As I recall, the UT games do or at least did have the ability to use redirected FTP to download game content (sounds, maps and graphics) from alternate servers than the game server being logged onto and in many cases this is a lot of content and works quite well.
I'll be thinking about and discussing possible implementation details for a system like that, but keep in mind that this will mean rewriting parts of the authentication server, and it will delay launch to include any sort of registration constriction system.
Appreciate your taking the time to deal with these issues.
We are feeling unprecedented pain on the Rebels servers, but getting the best possible system in place before issuing any GUIDs seems wise.
Bottom line: any kind of registration constriction system is preferable to relying on server bans, but in my opinion a referral system has severe disadvantages.
Some remarks on the pros and cons of a referral system versus a personal data screening system:
Referral system:
Tribes 2 desperately needs new players. A referral system would make it much more difficult to get started in the game, and in my opinion that's an insurmountable downside. Plus tossing any innocent players off a server because they're part of a tainted referral sub-tree seems draconian and unfair. Many of those players would probably never return.
Server hosts would inevitably resort to individual, case-by-case bans, which in my opinion won't work either, considering the widespread use of dynamic IPs.
Personal data screening system:
1. Server hosts may choose to operate their own separate authentication server, allowing them to set their own criteria for registration on their own servers.
2. Time-consuming on the front-end, but server hosts can adjust the difficulty of access as needed to decrease or increase security. Possible identifying criteria: verifiable name, address, phone number, email address, traceable IP with metro code. Not foolproof, but seems fairly secure if a host takes the time to verify applicants' personal data.
3. Some fragmentation effect on the T2 community, and replication of GUIDs and names on different servers.
Map packs should utilize both torrents and http/ftp download site and mirrors. Most peeps using dsl/ cable learn very fast how to utilize torrents to receive the files they desire. Torrents will help increase seeding of those mappacks. The greater the number of seeds the smaller the impact of a mirror site going down will have on availability of the files. There's nothing worse than having a stockpile of T2 resources become lost forever when websites go down!
How about getting the auth server up and running and not worrying about maps and other content that should be left to the discretion of clients themselves?
Tribes 2 desperately needs new players. A referral system would make it much more difficult to get started in the game, and in my opinion that's an insurmountable downside. Plus tossing any innocent players off a server because they're part of a tainted referral sub-tree seems draconian and unfair. Many of those players would probably never return.
Server hosts would inevitably resort to individual, case-by-case bans, which in my opinion won't work either, considering the widespread use of dynamic IPs.
There is no foolproof system. A referral tree would require subjective analysis by server admins. It does, however, put the majority of the burden on server admins, while making the process relatively transparent to users. If disconnection messages included the name/ID of the player responsible for the referral ban, then, combined with a display version of the referral tree, it is easy for players to identify and request a referral from someone else.
1. Server hosts may choose to operate their own separate authentication server, allowing them to set their own criteria for registration on their own servers.
2. Time-consuming on the front-end, but server hosts can adjust the difficulty of access as needed to decrease or increase security. Possible identifying criteria: verifiable name, address, phone number, email address, traceable IP with metro code. Not foolproof, but seems fairly secure if a host takes the time to verify applicants' personal data.
3. Some fragmentation effect on the T2 community, and replication of GUIDs and names on different servers.
Thanks!
The level of fragmentation that such a system would produce is unacceptable, and there are rather severe problems that you don't mention. When a player finds a really busy server that looks like it might be fun to play on, and they are prevented from connecting because the server requires an additional level of registration, what do you think the player will do?
If you think an additional registration process (multiplied by more than one server) is less likely to piss off potential players than a transitive ban, I think you are at least a little bit deluded.
If players are aware of the reputation system from the start, how bans work, and are provided with the information of the reputation source of a ban: the players can log into the online control panel, look at the reputation tree, and pick a player who could actually provide a good reference.
It provides a consistent interface, and a consistent process for the user. If the mechanics of the system are explained to users, then the responsibility to pick a good reference falls on the user, and unintentional bans as a result of tree-bans will not be considered draconian. Acceptance is a matter of psychological buy-in; I see that happening easily for a system like this, where the rules are set concretely. I don't see psychological acceptance happening where to join a server, a player needs to accept arbitrary terms, or provide personal information to a server administrator.
Lets say, we have a few new players. they were referred by an older player, lets say warlord.
Now, lets say, one of those players is legit and is a good guy, but the rest are stupid, trouble making, douche bags.
Warlord is gettin ready to cut his referral tree, because it is sufficiently tainted, but he wants the legit guy to be able to keep playing. So, he refers that player to someone else, who has a good clean referral tree, lets say Krash. That player will be safe from a shit storm, and the cancer is still removed.
although oh course this still leaves the issue of tracking referred players. just because our friend is legit now, doesn't mean he won't be a menace in a few months, and we wouldn't want to put krash's tree in danger.
Perhaps instead of adding him to another referral tree, we could give him his own referral tree after he passes a probation.
If disconnection messages included the name/ID of the player responsible for the referral ban, then, combined with a display version of the referral tree, it is easy for players to identify and request a referral from someone else.
Easy to request, not so easy to get, especially for new or little-known players.
When a player finds a really busy server that looks like it might be fun to play on, and they are prevented from connecting because the server requires an additional level of registration, what do you think the player will do?
If you think an additional registration process (multiplied by more than one server) is less likely to piss off potential players than a transitive ban, I think you are at least a little bit deluded.
Amigo, I'm aware that you owe me nothing. Maybe you've never heard of v2, or don't like it if you have. Notwithstanding, Police and I know how to run a server. We're also authorities on what pisses people off, and I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards: most law-abiding players would be willing to go through some kind of screening or registration system to play on a good server, especially when they know it's needed to keep griefers at bay. Banning honest players from a server for belonging to a bad referral sub-tree is much more likely to keep them away. Permanently.
I don't see psychological acceptance happening where to join a server, a player needs to accept arbitrary terms, or provide personal information to a server administrator.
Like I said, we've been running very popular servers for years. Part of our job is determining what players want or will accept, and we're good at it.
The level of fragmentation that such a system would produce is unacceptable.
Seems like it's our call whether we want to risk fragmenting the community somewhat in order to keep our servers alive. Doesn't seem like a decision that would ordinarily correspond to authentication server admins.
Not all server hosts will opt to run their own separate screening procedures. Besides, we can compensate for fragmentation with forum links, community events, etc. And do construction modders really need to know how many players are currently on the Rebels servers? Or vice versa?
When a player finds a really busy server that looks like it might be fun to play on, and they are prevented from connecting because the server requires an additional level of registration, what do you think the player will do?
I think the player will register.
I believe the player will say 'Eh, screw this...I'll play on server B instead.'
People are inherently lazy, in case you haven't noticed..
Seems like it's our call whether we want to risk fragmenting the community somewhat in order to keep our servers alive. Doesn't seem like a decision that would ordinarily correspond to authentication server admins.
Then perhaps you should write your own authentication system...
Not all server hosts will opt to run their own separate screening procedures. Besides, we can compensate for fragmentation with forum links, community events, etc. And do construction modders really need to know how many players are currently on the Rebels servers? Or vice versa?
Thanks!
Need I repeat myself? People are lazy!
And, there are people that play a mix of mods.
Amigo, I'm aware that you owe me nothing. Maybe you've never heard of v2, or don't like it if you have. Notwithstanding, Police and I know how to run a server. We're also authorities on what pisses people off, and I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards: most law-abiding players would be willing to go through some kind of screening or registration system to play on a good server, especially when they know it's needed to keep griefers at bay. Banning honest players from a server for belonging to a bad referral sub-tree is much more likely to keep them away. Permanently.
Sure, I've heard of V2, but I fail to see what relevance that has on this topic. That you run large servers is pretty irrelevant to the issues at hand. Will you accept every user who tries to register on your system, or will there be some subjective criteria to decide whether a registration request will be accepted? What happens if you decide not to give a user access? What if that user is honest? You're suggesting to concentrate the decision to admit or deny to one (or a tiny handful) of users. A reputation tree would allow anyone to admit another user, with the implication that they should not be complicit in generating thousands of accounts for griefers.
Like I said, we've been running very popular servers for years. Part of our job is determining what players want or will accept, and we're good at it.
Seems like it's our call whether we want to risk fragmenting the community somewhat in order to keep our servers alive. Doesn't seem like a decision that would ordinarily correspond to authentication server admins.
Assuming you want my help developing some sort of system, your job right now is to convince me that intentionally fragmenting the community is a good idea. If you play with my authentication server, it seems like that is actually my call.
Not all server hosts will opt to run their own separate screening procedures. Besides, we can compensate for fragmentation with forum links, community events, etc. And do construction modders really need to know how many players are currently on the Rebels servers? Or vice versa?
This project is to build a new authentication and community system for the entire game. This project is NOT to build a set of a dozen disconnected authentication and community systems with tenuous links, incompatible accounts, and subjective registration criteria.
Ultimately, what I offer is much less prone to abuse, both from the server administrator side, and from the griefer side. If I didn't know better, it would seem that you would prefer to concentrate power, and have me write a system independent of the greater one, so you can unilaterally make decisions that may not be in the best interests of the game community as a whole.
It's not like you couldn't utilize my system to do exactly what you want. If you have a trusted group of admins for your V2 servers, you can make them a conglomeration point for requesting referrals within my system, and place whatever arbitrary restrictions you want as conditions for providing a referral. Taken to the extreme, you could even prevent access to your server if a player doesn't have a referral from your trusted group.
My plan does everything you could want, except give you extreme power to fragment, or develop a competing authentication platform, against the interests of everyone who would be playing the game.
WarLovR does have a point. He really knows how to appease noobs. If he thinks the regulars on his server would be willing to undergo an additional registration process, then I wouldn't question it. The regulars on his server wouldn't dare playing in any other server where the admins don't bend over backwards to please noobs. When it comes to what noobs want, WarLovR is definitely a reputable source of information.
On the other hand, genuinely new players might be a different story. They won't have been pampered for their entire T2 lives, so they won't feel that they have to play on Rebels to have fun. These people will most likely not bother and just play on any other server they can find instead. Rebels will be left with only the regulars, but I think that might be a win-win situation for them, because as they've said many times on this forum alone: they don't care about the game being popular, they only care about themselves having a place to go run around and have fun for awhile.
Also I would like to remind everyone of a little project called zAdmin back in 2001. 5150 long ago decided to restrict access to their server to only people that were on a pre-approved list. Anyone not on the list was automatically booted from the server. They didn't need a whole separate authentication server to do it either, it was just a really simple script. For the Rebels server, you don't need the have the registration be a part of T2; you can have them register elsewhere, give you their GUID as well, then add their GUID to the approved list.
There was another project from the same time period called RAID that was basically the same thing, except it spanned multiple servers. I never really paid attention, so I'm not sure if they used the same script with a single "allowance list" being kept on a web server or what, but the basic idea was the same. RAID was in use before zAdmin, but 5150 thought they were better than everyone else and didn't want to use everyone else's list of legit players, so they made their own.
If Rebels thinks their server is as appealing as 5150's back in the day, maybe something like this would be a good choice for them.
...except give you extreme power to fragment, or develop a competing authentication platform, against the interests of everyone who would be playing the game.
I am an extremist only when it comes to filling up servers. Way I see it, whatever it takes to fill servers can never be bad for T2.
Also I don't think support.vl2 comes with the T2 install yet for some odd reason. Since 90% of the custom scripts in the game require it, I think it might be justifiable to include it directly in the patch install. I'm sure there are plenty of other things that could/should arguably be included, but I definitely think that one takes the cake.
2. Unique player identifiers could be personal data such as: verifiable name, address, phone number, email, traceable IP, etc, in exchange for 2 or 3 initial GUIDs plus later issuance of a limited number of additional GUIDs. Indexing applicant IPs by metro codes might be an effective IP correlation tool.
Why not just ask for a urine sample while you're at it?
:rolleyes:
I am an extremist only when it comes to filling up servers. Way I see it, whatever it takes to fill servers can never be bad for T2.
Except when no one will be joining your server because the annoying authentication request scares them away. You'll be actually doing the opposite of what you're hoping.
WarLovr, i don't really see what you're asking. Are you trying to get Thyth to modify his plan and create multiple individual server authentications? Or proposing he modify the referral plan so that anyone can join?
Except when no one will be joining your server because the annoying authentication request scares them away. You'll be actually doing the opposite of what you're hoping.
Or proposing he modify the referral plan so that anyone can join?
Negative. We need control over who plays on our servers. Restricting access to players referred by a trusted group of our admins is one way to accomplish that.
why, if at all are we having this discussion? all ive seen people say is how they miss t2 so much, so sureely when it comes right down to it, we wont need too extreme a measure to deal with the greifers only wannabe ones
WarlovR and Police have been providing very popular pub V2 servers for a long time. Like most popular pub servers there are regulars that just want to play a good games. Then there are assholes who sometimes want to play a good game, or sometimes want to piss off everyone in it; tk'ers, spammers of filth and cheaters.
Server providers have a right to police their server; that's all he wants, same as any decent server provider that continues to have idiots entering their server. Contrary to a lot of the comments I've read; I think the majority of the regular players will try any and all methods to play in his servers, even the assholes because War's servers are where the V2 action is and those assholes especially like action!
we wont need too extreme a measure to deal with the greifers only wannabe ones
Unless you play a lot on our servers you have no idea how extreme these characters are. They have sworn to bring down Rebels because "v2 sucks." Nobody wants to play on their servers for obvious reasons, so they've adopted a strategy of coming to our servers and disrupting games.
The bottom line is, who controls T2 pubs? We're playing a deadly game for the future of T2: asshats vs. server hosts. If server hosts lose control of their servers, their servers die.
The bottom line is, who controls T2 pubs? We're playing a deadly game for the future of T2: asshats vs. server hosts. If server hosts lose control of their servers, their servers die.
Without good pub servers, T2 dies.
Except a public server is a server that is public. Not a server with a big base of usuals.
I really mean it when i say, New players will not join your server. Sure, some will, chances are they'll be dedicated players, who you'll see a lot of. But the majority will not.
What you're proposing is an effective way to keep your server safe. but not something it appears Thyth will be doing, so... you better start researching authentication algorithms.
Here's a solution:
Set your server to randomly generate a new password once a day, and require users to sign up at your forums/website in order to view said password. Then you don't need to have your own complete auth system, and you can still force them to register!
Except a public server is a server that is public. Not a server with a big base of usuals.
I understand what you meant but for the record a public server is a server open to the general public, they aren't passworded and are on-line and available for anyone to play in 24/7! Private servers usually remain locked, password protected for tribe members or trusted friends only.
Prior to the the Sierra/VUGames authentication server going off-line the V2 server in question was usually filled to capacity every evening. Even with so-called nazi admin tactics and n00b pacification (lol)! Personally I hope Thyth's project opens the door for a lot more players to join the game, that means hopefully more dedicated servers come on-line.
This discussion isn't about one server or one mod, this is about server administration on a variety of mods. If a server provider can't curtail un-wanted activity/guests inside his/her server, how long do you think those new servers will remain on-line? How long will before all you have are locked servers? No this isn't a primary concern to a lot of you; but the future of pubbing in a T2 CTF server may very well change to something the majority don't want because of determined assholes!
In the 5yrs I have enjoyed this game, I have pushed the kick button one fifth as often as I have since the auth servers were taken down. Before a warning was usually all that was needed. I was never a fan of permabans, but I am now!
What you're proposing is an effective way to keep your server safe. but not something it appears Thyth will be doing, so... you better start researching authentication algorithms.
I don't have the resources to pull off anything close to this, but I will be taking classes since this whole project intrigues me.
Comments
Appreciate your taking the time to deal with these issues.
We are feeling unprecedented pain on the Rebels servers, but getting the best possible system in place before issuing any GUIDs seems wise.
Bottom line: any kind of registration constriction system is preferable to relying on server bans, but in my opinion a referral system has severe disadvantages.
Some remarks on the pros and cons of a referral system versus a personal data screening system:
Referral system:
Tribes 2 desperately needs new players. A referral system would make it much more difficult to get started in the game, and in my opinion that's an insurmountable downside. Plus tossing any innocent players off a server because they're part of a tainted referral sub-tree seems draconian and unfair. Many of those players would probably never return.
Server hosts would inevitably resort to individual, case-by-case bans, which in my opinion won't work either, considering the widespread use of dynamic IPs.
Personal data screening system:
1. Server hosts may choose to operate their own separate authentication server, allowing them to set their own criteria for registration on their own servers.
2. Time-consuming on the front-end, but server hosts can adjust the difficulty of access as needed to decrease or increase security. Possible identifying criteria: verifiable name, address, phone number, email address, traceable IP with metro code. Not foolproof, but seems fairly secure if a host takes the time to verify applicants' personal data.
3. Some fragmentation effect on the T2 community, and replication of GUIDs and names on different servers.
Thanks!
Mwuhahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The level of fragmentation that such a system would produce is unacceptable, and there are rather severe problems that you don't mention. When a player finds a really busy server that looks like it might be fun to play on, and they are prevented from connecting because the server requires an additional level of registration, what do you think the player will do?
If you think an additional registration process (multiplied by more than one server) is less likely to piss off potential players than a transitive ban, I think you are at least a little bit deluded.
If players are aware of the reputation system from the start, how bans work, and are provided with the information of the reputation source of a ban: the players can log into the online control panel, look at the reputation tree, and pick a player who could actually provide a good reference.
It provides a consistent interface, and a consistent process for the user. If the mechanics of the system are explained to users, then the responsibility to pick a good reference falls on the user, and unintentional bans as a result of tree-bans will not be considered draconian. Acceptance is a matter of psychological buy-in; I see that happening easily for a system like this, where the rules are set concretely. I don't see psychological acceptance happening where to join a server, a player needs to accept arbitrary terms, or provide personal information to a server administrator.
Now, lets say, one of those players is legit and is a good guy, but the rest are stupid, trouble making, douche bags.
Warlord is gettin ready to cut his referral tree, because it is sufficiently tainted, but he wants the legit guy to be able to keep playing. So, he refers that player to someone else, who has a good clean referral tree, lets say Krash. That player will be safe from a shit storm, and the cancer is still removed.
although oh course this still leaves the issue of tracking referred players. just because our friend is legit now, doesn't mean he won't be a menace in a few months, and we wouldn't want to put krash's tree in danger.
Perhaps instead of adding him to another referral tree, we could give him his own referral tree after he passes a probation.
Easy to request, not so easy to get, especially for new or little-known players.
I think the player will register.
Amigo, I'm aware that you owe me nothing. Maybe you've never heard of v2, or don't like it if you have. Notwithstanding, Police and I know how to run a server. We're also authorities on what pisses people off, and I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards: most law-abiding players would be willing to go through some kind of screening or registration system to play on a good server, especially when they know it's needed to keep griefers at bay. Banning honest players from a server for belonging to a bad referral sub-tree is much more likely to keep them away. Permanently.
Like I said, we've been running very popular servers for years. Part of our job is determining what players want or will accept, and we're good at it.
Seems like it's our call whether we want to risk fragmenting the community somewhat in order to keep our servers alive. Doesn't seem like a decision that would ordinarily correspond to authentication server admins.
Not all server hosts will opt to run their own separate screening procedures. Besides, we can compensate for fragmentation with forum links, community events, etc. And do construction modders really need to know how many players are currently on the Rebels servers? Or vice versa?
Thanks!
People are inherently lazy, in case you haven't noticed..
Then perhaps you should write your own authentication system...
Need I repeat myself? People are lazy!
And, there are people that play a mix of mods.
This post is not meant as a 'flame' in any way.
You can believe whatever you want, but I'm running Rebels, not you.
I hope Thyth doesn't share your attitude or T2 is terminally screwed.
And I think players will register once, and if possible, they will avoid jumping through hoops to do it.
Sure, I've heard of V2, but I fail to see what relevance that has on this topic. That you run large servers is pretty irrelevant to the issues at hand. Will you accept every user who tries to register on your system, or will there be some subjective criteria to decide whether a registration request will be accepted? What happens if you decide not to give a user access? What if that user is honest? You're suggesting to concentrate the decision to admit or deny to one (or a tiny handful) of users. A reputation tree would allow anyone to admit another user, with the implication that they should not be complicit in generating thousands of accounts for griefers.
Assuming you want my help developing some sort of system, your job right now is to convince me that intentionally fragmenting the community is a good idea. If you play with my authentication server, it seems like that is actually my call.
This project is to build a new authentication and community system for the entire game. This project is NOT to build a set of a dozen disconnected authentication and community systems with tenuous links, incompatible accounts, and subjective registration criteria.
Ultimately, what I offer is much less prone to abuse, both from the server administrator side, and from the griefer side. If I didn't know better, it would seem that you would prefer to concentrate power, and have me write a system independent of the greater one, so you can unilaterally make decisions that may not be in the best interests of the game community as a whole.
It's not like you couldn't utilize my system to do exactly what you want. If you have a trusted group of admins for your V2 servers, you can make them a conglomeration point for requesting referrals within my system, and place whatever arbitrary restrictions you want as conditions for providing a referral. Taken to the extreme, you could even prevent access to your server if a player doesn't have a referral from your trusted group.
My plan does everything you could want, except give you extreme power to fragment, or develop a competing authentication platform, against the interests of everyone who would be playing the game.
On the other hand, genuinely new players might be a different story. They won't have been pampered for their entire T2 lives, so they won't feel that they have to play on Rebels to have fun. These people will most likely not bother and just play on any other server they can find instead. Rebels will be left with only the regulars, but I think that might be a win-win situation for them, because as they've said many times on this forum alone: they don't care about the game being popular, they only care about themselves having a place to go run around and have fun for awhile.
There was another project from the same time period called RAID that was basically the same thing, except it spanned multiple servers. I never really paid attention, so I'm not sure if they used the same script with a single "allowance list" being kept on a web server or what, but the basic idea was the same. RAID was in use before zAdmin, but 5150 thought they were better than everyone else and didn't want to use everyone else's list of legit players, so they made their own.
If Rebels thinks their server is as appealing as 5150's back in the day, maybe something like this would be a good choice for them.
I am an extremist.
Let's see...what were we arguing about?
I am an extremist only when it comes to filling up servers. Way I see it, whatever it takes to fill servers can never be bad for T2.
:rolleyes:
Except when no one will be joining your server because the annoying authentication request scares them away. You'll be actually doing the opposite of what you're hoping.
WarLovr, i don't really see what you're asking. Are you trying to get Thyth to modify his plan and create multiple individual server authentications? Or proposing he modify the referral plan so that anyone can join?
We'll do whatever is needed to keep the servers full and keep the jackasses off. In your case, a urine sample probably wouldn't help.
Unless I'm hoping to scare them away.
As far as I know that was never his plan.
Negative. We need control over who plays on our servers. Restricting access to players referred by a trusted group of our admins is one way to accomplish that.
Server providers have a right to police their server; that's all he wants, same as any decent server provider that continues to have idiots entering their server. Contrary to a lot of the comments I've read; I think the majority of the regular players will try any and all methods to play in his servers, even the assholes because War's servers are where the V2 action is and those assholes especially like action!
Unless you play a lot on our servers you have no idea how extreme these characters are. They have sworn to bring down Rebels because "v2 sucks." Nobody wants to play on their servers for obvious reasons, so they've adopted a strategy of coming to our servers and disrupting games.
The bottom line is, who controls T2 pubs? We're playing a deadly game for the future of T2: asshats vs. server hosts. If server hosts lose control of their servers, their servers die.
Without good pub servers, T2 dies.
Except a public server is a server that is public. Not a server with a big base of usuals.
I really mean it when i say, New players will not join your server. Sure, some will, chances are they'll be dedicated players, who you'll see a lot of. But the majority will not.
What you're proposing is an effective way to keep your server safe. but not something it appears Thyth will be doing, so... you better start researching authentication algorithms.
Set your server to randomly generate a new password once a day, and require users to sign up at your forums/website in order to view said password. Then you don't need to have your own complete auth system, and you can still force them to register!
epic
I understand what you meant but for the record a public server is a server open to the general public, they aren't passworded and are on-line and available for anyone to play in 24/7! Private servers usually remain locked, password protected for tribe members or trusted friends only.
Prior to the the Sierra/VUGames authentication server going off-line the V2 server in question was usually filled to capacity every evening. Even with so-called nazi admin tactics and n00b pacification (lol)! Personally I hope Thyth's project opens the door for a lot more players to join the game, that means hopefully more dedicated servers come on-line.
This discussion isn't about one server or one mod, this is about server administration on a variety of mods. If a server provider can't curtail un-wanted activity/guests inside his/her server, how long do you think those new servers will remain on-line? How long will before all you have are locked servers? No this isn't a primary concern to a lot of you; but the future of pubbing in a T2 CTF server may very well change to something the majority don't want because of determined assholes!
In the 5yrs I have enjoyed this game, I have pushed the kick button one fifth as often as I have since the auth servers were taken down. Before a warning was usually all that was needed. I was never a fan of permabans, but I am now!
I don't have the resources to pull off anything close to this, but I will be taking classes since this whole project intrigues me.