket is 'against' this.

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

You can do it anyways' date=' your bans are your own if comes down to valid reason. Though I am unsure if rocket is 'against' this.

[/quote']

I'm hesitant to do it, because the devs have been so iron fisted with the servers, and the main "Host a Servre" thread says:

- Their are only two reasons why you' date=' as a server owner, should ban a player on your server. Those two reasons are: Malicious talk, and racism. You may not ban a user for stealing your loot, killing you, spying on you, etc.

Failure to adhere to these rules will BAN YOUR SERVER'S IP from DayZ.

[/quote']

[Mojo (DayZ) 66]

You can do it anyways' date=' your bans are your own if comes down to valid reason. Though I am unsure if rocket is 'against' this.

[/quote']

I'm hesitant to do it, because the devs have been so iron fisted with the servers, and the main "Host a Servre" thread says:

- Their are only two reasons why you' date=' as a server owner, should ban a player on your server. Those two reasons are: Malicious talk, and racism. You may not ban a user for stealing your loot, killing you, spying on you, etc.

Failure to adhere to these rules will BAN YOUR SERVER'S IP from DayZ.

[/quote']

Ha! I already do ban for spying, but only ghosting in TeamSpeak (abusing public first come-first serve channels). It's a Term of Service on our server, and while we won't ban you for spying on us in game (following us/stalking us) or legitimately ingratiating yourself to a group, integrating with them, and then betraying them, if you violate the terms of connecting to my server, if I can't use in-game measures, I'll just IP ban the player from seeing my server at all for violating my private property agreement. Which, incidentally, would stop a player from seeing the game server.

If you disconnect to avoid death, well, now with 1.5.8.2 that's apparently been "fixed", so hopefully players will organically try to avoid penalty instead of attempting to have it enforced.

[fenrix 9]

why dont you just ban them from team speak... seems a bit harsh booting them from the game server.

[Mojo (DayZ) 66]

why dont you just ban them from team speak... seems a bit harsh booting them from the game server.

Because they've committed a violation of the terms of service to my physical' date=' chatter property that they knew (or reasonably ought to have known) was contrary to agreement that permits them to establish a connection to that server.

By analogy, if I host a house party, and somebody drops trou and shits on the floor in my bedroom, I don't kick them out of my bedroom, I kick them out of my [i']house.

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

Ya, I'm just hesitant to start banning people without express permission, because they would just come bitch on here and boom, servers gone.

[colonel_black 0]

Ya' date=' I'm just hesitant to start banning people without express permission, because they would just come bitch on here and boom, servers gone.

[/quote']

If you believe the ban reason is legit, do it unless the Dev Team says other wise.

There are numerous legit reasons to why you'd want to ban a player. I'd think that Rocket would agree with most of the reasons that we ban people, as long as it's server side and not globally for the mod.

[cuca 20]

and what about admins that do it? Whos gonna ban them? I saw many admins doing it.

[Legacy (DayZ) 1091]

Others servers have different rules, but if you see one of your admins that you have a higher authority over? (EX: If you own the server) then they are your responsibility if these are your rules.

[colonel_black 0]

and what about admins that do it? Whos gonna ban them? I saw many admins doing it.

Make sure when you join the server that you read the MOTD message. Follow the rules that the server gives.

If server admins do it, they're just lame cheats. It's up to you whether to report them on the forum, but I don't think it'll go anywhere.

Find a server where admins enforce removing cheats

[Mojo (DayZ) 66]

and what about admins that do it? Whos gonna ban them? I saw many admins doing it.

As both Black and Legacy suggested, find a different server and report it.

When reporting it, especially if you have no corroborating evidence, remember to a) be polite (not necessarily to the server admin himself, but without any noise of hectoring or entitlement) and b) speak to the facts as you see them, not the emotions they make you feel.

If admins do engage in this behaviour, and people adhere to basic common-sense methods about informing others of it, those admins will find their servers empty, their players having made their home and taken their donations elsewhere, and an endemic pattern of bad admin behaviour will have been established.

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

The above posts are the biggest reason I want to be expressly allowed to ban for this reason. If I am able to ban people for this, I can build a community of people who respect the game, and the fact that it is unforgiving when you make mistakes. Luckily we already have a decent group of regulars who are great to play with. We even have a group of survivors we regularly get into firefights with and chat about them after, basically the good game handshake of DayZ.

Allowing us to ban for game breaking behavior will allow us to build communities around servers.

[Alfie (DayZ) 8]

Allowing us to ban for game breaking behavior will allow us to build communities around servers.

It depends what your definition of game breaking behavior is. It's most likely the same as mine and the majority, but for Joe down the road he may take it to an extreme. I mean this Joe guy might think a survivor randomly shooting another survivor without any real reason is "game breaking", so he starts banning people left right and center.

My point being that some people are nutty and just aren't in the realm of the sane so they need X Y Z outlined in thick writing. Granted, you could just go find another server but the devs have got a crap ton of server requests, so they can make us jump through hoops which is somewhat problematic at times.

Anyway.. Rocket from the limited contact I've had seems to be a reasonable guy, so if you've got a good reason for banning someone, then I wouldn't be worried as he doesn't like bs.

At the end of the day you can just unban them if Rocket really has a big issue with it and just don't do it again. They just don't want admins going rampant banning because someone killed them, and the problem is there are admins that have done that and still do that (a minority make it a pain for the majority).

[demine0 43]

I do the same Move that Mojo Does. I have a TOS and EUP that covers the entire physical machine that everything runs on. So if you misbehave and violate one of those rules, I bypass the DayZ server ban directly, and they end up getting banned directly on the firewall.

Luckly most of the people who play on Dallas 13 and Chicago 13 are pretty cool though, so bans have been low. (I actually don't think we have any right now, besides bans from Pre-DayZ gameservers)

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

Allowing us to ban for game breaking behavior will allow us to build communities around servers.

It depends what your definition of game breaking behavior is. It's most likely the same as mine and the majority' date=' but for Joe down the road he may take it to an extreme. I mean this Joe guy might think a survivor randomly shooting another survivor without any real reason is "game breaking", so he starts banning people left right and center.

My point being that some people are nutty and just aren't in the realm of the sane so they need X Y Z outlined in thick writing. Granted, you could just go find another server but the devs have got a crap ton of server requests, so they can make us jump through hoops which is somewhat problematic at times.

Anyway.. Rocket from the limited contact I've had seems to be a reasonable guy, so if you've got a good reason for banning someone, then I wouldn't be worried as he doesn't like bs.

At the end of the day you can just unban them if Rocket really has a big issue with it and just don't do it again. They just don't want admins going rampant banning because someone killed them, and the problem is there are admins that have done that and still do that (a minority make it a pain for the majority).

[/quote']

I was making a statement on the overall direction of this post, not my actual request. I don't want ambiguous things such as "game breaking behavior" being a rule, but rather that when a new ban reason is requested to look at it and decide how gamebreaking it really is. Apologies for the broad statement.

[Alfie (DayZ) 8]

I was making a statement on the overall direction of this post' date=' not my actual request. I don't want ambiguous things such as "game breaking behavior" being a rule, but rather that when a new ban reason is requested to look at it and decide how gamebreaking it really is. Apologies for the broad statement.

[/quote']

I wasn't trying to call you out, my point was that something I think is game breaking, someone else may not. So seeing as hosters, we're on a tight leash, the point I wanted to make is the main concern of the devs is rampant Administrators, and if they give too much room, people take it too far.

I agree that being able to bring something directly to the Devs to ask if it's acceptable to ban for (like the above) is a good move, but if it's an exploit then I'm sure they won't be bothered with local bans.

But I do agree with you about being able to build a community. The joy of PC games (which are open to public hosting, or at least semi public hosting) is the community servers and the fact there's usually a server for everyone (and I don't mean just having the crosshair on or off, or third person disabled, or the map rotation).

You know, I like my tea with milk, no sugar, whereas other people don't. It's the same with servers. Some want a hardcore RP environment (which would take applying for it and filtering) whereas others hate that and want to sneak about gunning people down. There's nothing wrong with either, it's just a difference in taste and both can't always exist together, so allow us to provide the platform for it.

Like I said, we're currently held on a leash, but on top of that we're also tied up in thick rope because whenever the devs loosen the ropes, a minority spoil it for everyone so they want to keep standardization. But at the same time there's need for some leeway so every server isn't generic.

As I said, I think the Devs are sick and tired of rampant admins banning people for killing them, or banning people for accidentally activating their global VOIP key or whatever. If you provide server rules which are reasonable and you're not banning willy nilly, (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think any dev will have an issue.

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

Yes, I include it in my MOTD and the message that plays every 10 minutes for the first hour they are in the server. That if they disconnect death dodge, it's an immediate ban, and after this thread I will enforce it, as it seems the devs don't have an issue (I'd assume they'd come in here and say NO, and their absence of response sounds like a go for it to me).

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

Bumping this back to the top, I'd REALLY like a response from a purple in here because after reading rockets comments in http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6377, specifically:

Rules are standardized across all servers to reduce the overhead of managing and checking adherence to rules. For at least the foreseeable future' date=' this will not change. There is no "best party" solution because the whole project is in growth-crisis mode, simply coping with the influx of players.

Not only is catering to specific requirements of individuals or individual communities not within the scope of the project, nor part of it's intent, but it also requires differentiation in rules and "special case" scenarios.

When you donate use of your server to the DayZ Project - you are joining the network as a clone node. You will be the same as all other servers. There is some variation, in terms of level of difficulty, at the moment but this will not be the case for future iterations. Eventually, everything will be locked down so that all users share the same experience across all servers.

Again, to reiterate. Joining the DayZ network you are joining as a clone. Not as a node that can be customized. Our aim is to standardize everything, so that you can get essentially a "McDonalds" experience from all the servers.

[/quote']

I am VERY nervous to ban anyone for cheating, because it hasn't been stated as an allowed thing to ban for.

[rocket 16567]

Meta-gaming (like the infiltration that happens in EVE) is part of DayZ

If there are servers that are banning people for this meta-gaming, report them and they will be warned. Continued violations they will be blacklisted.

Banning for cheating? It depends what you mean by cheating. I've heard some admins who think that teamspeak ghosting is cheating.

Betrayal and shit like that is part of the game.

[Ander (DayZ) 530]

Hi,

I just want to mention that bans are not to occur for any other reason than actual illegal activities such as hacking, rasicm etc.

@mojo:

Metagaming such as spying on voip and so forth is actually allowed.

If you are having problem with someone spying on your teamspeak - ban them from the teamspeak but dont ban them from ingame.

We havent added a policy regarding death dodging yet. But if we do we'll make a public post about it.

@serveradmins in general:

Adding your own MOTD with custom rules that clearly go against what rocket has said isnt really allowed.

We're very thankful for people wanting to host dayz. But this still doesnt make anyone the god of their own realm :)

// Ander

Fakeedit: Looks like rocket already replied a few moments before me.

:)

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

Meta-gaming (like the infiltration that happens in EVE) is part of DayZ

If there are servers that are banning people for this meta-gaming' date=' report them and they will be warned. Continued violations they will be blacklisted.

Banning for cheating? It depends what you mean by cheating. I've heard some admins who think that teamspeak ghosting is cheating.

Betrayal and shit like that is part of the game.

[/quote']

Logging out because you are being chased is metagaming? Sounds more like abusing the system.

Misunderstood your statement about metagaming, forgot about the posts about TS ghosting in here.

I consider logging out because someone has beaten you tactically, cheating, it's abuse of a system that allows you to persist to other servers that may not have you in that situation. It's not fair to the players involved, as has been said by a friend, unless you headshot/hit someone on the first shot, odds are they are just going to log to another server and go on their merry way.

But, if you are saying that I cannot ban people because they are blatantly abusing the system, and attempt to build a community around my server of regulars who do not use these mechanics. I will have to comply because I enjoy hosting the server. Hopefully there is a change in the mechanics that prevents this somehow, though aside from banning them from servers where it is disapproved, I don't see how it could be implemented with the persistence system.

[Mojo (DayZ) 66]

Banning for cheating? It depends what you mean by cheating. I've heard some admins who think that teamspeak ghosting is cheating.

Yeah, I absolutely do think it's cheating, and it violates the TOS I provide the TeamSpeak 3 server on. I have no problem with eavesdropping or integrating into a group and backstabbing them. I absolutely do have a problem with violating the terms of service I provide a public access, private service on and following groups through the public channels that are used for ad hoc groups, especially since I provide private group channel creation for any permanent groups that form on our servers and the ad hoc open channels are meant to provide a similar service without handing out server permissions to the TS for anybody who joins.

Again, it's happening on privately leased chattel -- my server -- and I consider it, and let people know I consider it, tantamount to actually following a player around on their private property to try to eavesdrop. Overhearing another DayZ player on a bus loudly talking about where they hid their stuff is quite different from opening the unlocked front door to their home and skulking in the dark outside their computer room.

[c.chris.perry@gmail.com 17]

@serveradmins in general:

Adding your own MOTD with custom rules that clearly go against what rocket has said isnt really allowed.

We're very thankful for people wanting to host dayz. But this still doesnt make anyone the god of their own realm :)

Well, I have an MOTD that currently says if you deathdodge you will be banned, but that was added after 2 days of no response by anyone of authority in both this thread AND the 'want to host a server' thread. I cannot remove it right now as I am at work and do not want to log in to restart the server. Hopefully my IP doesn't get banned from hosting dayz.

@rocket, I seriously respect your position on wanting to have an equal playing field on all servers. But my clan IS paying for this server, and if we don't want to watch people disconnect every time we shoot them (which is blatant abuse of the system, you want this game to be unforgiving, but you allow anyone who gets into a shitty tactical situation to be instantly forgiven by pressing 2 keys on their keyboard), we shouldn't have to. Either find a way to fix it within the game globally, or let me ban someone who does it. They can go play on a server where it is accepted.

[Mojo (DayZ) 66]

@mojo:

Metagaming such as spying on voip and so forth is actually allowed.

If you are having problem with someone spying on your teamspeak - ban them from the teamspeak but dont ban them from ingame.

If that's the case I'll need to immediately terminate my hosting duties. From hereon out, Ander, any interaction with Chicago 1 and Chicago 20 should be done through Owl, the now-only host. Owl is aware of the namespace changes which we discussed, and does not need to be brought up to speed. Regardless, I'll both encourage him to run the server for at least another month for the sake of the donors, and direct him to send you a private message so that you two can get up to speed on the issues we discussed.

Maybe he'll run it without me, but I consider repeatedly stalking players through channels to be disruptive to their play experience, since the problem could (and would) be alleviated with an admin on. The logic runs like this:

If an admin were on and a player was being so disruptive, the disruptive player would be warned (without penalty) and the players would have a private channel created for them, either a temp channel (for ad hoc groups) or a permanent channel for a permanent group.

Since admins cannot be on 24/7, the server must be maintained in such a way as to emulate functionality as if it were run under active administration 24/7. Since solutions in step 1 cannot be enacted when no administrator is present, a contingency solution needs to be present to create a stimulus that is sufficient to either disincentivize disruptive behaviour or incentivize positive behaviour. Since no positive behaviour is being checked against, it is necessary to disincentivize disruptive behaviour, and to do that the penalty needs to be sufficiently steep (such as a loss of privileges) to actually affect the outcome.

This regulation directly impedes the ability for the server to be run as close to constant admin monitoring as possible at all times.

It is also overreaching in its scope that those who violate a term of service for connecting to leased chattel cannot thereafter be permanently barred for interacting with that chattel, and overreaching in that any server administrator who hosts multiple communities from the same server cannot take action against a person who has violated the agreements or provisions of the other communities to connect to their servers.

I find neither of these things reasonable.