Vote to Kick/Ban

[mattj256]

I made assemblers, that do modules and was banned for it. Am I griefer or admin was not too smart?

Based on what you've said it sounds like the admin made a mistake. Punishing you (or anyone) for an admin's mistake is foolish. What I was trying to say is that if a player is repeatedly being kicked or banned, Factorio should provide some mechanism to help admins deal with that. (I'm not sure if this should be the Factorio developers or a third party.)

[Jon8RFC]

Didn't want to create a new thread, but want my voice to be heard.

+1 for remembering multiplayer browse settings such as sorting, password, mods.

[heiwashin]

I agree that a better ban control system needs to be in place. I request only a mod level user with more limited powers, only being able to ban and unban, with all cheats disabled. It's fairly easy to promote people you see behaving on a server for only a few minutes, and so far i've had no issue doing so on three dedicated servers. There is a risk associated with it, so i would also like chat logs to be included in the server logging, verbose or not.

I'm aware that command removal is possible in the experimental version and i think that i would be satisfied with using that to remove cheat commands. I'm assuming it should also be possible to write a script to output chat to a file, i'll probably do it later, but i imagine including that in the logs is trivial work.

[henke37]

Let players vote out people they don't like. Such as griefers. Let the server owner disable it if they don't like it.

[Koub]

[Koub] Merged several topics with suggestion to implement vote-ban mechanism as anti-griefing system.

[mrvn]

Change key by itself will be more easily for griefer to use because instead of removing / destroying entity they can now just place entity all over the map. Change key prevent other player to remove your entity.

For grenade a simple friendly fire OFF can do the trick.

Any system that rely on global information hold on master server (factorio server ) can be "hack" directly without playing. How can you place a secure system while you can alter some data on master server from many server not owned by factorio ( game server ) ?

Hacking the master server isn't the problem. Way to complicated (comparatively). As griever simply start 100 servers and pad yourself on the back so you get a billion reputation. Then normal players will have no chance. Or as you said join a game as new user, wait the hour and report everyone else. Now their reputation is ruined. No hacking required.

[CJ5Boss]

The owner of the server should be required to appoint an admin with these capabilities so that they both have the ability to kick if one is away, to fix the loopholes. The owner can also appoint anyone else they wish but if there are at least 3-4 people, the owner must appoint one online, or, if they all are griefers (which is not likely) then they could bypass this once.

[CJ5Boss]

Let players vote out people they don't like. Such as griefers. Let the server owner disable it if they don't like it.

Did you notice the loophole pointed out earlier? If the server has a majority of griefers, this voting system will not work. This was mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Darinth]

Let players vote out people they don't like. Such as griefers. Let the server owner disable it if they don't like it.

Did you notice the loophole pointed out earlier? If the server has a majority of griefers, this voting system will not work. This was mentioned earlier in the thread.

He originally posted that as a separate topic. It was only merged into this topic later.

[nekkun]

I might have a simpler solution to all this. I've skimmed over what everyone wrote and Ghoulish has an idea close to mine.

tl;dr: Users are assigned privilege levels when joining a server. Depending on your access level, you can only do so much. As such, someone who just joins has no ability to build/destroy without being promoted by a server mod/host to regular player.

Here's my idea.
Every player is assigned a "access" level (for lack of better name).

1. Host (Admin)
2. Steam Friend (Mod)
3. Regular Access (Player)
4. Guest (Random player)

When the server is made, the person who made the server is "host" and has full admin privileges. Kick, ban, build, delete, command line access, etc. Steam friend is anyone who is your steam friend. When they join your game, they have almost the same privileges, but minus a few "admin" ones effectively making #2 the "mod" role. When a random person who isn't your steam friend joins, they are put into group #4. Group #4, or Guest, can't do anything. They can't build, destroy, create, vote on kick/bans, they can only observe and have to wait for someone to move them up to group #3 to build/destroy.

Additionally this could be used for pvp/rp servers and simply rename the roles. 1 could be "god" or whatever the RP system is, 2 could be faction leader, 3 could be captain, 4 could be soldier, and you could make a 5th group with no privileges just in case random people join too. On headless servers, you could change it so that the server itself is the admin and everyone else is just a "regular access" and proceed from there with server commands or the console. Here's a simple example of a PvP set up:

1. Server (headless server ideally. full admin priv)
2. Faction Leader (can promote between ranks of own faction, can kick/ban with no vote, set specific flags like alliance and such)
3. Faction Captain (full access to build/destroy, full access to trains and their routes, can start vote kick/ban)
4. Faction Soldier (access to certain items/recipes, can do damage to others, can vote on kick/ban but not start)
5. New Player (no access what so ever, no damage, no building, no voting, take extra damage for not being on a faction)

This means we don't need to spend time on figuring out a way to blacklist players or create a "point" system that would give players fast-access to try and exploit it. A vote/ban system would be a lot harder to defeat by mass-joining with other griefers - no one has a vote until they're promoted. Even then you can make it so only certain groups could vote kick/ban in a config file for the server some where? The only way would be if an exploit was found where someone could promote themselves up thru the access levels.

Theres no need to record data on who build/destroyed what, when, where, how, and any other data like that to decode who greifed or not (while it would be nice to have in general) because no griefing will be happening. The only people who are griefing are those who are holding exploits that even the devs don't know about and no longer script-kiddies or just bored people joining random servers.

Unfortunately, as I am only now considering learning to program I have no idea how to implement this. Would this be a server mod or is it something factorio itself would have to implement?

Edit: I just realized this is also a way to implement factions in a pvp server. I don't even play pvp in this game at all.

[henke37]

A simple vote ban is enough. If the majority of the players on a server no longer wants to play with someone, then they clearly don't want to play together. To counter greifers calling votes, make it so that repeated vote bans eventually force either the target or the caller out of the server. If they don't want to play together, then they clearly don't belong on the same server.

As for the issue of a bunch of greifers joining at the same time, there isn't much that can be done. Any attempt at making them wait for calling votes or trying to block them from certain actions is vulnerable to being gamed.

A reputation based setup may help in the long term, but how to derive said reputation? One suggestion has been reporting players. Another has been reporting bans. Which both in turn has been shown to be gameable. What is needed here is review of the reports. The CS overwatch system seems to work fine.

[mrvn]

A simple vote ban is enough. If the majority of the players on a server no longer wants to play with someone, then they clearly don't want to play together. To counter greifers calling votes, make it so that repeated vote bans eventually force either the target or the caller out of the server. If they don't want to play together, then they clearly don't belong on the same server.

As for the issue of a bunch of greifers joining at the same time, there isn't much that can be done. Any attempt at making them wait for calling votes or trying to block them from certain actions is vulnerable to being gamed.

A reputation based setup may help in the long term, but how to derive said reputation? One suggestion has been reporting players. Another has been reporting bans. Which both in turn has been shown to be gameable. What is needed here is review of the reports. The CS overwatch system seems to work fine.

New players should be unable to vote or call for a vote for slightly longer than a vote period. Sure it can be worked around by the greifer waiting out the delay. But:

1) If a known greifer joins the existing players can vote kick him before he can abuse the vote system.
2) Greifers don't like investing a ton of time waiting.
3) Even if they wait it out the frequency will be low due to the delay.

Also: If the majority of players on a server are geifers the game is over so it doesn't really matter what happens. Still, the admin can kick them and give the real player their majority back.

[Windsinger]

TL;DR

A system for players to report grievers on their public/open servers, after enough strikes from multiple servers, grievers will be prohibited from joining any public/open online sessions for X period of time.

What ?

System active only for factorio servers with "visibility: public" and no password set.

A system that if implemented, allows the players in-game to report someone that is misbehaving/grieving.

• If said person "Bob123" for example gets reports on 5 different servers, a strike is given, resulting in a XX timed ban.

• If said person after the ban period is over, receives another report from 3 servers again within 1 month, (s)he's instantly banned again, this time longer.

• if after the 2nd ban period another 3 reports are send in the final permanent ban is given. Resulting in permanent loss of ability to game play on any public/non-passworded server from that particular game license.

• Players should also be able to review their strikes on their account page. Reported: 0 / Strikes: 0

How?

• Every Factorio server has a uplink to the main server for verifying/checking their license and advertising their game if it's made public.
  If possible, piggyback over that connection, to verify if said user license is allowed to play online sessions due to strike count or cooldown period.
• Every game license can report another game license only once a day.
• Every game license have to be playing at least X amount of time on server before they can report someone.
  To prevent mass-grievers joining servers and abusing report system mentioned in viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34987
• X amount of reports from the same server, will result in that specific server to ban this player automatically. and report sended to global server.

Why ?

1. Grievers can cause a LOT of problems and frustration for new beginning players who just want to play with friends or want to play with people.
2. Grievers can roam free any server without any form of consequence, they get banned? whatever? they'll just fine a new server/people to annoy.
3. With the Hype that majority of 1.0 game releases get, this can seriously impact on how the game will be reviewed if people can just grief without consequences.
4. System can be fully automated and it's better then having no system against grievers at all.
5. People need to learn that their actions will have consequence, since currently, there is none, apart from a single server ban.

[Koub]

Very related :
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29602
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30491
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32160
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34987
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35730
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42843

Also the links in this topic : viewtopic.php?f=80&t=29700

And finally :
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=29937

[Windsinger]

Very related :
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29602
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30491
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32160
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34987
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35730
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42843

Also the links in this topic : viewtopic.php?f=80&t=29700

And finally :
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=29937

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29602
> Related to bans per map or pre-join banning, no reply and was from 4 years ago, already also implemented partially.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30491
> Related to keeping username list seperate from saves, these ban lists are already implemented and not relevant to the suggested i'm having.
> Linked to viewtopic.php?f=80&t=29700 (Last reply 2016, so not active or considered imho)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32160
> idea to report, but no full content of suggestion given of how, or how the system would be implemented, also from 2016.
> Linked to viewtopic.php?f=80&t=29700 (Last reply 2016, so not active or considered imho)

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34987
> Kick system from again, an indivual system, and not global.
- Idea adjusted to have at least X amount of playtime on a server to be able to do that.
- Posted 4 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=35730
> Global Blacklist,
- Not specified to integrate a player report system, interaction, profile listing, consequenses.
- Posted 4 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=42843
> Server protection
- Describes an idea for action log, replay methods, zone/action counters. this related to my current suggestion how exactly?
- From 3 years ago.

[ssilk]

To avoid misinterpretation: what do you want to say with that comment, windsinger?

[Windsinger]

Hi Ssilk,

I've spend quite some time into checking before i posted it, did the template according to what you guys want.
And honestly it felt like a slap in the face to receive a copy and paste reply from a topic from 2 years ago.

(he/she) say it's related, So instead i choose to explain on every point how it's either not related, not relevant to what i suggest or somewhat linked which i comment on in detail.

[ssilk]

Thank you.

Try you linked to viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34987
But that doesn’t explain how to deal with the abuse of this. There are ideas, but the whole thread goes more or less around that this ideas will not work.

[Koub]

I've spend quite some time into checking before i posted it, did the template according to what you guys want.
And honestly it felt like a slap in the face to receive a copy and paste reply from a topic from 2 years ago.

(he/she) say it's related, So instead i choose to explain on every point how it's either not related, not relevant to what i suggest or somewhat linked which i comment on in detail.

You have spent quite some time searching the forum, reading topics revolving around how to prevent grieving in multiplayer. Most people won't do what you have done, and will lack the background of the previous reflections on that subject. I just wanted to provide these additional previous threads to enrich the community's reflection to your suggestion.

I didn't contribute more to react to your suggestion because I personally don't care about grievers : I only play solo, and can't understand why on earth people would want to play with random strangers they don't know.

[Windsinger]

Which is fine Koub, each their own thing. 90% of the fun in this game for me is the mods and scenarios that people made WITH strange people

Hello bitter battles/redmew/comfy communities, i look at you!
Which is why a system like this would make it more fun for people to have their server open to meet new people.

However, that having said,

If this is a Wube software/General Developer statement that grievers in open public games is not cared about.
That is fine too, that's your company's choice. Then this suggestion can be binned if there is no interest in supporting people that like to play with other people (read strangers) too without having their fun spoiled by the possibility of a griever.