Hmmm, I was thinking that AO start banning by hostmasks and not usernames (is that how its done right now) or IPs.... So people like freeOn (Bonfire) GbinaryR (Gbin@ryR) and others cant come back as another name to bother everyone all over again....
Printable View
Hmmm, I was thinking that AO start banning by hostmasks and not usernames (is that how its done right now) or IPs.... So people like freeOn (Bonfire) GbinaryR (Gbin@ryR) and others cant come back as another name to bother everyone all over again....
Makes sense, but dont hostmasks use entire ISPs as the reference point?
Yeah they do. I hope this can happen as well. Didn't free0n not care when he came back either if he was banned again. Boy and I remember komo, ko123, etc. THAT was really annoying.
My vote is yes, considering it isn't up to my vote.
Yeah, but you could end up unfairly banning others as well, and the banned person could use something like multiproxy to get around the IP ban. There really isn't anyway to ban people by hostmask or IPs unless you are willing to risk getting rid of other people.
Exactly the point I was trying to make Linuxelite :)
The only way it would work is if everyone had a static IP, but like linuxelite said, there are ways around that too. JMHO
Waste of time. Threes no effective way to ban people other then canning accounts. People can always access antionline from another computer. Besides with suicide threads and auto-banning threes only so much trouble you can cause. And what about people who learned from there mistakes and want to take a second crack at being an antionline member.
Yesterday, I was thinking about this @home. Actually what make a person to get ban from AO.?????
Neo
I think you are asking, What makes a person get banned from AO ?
The answer is basically the failure to adhere to the guidelines in the FAQ's. To get an idea, select one of the recently banned members, view their profile and have a look at the content of their posts, that should help answer the question.
Regards
PP
I think that any perm-ban solution would be unenforceable, and would be prone to catching too many innocents. I think the current account-by-account method is better.