Remove alias checker from public

[turtleshell]

Ppl now use this tool to check "elo snipers". Im assuming this tool was originally used for admins to check possible alternative accounts. As continuing discussions in several sections, i believe the general public do not need this tool. It will only cause flames and trolls. If a player snipes, so be it. If a player feeds or plays bad or hacks, people WILL report. Once reported, mods can look over the case, check ip, possible alternative accounts...without fiascos about ips or wats so ever.

Oh yes....similar ip dont mean same person....just same internet Service Provider. Mods will judge n decide as a group...just how the system has been...so let this tool b only available for mods. I dont see any other reason for public use, apart from checking "who is sniping my elo?"

[Palsgraf]

Seconded for all the reasons stated above. We could have avoided the fiasco that was the urDLckmymouth@useast ban request thread if it didn't come out right away that there was a mod associated with the account.

Even when a mod is involved, the case should be treated like any other. If the behavior is confirmed, the IP is banned. Thus, it is irrelevant to the public whether a mod is involved or not.

Any additional consequences for the fact that a mod was involved would be discussed internally here at ENT. Thus, the alias tool is really only useful for us.

[turtleshell]

I understand that having more people in part of a discussion (such as ban requests and appeals) can help a case be processed with more accuracy and validity. However, all the public should be providing is attention to the case, the actual act that has been done, rule that has been broken, and some conclusive evidence. Apart from these, other technical blablabla is admins and mods role. People are uneedingly creating useless conflicts and talks. Wait for a case to be further investigated...people cant respond instantly...everyone has a life outside this forum and wc3.
People are banned for a certain reason...they have the option to appeal and complaint afterwards to fix things if wronged.

[bit]

dont dare to touch my anti-stalker tool.

[NutzSucksHard]

You don't need it, us *staff* will deal with this part. Isn't normal user job to do it. ImO.

OR

Add this open to donator's So donate if you wanna stalk the other >.< ahahah

[turtleshell]

You don't need it, us *staff* will deal with this part. Isn't normal user job to do it. ImO.

Exactly my point. Calm ur horses, i didnt say i need it which is why im suggesting to remove it. Why let this tool b public use?

Add this open to donator's So donate if you wanna stalk the other >.< ahahah

Not logical. Unless Donors are mods. Ppl will donate 5 bucks if they can check my dear elo snipers.

[Palsgraf]

You don't need it, us *staff* will deal with this part. Isn't normal user job to do it. ImO.
Exactly my point. Why let this tool b public use?

Add this open to donator's So donate if you wanna stalk the other >.< ahahah

Not logical. Unless Donors are mods. Ppl will donate 5 bucks if they can check my dear elo snipers.

If people give $5, all the better. Who knows what we could do with that money?

[NutzSucksHard]

I was joking about donator's .

Still what Pals said is true. If it bring more donate. Can be usefull to the bot/website.

[teller55]

$50 minimum

I believe the intended purpose behind the tool was admin use, but uak wasn't worried if it got used by others, he just didn't display it as public. Then he made the link public in a post, then QTrinty put it in his signature, etc.

[uakf.b]

Ppl now use this tool to check "elo snipers".

We don't encourage players to make new accounts without any reason, this is part of the reason why players with fewer games are autobanned for longer when they leave a game. I don't see a problem with people checking for a main account when someone creates an aka account, whether or not the player is ELO sniping.

It will only cause flames and trolls.

We could have avoided the fiasco that was the urDLckmymouth@useast ban request thread

I don't see how "flame and trolls" can come from people checking for aliases. If someone ELO snipes like you said above, then their ELO sniping is what would cause flame, not the alias checker. And not sure where the "trolls" came from.

Any ban request can go out of hand, there are numerous instances. Off topic posts should have been deleted and, if semi-constructive, redirected to a post in Complaints section.

There's no reason why the ban request should have been made private (not saying it was, just saying there was no reason for it to have been) or why others shouldn't have been able to check for aliases. The accused player was indeed tied to Kaisereo, even if they may not be the same person, and we have the same capability of confirming or disproving a link as any non-admin.

Also, we encourage players to comment on ban requests and appeals. Identifying an alias with a player who has been previously banned for the same offense lets us know that this is their second offense, and IMO linking a player to an admin is also helpful in case we don't check.

Thus, it is irrelevant to the public whether a mod is involved or not.

It's not irrelevant, mods are held to a higher standard in terms of following the rules that they're supposed to be enforcing and the public deserves to know if a mod breaks those rules. Although this isn't the reason that alias checker is public.

Apart from these, other technical blablabla is admins and mods role.

Whether a player conducted the same offense on another account, for example, is useful information. And it also matters to the act - a first time offense is not the same as a repeated one.

Wait for a case to be further investigated...people cant respond instantly...everyone has a life outside this forum and wc3.
People are banned for a certain reason...they have the option to appeal and complaint afterwards to fix things if wronged.

Doesn't seem to be relevant.

You don't need it, us *staff* will deal with this part. Isn't normal user job to do it. ImO.

Then why allow public posting on ban requests and ban appeals? Alias tool is useful for the same reason.

So I don't see any good reason to disable it for non-admins. And reasons to keep it are that it lets normal users help in ban requests/appeals and also checking for abusive players (following them into games on aka's or "ELO sniping").

Edit: so question for you is what instances you think the tool led to problems and also _why_ you think it was a problem.

[Palsgraf]

Hey nutz, we've just been schooled.

[NutzSucksHard]

It is still a problem. I did helped mod/admin without bringing aliases stuff... I think it's what most of Staff user does already (they didn't even knew that aliases existed for non-admin). There's more way to help then just telling, 'he have an other account with 1900 T.T' 'He's an admin that's why I reported T.T'... All this crying isn't usefull, and flood the main request in the end. There's no help from this in the end, if it's to start a lot of 'bitch to admin' without validate reason. For me, you should just take it off. Like we explained, it's not cause there's an aliases there, that it's the says person that is offending the rule. A request should stay a normal request, like said, if there was no aliases link allowed, only admin would have handled it mostly. None there bringing 'contructive' stuff. They just whinned all around.

Why letting it only to admin? Cause they have been judged enough mature to use the tool in the right way. Using it to just catch elo-snipe, what????? Be better then the elo-sniper that's all. In the pass, there was no stats tracking, you were playing for the pleasure, play again for it please. Stalking people? Why doing that? The usage of the Aliases is more based on a 'avoid good player with new account' then 'use it in BRQ'.

This is my own opinion. You can see the result of it just by checking the BRQ we're talking in question. Some message been deleted or idk what the f*** happend there. It was just getting into a wars for no valide reason... Oh no sorry, the reason for all this mess was : one of the aliases of the violator's was Kaisereo. so he get accused of admin abuse (or admin that break rule). Etc. If this wouldn't been visible we would of handled it quicker, better, cleanier.

This is my reason I'am against letting this open to others. I'm not over you uak, just telling my main opinion and that I'am not alone in this.

Wanna make money ? Put it at 50 $ for the tool :3 your server will get rich

P.S : The info given by aliases doesn't tell ban history, last offense etc... Or do normal user have acces to that too?

[shubalaka]

So I don't see any good reason to disable it for non-admins. And reasons to keep it are that it lets normal users help in ban requests/appeals and also checking for abusive players (following them into games on aka's or "ELO sniping").

Bit off topic:
So, elo sniping is an abusive play? If a person has a lot of alias with little games proving some evidence that they "snipe" a lot. Can we report them for ban request?

[Palsgraf]

No. It is not abusive. All they are doing is playing well from an account that you wouldn't think is a good player.

If anything, it discourages stacking bc you never know when a low elo player is actually good.

[uakf.b]

On the BRQ: the flowersnow BRQ was the same, and many others that didn't involve aliases. The fact that it got out of hand isn't related to the alias tool. Besides, an admin should have anyway said this if another player didn't, so it'd have been the same. Fix by deleting off-topic posts, warning users, and locking if needed, but removing alias tool isn't going to fix it.

There's more way to help then just telling

Sure, there are other ways to help, but saying that this is second offense helps too.

All this crying isn't usefull, and flood the main request in the end.

There's lots of crying, not knowing aliases will not change anything. They'll cry about something else.

None there bringing 'contructive' stuff. They just whinned all around.

I think Burrito's first post was constructive, it identified that it was an admin. Later posts were off topic, but the fact that player is admin is still relevant to the ban request in that admins should be following rules.

Using it to just catch elo-snipe, what????? Be better then the elo-sniper that's all. In the pass, there was no stats tracking, you were playing for the pleasure, play again for it please. Stalking people? Why doing that?

If someone's stalking you then you can use alias to avoid them. Or if someone makes uakf.gay then you can see who was trolling you instead of them being anonymous.

So, elo sniping is an abusive play? If a person has a lot of alias with little games proving some evidence that they "snipe" a lot. Can we report them for ban request?

If anything, it discourages stacking bc you never know when a low elo player is actually good.

It's not abusive, it's just not encouraged. Certainly no one can be banned for it.

It doesn't discourauge stacking though; in autobalanced game it automatically means that stacking will be more frequent because ELO needs several games to converge to the right value (especially if it is very high or very low). Maybe it is harder to purposely stack, but it's easier to accidentally stack.