Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:38 am
this is really making trouble about nothing.
Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:30 am
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:55 am
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:39 pm
This dude has been like a pest the last few weeks on the boomtown servers.. Everyday playing with a ratbot, failed nocheat etc.... anyways.. i got bored banning him everythime since his ip was dynamic.. therefor I banned his iprange... :p
grtz
grtz
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:24 pm
So you effectively shut down everyone using the same isp as him? :|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:23 am
There are hardly any english ppl playin aq anymore especially on foreign servers, so i wouldnt worry about that.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:56 am
harsh, 82.x is a fairly common range
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:38 am
.
Secret tip no.1 on integrating the aq2 scene. Shut down England
There are hardly any english ppl playin aq anymore especially on foreign servers, so i wouldnt worry about that.
Secret tip no.1 on integrating the aq2 scene. Shut down England
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:35 pm
Stim wrote:harsh, 82.x is a fairly common range
mayby he just banned 82.38.184.*
England is allready shut down. You can count their players on 1 handJazzie wrote:.There are hardly any english ppl playin aq anymore especially on foreign servers, so i wouldnt worry about that.
Secret tip no.1 on integrating the aq2 scene. Shut down England
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:36 am
It was Lynden... as always. He has a dynamic IP but it's always easy to tell it's him because of the 'shef' bit before the ISP name (Blueyonder).
Isn't it possible to do some sort of ban on *shef*blueyonder* ?
Isn't it possible to do some sort of ban on *shef*blueyonder* ?
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:42 am
sure it is
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:24 am
Tsk tsk Masa, I wouldn't refer to nick'Fc vs. Fc`nick as "not even close the same" as you do. Clan-nick vs. nick>>[cl4n] could be described as "not even close to the same", but really, don't you see any resemblance between 'Fc and Fc`?
If people start asking "is Fightclub up again?" to you in public servers, I'd say the similarity between your tag and our old is way to alike :p
Stealing fortune tam tam... ;I
If people start asking "is Fightclub up again?" to you in public servers, I'd say the similarity between your tag and our old is way to alike :p
Stealing fortune tam tam... ;I
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:32 am
Den wrote:Stim wrote:harsh, 82.x is a fairly common range
mayby he just banned 82.38.184.*
And if he did, that would only ban a maximum of 254 addresses - of which an IP generally spans over alot more times. Blocking that subnet would be inefficient to say the least.
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 10:46 am
Just sue us...
We didn't know clan Fightclub or any usage of Fc tag...
And besides, we ain't named Fightclub, we don't use the same tag (as far as I know u had 'Fc) and we don't have the same channel at qnet as u had... Blabla and so on.
We didn't know clan Fightclub or any usage of Fc tag...
And besides, we ain't named Fightclub, we don't use the same tag (as far as I know u had 'Fc) and we don't have the same channel at qnet as u had... Blabla and so on.
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:36 pm