|
Post by doom3x on Feb 26, 2006 16:48:51 GMT -8
I always seem to come in with problems Chalupa, my apologies. The ops bot has been doing down rather frequently in the past few days, which, under normal traffic circumstances isn't a problem since the regulars don't screw around. But without it, during high traffic, a lot of spammers get in, along with a fair number of people who are shitlisted on Triviahost, but not Online gaming. They come in, lord it up that they're no longer banned, and just continuously spam caps and flames at everyone until the bot comes back, which at times has taken the better part of the day. When it's late at night and it's just the regulars, it's fine, but when there's 25+ people in there, it gets downright unplayable with a dozen people just there to spam or flame. Is there anything that can be done?
|
|
fungi
Member
I AM A PONY![ss:Default]
Posts: 34
|
Post by fungi on Feb 26, 2006 17:25:42 GMT -8
Haha Doom It seems you beat me to this post. Might I sugest giving some moderators who are most frequently online in the channel, such as peon and doom access to onlinegaming.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Feb 26, 2006 19:09:48 GMT -8
Okay, this issue has come up many times in the past. Let me explain a couple of things:
Notice how OnlineGaming almost never gets disconnected but TriviaHost seems to get disconnected all the time? Most people think, "Gee, why not let the mods access OnlineGaming, since it's always online". Well, guess why it's always online?
The reason is simple. OnlineGaming is set to ignore everything coming across the channel. This means that it never dies and when traffic is heavy or there is alot of spam in the channel, OnlineGaming is never at risk and even if TriviaHost gets booted, I still have SOME power over the channel if i'm there. If i'm not there, OnlineGaming will continue to ban anyone who was previously banned by TriviaHost (it will say "ban evasion") . OnlineGaming also has a shitlist and it does look at each person who joins and compares them to the shitlist.
The more "active" the bot becomes in the channel as far as moderation goes, the more likely that it will get kicked off Bnet at some point and leave no ops in the channel. So if I set up OnlineGaming exactly like TriviaHost, then OnlineGaming would be gone just as much as TriviaHost. I hope everyone gets this....
Since it comes up so often, I have decided to test out having OnlineGaming look at everything that the Mods say in the channel just in case TriviaHost is gone. OnlineGaming will only look at what the Mods say, but that activity level if alot of Mods are talking increases the chance of OnlineGaming being disconnected. OnlineGaming does not use the warning system and will ignore everyone else in the channel, so hopefully the Disconnects will not increase. If this doesn't work, then we may have to put it back how it was since it gives SOME level of protection during a worse case scenario.
Chalupa
|
|
|
Post by doom3x on Feb 26, 2006 20:16:27 GMT -8
Ok Chalupa, I think I understand everything you've said. I have just one question then. If, as we've agreed, .cq is not a "useless command" (thanks Whot), then would using that more often...instead of just after questions with a lot of guesses, but periodically to keep things clear, stop Triviahost from leaving too? Or does .cq only affect "Thetriviahost." I'm fuzzy on the particulars of what commands affect which bot there.
|
|
|
Post by ♦Whot♦ on Feb 26, 2006 23:11:14 GMT -8
The commands we do simply affects what the bot which we have access to. So that does not affect thetriviahost. I suggested this earlier about having access to onlinegaming, but nobody replied, I think. One question Chalupa, flooding means typing too much, at too fast a rate, right? It doesn't have anything to do with other people talking?
Btw, instead of shitlisting people that advertise, or anything severe like that, shouldn't you ipban instead? Since as LostPeon said, Shitlist doesn't ban the ip so they could just come in with another account and do the same thing.
Or, would exile serve you better?
|
|
fungi
Member
I AM A PONY![ss:Default]
Posts: 34
|
Post by fungi on Feb 27, 2006 8:17:54 GMT -8
Okay, first I would like to say Cq is an almost entirely useless command in the way that it is currently being used in the channel. This is because as Chalupa said the more active the bot is in the channel the more it will spam off of b.net. Allow me to explain the Cq command is designed (obviously) to clear the queue. When it is triggered it also says Queue Cleared, by saying Queue Cleared that is infact another queue. Infact it is a unique queue in that it supersedes Stealthbot’s anti-flood protection and displays the “Queue Cleared” message immediately. The way it is being used by the mods in the channel is after a round of intense guessing (guessing does not accumulate queues), not actually clearing any queues. Therefore only giving the bot more to say, and saying it faster than b.net’s anti-flood algorithm allows. Secondly it only makes sense to use the command when there is more than one queue in the bot’s queue list because as I said the Cq command actually results is creating a queue. As I suggested in the channel a few days ago there is a SCQ command that will clear the queue without actually saying Queue Cleared.
As for OnlineGaming, I guess I didn’t know what it did, and I still think it’s a stupid bot. Due to the following reasons. 1. You use the bot to keep the already banned people out of the channel, But the idiots are inside the channel. And the mods are entirely helpless. 2. The bot’s ban evaision only works on people who have been banned since the ops bots have been online. 3. I don’t think that just because people have been baned that they are evil and should be banned forever (or at least as long as onlinegaming is up.) Infact mods should use the .CBL command every once in awhile to let people back in who may not deserve to be banned. (CBL does not delete the shitlist) 4. It is almost entirely useless.
Why not just change Onlingaming’s trigger and tell the mods to only use him in a non triviahost situation.
Btw Whot any command that uses a b.net command counts as a lot of talking in b.net's anti-flood algorithm. Exile ipbans squelches and then shitlists as we all know. Two of those are b.net commands and in a crowded channel with a an active bot after using exile once or twice a 20 minute timeout is soon to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Sept 5, 2006 6:23:30 GMT -8
I've seen spamming once in a while, and i think it needs to stop, but how can it when both mods are out. You guys can't do anything about B.net reps because for one, they won't give a care to attending to someone else's problem, which they would see this as being of a problem not worth solving. I guess i learned that once WhoT said that after he got banned, he talked to a rep and ask that he be unbanned, but that rep said something along the lines of ,"oh thats not our problem. We can only ban people. We can't unban them."
I suggested a .cq bot awhile back, but chal turned it down.
I would have suggested that you make a separate cq bot, not onlinegaming, since that would mean he would have to accept messages from thetriviahost, but no one else, except the mods, or something. Idk if triviahost is a bot, probably not though, so that couuldn't be a cq bot. If this idea worked, you would have to make an anti-idle message set at like 5 or 6 minutes, and once that idle message has been called, thetriviahost would be triggered to use ".cq" to force a queue clear. Thetriviahost couldn't do the clear on its own, and i've tried that before.
For some reason. you can't have a command as an anti-idle expression, since i think it treats that as a "custom" command, not as a default command, which you get from inside the bot, or from another user.
If this cq idea worked, there would be a lot less hassle. But, what hassle is there in doing this anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 5, 2006 7:05:25 GMT -8
I've seen spamming once in a while, and i think it needs to stop, but how can it when both mods are out. You guys can't do anything about B.net reps because for one, they won't give a care to attending to someone else's problem, which they would see this as being of a problem not worth solving. I guess i learned that once WhoT said that after he got banned, he talked to a rep and ask that he be unbanned, but that rep said something along the lines of ,"oh thats not our problem. We can only ban people. We can't unban them." I suggested a .cq bot awhile back, but chal turned it down. I would have suggested that you make a separate cq bot, not onlinegaming, since that would mean he would have to accept messages from thetriviahost, but no one else, except the mods, or something. Idk if triviahost is a bot, probably not though, so that couuldn't be a cq bot. If this idea worked, you would have to make an anti-idle message set at like 5 or 6 minutes, and once that idle message has been called, thetriviahost would be triggered to use ".cq" to force a queue clear. Thetriviahost couldn't do the clear on its own, and i've tried that before. For some reason. you can't have a command as an anti-idle expression, since i think it treats that as a "custom" command, not as a default command, which you get from inside the bot, or from another user. If this cq idea worked, there would be a lot less hassle. But, what hassle is there in doing this anyway? Honestly, pretty much everything you just said is wrong, and the idea of a .cq bot is worthless. Thanks for the suggestion though.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Sept 5, 2006 7:12:06 GMT -8
No problem. I guess it's not really that useful, since fungi summed it up there for you. I just wished that Who-The-Hell-Ru wasn't banned, and then WhoT has a hassle of trying to get him back. Those reps are serious!
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Sept 8, 2006 17:03:44 GMT -8
PLEASE DO NOT GO OFF TOPIC.
POSTS HAVE BEEN DELETED.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Feb 16, 2007 13:39:48 GMT -8
Ok, I suggest an even "safer" method of keeping online up once triviahost and thetriviahost go down. You need to set up TriviaHost and TheTriviaHost on one computer, and OnlineGaming on another, in a completely separate network, say your workplace, or just have him on another computer (Does changing the actual last part of an IP matter much, or does Battle.net Ban your gateway IP?).
Because when you flood, Bnet IPBans you, it won't ban online since he's in another network. I suggest making a remote desktop connection into your workplace whenever you want to set online back up just in case he floods. However, keep the /igpriv, or whatever command you use, on, so he only listens to "friends", which would be yourself, G, and the mods.
This would mean that Online is an op bot as well.
How does this sound?
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Feb 16, 2007 14:50:07 GMT -8
Ok, I suggest an even "safer" method of keeping online up once triviahost and thetriviahost go down. You need to set up TriviaHost and TheTriviaHost on one computer, and OnlineGaming on another, in a completely separate network, say your workplace, or just have him on another computer (Does changing the actual last part of an IP matter much, or does Battle.net Ban your gateway IP?). Because when you flood, Bnet IPBans you, it won't ban online since he's in another network. I suggest making a remote desktop connection into your workplace whenever you want to set online back up just in case he floods. However, keep the /igpriv, or whatever command you use, on, so he only listens to "friends", which would be yourself, G, and the mods. This would mean that Online is an op bot as well. How does this sound? I'm aware of this option, but I don't have a "work" computer. G's computer now has all the bots and I could use mine for one since I use a different connection, but I don't really see a point or at not least one good enough for me to run another computer 24 hours a day (which is why mine kept needing new parts every 6 months). Power Supplies, Mobo's, Memory, etc go out more often when the CPU is working all the time. For now, I don't see a big enough problem to change anything.
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Feb 16, 2007 16:42:40 GMT -8
My thoughts exactly. But I figured I'd let it come straight from the top instead.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Feb 16, 2007 17:45:30 GMT -8
Well, Yah, not right now, but if we keep getting spammers in the channel, that might have to be an option. I like the idea that online ignores everyone but mods, or "friends".
I hate the fact that they are all on one IP, then they all just flood out.
|
|
|
Post by doom3x on Feb 16, 2007 21:32:44 GMT -8
I'm not going to comment on the technical suggestions made since I have nothing remotely intelligent to say about 'em. What I have to wonder is this...when was the last time we got spam attacked? I can't say it was within the past month, so I just question the need for the extra effort here Prone. It seems like whatever modifications have been made to Bnet of late have kept spammers pretty much in check. They could be coming 'round the channel when I'm not there, but the odds of none coming while I am there are slim to none, and that's exactly what I've seen since probably early January. Anyone seen something different?
|
|