can i be unbanned yet banned

[FORZ]

Source Engine

 

* Fixed Garry's Mod servers not being listed in game

* Added cvars to let the server prevent clients setting unreasonable network settings: sv_mincmdrate, sv_maxcmdrate, sv_client_predict, sv_client_interpolate, sv_client_interp, and sv_client_cmdrate_difference

* Added protection against servers manipulating the cl_restrict_server_commands cvar

* Allow servers to execute the "play" command on clients

* Added an interface to allow servers to query most cvar values on the clients

* Added the IP address of the machine who executed an rcon command to the server logfiles

* Fixed spectator relaying in SourceTV

* Removed cl_cmdbackup

[Lunk]

May I ask why you want to be unbanned? Last I heard/saw you were leaving.

 

And this post, are you just trying to antagonize people?

 

I've never had any issues with you in the past Forz. But, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in your current behavior.

[FORZ]

May I ask why you want to be unbanned? Last I heard/saw you were leaving.

 

And this post, are you just trying to antagonize people?

 

I've never had any issues with you in the past Forz. But, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in your current behavior.

 

Lunk, I didnt leave I dont know where u got this from. If it was the gg final words post I made this post, was made because I was banned and gc made it clear that they wherent going to undo it even tho I proved i was not exploiting or hacking. so I posted that because I figured the thread was soon to be locked. Why would I go throw all the trouble of making all those post and spend so much time in the got banned trying to get gc to understand what was happening was wrong if I was leaving. U can even check about 2 post up from john's post where he locked the thread its says I didnt leave it said I was banned.

 

I have to say I am a bit diappointed in gc and action not mine.

 

This post is not anatagonize anyone it is to fix a wrong that has been done. I was trying to tell gc it wasnt right.

 

Reason for unbanning me:

 

"The bind has been set that way for other sever didnt even know gc was running this pulg-in. as for the other comment dont take it out of context. I joined my bind was triggered by your plug-in. I was then greeted with con asking what its was or something simliar I stated that it was a lock on cl_restrict cmd CON said "the plug-in forces it on" I said "to try do anything to me" to prove that it was locked I then asked who was on con got no reply nicole joined and i left after a min or 2. Con then told nicole that she need to change it or something she left mean while I was making a post to debate the issue witch was then deleted witch could have been edited considering it had usefull info in it even without the so called expolit. I go to try to get on the sever I was banned."

 

This is my case lunk the above quote and one more thing I would like to add the admin was on when i was in the sever made no mention of changing anything admin waits till I leave then says I am going to bann him and not even give him a chance to fix it considering I didnt even ask him to fix it. The admin told nicole she needed to fix it, while I was making a post by the time I was done posting I was banned Not even 5 mins I didnt even rejoin the server so there was no way for the admin to see if i had fixed it or not before banning me. Considering That they have fixed the ability for severs to change the cmd. They have said that its not acceptable to do this just as all of my post where trying to tell u guys. Considering that Gc shouldnt have been doing what they did. I ask to unbanned on the grounds that it wasnt right nor far and there isnt realy a reason that I was banned because now everyone that owns cs is doing the same thing.

Edited December 1, 2006 by FORZ

[Lunk]

Fair enough. I would like your assurance tho, that you know why this was implemented(the plug-in, not your ban). It was NOT to take control of anyone's pc or to be abusive in any manner. It seems you've taken this kind of personal. And I'm scratching my head as to why. Bad day, bad week, bad blood between you and Laz?

 

It's still being discussed by the board members. So at this time I can't lift the ban as I was not the one who banned you.

[tWc|WhiteyFord]

cant a man have a final wish before leaving to iraq

 

 

i just want everyone to get along like we used to in the old days.

 

 

just trying to bring some holiday cheer to this here thread.

 

love

 

whitey

[FORZ]

did I mention I love whitey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[monthos]

indeed, everyone loves whitey... i do too

but I digress

 

basically FORZ, perhaps this post is useless but i think i can clear a few things with it.

 

A: did you know the fact the server could do those commands to you since before CS was even considered 1.0 on original HL? This seems like a rhetorical question, but judging from earlier posts im not sure its understood, that the server could ALWAYS execute these commands on the client, the only new thing was that the client had gained an option to block them, but unfortunatly, the servers were used to using this feature for ages already, and an attempt to block it, was seen as an attack on the ability to use server side admin mods.

 

B: judging from what I seen as your response to the question's posed by con when you were confronted, though i dont have access to logs. I can see how your reaction, even though I first read it as confrontational, can also be seen as someone who is just saying 'no your wrong, let me show you' though I would have definatly phrased another way...

 

C: while I dont want to blame valve on the problem, becouse I dont see any reason a software company has to make exceptions for what users do on their own time to mod a game, I do see it as neglegent to disregard a way that admin mods have been doing buisness since before a game was retrofitted to a newer engine, and pretend that it all never happened, and that server admins are suddenly evil and untrusted?

 

I dont agree with all your points on the matter FORZ, I simply think you dont realise valve decided to make something that was hardly ever abused, but widly USED for admin purposes, and they made an easy way to circumvent that. So while all admin mod servers were stuck in the mud, a decision was made to just block the people who turned off the new client feature blockign severside client commands, and thats where you fell in.

 

Realise the gc servers would NOT have been gc without what you are condemning to take place. There were ways we could define how things were controlled in the server, and we had to use them. It was not severe, and I can not think of a single issue that admin abuse of a power to control manu to execute happened. Valve suddently added a feature, that changed the clients ability to stop commands, it broke the way of doing things for years on the server side, and once again it always the server's that suffer, even though they are the only reason people still play the game.

 

Alright, im done rambling here, just needed to clear my head, especially over things that I dont think everyone agree's/understands about the point at hand.

 

gnight folks

 

Monthos

[FORZ]

indeed, everyone loves whitey... i do too

but I digress

 

basically FORZ, perhaps this post is useless but i think i can clear a few things with it.

 

A: did you know the fact the server could do those commands to you since before CS was even considered 1.0 on original HL? This seems like a rhetorical question, but judging from earlier posts im not sure its understood, that the server could ALWAYS execute these commands on the client, the only new thing was that the client had gained an option to block them, but unfortunatly, the servers were used to using this feature for ages already, and an attempt to block it, was seen as an attack on the ability to use server side admin mods.

 

Yes I have watch admin after admin abuse since 99'.

 

B: judging from what I seen as your response to the question's posed by con when you were confronted, though i dont have access to logs. I can see how your reaction, even though I first read it as confrontational, can also be seen as someone who is just saying 'no your wrong, let me show you' though I would have definatly phrased another way...

 

I also see your side, But i dont spell to well and like to try to keep things sort to avoid words I cant spell.

 

C: while I dont want to blame valve on the problem, becouse I dont see any reason a software company has to make exceptions for what users do on their own time to mod a game, I do see it as neglegent to disregard a way that admin mods have been doing buisness since before a game was retrofitted to a newer engine, and pretend that it all never happened, and that server admins are suddenly evil and untrusted?

 

It isnt a result of admins using the exec feature inside mani but of all the plug-ins created to control players rates or force users con cmds one way or the other. More and more admins are cheating using these plug-ins to force rates lower on cleint then admins. They are trying to get the game back to normal, when u jump on any sever and it feels the same to get rid of all the people saying hit reg suck. The more severs that are the same the more the users feel confortable with the game jump from one sever to the next shouldn't mean going from cl_intrep .01 to cl_intrep 1 cause some lame sever admin what doesnt know anything thinks its better that is just an example by the way. Take the game back stock the more stock the more it gets the better.

 

I dont agree with all your points on the matter FORZ, I simply think you dont realise valve decided to make something that was hardly ever abused, but widly USED for admin purposes, and they made an easy way to circumvent that. So while all admin mod servers were stuck in the mud, a decision was made to just block the people who turned off the new client feature blockign severside client commands, and thats where you fell in.

 

They block it and only allow specific stuff to be used, becuase it is related to the way hacks are created and hack interfaces. Look at the plug-in's when u look to place blame.

 

Realise the gc servers would NOT have been gc without what you are condemning to take place. There were ways we could define how things were controlled in the server, and we had to use them. It was not severe, and I can not think of a single issue that admin abuse of a power to control manu to execute happened. Valve suddently added a feature, that changed the clients ability to stop commands, it broke the way of doing things for years on the server side, and once again it always the server's that suffer, even though they are the only reason people still play the game.

 

Remenber if the plug-in creator created the plug-in correct and contacted valve and ask for support for it the plug-in would never have broke on every update the plug-in would keep working. Gc would of had no problems with anything if they would have created it correctly the first time. So to say that gc wouldnt have made it is incorrect Plug-in creators would have just followed the rules. Once again u are right the sever and the people suffer for bad programming. It is a bg but its a truth, Just like everyone has suffered for valve's bad programming for choosing not to code Smp or sse3 and 64-bit from the start when they new they where right around the corner.

[monthos]

When making a plug in, your sort of limited by the design of the SDK your given, its not easy getting things added to it. I can guarentee when the admin mod's were first coming out it would have been like pulling teeth to get them at add features for you. Im not sure valve would have accomodated them to be honest, it would have been seen as the lowest priority.

 

Right now valve seems to be trying to remedy the situation, becouse the usefullness of the mod's have already been seen, and having them work correctly is very necessary as alot of server's will quit the game otherwise.

 

I agree, i wish this never happened and that the SDK offered better features, but working with game mod SDK's has always been about taking what you get, and working with it the best you can. It is not a software partnership where you can get valve to add features to it as necessary.

[MrDuke]

...I made this post, was made because I was banned and gc made it clear that they wherent going to undo it even tho I proved i was not exploiting or hacking.

 

You're missing the point. It's not a question of whether you were exploiting or hacking. I think we can both agree that those weren't the best words to use and that you did not commit either act. You were banned for your antagonistic and impertinent behavior. I've read the logs and your posts and it appears that you were looking for a fight.

Your actions were antagonistic, yet you claim you weren't trying to be. It just doesn't make sense. Explain to me why you chose to cause a scene on the server rather than post up in the forums? Everybody else that catches wind of a problem sends a PM, posts up or sends us an email. You just did it in this thread, why couldn't you have done it in the beginning and avoid all this drama?

 

Just so there's no ambiguity, please know that we are fully aware of the setting, how it works and how it affects client side configs. Having stated this, please do not use "educating GC" as your basis. Again, we are aware of what it does.

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying 99.8% of the members don't have a problem with it. Consequently, we are not changing our format. We need to consider other people and the far reaching effects of this setting, something you neglected to consider.

If we gave you what you wanted, a modless server allowing cl_rss 1, no reserves and no redirects, what is your solution for the rest of the community who would lose their reserve rights? That's a pretty selfish stance to take, don't you think? Actually, that's a baited question. Of course you don't consider that a selfish stance, otherwise we wouldn't be here. However, I'm still curious as to what your solution is.

 

You've made your point crystal clear; you don't want to change your cl_rss setting to 0 and feel strongly about it. That's fine. I respect you for sticking to your guns and for strongly supporting what you consider important. However, we too feel strongly about our position which brings us to a fork in the road and consequently, we must agree to disagree. If we're agreeing to disagree then let's not waste time and effort in the outcome of this matter.

 

The purpose of your ban expanded, irrespective of the above mentioned rationale. We need to keep everyone with a setting of 1 out the servers. Not just you, everyone. If you aren't willing to change your setting to zero then there's no need to lift the ban in order to allow you to play. That's the bottom line and I see no reason to take this any further.

 

I'll respond to whatever constructive rebuttal you may have, but I think we've covered just about everything in the last few days.

[FORZ]

...I made this post, was made because I was banned and gc made it clear that they wherent going to undo it even tho I proved i was not exploiting or hacking.

 

You're missing the point. It's not a question of whether you were exploiting or hacking. I think we can both agree that those weren't the best words to use and that you did not commit either act. You were banned for your antagonistic and impertinent behavior. I've read the logs and your posts and it appears that you were looking for a fight.

Your actions were antagonistic, yet you claim you weren't trying to be. It just doesn't make sense. Explain to me why you chose to cause a scene on the server rather than post up in the forums? Everybody else that catches wind of a problem sends a PM, posts up or sends us an email. You just did it in this thread, why couldn't you have done it in the beginning and avoid all this drama?

 

Umm ok one commet hardly makes someone antagonistic or looking for a fight or make a scene. I guess if u feel that way its ok and I guess if the admin feels that way its also fine. but one comment hardly makes someone looking for a fight there where are a 1000 other things I could have said to start a fight it wasnt my intent. I did leave the sever, I did post in the fourms it was deleted. There was no scene on the sever there was one comment made by me the other comment was tiggered by the pulg-in once again I was unware that gc was running the plug-in until con asked and was never asked to remove it. I did post in the fourms to debate it. I also did send Pm's ask john to post them for u if he wants. I asked Who was on con to talk to them about it they didnt feel the need to answer. So I went straight to the fourms just like where supposed to and post then made pm's just like we are supposed to. I was banned without even a chance to fix said problem. Even if u count the bind that was triggered by the plug-in it was hardly a scene on the sever I have seen people stay on the sever after doing much much worse and they wherent even gc. As for the admin waiting till I left and trying to disscuss it father with nicole the admin in ? is fully aware that nicole doesnt do her config I do. The admin choose to disrupt the sever when he could have just disscussed it with me when I was on the sever trying to or sent me a pm either one, There was no need to drag it out on the sever and disscuss something with someone when they dont even understand and u are fully aware they dont. Also considering the admin also new that u had to leave and edit the config to fix said problem the admin shouldnt have banned both accounts right away after asking for it to be removed. I thought we asked and if they didnt compile we banned not ask and ban till they fix how do u know if they fixed it if they are banned lol.

 

Think about this how many GC menbers have been banned for one single comment on a sever even if the comment was a anatagonistic. I would also like to ask how many admins would ban a gc menber for making a single comment.

 

 

k John

Edited December 2, 2006 by FORZ

[stutters]

for reference, the post wasn't deleted. it was originally posted in a public forum and was moved to the lead admin forum.

[FORZ]

I also I have never stated that I wouldnt set 0 to play on a sever I said I would have to go out of my way too. I Also only posted a script that told everyone it was in affect by using a say cmd that way anyone that used it would be quickly spoted on the sever, the echo cmd could have been used to hind it but i didn't post it specificly for that reason. it was meant to be disscussed in that thread I wasnt trying to give everyone and there bother a free way around your choose as a sever owner. I was trying to give back there right to choose. I think gc does have right to do what it did i didnt agree with the way it was carryed out I thought of it as sneaky and distrustful.

Edited December 2, 2006 by FORZ

[MrDuke]

Umm ok one commet hardly makes someone antagonistic or looking for a fight or make a scene. I guess if u feel that way its ok and I guess if the admin feels that way its also fine. but one comment hardly makes someone looking for a fight there where are a 1000 other things I could have said to start a fight it wasnt my intent.

Only 1 comment, huh?

(296): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:01: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "no slowhacking sry "

l1126092.log(300): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:09: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "lol"

l1126092.log(317): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:25: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "it cant change my cl_restrict_server cmds thing"

l1126092.log(334): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:57: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "try it "

l1126092.log(337): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:00: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "check it "

l1126092.log(341): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:06: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "it cant change mine"

l1126092.log(346): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:19: "Console<0><Console><Console>" say "did this morning. Ma_cexec and reserves are working again"

l1126092.log(347): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:21: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "try to do anything to me console"

l1126092.log(349): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:33: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "i have it locked "

l1126092.log(354): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:43: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "u cant make it go to 0 on me "

l1126092.log(373): L 11/26/2006 - 12:22:34: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "i click ok but it cant force my cmd to 0 cause i am specail lol "

l1126092.log(563): L 11/26/2006 - 12:28:06: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><TERRORIST>" disconnected (reason "Disconnect by user.")

I see more than 1 comment there and it's blatanly obvious you're enjoying this moment of thumbing your nose at the admin.

If you were truly trying to be helpful, you wouldn't have made these comments.

"I am special lol" ???!?! How is that helpful? You're just daring the admin and being flat out disrespectful.

 

I'm not going to bother dissecting the rest of your post, there's nothing contstructive in it.

Oh wait, there's this:

k John

 

Is this an attempt to insult me, are you pouting or are you conceding? Explain this comment.

 

I asked for a constructive reply and I get whining, sidestepping, and insults.

 

One more thing, how about making up your mind? If you're gonna cause a stink about how offended you are and how wrong GC is for having access to your (and everyone's) configs, then how about sticking to your cause?

 

 

 

 

I also I have never stated that I wouldnt set 0 to play on a sever I said I would have to go out of my way too. I Also only posted a script that told everyone it was in affect by using a say cmd that way anyone that used it would be quickly spoted on the sever, the echo cmd could have been used to hind it but i didn't post it specificly for that reason. it was meant to be disscussed in that thread I wasnt trying to give everyone and there bother a free way around your choose as a sever owner. I was trying to give back there right to choose. I think gc does have right to do what it did i didnt agree with the way it was carryed out I thought of it as sneaky and distrustful.

I did not see this post as I was replying to your first response.

 

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

Let's fastforward past all of the bull. If you agree to set it at zero, then I'll lift the ban. Additionally, I'm respectfully asking for your assistance in finding a solution. We're not trying to feed our egos, we're trying to do what's best for the majority of the members. I want to find a solution that will allow both; settings at 1 AND reserves/redirects. Currently, we can't find one.

 

It's your call.

[FORZ]

 

Umm ok one commet hardly makes someone antagonistic or looking for a fight or make a scene. I guess if u feel that way its ok and I guess if the admin feels that way its also fine. but one comment hardly makes someone looking for a fight there where are a 1000 other things I could have said to start a fight it wasnt my intent.

Only 1 comment, huh?

(296): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:01: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "no slowhacking sry "

 

Triggered by the plug-in

 

l1126092.log(300): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:09: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "lol"

 

this isnt directed at the admin.

 

WHere is the console asking what the bind is

 

l1126092.log(317): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:25: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "it cant change my cl_restrict_server cmds thing"

 

answer to console ?

 

l1126092.log(334): L 11/26/2006 - 12:20:57: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "try it "

l1126092.log(337): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:00: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "check it "

l1126092.log(341): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:06: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "it cant change mine"

 

trying to tell the con to test it. I dont see who this is disrecpectful in anyway.

 

l1126092.log(346): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:19: "Console<0><Console><Console>" say "did this morning. Ma_cexec and reserves are working again"

 

admin insisting it is at 0, even after I try to him to test it.

 

l1126092.log(347): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:21: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "try to do anything to me console"

l1126092.log(349): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:33: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "i have it locked "

 

trying to get admin to test it cause he didnt test the first time.

 

l1126092.log(354): L 11/26/2006 - 12:21:43: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "u cant make it go to 0 on me "

l1126092.log(373): L 11/26/2006 - 12:22:34: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><CT>" say "i click ok but it cant force my cmd to 0 cause i am specail lol "

l1126092.log(563): L 11/26/2006 - 12:28:06: "gT.Forz<415><STEAM_0:1:4567406><TERRORIST>" disconnected (reason "Disconnect by user.")

 

ok i was kinda in enjoying this part.

 

Ok i guess my memory fails me a little it was a more then one comment I admit I am wrong. Maybe it can be called a scene. where is the console asking me to remove it. where is the reason I was banned. Once again we are failing back on being banned for doing something that has now been made a update by the makers of the game. If gc and the server wouldnt have been exploiting its cleints console this would have never came around. BY exploit i am talking about the plug-in witch is and was cleary a exploit. So lets go back bad gc policy's where behind the hole thing. Duke i dont know if u aware but they released a update That doesnt allow severs to change the setting anymore why would i need to set it to 0 now there is no point.

Once again i would like to state i was never asked to remove it As can be seen in the logs. The only thing I can realy see as disrecpt is the last comment, Sry if it offend someone.

 

 

the refrence to "K JOHN" on the bottom is in refrence to his post that came after my look at the edited time. I was telling john that I will make note of the post being moved not deleted.

 

 

One more thing, how about making up your mind? If you're gonna cause a stink about how offended you are and how wrong GC is for having access to your (and everyone's) configs, then how about sticking to your cause?

 

Zblock was once again proggramed wrong it should have never made changes in the con it should have only log the users console cmds. Z-block was at the time the best sulition but now we have valve locking all the cvars if u are on the hlds mailing list u can see the next update is going to block everything that zblock does and there will be no use for z-block anymore. Also if u would have e-mailed valve they would have sent a nice little e-mail back stating this.

Edited December 3, 2006 by FORZ

[MrDuke]

It's all in perspective. I saw it all as being antagonistic. You claim it wasn't and the fact that you're still here counts.

 

Yes, we're aware of the change and we're working on it.

 

Where do you want to go from here?

[benjester]

*edited by Duke*

 

Sorry Jester, I want to keep this between Forz and myself.

[FORZ]

I have no clue where we go from here u said u would remove the bann if i agreed to set it to 0 but the update set everyone back to 1 and locked it so servers will never be able to do it again and even if it gets bypassed it will be patched with-in days. So this leaves me at the point where gc is asking me to allow anyone to mess up my configs in favor of playing on there sever when nobody else that plays on the server has to do the same. So I dont know where we go from here duke I can agree to set it to 0 but there isnt realy a point considering everyone else is using 1 and there is no way for gc to enforce 0. considering they fixed the plug-ins to work when the cleint is set at 1 on gun game and dm and zblock is now gone everyone should be running 1.

[MrDuke]

I have no clue where we go from here u said u would remove the bann if i agreed to set it to 0

I'll honor my word. You set it to zero (and keep it there) and this matter is resolved.

 

... and even if it gets bypassed it will be patched with-in days.

You don't know this. It's a hypothetical.

 

So this leaves me at the point where gc is asking me to allow anyone to mess up my configs in favor of playing on there sever when nobody else that plays on the server has to do the same.

1) If you have your config toggled to read only, no one can permanently tamper with your config.

2) GC admins will not maliciously tamper with a config. In fact, I'm a little insulted that you would suggest that. If you have evidence of such an act, please PM me with the information and I will personally deal with that admin. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd be highly skeptical.

3) Every player must conform

 

So I dont know where we go from here duke I can agree to set it to 0 but there isnt realy a point considering everyone else is using 1 and there is no way for gc to enforce 0. considering they fixed the plug-ins to work when the cleint is set at 1 on gun game and dm and zblock is now gone everyone should be running 1.

 

Either you're willing or you're not. Make a decision and let me know.

 

 

Thanks for keeping a level head and being civil about things.

[FORZ]

I have no clue where we go from here u said u would remove the bann if i agreed to set it to 0

I'll honor my word. You set it to zero (and keep it there) and this matter is resolved.

 

Use the new cvar that allows admins to check cleints settings u will notice that nobody is using zero. There is no need for it.

 

... and even if it gets bypassed it will be patched with-in days.

You don't know this. It's a hypothetical.

 

E-mail valve and ask them this going to be enforced this is not going to be undone any programs that are used to exploit it back to 0 will be fixed with-in days. It took 3 days to fix the last exploit that allowed server to change it. It is in no way shape or from hypothetical to think a company will not follow up on a exploit that is being abused by admins. They have already fixed it 2 times with-in a month why wouldnt they keep fixxing it if someone keeps breaking it.

 

So this leaves me at the point where gc is asking me to allow anyone to mess up my configs in favor of playing on there sever when nobody else that plays on the server has to do the same.

 

1) If you have your config toggled to read only, no one can permanently tamper with your config.

 

When cl_restrict is set at 0 this allows any admin to run 3rd party programs and force the cleint to any cvar there is, Setting the config to read-only does not affect 3rd party apps from enforcing set rates or cvars during gameplay I have already stated this. Only when 1 is set it will stop an admin from forcing rates or cvar. When read-only is set it will only allow u to revert back to your orginal config when u leave the game and re enter it does not stop people from inforcing certain con cmds while playing the only way to stop this is to us cl_restrict 1.

 

2) GC admins will not maliciously tamper with a config. In fact, I'm a little insulted that you would suggest that. If you have evidence of such an act, please PM me with the information and I will personally deal with that admin. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd be highly skeptical.

 

I have stated time after time after time that i am not worried about gc.

 

3) Every player must conform

 

There is no way u can stop someone from joing your server that has it set to 1 use the new cvar added to allow admins to see the cleints setting and u will see u have a big number of people on the server right now with the setting at 1.

 

I only have one ? left duke. Is gc currently enforcing cl_restrict 0? If so how is gc currently enforcing it?

Is gc using the new console cmd to see who is and isnt using 0 are gc admin currently banning people that are setting it to 1?

 

I played on the server for an hour or so the other day with it set at 1 on a friends account at his house had no problems at all playing with it set to 1. Not one single admin said a word. How come any joe blow off the streets can come in and have it set to 1 and nothing happens. But u want me to set it to 0. It just dont make sense duke I am realy trying to see where gc is going with this and I am realy trying to see why u are trying to force me to have it set to 0 but are not enforcing it to 0 on any other cleint that joins the server. I have tested on 3 accounts and had more people test using vent. anyone can join the server with 1 and your admins are not currently enforcing anything except on me Why?

Edited December 6, 2006 by FORZ

[FORZ]

Rofl after jumping on the server I have to give u guys a good game on the not allowing people to join unless they set it to 0. Hope gc stays alive trying to get people to change there configs. Mit work well now but your future will be short so gg.

[w8t4time]

why be so negative why? this is a positive place good people that adapt to change why so much hate?'

 

duke edit away sorry had to say it

[MrDuke]

I am baffled by your obsession on this matter.

 

I asked you for your decision.

Rofl after jumping on the server I have to give u guys a good game on the not allowing people to join unless they set it to 0. Hope gc stays alive trying to get people to change there configs. Mit work well now but your future will be short so gg.

 

I interpret this negative comment as a "No". See how easy that was? One word, "No".

 

I wish I could reciprocate the GG as you so eloquently and sarcastically use, but it does not apply here. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

 

Closed.

[Fatty]

Rofl after jumping on the server I have to give u guys a good game on the not allowing people to join unless they set it to 0. Hope gc stays alive trying to get people to change there configs. Mit work well now but your future will be short so gg.

 

As far as I know, I didn't think this is how the setting was. I had asked John to make this not the case.

 

PS. Goodbye to Forz....I accept your gg. GC membership removed. Enough of the drama.

 

I assume nicole will follow you wherever, so I'll remove her as well.

 

I'm pretty sure your next post or two will get you removed completely from the forums, but we'll let you decide that on your own. I just can't see anything positive from you at all.

 

PS. Learn to quote please, makes reading difficult.

[Fatty]

Feel free to start a new topic if you have any desire.