New forms of detecting "ban evading"

[SuF]

Fair degree of certainty, so not fool proof, so not definitive evidence, I am saying 1 form of proof is not enough, when people get scammed they provide like 5 pictures at least. If you're gonna ban someone you should have more than one piece of evidence, especially since the only method used currently has flaws (admitted by the staff and you)

I've admitted theirs flaws in the system? Its has perfect as its going to get. Leechers who just joined who have the same IP as a banned member get banned. Same thing if they have the same email address. More proof could be join date and activities and how they post and how often they post and things like that. But those things take time and there is no reason to not just accept IP or email has enough proof. If they want to dispute, they can. If they provide a story that explains it, other things will be looked at. If they just dispute... I didn't ban evade. This is my only account. I don't know what your talking about. Then they get ignored. People do that dispute so much that if the staff looked into every one it would take way too long and there would be a ton of wasted time for no reason at all. There is a certain level of staff judgement that is used to determine if a case is worth looking into further. There really can't be a better system unless you want to waste the staffs time pooling together tons of evidence for every ban evader. If we paid the staff to work full time, then sure we could do that. But we don't, so its not practical.

 

[woahnaynay]

So if it's so effective why not ip ban and save the time? What if two brother's share a computer that's owned by the family?

 

[cp]

So if it's so effective why not ip ban and save the time? What if two brother's share a computer that's owned by the family?

People have been banned for that before. You are responsible for your IP address.

The AVERAGE user, what about the abnormal user? They are just banned because most people don't have that port open?

If they have port 80 open (or any other proxy port for that matter), you can check for yourself if it's a proxy or not.

Edit: I realize it's not a 100% fool-proof system, but it does work. If this affects a legitimate user, they can always file a dispute, just as many have in the past.

 

[SuF]

Edit: I realize it's not a 100% fool-proof system, but it does work. If this affects a legitimate user, they can always file a dispute, just as many have in the past.

And 99% of the time if the user just tells the truth then it all adds up and they get the benefit of the doubt and get unbanned.

 

[Iboost50sindubs247]

I think they should look more into the disputes.

 

[Angelmax]

What do you suggest we do...?

If someone is connecting from the same IP as a banned user, and they can't prove themselves to have been at a uni or whatever they should remain banned.

 

[SuF]

I think they should look more into the disputes.

They do if its not obviously a ban evader just trying to get unbanned by saying "Oh I didn't do it! Unban me!".

 

[sqider]

you should ban all public Proxy/Socks 4/5 Servers, this should really help to prevent bad evading

 

[SuF]

you should ban all public Proxy/Socks 4/5 Servers, this should really help to prevent bad evading

Some people get IP blocked and can only get on Sythe via a proxy so they are allowed. There used to be a proxy blocker (I think) but it was gotten rid of.

 

[i noob killer i]

^^^^
Yes I think there was . In some ways it would reduce the ban evaders But I also feel its unfair on the legit users who are Ip banned.

 

[SuF]

^^^^
Yes I think there was . In some ways it would reduce the ban evaders But I also feel its unfair on the legit users who are Ip banned.

Exactly. Plus its also not that hard to get around so there isn't much point for anyone who is even semi-smart.

 

[woahnaynay]

you should ban all public Proxy/Socks 4/5 Servers, this should really help to prevent bad evading

http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=915988

 

[FireZ]

My question back to the OP is this: Did that ban evader make a new account and go to the market to make yet another scam thread, did they think about anyone for just 2 secs?

Why should we, as staff, give 2 secs of our time to ban evaders, especially scamming ones, when it is so blatantly obvious what they are doing? (95%+ of the time)


Also it gets ridiculous to ban the same people over and over and over for the exact same thing and then they want a full 3 paragraph explanation.

 

[woahnaynay]

so why not just ip ban then? why allow people to make new accounts under the same ip?

 

[Angelmax]

We do use IP bans sometimes, but anyone with half a brain will use a proxy.

 

[FireZ]

Also MAC address banning isn't possible with IPv4. Not that anyone with a 1/2 brain can't get around that either.

 

[SuF]

so why not just ip ban then? why allow people to make new accounts under the same ip?

IP banning doesn't work. It isn't used much since it takes just seconds to change your ip or to load a proxy. :/

 

[woahnaynay]

Regadrless, ip banning would stop some people from coming back. Then you would know all ban evaders are coming from proxies, which according to all of you is very easy to track.

My point is, I think IP banning, which is soooooooo simple to do would save a great deal of time. Instead of having a list of every ip from a ban evader and matching them up with other users....

 

[staythirsty, myfriend]

A non-HTTP application can use Mac banning...

Obvious ban evaders are just told to shut up since they are just wasting the staff's time.

My point was you can't simply get someone's MAC address just from browsing this forum or any other website. If you allow programs or applications to run on your computer without knowing fully what they do, then yes, of course it's possible. Again, my point was you can't get someone's MAC address over the internet unless they help you do it (whether intentionally or not).

Regadrless, ip banning would stop some people from coming back. Then you would know all ban evaders are coming from proxies, which according to all of you is very easy to track.

My point is, I think IP banning, which is soooooooo simple to do would save a great deal of time. Instead of having a list of every ip from a ban evader and matching them up with other users....

Considering 99% of the people who use the internet have dynamic IPs, most don't have to use a proxy to get back on the site. The only way to prevent people with dynamic IPs from simply resetting their router and coming back would be to ban an entire range of IPs, which would of course also ban many more members than just that one.

IP banning is obsolete in this day and age sadly.