The Ultimate Site of Worms Armageddon

Worms: Armageddon => General discussion => Topic started by: Anubis on January 01, 2013, 05:39 PM

Title: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Anubis on January 01, 2013, 05:39 PM
"Anyone using a non-authorized client to connect to this
network may have their IP temporarily banned."


I am actually wondering if all the snoopers programs are "non-authorized" clients. I am not scared of it and couldn't care less if my IP would be temporarily banned (dynamic anyway), but I would like to know if we are all violating this rule by using snoopers. xD
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Prankster on January 01, 2013, 05:42 PM
Or other IRC clients, if we are already there.
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Anubis on January 01, 2013, 05:45 PM
I mean if T17 would care about this, and I am sure I have read this sentence back in like 2002, wouldn't they ban some people? Ppl are even exaggerating this as I have seen countless "Chelsea" clones probably from the same IP and snooper client, so I guess they would notice that but didn't take action. Which leads to my final question: Why is there a rule, that the host (T17), doesn't care about?
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: darKz on January 01, 2013, 06:31 PM
Maybe because T17 have abandoned this game 10 years ago? Just a wild guess. :D
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Anubis on January 01, 2013, 07:51 PM
Last time I read how great Team17 still supports this game, somewhere on Reddit. ^^
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Muzer on January 01, 2013, 08:24 PM
But they don't really, aside from the admirable job of keeping WormNET functional; for the most part they just let other people support it.
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Prankster on January 02, 2013, 12:46 AM
Quote from: Muzer on January 01, 2013, 08:24 PM
But they don't really, aside from the admirable job of keeping WormNET functional; for the most part they just let other people support it.

That must be a conspiracy theory. I heard they published a w:a 3.0 version lately!
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: StepS on January 02, 2013, 10:20 AM
Lol. An "unauthorized client" is a client which is actually banned. One of examples is "WormKit2" - a ProSnooper hybrid which was leaked without author's permission, so it's banned, and joining WormNET with it will get you a ban for 60 seconds.
There are a bunch of others, of course, and I don't know all of them. Sometimes on WormNET you can see "Local kill by ChanServ - unauthorized client detected." This could be also due to DroneBL entry, but I'm unsure
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Bonhert on January 02, 2013, 11:19 AM
@up: So we don't violate rules after all?
You killed all the fun, thanks  :'(.
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: KoreanRedDragon on January 02, 2013, 03:56 PM
Quote from: StepS on January 02, 2013, 10:20 AMAn "unauthorized client" is a client which is actually banned.

Nope.
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: StepS on January 03, 2013, 09:24 AM
Quote from: KoreanRedDragon on January 02, 2013, 03:56 PM
Quote from: StepS on January 02, 2013, 10:20 AMAn "unauthorized client" is a client which is actually banned.

Nope.
you know, I'm not on WormNET since 1999, so I'd like to hear your own explanation on "Local kill by ChanServ (Unauthorized client detected.)", which occurs pretty often nowadays.
your post doesn't prove or deny anything when it isn't informative
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: rU` on January 03, 2013, 11:13 AM
As far as I know, an unauthorized client kill is often caused due to the nickname being invalid.

For example, Administrator or Administrador (Spanish) are invalid names, those are the ones that are set by default when you first install the game.

I've seen "Administrator - local kill by ChanServ" many times. I guess it works like that so that it forces you to pick a nickname.

Other than that, I don't know what an Unauthorized Client stands for.

edit: similar names don't work either! Just tried to join Wormnet as Administratorr`` and ChanServ killed it. xD
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: LeTotalKiller on January 03, 2013, 07:41 PM
Quote from: Leroy on January 03, 2013, 11:13 AM
edit: similar names don't work either! Just tried to join Wormnet as Administratorr`` and ChanServ killed it. xD

It detects everything containing "admin", actually. (Same goes for "help", it seems.)
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: Muzer on January 03, 2013, 10:47 PM
Quote from: Leroy on January 03, 2013, 11:13 AM
As far as I know, an unauthorized client kill is often caused due to the nickname being invalid.

For example, Administrator or Administrador (Spanish) are invalid names, those are the ones that are set by default when you first install the game.

Only if you're stupid enough to use the administrator account on a day-to-day basis ;) (the default nick is your username)
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: StepS on January 04, 2013, 02:40 AM
wrong! That gives "Invalid nickname".
Still no response from KRD
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: KoreanRedDragon on January 04, 2013, 05:09 AM
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be explaining here. All I meant to say was that no, an unauthorised client is simply a client that hasn't been authorised in the sense that WA.exe is authorised. The note was put there back when (or shortly after) there was an actual official authorised snooper being maintained by Team17, so apart from the game itself, it was what players were supposed to be using to connect to WormNet.

Obviously T17 don't go around banning third party snooper and IRC client users very often anymore, but they had some pretty good reasons for doing it back when ranks still meant something, in the age of script kiddies and flooding bots and other assorted scripts. Whether the note was left there because nobody bothered to take it down or because it still technically applies would be a question for Volcane/Volcadmin/ServerAdminDave.
Title: Re: Are snooper users all violating the rules?
Post by: StepS on January 04, 2013, 07:10 PM
thanks for the explanation on the motd note.
still curious if someone knows about ChanServ's namesake kick reason.