• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Not So Fantastic

Started by OldGuy,

40 posts in this topic

comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
I run my own phpbb bulletin boards, and I'm able to ban by IP address. Unless he's dialing in or continually getting a new IP via DHCP every day, I would assume he could be banned that way. Of course, if he's using something like PPPOE or dialup, that'd be tough to block completely...

 

Actually Shield, I have written "banned user" scripts, and you can actually target more than just a person's IP address. Without getting into too much detail, the only way around more advanced scripts is if the person visits a different cyber-cafe AFTER each banned account. Its also worth noting that even if the person decided to cyber-hop from one cafe to the other, they would need to have and endless stream of pop-based email accounts tied to a series of different domains. Blocking registrants from using "free" email based web sites is also a step in the right direction (something CGC enacted some time ago). The problem is, those "free" domain name lists need to be updated fairly regularly.

 

A couple of other points; regardless of whether a network is running DHCP, they are still relying on an ISP to provide them broadband, and that ISP broadcasts its switch location, and can easily be indentified when captured; here's an example (IP address/ISP address):

 

64.229.13.250/HSE-Kitchener-ppp194663.sympatico.ca

 

Things like hardware address, and few other random bits of information can also be compiled, and referenced as a banned user list, and upon registration, if any of the "new" users information shows up on the banned user list, a flag can be automatically dispatched to the site admin. I'm actually working on something a little more complex, but in reality the technical savvy user will always find new ways to get around banned user scripts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldGuy

OldGuy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No one complained about the thread. It was pulled because these threads go on and on exhibiting nothing different than a point that has already been made. It's just not productive and really brings the place down.

 

The point has been made.

 

Yea, and screw the new people that may not know the history of Comic-Keys. Maybe you should stick a Comic-Keys thread at the top of the page and it wouldn't need to be brought up over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
dena

dena

Posted
  • Administrator
Posted

Sorry, but I didn't say screw the new poeple. Actually I suggested that you warn new people about what specifically to look out for when buying books instead of focusing on one specific name. Surely there is more than one person from whom you would not buy. This stuff gets too personal and then whatever message you're trying to convey gets overshadowed by the flaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
Sorry, but I didn't say screw the new poeple. Actually I suggested that you warn new people about what specifically to look out for when buying books instead of focusing on one specific name. Surely there is more than one person from whom you would not buy. This stuff gets too personal and then whatever message you're trying to convey gets overshadowed by the flaming.

 

The only flaming done on the comic_keys threads comes from comic_keys himself (meth, hammer, blackschotzky, MrNice, and so forth), so if he's not around, there will be no flaming. The concept of providing generic "warning signs" is a good one (private feedback, raw/high grade $1,000+ books, etc.,), but so are specific warnings about an individual that has been shown (on multiple occasions) to be defrauding people for thousands of dollars.

 

However, I understand that one of the four horseman (the one with a badge, if one of the others doesn't get to him first) is soon to come knocking on hammer's door, and CGC has to protect itself from the ensuing bloodbath. 893whatthe.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
dena

dena

Posted
  • Administrator
Posted
No one complained about the thread. It was pulled because these threads go on and on exhibiting nothing different than a point that has already been made. It's just not productive and really brings the place down.

 

The point has been made.

 

Dena, I dont really understand this statement. You boot a fellow who has been banned before, who comes back under another name. And you booted him this time because of a thread that got a little testy because he came back after being banned. How did you expect us to react as it was being revealed who he was?

 

Im glad you pulled the plug so quickly this time. Mr Nice stuck around too long last time.

 

But please dont chide us just cause we are stuck in the sandbox with this guy till the teacher comes back from break to kick him out again! And you know he WILL be back, unless you have devised a method to smoke out cases like this before we do by the very flame wars you dont like to see....

 

Actually, I didn't boot him because of a thread...I booted him because of who he is. I had a suspicion that he was the same guy from his very first post but I can't ban someone based on one post unless they actually admit to being a duplicate account. There are a lot of people who join this board and at first, appear to be someone else. I was watching the Mister_Fantastic identity and in fact, banned him before I even read the post. The announcement on the strike boards didn't come until late afternoon, but I banned him yesterday morning.

 

I understand that people want to warn others about what to stay away from but this particular topic has become more about entertainment for some than about a public service. The threads went beyond just talking about a sale that went bad. They went into all kinds of personal stuff.

 

I think it is a good thing to warn others to be cautious when purchasing books but isn't it more helpful to give them the benefit of your experience so it can be applied to any seller? After all, couldn't one person have multiple ID's on Ebay?

 

And regarding whether or not he will be back...of course he will - I know that. But he will be banned immediately. However, you (a general term - not you specifically) can't have it both ways. You can't say "get rid of him" and then post things that address him. Apparently you all know him...he can't help himself. Of course he is going to come back but do we really have to lure him back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Actually I suggested that you warn new people about what specifically to look out for when buying books instead of focusing on one specific name. Surely there is more than one person from whom you would not buy.

 

The methods of the person in question are, as far as I can tell, absolutely unique in the comic book world. He's around 50 years old, extremely intelligent, and very experienced because he's been scamming for at least 15 years, although I find it more likely to believe that might have been doing it for longer than that. I could go into detail as to why he's unique, but that's already been done many times before, and I think Steve Borock can vouch for that also.

 

He has settled into a scamming niche that is extremely difficult to prove, and it exploits the distance of the Internet coupled with the relative corporate apathy that E-Bay and the federal government have towards scammers on the E-Bay system. He's making somewhere between a quarter-million to a half-million in yearly revenues from his scam, which I believe places him well ahead of his nearest competitor in the comic book world.

 

So in this case, focusing on one specific name is useful because he is absolutely innovative in the scam he's perpetrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
dena

dena

Posted
  • Administrator
Posted
Actually I suggested that you warn new people about what specifically to look out for when buying books instead of focusing on one specific name. Surely there is more than one person from whom you would not buy.

 

The methods of the person in question are, as far as I can tell, absolutely unique in the comic book world. He's around 50 years old, extremely intelligent, and very experienced because he's been scamming for at least 15 years, although I find it more likely to believe that might have been doing it for longer than that. I could go into detail as to why he's unique, but that's already been done many times before, and I think Steve Borock can vouch for that also.

 

He has settled into a scamming niche that is extremely difficult to prove, and it exploits the distance of the Internet coupled with the relative corporate apathy that E-Bay and the federal government have towards scammers on the E-Bay system. He's making somewhere between a quarter-million to a half-million in yearly revenues from his scam, which I believe places him well ahead of his nearest competitor in the comic book world.

 

So in this case, focusing on one specific name is useful because he is absolutely innovative in the scam he's perpetrating.

 

I hear what you are saying and I don't disagree with you entirely. However, I know that some threads were started with the specific intent to elicit a response from this individual for entertainment and other agendas - not to provide a public service.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shield

Shield

Posted
Posted
Actually Shield, I have written "banned user" scripts, and you can actually target more than just a person's IP address. Without getting into too much detail, the only way around more advanced scripts is if the person visits a different cyber-cafe AFTER each banned account. Its also worth noting that even if the person decided to cyber-hop from one cafe to the other, they would need to have and endless stream of pop-based email accounts tied to a series of different domains. Blocking registrants from using "free" email based web sites is also a step in the right direction (something CGC enacted some time ago). The problem is, those "free" domain name lists need to be updated fairly regularly.

 

A couple of other points; regardless of whether a network is running DHCP, they are still relying on an ISP to provide them broadband, and that ISP broadcasts its switch location, and can easily be indentified when captured; here's an example (IP address/ISP address):

 

64.229.13.250/HSE-Kitchener-ppp194663.sympatico.ca

 

Things like hardware address, and few other random bits of information can also be compiled, and referenced as a banned user list, and upon registration, if any of the "new" users information shows up on the banned user list, a flag can be automatically dispatched to the site admin. I'm actually working on something a little more complex, but in reality the technical savvy user will always find new ways to get around banned user scripts.

 

I didn't want to switch this into a verbose technical thread, as I'm sure you and I could bounce theories and ways around it all day. Nothing is foolproof; I have several friends all using various ISP's across the country, and all it would take is to VNC / Terminal Service into one of their boxes and work as if I were local. Plus, the problem with blocking with the ISP address is this: it's ineffective for large pops (i.e. uunet) as you can't block them all. As far as a MAC address identifier; PCI ethernet NICs are what, $10 including a driver CD? If Hammer/../Mr. Fantastic wants to have repeated cameos on this board it'll only be limited by his technical prowess, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bugaboo-migration

Bugaboo-migration

Posted
Posted
Really? I signed on here initially with my darthdiesel@yahoo.com address? confused-smiley-013.gif

I heard that Mouse signed up the same way. But, they butchered him and hung his tiny little body by the nutsack on their rearview mirror.

 

They think it's funny to now have "fuzzy mice" hanging from it. frown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
If Hammer/../Mr. Fantastic wants to have repeated cameos on this board it'll only be limited by his technical prowess, don't you think?

 

Yep, and I think I made reference to that in the last sentence of my previous post; Arch pretty much summed it up by talking on monitoring behaviour. No matter what technical safeguards are put in place, it will always require some human element; discretionary calls mixed with some indicators to a potential shill account, as the user will undoubtedly leave a trail behind. A good "banned user" -script will do its job by flagging, but it isn't until a pattern of behaviour is revealed that an admin can take reasonable action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comicwiz

comicwiz

Posted
Posted
You mean the MAC address? Haven't done it but I'm told it is "trivial" to alter that. So as you say, it's hard to find a specific identifier to allow automatic blocking.

 

I'm actually referring to the actual physical address (run ipconfig /all in dos prompt), and although its meaningless, or as you say trivial, on its own, it can be quite the useful piece of information when matched-up with a remote query for the computers SID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing