Sounds fun doesn't it.

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
1) We weren't talking about HAWX in the other thread, we were talking about features we'd like to see in HAWX 2.
2) I don't care how few servers there would be (if they added bans to HAWX), an admin still should be able to ban, for any reason and possible abuse is no excuse, imo.

Do you come from a socialist country or a liberal city by any chance? The "admin" is the *only* one that should judge who can or can't play on their own server. Players have the right to follow the rules on my servers, that's it.

In my opinion, the best way to judge, if I want to see a feature in H.A.W.X. 2 or not, is to check if I want it in H.A.W.X. I don't want it in H.A.W.X., there's no reasons why I would want it in the sequel, unless dedicated servers, totally unrelated to Ubisoft, are added. Then it would be fair, since the real "admin" pays for his own server and bandwidth.

But for now, we are all using Ubisoft's servers to connect to each others. If you create a room and the limitations applied via the settings are not enough, live with it. There's no need to kick or ban because X is using Y, when it isn't written anywhere. The host is not paying/providing any extra over the other players. He shouldn't have any extra privileges beside the game's settings.

Players have the right to play the game with the limitations setup by the host, that's it. The host have no right what-so-ever to kick or even ban for any reasons. That's abuse. Especially, when the kick/ban player loses his experience points. The host is definitively not a good judge of who has the right to receive experience points or not.

On a side note, my origins have nothing to do with this debate, thanks for leaving them out of this discussion.

I would like bans in HAWX but we were still talking about HAWX 2.

VPN/LAN hosted servers are not through ubisoft's servers and ubisoft is the admin of their servers. While I would like dedicated servers for HAWX 2 (as I've already said) we certainly won't see them for HAWX. I'm not talking about ubisoft's servers either...

The host/admin has *every* right to kick and ban players, just not the *ability* to ban, at this time.

Socialist "origins" *could* explain the theory that admins shouldn't be able to kick or ban so the question is fair and the evasion speaks volumes...

A socialist state dictates what can or cannot exist due to complete control over...whatever. M_C's argument has it backwards, here. He is proposing that the server host act like said state, dictating who is allowed to play. I agree that players choose to accept the host's limitations by joining and staying in that person's game. I do not agree, however, that a person should be banned by the admin. I don't think it's fair. There is no say nor agreement from the non-server player. It is complete control, just like "the state" in M_C's socialist allusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
I would like bans in HAWX but we were still talking about HAWX 2.

VPN/LAN hosted servers are not through ubisoft's servers and ubisoft is the admin of their servers.

All this talk was about dedicated servers since the start? The original post and topic lead me to believe this was a discussion on the possibility to ban players while being the host of the game. That would also include by connecting to Ubisoft's servers.

Anyway, as for the other options, would you really want to ban someone from a real LAN game? They are probably your friends... As for the VPN tools, GArena/Tunngle already allows you to ban players anyway.

What's left? Ubisoft servers? You just stated that Ubisoft is the admin, so a regular host shouldn't be able to ban or even kick. He is just a regular player.

As for the dedicated server, I already said that, giving the right to ban to someone who provides extra resources to play the game sounds fair. His resources, his choices. In this case, he is providing the server itself and the bandwidth. Yet, as a dedicated server implies, the admin of the server is not always playing on the server. Which means that, the host of the game is probably not the admin of the server. He shouldn't have the right to ban.

Oh and finally, even if the socialist origins might explain my current theory, what would that change? Are you trying to attack my personal life? By stating that my origins aren't as good as yours? That's exactly why, I didn't want to get into that debate. Just to end this useless off-topic argument, I'm born and still live in Canada. Hopefully that ends it and meets your "volumes" of expectations. (Probably not...)

quote:

Originally posted by oOMadMaxOo:


Oh and finally, even if the socialist origins might explain my current theory, what would that change? Are you trying to attack my personal life? By stating that my origins aren't as good as yours? That's exactly why, I didn't want to get into that debate. Just to end this useless off-topic argument, I'm born and still live in Canada. Hopefully that ends it and meets your "volumes" of expectations. (Probably not...)

I'm American, and I agree with you. Ergo, according to his implication, I'm a socialist, too, despite the fact that I already mentioned how the argument is flawed considering that socialism is about state ownership (when talking politics not economy) and control. His proposal seems to ape that quite closely while he accuses you of the word. If you find this was a personal attack on his part, I'd advise you to contact a mod via PM. If not, then you can argue the point further (though I agree that it comes off as something intended to get a rise out of you). I simply pointed out the error in the accusation itself. In any case, place of origin does not play any role whatsoever in arbitrary debates like this.

*sigh*

And yet another topic in this forum is heading rapidly downhill and of the rails, gentlemen, please behave, this was only supposed to be about whether a host should have kick/ban ability.

Please refrain from accusing those with differing opinions of Socialist or other political leanings, as this adds nothing to the debate other than possibly trying to needle them into an inappropriate reply.

And would the "Socialists" please stop acting so outraged, if you don't feel a host should have those powers, then fine, by all means disagree, but don't let such an obvious non sequitur throw you into going off topic and into a political debate...

quote:

Originally posted by oOMadMaxOo:
Oh and finally, even if the socialist origins might explain my current theory, what would that change? Are you trying to attack my personal life? By stating that my origins aren't as good as yours? That's exactly why, I didn't want to get into that debate. Just to end this useless off-topic argument, I'm born and still live in Canada. Hopefully that ends it and meets your "volumes" of expectations. (Probably not...)

Presently, the one that starts the game is the host (admin) and that person should be able to kick anyone and and ban anyone from that game and future games that the player hosts. The list would have to be stored locally, as with any other server. I'm NOT suggesting that a ban that I put on a server that I host be carried over to a server somebody else hosts. The whole idea of banning people is to permanently remove them from any server I host not to keep them from playing on servers other people host. Get it?

It *changes* nothing but, as I said, it could *explain* how somebody would think that an admin shouldn't be able to kick and/or ban on the servers they host. Socialists often think they have more rights than they do/should as compared to a capitalist system where more property rights exist. Oh, canadian...yeah, your socialist health care and liberal anti-gun laws could qualify. I'll try not to hold it against you.

quote:

Originally posted by BTOG46:
*sigh*

And yet another topic in this forum is heading rapidly downhill and of the rails, gentlemen, please behave, this was only supposed to be about whether a host should have kick/ban ability.

Please refrain from accusing those with differing opinions of Socialist or other political leanings, as this adds nothing to the debate other than possibly trying to needle them into an inappropriate reply.

And would the "Socialists" please stop acting so outraged, if you don't feel a host should have those powers, then fine, by all means disagree, but don't let such an obvious non sequitur throw you into going off topic and into a political debate...

I have no idea what the ignored is posting but...

Socialist ideology *is* relevant in this kick/ban debate. In socialist "thinking" the "management" (admins) don't get to make the decisions on how to run the company (server), the "workers" (players) do. In a capitalist system, the owner/bosses (admin) runs the show (server) because it's their property, like it or leave it. That seems to be the difference in this debate too...

I didn't "accuse" him, I *asked* him.

We've already disagreed, now I'm trying to figure out why and socialist/liberal tendencies would explain it...

Personal opinion should suffice as a reason why. If someone feels a certain way about the ability to ban (or anything else HAWX-related), then as far as this forum goes, that's enough of a reason. We're all entitled to that. It's not a luxury for a privileged few. Public forum with public opinions.

Also, a person can have a preference not be dictated by political beliefs (or religious, cultural, gender-based, sexual preference-based, whatever-based). There's a simple topic at hand: people hosting games being able to ban or not. That's it. We've heard MadMax's, so that's that. No further prodding necessary. Let's hear other people's opinions. There IS a debate here (however important or not it may be), so let's have others' input.

Let's be pretentious!: Ca vas?

Personally I'd like the ability to ban people from servers, but I'm sure it'd be abused if it were implemented (not that it ever would be..), and as such I have to say it probably shouldn't be. Best not to give too much power to people running servers when there aren't even any non-player hosted servers to begin with.

I don't think you (and maybe others) understand the concept:

If I were to host a game and ban playerX it would only be enforced on games that I host, not for every game hosted by anyone. PlayerX would still be able to join a game hosted by you...unless you banned playerX too...

Get it?

I'd rather see a small number of abusive admins than a large number of idiot players acting like fools that can't be banned...

quote:

Originally posted by Master_Cylinder:
I don't think you (and maybe others) understand the concept:

If I were to host a game and ban playerX it would only be enforced on games that I host, not for every game hosted by anyone. PlayerX would still be able to join a game hosted by you...unless you banned playerX too...

Get it?

I'd rather see a small number of abusive admins than a large number of idiot players acting like fools that can't be banned...

So someone disagrees with you and you accuse them of being unable to comprehend your opinion. Nice.

Just to make it clear for you, I was talking about exactly the system you just described, and my opinion stands. I would be completely against a system that would allow some sort of global banning, by the way.

Also, I can count the number of times someone kept coming back after being kicked repeatedly and actually necessitated a ban in games run by me or my friends on one hand: 0. So I really fail to see why you want it so bad.

I can't think of a time it was necessary, either. There have been times someone's been kicked for x or y reason (often times it's 'cause of him lagging), and he's come back. It's still not a big deal. If the guy spouts off idiot garbage, well, mute him. It's that easy.

It wouldn't affect me either way, though. Either I host or my friends do, so I wouldn't have to personally worry about getting kicked. Plus, and more importantly, I don't even play much anymore, so there's that heh. Still, you know other people trying to join others' games are going to get kicked for any number of reasons; many, many of them stupid reasons (like "just because I can").

I usually didn't even kick AA spammers. I'd rather argue the point and show them how to win without using them. Seriously, there's little to no need to ban.

quote:

Get it?

No, please explain again. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by durandal7400:
So someone disagrees with you and you accuse them of being unable to comprehend your opinion. Nice.

Just to make it clear for you, I was talking about exactly the system you just described, and my opinion stands. I would be completely against a system that would allow some sort of global banning, by the way.

Also, I can count the number of times someone kept coming back after being kicked repeatedly and actually necessitated a ban in games run by me or my friends on one hand: 0. So I really fail to see why you want it so bad.

I didn't "accuse" anyone of not being "able" to understand, I said I didn't think that you did understand. You DO know the difference, right?

So, explain why I shouldn't be able to ban somebody on the games I host, other than you don't think I should be able to? Are you *really* suggesting that if there are fewer servers that players should be able to get away with *anything*?

I've explained why I want to be able to ban; to remove people that refuse to follow the rules from the games that I host. Just like every other server that I host...except for HAWX (so far) of course.

quote:

Originally posted by oOMadMaxOo:

quote:

Get it?

No, please explain again. Thanks.

S u r e , I w i l l e v e n t y p e s l o w e r i f t h a t w i l l h e l p.