Terror Only wrote:is there a better banning system you can come up with? if yes then share it with eric
posting suggestions/ideas on this forum is worthless. nothing will be changed, nothing will be added
MI6 AGENT 007 wrote:I agree with this statement.
I disagree with this statement.
- see? this is how you sound
There are literally only 3 ways to ban a person I can think of- All three are used in PB2.
There are account bans. When an account is banned, and it is logged into, other ban methods are deployed on that computer.
That leads us to the second method, an IP ban. This says basically - 'If xx.x.xx.xx tries to connect, give them this ban screen.'
After that the third method is implemented, a cookie is added to the browser session, saying 'If this cookie is present, give the user XX ban screen.'
Here is why this is occuring.
XX User enabled his VPN for whatever reason, but doesn't know cookie bans exist, or doesn't have a full understanding of the ban system.
User goes on PB2.
PB2 detects a banned IP address, then adds the ban cookie.
User turns OFF VPN, thinking 'Oh, that will fix it, surely.'
BUT. The cookie is still present.
Because of this, their original IP address is banned when they turn it off, or, it isn't banned, but because the cookie is still there, they still get the ban screen until they clear their cookies.
I mean really, this is silly. Everyone who uses a VPN to ban evade knows how the ban system works, and clears their cookies or uses incognito mode to access PB2.
Then, innocent users who DON'T know, are the ones who pay the price.
So why even bother with the cookie? All it does is cause trouble. People know how to get by it except people oblivious to ban evading, who don't need to anyway.
There is no reason why the cookie ban should be there for VPNs.