fail.

[IbanZ]

I need to stop trying.

[Ad Bot]

[Ephialtes]

Firstly, you made spelling errors - great.

Secondly, you can just send them a message in-game. There's no reason to ban them from the server.

Thirdly, This will fail if an Admin isn't present.

Fourthly, Blockheads usually have a BL ID 1 less than in their name so this will fail anyway.

Fifthly, You'll force the user to download all the server's add-ons before booting them. I don't know whether this is down to your mediocre scripting talents or your abusive nature.

Finally, The ban message often gets screwed up and will be displayed as  a bunch of random characters. I also think the message you supplied is too long anyway.

I find it stunning that you can't think of one thing apart from excessive punishment that you could invest your time in.

[IbanZ]

Firstly, you made spelling errors - great.

Secondly, you can just send them a message in-game. There's no reason to ban them from the server.

Thirdly, This will fail if an Admin isn't present.

Fourthly, Blockheads usually have a BL ID 1 less than in their name so this will fail anyway.

Fifthly, You'll force the user to download all the server's add-ons before booting them. I don't know whether this is down to your mediocre scripting talents or your abusive nature.

Finally, The ban message often gets screwed up and will be displayed as  a bunch of random characters. I also think the message you supplied is too long anyway.

I find it stunning that you can't think of one thing apart from excessive punishment that you could invest your time in.

All good points.

[!!hammerdwarf!!]

Simple solution, as it appears to be an anti-blockhead system that failed, give people whose names are still blockhead limited bricks, say 300, and have them either be aproved by an admin or change their name to remove the limit.

Code: [Select]

package stopblockheads
{
    function servercmdplantbrick(%client)
    {
        if(strlwr(%client.name)$="blockhead"@%client.BL_ID+1&&!$pref::server::approvedblockheads[%client.BL_ID])
        {
            if(%client.bricksplanted>=300)
            {
                messageclient(%client,"","You have reached the maximum bricks for unapproved blockheads! change your name or show an admin that you have building skills to remove the limit!");
                return 10000;
            }
            if(!(%r=parent::servercmdplantbrick(%client)))%client.bricksplanted++;
            return %r;
        }
        else return parent::servercmdplantbrick(%client);
    }
    function fxDTSBrickData::OnRemove(%this,%brick)
    {
        if(strlwr(%brick.getgroup().client.name)$="blockhead"@%brick.getgroup().client.BL_ID+1&&!$pref::server::approvedblockheads[%brick.getgroup().client.BL_ID])%brick.getgroup().bricksplanted--;
        return parent::OnRemove(%this,%brick);
    }
};(and, ephialtes, just try to find a problem with that)

[Ephialtes]

Simple solution, as it appears to be an anti-blockhead system that failed, give people whose names are still blockhead limited bricks, say 300, and have them either be aproved by an admin or change their name to remove the limit.

Code: [Select]

package stopblockheads
{
    function servercmdplantbrick(%client)
    {
        if(strlwr(%client.name)$="blockhead"@%client.BL_ID+1&&!$pref::server::approvedblockheads[%client.BL_ID])
        {
            if(%client.bricksplanted>=300)
            {
                messageclient(%client,"","You have reached the maximum bricks for unapproved blockheads! change your name or show an admin that you have building skills to remove the limit!");
                return 10000;
            }
            if(!(%r=parent::servercmdplantbrick(%client)))%client.bricksplanted++;
            return %r;
        }
        else return parent::servercmdplantbrick(%client);
    }
    function fxDTSBrickData::OnRemove(%this,%brick)
    {
        if(strlwr(%brick.getgroup().client.name)$="blockhead"@%brick.getgroup().client.BL_ID&&!$pref::server::approvedblockheads[%brick.getgroup().client.BL_ID])%brick.getgroup().bricksplanted--;
        return parent::OnRemove(%this,%brick);
    }
};(and, ephialtes, just try to find a problem with that)

Er ok. Just quoting it so i'll know when you changed the errors I spot.

Your coding looks like ass, it won't run faster if you just stick it all on one line - it just pisses people off when they try to interpret whats dropped out of your rectum.

Secondly, Omg how about I just leave and rejoin to bypass this silly 300 brick limit? Oh wow, it worked!!

Thirdly, The onRemove won't work because you're looking for Blockhead[BLID] when its Blockhead[BLID+1].

You need to try harder, or just stop trying - this is just embarrassing for you.

[!!hammerdwarf!!]

It isn't supposed to be foolproof, just a method of encouraging them to get a better name, and thaanks for noticing the only real problem.
And is DOES save space to put it all on one line, even if it won't make it faster.

[Ephialtes]

It isn't supposed to be foolproof, just a method of encouraging them to get a better name, and thaanks for noticing the only real problem.
And is DOES save space to put it all on one line, even if it won't make it faster.

Readability is one of the most important aspects of programming. You will never get a professional programming job if your code looks like that. Ever. I'd pick readability over saving a few bytes in hard disk space any day.

[!!hammerdwarf!!]

Well, I did write that in the forum message window, and if you want to insult readability, look at space guy's single space indent and cryptic code!

[Ephialtes]

I didn't say he was a model programmer either.

[LegoEggo]

I didn't say he was a model programmer either.

Ah, Ephi, always proving everyone wrong.
Not that that's all bad.

[laremere]

I didn't say he was a model programmer either.

Ah, Ephi, always proving everyone wrong.
Not that that's all bad.

[Space Guy]

look at space guy's single space indent and cryptic code!

Don't blame me, blame some other random forum member who's not even related to the situation! I don't happen to like his way of coding so it's obviously his fault that I code wrong!!

[Lord Tony]

you should lock this topic instead of changing the name to fail

[IbanZ]

Badspot unlocked it when he moved it from Add-Ons. Relocked.