treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
 Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:19 |
 
|
| sk8bcn wrote: | | treborius wrote: | this is really not a question of intrusion and more specifically there's no way that your firewall could know whether you typed in a "proxy-name" into the game-launcher window or whether it was set by the fumbbl-site 
it's in no way related to security at all.
i like the idea  |
mmmm Are you sure?
Basically, if another PC tries to execute a program from distance, my firewall is suppose to block him if I didn't accepted no?
I guess (but I'm a noob hey) that the fact **I** clicked on the link make this work. Or am I wrong? |
actually, i'm sure
it's not another pc executing a program from a distance (nor trying to do so), it's you clicking the play link, opening a browser-window on your computer which then opens another window "Game Launcher" with a predefined proxy-name or one you chose yourself...
...either way: You click that button "Launch as Server" or "Launch as Client" which triggers Java (on your pc) to start the BB-Client (on your pc).
...nothing there to be possibly blocked by the firewall (except the web-traffic for transmitting the content of browser windows - as always - including a proxy-name or not, it's just a few more bytes for a name). |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 15:42 |
|
Chingis's idea isnt such a bad one although it will pretty much only protect you from no-shows rather than deliberate game avoiders. It is in no way a violation of security or privacy: if you are playing over a proxy then you are sending all your BB game data to the fumbbl servers directly anyway... including the proxy name you're using to play the game. I think the most obvious disadvantage of this system is that it effectively prohibits people from using direct connect.
| treborius wrote: | | as far as the "criminal" is concerned, who deliberatly drops out of a game just to click on that link: his oppo will do the same and thus trigger an admin taking care of that issue - standard procedure for discos applies similar to R (can't rule on that one automatically, but no additional complexity over R). |
I think you missed my point. In this scenario I would play against you as if everything were normal and press the "oh noes my opponent is missing" button within 5 minutes of starting the game. I'd then wait until I was very sure the concession had been auto-forced and then I'd silently drop out of the game. To make things even better I'd drop myself into the next scheduler round. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:03 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | I think you missed my point. In this scenario I would play against you as if everything were normal and press the "oh noes my opponent is missing" button within 5 minutes of starting the game. I'd then wait until I was very sure the concession had been auto-forced and then I'd silently drop out of the game. To make things even better I'd drop myself into the next scheduler round. |
darn, you're a sleazy Sod - i haven't even been able to imagine anyone with that sort of criminal energy - what do you do for a living?
EDIT: in addition i refrain from ever playing you until some bullet-proof no-show-policy is in place. 
EDIT2: more seriously, though: aren't all games where both oppos pushed the "Play" - link up on the "Games" page - if so, automatic handling would just have to be restricted to those games not showing up there? |
|
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:07 |
|
Reformed criminal working as a security specialist. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:10 |
|
| treborius wrote: | | EDIT: in addition i refrain from ever playing you until some bullet-proof no-show-policy is in place. |
Thats the beauty of the box. You cant hide from me  |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:14 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | treborius wrote: | | EDIT: in addition i refrain from ever playing you until some bullet-proof no-show-policy is in place. |
Thats the beauty of the box. You cant hide from me |
well....
...hmmm....
...i'll go back to good old Ranked, then - until they fix this bug, there: you have it. 
 |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 16:25 |
|
I'm relatively confident I could get me a nice concession off of one of your [R] teams whether you like it or not... forcing you back to [B] where you might not get abused  Then again I think I better stop there in case I give anyone a bright idea or two  |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Draxus
Joined: Nov 14, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 17:14 |
|
"how can roughly mean more then once a day? "
Simply due to the nature of it being roughly, and not exactly. It can range from say 1.33 times a day but people round to the nearest whole number and say roughly once a day. That is how roughly once a day can mean more then once a day, decimals rounded to the nearest whole number. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 18:09 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | I'm relatively confident I could get me a nice concession off of one of your [R] teams whether you like it or not... forcing you back to [B] where you might not get abused Then again I think I better stop there in case I give anyone a bright idea or two |
you've now officially and publically confessed guilty of noob-abuse in R - that's pretty criminal, actually  |
|
|
Hogshine
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 18:39 |
|
| Draxus wrote: | "how can roughly mean more then once a day? "
Simply due to the nature of it being roughly, and not exactly. It can range from say 1.33 times a day but people round to the nearest whole number and say roughly once a day. That is how roughly once a day can mean more then once a day, decimals rounded to the nearest whole number. |
But by the same reasoning, it can mean less than once a day, and that same reasoning is not helpful, and I don't think it was what sk8bcn meant. Either way, if it happened 1.33 times per day, I would happily call that "once per day" and not worry over petty semantics and rounding issues regarding such problems. If it happens between once and twice a day, I'd still be happy that it was a small problem. |
|
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 21:21 |
|
| SillySod wrote: | | Chingis's idea isnt such a bad one although it will pretty much only protect you from no-shows rather than deliberate game avoiders. It is in no way a violation of security or privacy: if you are playing over a proxy then you are sending all your BB game data to the fumbbl servers directly anyway... including the proxy name you're using to play the game. I think the most obvious disadvantage of this system is that it effectively prohibits people from using direct connect. |
How could game avoiders abuse it? Do you mean by deliberately disconnecting and not reconnecting once they've joined? I'm not sure there's much you could do about that.
It doesn't have to prohibit direct connects. You could have the Blackbox "Activation" button re-enable in two ways: 1) By the reporting of a completed match; 2) By logging onto the given proxy server and your opponent doesn't show. You wouldn't be penalised for a direct connect as it would be noted when you finished the game.
(The automatically generated proxy server name doesn't have to be an autoconnect job. It could be delivered by message box, or be an auto-form fill that could be deleted before connecting.) |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 21:42 |
|
Ok, genuine game avoiders will simply join the appropriate proxy and then quit out... this feature wont do anything about them.
Secondly it does penalise people that direct connect instead...
| Chingis wrote: | | That way, if one player has been allocated a match but hasn't been recorded as having connected to the match during the subsequent 25 minutes, they cannot activate the Blackbox any more until it's resolved. |
Suppose I agree to play you via direct connect (since its better) and then one of us drops for whatever reason. That would leave the other person totally unable to use the box whereas if they had used the proxy server instead of direct connecting they would be able to play some more blackbox. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
Chingis
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
|
| Posted:
Jan 10, 2009 - 01:02 |
|
In both those cases, Sillysod, what you have is a disconnect and an unfinished game.
Those surely do need finishing unfortunately, whenever the two parties can do so. It's a separate problem surely from no-shows in that you can punish a no-shower and allow the other player to continue playing. Half-game disconnects, you can't do that with without leaving space for abuse.
If you connected via proxy and someone dropped for whatever reason, you'd still be tied up until you could finish the game. |
|
|
|
|
Cindy is back?
Search
