That would usually require involved volunteers or paid involved moderators that do quality over quantity.

While I agree, IP ban is not the solution. It's too easy to bypass.

Originally posted by peppermint hollows:

While I agree, IP ban is not the solution. It's too easy to bypass.

I wasn't really suggesting IP ban. Just watch for IP and/or behaviors being the same on the new accounts and whacking them as they spring up while keeping a list.

Under a CGNAT, hundreds if not thousands of people can be under the same IPv4 address. It's not a foolproof nor guaranteed indicator of not hitting innocents as the chance that someone else than the banned account's alt logs in after the banned account's main logs out is significantly higher the more people there are in a CGNAT.

The IPv4 address alone is not a sufficient indicator for finding alts.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

Under a CGNAT, hundreds if not thousands of people can be under the same IPv4 address. It's not a foolproof nor guaranteed indicator of not hitting innocents as the chance that someone else than the banned account's alt logs in after the banned account's main logs out is significantly higher the more people there are in a CGNAT.

The IPv4 address alone is not a sufficient indicator for finding alts.

Basic moderation practices can tell a temporary shared address from an individual using numerous accounts, let alone when an individual makes it incredibly obvious.

The chances of a moderator taking the time to act on alts and hitting an innocent person is basically 0%. The chance of them hitting a guilty party is basically 100%. The most minimum work possible would make that outcome identical each time.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Basic moderation practices can tell a temporary shared address from an individual using numerous accounts, let alone when an individual makes it incredibly obvious.

The chances of a moderator taking the time to act on alts and hitting an innocent person is basically 0%. The chance of them hitting a guilty party is basically 100%. The most minimum work possible would make that outcome identical each time.

That's the problem with Valve though. The quality in moderation has tanked a lot, so much so that it's akin to automation. Guess what Valve would prefer in catching alts. Automated systems or laborious drones that do the menial work for them but cost wages?

Well using alt accounts to commit ban evasion use to be punished. Ahh, the good ol' days.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Basic moderation practices can tell a temporary shared address from an individual using numerous accounts, let alone when an individual makes it incredibly obvious.

The chances of a moderator taking the time to act on alts and hitting an innocent person is basically 0%. The chance of them hitting a guilty party is basically 100%. The most minimum work possible would make that outcome identical each time.

That's the problem with Valve though. The quality in moderation has tanked a lot, so much so that it's akin to automation. Guess what Valve would prefer in catching alts. Automated systems or laborious drones that do the menial work for them but cost wages?

You'd be surprised how much work a single individual can do even on an extremely live forum, especially when removing the users that clearly don't belong that need to be shown the door.

The work for moderation significantly goes down when you show problem people that have never improved over time the door. Not dealing with such types makes more long term work for moderation & support. Alts of troublemakers are easy enough to dispose of permanently which makes the primary targets at risk of removal for the user, meaning they'll either behave, or harsher punishment happens.

Valve needs to continue making examples in the short run of such accounts rather than long term.

Originally posted by peppermint hollows:

While I agree, IP ban is not the solution. It's too easy to bypass.

And too easy to generate false positives.
Remember in many parts of the world, static IP's are not the norm.
You get randomly assigned an IP from the ISP's bank of IP addresses every 24 -36 hours.
Which means IOne person can be given an IP that got flagged by an entirely different user whose only relation is that they happen to use the same ISP.

That's the problem I suppose. There's no real surefire, fool-proof way to identify alts that won't flag an innocent. and when an Innocent is flagged, how do they go about proving that they aren't that other guy...over the internet?

The only way Valve would be able to ascertain it is if they went to the isp that has that IP adress and get the details as to whether it the same customer it was assigned to at X datem, is the same customer that it was assigned to on Y date.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

That's the problem I suppose. There's no real surefire, fool-proof way to identify alts that won't flag an innocent. and when an Innocent is flagged, how do they go about proving that they aren't that other guy...over the internet?

In addition to that, thanks to mechanisms such as CGNAT and Dual Stack Lite it's usually not just one person behind that string of numbers, but potentially multiple.

Good luck with that non sense, you might as well ask that if someone is banned they can never buy steam games ever again.

Originally posted by Ettanin:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

That's the problem I suppose. There's no real surefire, fool-proof way to identify alts that won't flag an innocent. and when an Innocent is flagged, how do they go about proving that they aren't that other guy...over the internet?

In addition to that, thanks to mechanisms such as CGNAT and Dual Stack Lite it's usually not just one person behind that string of numbers, but potentially multiple.

And then tehre's the whole VPN ting.
This sort of thing won't be feasible until there's a fool proof way to uniquely identify each machine.. Like maybe have the application on launche develop a hash of the machine based off the hardware, of course you change one stick of ram or remove /add a drive and bam. b you've got a new machine.

Originally posted by Majestically Awkward:

Good luck with that non sense, you might as well ask that if someone is banned they can never buy steam games ever again.

Banning an account has no effect whatsoever on its ability to continue to buy games.

Even with a community ban, you can still buy games.

Originally posted by C²C^Guyver |NZB|:

Originally posted by Majestically Awkward:

Good luck with that non sense, you might as well ask that if someone is banned they can never buy steam games ever again.

Banning an account has no effect whatsoever on its ability to continue to buy games.

Even with a community ban, you can still buy games.

Yup. Just like how getting banned from adding buying games is not gonna generally block you from the forums.

I really don't think people understand how hard it is to get an account in a state where it is no longer able to purchase games. It doesn't just happen.

It's a ridiculous comparison.