Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
OK, so here's the story. I warn you, it's long: So, this guy was caught several times UDP flooding my server and a few others. Ostensibly, he did so in order to get players on his server... you get dropped from a server, there's a chance you'll go look for another "more stable" server to play on. And of course the attacks were also a good retaliation for having more successful servers than he does. So, after sufficient evidence (including packet logs and screen shots of servers he rented running a udp flooding application, as well as people he had confessed to coming forward), we consulted with Olaf about whether these infractions warranted an XWIS ban. (Seeing as how he was doing this to get traffic, he should not be rewarded with getting to KEEP any traffic he did get.) So, Olaf agreed and a ban was placed on this server. To further hinder his server, we banned it from RenGuard (which makes sense since he was attacking the server that is frequently used by BHS to test and develop projects). Immediately, the attacker himself (who we shall call "A") came to me and said he was quitting the community and leaving it in the hands of someone else (who we shall refer to as "B"). Over the next few days, "A" posted on Strike Team forums and sent private messages to Olaf and DonCarlo trying to get unbanned, calling his ban a personal attack from me. Of course, I value my position with Strike Team very highly and I wouldn't risk it on a personal matter, so Strike Team backed me up and I continue to be able to enforce this ban without risking my status there. So, several hours after the initial ban, a server with the same name (description), host name, and settings appears on XWIS on a brand new IP. Of course, this community under "new owners" trying to bring the server back online is BLATANT ban evasion, and I placed a new ban on that IP as well. I purposely didn't ban the following 4 IPs which I was sure they were allocated, just to see if they'd be stupid enough to try to use a different IP again. Over the next few days, we heard a lot from "A" (he even posted here ADMITTING to his illegal actions and begging for forgiveness) and heard rarely from "B". "A" insisted that he had nothing to do with this "new community" that supposedly spawned from the ashes of the community that was run by "A". However, when a new individual who we shall call "C" showed up having admin access, IRCOp, etc, on the new community's site and servers, alarm bells went off. The player in the Renegade community who used the nickname "C" was a well-known cheater a while back and in fact had several n00bstories written about him, including a story from "A" himself. Upon further investigation, "B" and new co-admin "D" insisted to me that "C" and "A" were not the same person, even though it sure looked like they WERE the same person to everyone else. So, somewhere in this time, the new server reappears on XWIS on an IP one number greater than the one I previously banned. The name is vague and different but the host name is the same. Of course, a second attempt at ban evasion signals me to put the ban back on that IP and the next 3 to (hopefully) cover the range of IPs they can use. "B" and "D" come to me and ask what they can do to be allowed on XWIS, as they've spent all this money, etc. I tell them that everyone knows "C" is really "A" and they need to cut off ties with him. I specifically instructed them NOT to allow anyone else to have admin-level access to their forums and servers unless they definitely know them. At this point, they are acting like innocent victims of "A" duplicity and seem cooperative. Of course, you all know how soft-hearted I am, so I believed them and gave them another chance. They responded by posting logs of them firing "C", and "C" admits that he's really "A". A few days pass, and another new name appears on the Admin list of their forums (I think they don't realize that ANY member can see this list) -- we will call this person "E". I ask "B" and "D" who this person "E" is and they give me the SAME STORY that they used to explain the existence of "C", back before they theoretically didn't know that "C" was actually "A". I told them to get rid of him, which they did (at least, they removed his access as an admin). Of course, I am not convinced. Lots of evidence remains that "A" is still the main man and lead of this entire thing. Even worse, they are lying to everyone who visits their "server hosting company" by saying THEY have a 30,000 square foot data center, and that they "have been in business for over 10 years and have the experience and the know how to back it up." Even a complete idiot who emails their "sales department" can realize that they are actually just a reseller and don't have their own facility or any of the other facilities they claim as their own in "Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York, San Francisco". ANYONE who actually has the stupidity to send these fools their money deserves to lose it. So, to summarize, they have evaded their ban twice, and have lied to me several times. What should I do in this situation? My choices: 1) Let them continue on. He did say he was sorry for UDP flooding after all. 2) Re-ban them and all their servers from XWIS for life.
Tough choice. They fucked up. Many, many times. If I were in your shoes (And I'm not. The decision remains entirely yours), I'd let the have another chance. A lifetime ban from XWIS is pretty harsh. I would break down and cry like a little bitch if it happened to me. But if A, B, C, D, or Q put even a toe out of line, give them the lifetime ban. He/She/They is/are (a) repeat offender(s). If they abuse your benevolence this time...well... Again, that's my opinion. I think you should do what feels right.
From the way you told the story it certainly seems as though they would abuse any more second chances given to them, so perhaps a ban is in order.
mrpirate wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 01:01 From the way you told the story it certainly seems as though they would abuse any more second chances given to them, so perhaps a ban is in order. ^^ It seems like they have already shown how they will act..
I agree with MrPirate. They got many warnings and tried to bypass all of them. Only when they got to know that it didn't work, they agreed to settle. So basically if you give them another chance, they'll abuse it again until you enforce measures again. Don't forget: server banned -> tried to bypass it 3 times Person 'banned' from the community -> tried to bypass it 2 times I would just give the server a ban and that's it. They can live without a server on xwis. - the community can exist without having their own server which, by the looks of it, seems empty anyway most of the time - they can host on gamespy When people make a fool of you, you shouldn't have much mercy. I mean: he says he wanted more traffic to his server and that's why he UDP-flooded the other servers but who says this is the true and only reason for it? He actually assigned servers to udp-flood other servers. OK, they might loose money from it but they damn well deserve it, considering they made other servers loose money.
Seeying what they did (over and over and over), these kids do not deserve a server. Hit them where it hurts (in their wallets). So I say ban them for life. Show them what they did will not be tollerated. Besides, by crashing other servers they tried to empty those servers that cost money too.
Make em Donate $30 for each logged instance. You KNOW they would continue if they were not caught. Oh and if One individual takes all teh blame its bullshit cuz everyone there knew what was occuring and they all are responsible.
I'm hoping that the people in question will read this story about your reactions. Then they will know they have used up their last chance (even more than I should have given them).
A ban is a ban. Any way you look at it they are evading that ban and should continue to be banned. They've already gotten several second chances. This is more than they should have recieved. You are backed by XWIS for the first ban. Now if you don't continue banning them for evasion, that first ban is worthless.
Crimson wrote on Wed, 19 April 2006 23:49 2) Re-ban them and all their servers from XWIS for life. /Selection.
Do not unban him, if he really want to host a server for Renegade, he need to host it on Gamespy.
People are idiots. They think that because they apologize, all is well. Too bad, that's not how it works in the real world. Sure, this is the internet, but the same principle applies. Ban them for life.
Keep 'em banned.
Your considering letting a bunch of lieing UDP flooders on XWIS? Shame on you, be tougher for the rest of sake's if not your own.
Crimson, you should remember that a DoS attack (eg, UDP flooding) is illegal in the United States, and I'd venture a guess that it's illegal in most other internet-competent countries. If the attacks came from multiple IPs, then it should be considered a DDoS. A DoS is an atrocious offense on the internet, second only to DDoS. It's akin to locking you in your own home, boarding it up, and then pulling all utility connections (water, power, phone). You have no way of contacting anyone that you are going to starve. I wouldn't consider having aliases as an offense. But using the aliases to get around set laws (eg, bans) is, though not as bad as a DoS attack. But really, if person 'A' is paying for the server, then what right do you have to say whether or not he can be an admin? You do have every right to prevent him from attacking your own server(s). Will an XWIS ban really prevent that? Has he attacked only servers that are listed on XWIS, or has he also attacked servers listed exclusively on GSA as well? How do you know that if you ban his server's IP from XWIS, that he won't just lease a different subnet from his server's host, or that he won't even change hosts completely? In all, the question isn't whether or not you should keep the ban. If he has broken a rule to connect to XWIS, then you follow Olaf's judgement (and since (as far as I know) there's an agreement between Olaf and yourself to allow you to moderate the Renegade part of XWIS, your own judgement). If he repeatedly breaks XWIS' rules, then you take it up with EA.
Kanezor wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 08:23 I wouldn't consider having aliases as an offense. But using the aliases to get around set laws (eg, bans) is, though not as bad as a DoS attack. But really, if person 'A' is paying for the server, then what right do you have to say whether or not he can be an admin? Since "A" is the attacker, we decided to ban "A" from ever having a server on XWIS. I only allowed the "company" to have a server on XWIS again because they SAID they got rid of him. If he's still an admin and still calling the shots, then he has a server on XWIS in spite of the punishment set forth. I never revoked the ban on this individual. Quote: You do have every right to prevent him from attacking your own server(s). Will an XWIS ban really prevent that? Has he attacked only servers that are listed on XWIS, or has he also attacked servers listed exclusively on GSA as well? The ban is not to prevent him from attacking. The ban is a removal of privileges as punishment for said attacks. I would sooner have more success paying someone to inflict physical harm on him than I could actually get the law against him. Therefore, this is an punishment I *can* inflict that teaches him that such acts are not to be tolerated. Quote: How do you know that if you ban his server's IP from XWIS, that he won't just lease a different subnet from his server's host, or that he won't even change hosts completely? 1) He's not very bright. 2) The effort it takes him to get a new IP is a lot more than the effort it takes me to add his new IP to his existing ban. Quote: In all, the question isn't whether or not you should keep the ban. If he has broken a rule to connect to XWIS, then you follow Olaf's judgement (and since (as far as I know) there's an agreement between Olaf and yourself to allow you to moderate the Renegade part of XWIS, your own judgement). If he repeatedly breaks XWIS' rules, then you take it up with EA. Yes, it IS in fact against XWIS rules to flood other players and servers. That is why Olaf agreed to the original ban.
If I were you, I might consider giving B and D another chance... BUT they've already let him into theirs twice and they're lying to everyone else who visits their site. I doubt they'll stop (you even said, A isn't very smart and if he's the ringleader it's unlikely that B and D are much smarter) and I think that even though only fools would send them money, the most responsible thing to do is get rid of them so they can't screw other people. After all, there are a lot of people who, through no fault of their own, wouldn't be able to put 2 and 2 together and figure them out; they don't all know the background of this situation. Even if they weren't lying to you, they're still scam artists. Would you boot them for that?
He might have apologised, but he wouldn't have if he didn't have to (i.e. if you weren't able to find out he had a new server on XWIS). Yes, these people seem like typical scam artists. I don't think any of them deserve to be on XWIS again without a sincere apology, $50 payment and expensive bottle of wine sent to you. They should also pay back the people who sent money to them.
Actually, I've reconsidered. Ban "A" for life. If he wants to play more Xwis, he can get a new IP. Edit: Next time I should read the rest of the posts... Good job Crimson.
Crimson wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 10:59 Kanezor wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 08:23 I wouldn't consider having aliases as an offense. But using the aliases to get around set laws (eg, bans) is, though not as bad as a DoS attack. But really, if person 'A' is paying for the server, then what right do you have to say whether or not he can be an admin? Since "A" is the attacker, we decided to ban "A" from ever having a server on XWIS. I only allowed the "company" to have a server on XWIS again because they SAID they got rid of him. If he's still an admin and still calling the shots, then he has a server on XWIS in spite of the punishment set forth. I never revoked the ban on this individual. Quote: You do have every right to prevent him from attacking your own server(s). Will an XWIS ban really prevent that? Has he attacked only servers that are listed on XWIS, or has he also attacked servers listed exclusively on GSA as well? The ban is not to prevent him from attacking. The ban is a removal of privileges as punishment for said attacks. I would sooner have more success paying someone to inflict physical harm on him than I could actually get the law against him. Therefore, this is an punishment I *can* inflict that teaches him that such acts are not to be tolerated. Quote: In all, the question isn't whether or not you should keep the ban. If he has broken a rule to connect to XWIS, then you follow Olaf's judgement (and since (as far as I know) there's an agreement between Olaf and yourself to allow you to moderate the Renegade part of XWIS, your own judgement). If he repeatedly breaks XWIS' rules, then you take it up with EA. Yes, it IS in fact against XWIS rules to flood other players and servers. That is why Olaf agreed to the original ban. All of the above warrants an extended ban, if not a lifelong one. It is rather sad that you have to ban their whole server to get rid of the one person, though. Crimson wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 10:59 Quote: How do you know that if you ban his server's IP from XWIS, that he won't just lease a different subnet from his server's host, or that he won't even change hosts completely? 1) He's not very bright. 2) The effort it takes him to get a new IP is a lot more than the effort it takes me to add his new IP to his existing ban. Remember that if he changes to a different host which hosts several game servers behind a single IP, then you would end up banning all of those game servers. That is, if he isn't already using such a host.
Well, he deserves that. If I let his customers online then he's still benefitting from the profit from them.
You unban them, you're opening yourself up for more problems. Regardless of what they say, how much they apologize, or how kind they may act. People don't suddenly change, especially after a ban. They'll do/say whatever they can to get around the ban if it's for something they are interested in. You go soft on one person, and you'll be asked to continue to be soft for others.
j_ball430 wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 15:53 You unban them, you're opening yourself up for more problems. Regardless of what they say, how much they apologize, or how kind they may act. People don't suddenly change, especially after a ban. They'll do/say whatever they can to get around the ban if it's for something they are interested in. You go soft on one person, and you'll be asked to continue to be soft for others. Exactly. In my experience, when you ban someone, they will ALL lie to get themselves unbanned.
Nice pic Blazer. The great Ray Liotta, he is one fucking Goodfella. Actually, thumbs down means to drop your sword and let them live. Thumbs up means to give the fatal blow with the sword. Insert into belly and aim toward the skull. Damn thats hot.
mision08 wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 15:50 Actually, thumbs down means to drop your sword and let them live. Thumbs up means to give the fatal blow with the sword. Insert into belly and aim toward the skull. The other way around.
Regarding the ban... If someone's going to DDoS an indefinite amount of people/servers, they should not be allowed to stay around. Incidentally, this might be a case for that stupid e-annoyance thing President Bush signed into law. Might as well get some good use out of it. Regarding Thumbs Up... Wikipedia wrote The source of the gesture is obscure. Though a favorite of Hollywood 'swords and sandals' epics, where the "thumbs down" symbol means that the loser in a gladiatorial combat should be put to death, recent research suggests the meanings of the symbols have changed over the years. In 1997, Professor Anthony Philip Corbeill of the University of Kansas concluded that the thumbs up actually meant "Kill him," basing his assertion on a study of hundreds of ancient artworks. Thus, the "thumbs up" was an approval of the gladiator's request to kill his vanquished foe rather than a vote to allow the defeated to remain alive. Corbeill wrote that a closed fist with a wraparound thumb was the indication for a gladiator's life to be spared. In Latin, the "thumbs up" gesture is called pollice recto, "thumbs down" is pollice verso. It is not certain that the contemporary gestures are identical to the gestures performed in ancient Rome. The current version was popularized by a widely reproduced academic painting by the 19th century artist Jean-Léon Gérôme, whose Pollice Verso depicts a triumphant gladiator standing over a fallen foe, looking up into the bleachers for the verdict of the crowd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumbs_up Also take a look at http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/games/a/thumbsup.htm
I wouldn't permanently ban them, but I would ban them for quite a long time. And good job writing up the story, Crimson, I found it to be quite interesting and entertaining. Too bad it wasn't longer....
Screw a temporary (even if it is lengthy) ban. They did wrong. In most situations, you wouldn't unban a cheater from a server because it's 'been a long time'. No. Same applies here. You don't follow the rules, you're not allowed to play. The 'company' shouldn't have been allowed back neither. Just because it's 'under new management' doesn't mean they won't follow the same path that was previously set forth, with or without 'A'. And their arguement that they spend so much money... Maybe they should have thought about that before doing what was done in the first place. Ban them all. If they suddenly inherited this 'company', they were already a part of it. Which means they were already a part of the attacks and anything else that was going on. No mercy.
There is no possible way that I will ever believe that they didn't know it was "A". "A" admitted guilt so there is no debate there. Knowing all that it is plain and simple ban evasion. They deserve the ban and every penny they lose. Btw "A", who is the moron? Did you really think we wouldn't see right through your puppet scheme? You are the one on the wrong side of the ban and took your "friends" with you.
Being one of the server owners that had udp floods and ddos attacks against their servers for over 3 months and having captured packets from known ips of the person and having more proof than any other server owner about the attacks I vote for a perm ban for all servers involved.
This topic was so interesting I just had to take the time to register, again... Something I haven't figured out is how it's possible to link a ddos/dos attack to a person unless that person makes it blatently obvious they are initiating the attacks. On topic, just take the server nickname away from them and that will take care of any attempts of trying to come back with another server.
IcyyTouch On topic, just take the server nickname away from them and that will take care of any attempts of trying to come back with another server. Umm... no?
This person was, in fact, a fool. He was caught SEVERAL times sending packets from his own IP address. Furthermore, he admitted this in another thread and asked us to forgive him. http://www.renegadeforums.com/index.php?t=msg&goto=19429 4&rid=8
If he's leaving Renegade, then there's no reason for the ban to be lifted.
mision08 wrote on Thu, 20 April 2006 16:50 Nice pic Blazer. The great Ray Liotta, he is one fucking Goodfella. Actually, thumbs down means to drop your sword and let them live. Thumbs up means to give the fatal blow with the sword. Insert into belly and aim toward the skull. Damn thats hot. Completely Off Topic: Ray Liotta? How about.. Joaquin Phoenix Back On Topic....
I kinda figured thats who you were referring to, but I didn't know he was attacking servers back when I was hosting him. I remember the whole kicking him off my box because "someone" was ddosing him, which in turn was ddosing me. If he really did cause the attacks upon me by attacking udp flooding someone else first then I say save everyone the headaches, since it did create quite a few.
As far as I know, he was using your server to attack us as well. He also attacked us while being hosted by zunnie. Good riddance, eh?
Care to auction their server xwis nick on E-bay?
The one they're using ultimately belongs to the "Da" clan, so I don't think so. You might want to warn the Zer0BS people that they just wasted money with their new hosting.
jschultz9 wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 00:42 I recieved several botnet attacks from the planet ip addys. If you were hit with a ddos by a server from Theplanet it would be down the next day. Their policy for botnets is very strict. And about hosting with me, Barry wouldn't do hosting with me without having remote access based off what I remember. The first month you might have only had ftp, but I do know that for a majority of the time you rented through me you had remote and ran some traffic analyzer program.
Those aren't ddos attacks. There's also more IP's from Theplanet in those logs than there are servers on Renegade. The packet sizes arent enough to do any damage to anything and the port range is 4 ports. Those packets aren't being sent through a UDP flood program, they look more like pinging packets. It takes only a few seconds to send 10-20 packets, at that size a dial up connection would barely notice it. If they were attacks on your servers UDP port in an effort to crash them they would be more spread out and be coming from one or two IP's, not TP's entire network.
Don't lie. I know you are an IRCop on the Wargrounds servers under the name "ricochet". I know that you are still the main financial responsibility for the Wargrounds servers. I gave the Wargrounds people 2 chances to get rid of you and they LIED directly to me. I do NOT tolerate that. Everything you and they have told me is a lie. I won't stand for it and neither will the others you attacked. Blazinlow and Nutzor are just as guilty as you now for lying to me, and they will now suffer the same punishment.
lmao ok Crimson, whatever you say, do as you wish with thewargrounds I could fucking care less, not my problem, am I an irc op on i-chat yes, have been for a long time, but not on thewargrounds. And Im no way shape or form the financial part of the wargrounds. I have no stake in it what so ever. IM sure you dont mind having less servers online, gives the players less of a choice where to play. Shut thewargrounds down, shut any servers they host, wont effect me none, Ill still play renegade and do as I wish, what you do to innoncent people will not effect me.
You can say that all you want... however your emails tell the truth. Little did you know, you have been emailing me about renting a server and giving me your IP address every time. Quote: Received: from unknown (67.55.156.166) by smtpout04-04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.199) with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2006 19:33:29 -0000 Message-ID: <001e01c664b1$4eb1c520$6503a8c0@gatewayehqy567> From: "sales" <sales@thewargrounds.com> To: "William Pettice" <pettice02@cox.net> How do you explain this one?
Weren't you going away from renegade? Then do yourself a favor and also leave this forum. You're making a fool out of yourself.
Wow... I can't believe the audacity. Denial until the bitter end.
Crimson wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 03:50 Wow... I can't believe the audacity. Denial until the bitter end. Like I said they all lie. Tnx for prooving my point. Anyway I think a big PWND! is in place here.
jschultz9 I would say if that was my ip then good job but unfortunately for you it isnt. Dumbass, did you forget that she can see your IP? It's kind of hard to deny what's right there in front of your face. gg
jschultz is A? Disgrace
IcyyTouch wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 00:14 Care to auction their server xwis nick on E-bay? I own their nickname, and gave jschultz permission to use it back when he hosted a server for Da..Before the attacks as far as I know. The way I see it, it's much easier to keep track of them when they keep coming back with the same nickname
jschultz9 wrote on Fri, 21 April 2006 02:19 Ill still play renegade and do as I wish, what you do to innoncent people will not effect me. jschultz9 wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 22:46 Well im very sorry for what I did, and thats what I came here to say, im leaving Renegade, its been good knowing all of you, and once again Iam sorry. LIE!
I'm pretty sure we'll all convinced not to listen a word he says, eh?
Perm ban. Actually, stick a block or two of remote c4 on jschultz's head, retreat to a safe distance, and then detonate.
You really have no balls at all js you know that? If your going to be a lying little bitch then at least stick with it and don't edit all your posts. That is my favorite little gem of evidence btw.
Heh, he reminds me of myself two years back. Oh, and hitting servers from TP IPs = fail.
Edit your post all you like, but most of it is in my screen shot so your idiocy lives on.
LOL! stupid wargrounds! I knew that by even going to their website, that the pic of the servers was fake, but unfortunatly my friends clan runs a server hosted thro then The +ADD+ server is hosted by them, so i recommand banning theirs, but let the +ADD+ alone because it not affilated. So I got 1 question tho, if you got a service thro them like +ADD+ did, would you get a legit server on like a server comp, or how were they running what the had? Thanks for the info Crimson, although names would be nice