Website/Domain whitelisting

[pinkgothic]

Normally I just piggy-back on other anti-viewbombing suggestions with this, but since no one seems to remember the suggestion each time the topic comes up and I do think it'd be a great option to help significantly reduce the problem (though not eliminate it altogether*), I figured I'd give its own topic.

 

Viewbombing is a problem. It's not a very prominent problem, but that makes it all the more problematic when it does hit - people aren't expecting it. Personally, I've never been viewbombed before, and I suspect I might go a few more Dragon Cave years before it happens (watch, this is going to jinx it ), but it really takes the fun out of this collecting game for most of the people it hits.

 

There have been several suggestions over time how to deal with this, though the one that seems to be most-mentioned is making fansites use the API authorisation feature. The trouble with that is that it relies on every fansite complying... and it doesn't take care of the problem of someone putting your eggs in their signature on a high-traffic forum.

 

This site is set up in a way that's meant to make it easy to put your eggs wherever you like. In part, it relies on this - posting your babies on sites that aren't centred on Dragon Cave is usually where new users come from, after all! But it makes it difficult to curb viewbombing.

 

Technical background to my suggestion:

 

Every time you view/click an egg or hatchling, unless you're part of a minority of users whose browsers do not send a HTTP referer, dragcave.net will know where you are coming from. That's to say it knows if you're looking at an egg on The Allure of Neglected Dragons (www.coup-detat.info), Eggs Around The World (dc.makegames.de), Sylvi's Lair (lair.silverdrak.de) or anywhere else.

 

Dragon Cave has the ability to read this referer (or notice the absence of one).

 

The only way for a malicious user to prevent the referer being sent to Dragon Cave for a third person is to reroute the click through a redirection service, i.e. by linking to (instead of to the dragon's view page on dragcave.net) to another site (e.g. example.com/view/dragoncode) which then silently redirects you to the view page. There is no way (that I'm aware of) of a malicious user faking the referer to pretend to be from a specific other place for a third person. (They can fake it for themselves (= their own connection to Dragon Cave, i.e. Dragon Cave thinks they came from somewhere they didn't), by simply telling a suitably equipped browser (example) to send a fake referer, but that's not going to get any viewbombing very far )

 

^ correction: Currently, that would get you somewhere, though a per-IP view limit might be a plausible way to fix that. As far as I know, we have a per-IP view limit now, albeit differently executed - it's not 'views of one dragon is capped forever' but 'views of all dragons is capped for a specific timeframe'. So this is plausible again.

 

The actual suggestion:

 

I'm in favour of there being an option, in your account settings, to enable a referer whitelist; a checkbox labelled "I want to restrict what sites my dragons can get views/clicks from", which when activated lets you supply a list of domains (possibly even full-fledged URLs; but domains might be easier and safer to handle and sanity-check) that you accept clicks and views from.

 

So, in the case of The Allure of Neglected Dragons, Eggs Around The World and Sylvi's Lair, you would put:

 

www.coup-detat.info

dc.makegames.de

lair.silverdrak.de

 

...into your list. Dragon Cave could then reject views/clicks from referers that don't match the list. You'd have the option to change the list at any time.

 

(Empty referers should probably just be ignored? I do believe they're already ignored for clicks... I know my dragons never seem to get clicks if people visit them from a stand-alone IRC client. Not 100%ly sure about that, though.)

 

All in all (in combination with a per-IP view limit, rather than the per-unique-view view limit that's currently in place), I think this would genuinely be a powerful way to help the victims of viewbombing.

 

I'd like this thread to be mostly in the hands of people who've actually had to deal with the problem, though. Like I said, I haven't had to suffer it before, so I feel ill-equipped to argue much about this, so... I don't yet know if I'll be posting much other than to help people understand the technical background better, but I figured I'd toss it up.

 

*

(1) If you have several higher-traffic fansites listed that you use after waiting 24 hours, an attacker could still add your dragons to those fansites early. While you could prevent that by fogging your dragons, the trouble with viewbombing is still that people aren't prepared for it, so you likely wouldn't be, either. Maybe an 'automatic fogging for the first 24 hours' option would be cool; but I'm not suggesting that, since I haven't thought that idea through in the slightest. If someone wants to spin that further, though, be my guest. <3

(2) Additionally, people aren't prepared for viewbombing, and the whitelist being opt-in means commonly people will not be helped with their first viewbomb, since they won't have set it up.

 

(Edit: Sorry, I keep changing the title of this thread around. It should be stable now.)

 

--

 

Note: I've adjusted the info on single-user viewbombing, I had some misconceptions about those. The way view-limiting is currently done (15-view-limit per unique-view) makes this suggestion significantly less useful than it could be, though a change in the way that is handled (15-view-limit per IP) would make this the powerful solution that it's envisioned to be.

 

Related quote:

 

...maybe it could be per-IP if this suggestion is toggled? That means ND experimenters could still just disable the whitelist while they accrue views for their babies.

 

--

 

Very late edit: As far as I know, we have a per-IP view limit now, albeit differently executed - it's not 'views of one dragon is capped forever' but 'views of all dragons is capped for a specific timeframe'. So the above caveat no longer holds, and I edited the IP section accordingly once more.

Edited January 18, 2015 by pinkgothic

[RainDear]

I had been view bombed once before, and hiding my scroll for a month or two kept my scroll safe, but I hate hiding my scroll.

 

Yesterday, I caught 2 of the new 3rd day eggs and misclicked on a Split egg. I was watching the clock for when I could abandon the Split or I might have missed when all three eggs had their views shoot up 200+ views in about 1 hour. I hadn't posted them anywhere, because I was waiting to drop the Split first.

 

Right now there are several people in Help posting about this same problem. Some have found their eggs posted in up to 6 sites they never posted them in. I know how distressing this is, and I know how to safeguard my scroll, but with how widespread this is right now, a lot of people have lost or will soon lose eggs that are valuable to them. I would like to see a safeguard like this if it is possible.

[purpledragonclaw]

I've experienced this problem myself with the new release; fortunately I've caught it in time to keep my eggs from dying, but I know other members haven't been so lucky. Like raindear, I normally don't experience viewbombing, but right now it's a problem.

 

This is an excellent idea. Whitelisting is a pretty reliable way to keep things safe, although I don't know how easy it would be to set up. Definitely a feature I would use.

[Nectaris]

I would be for this, it helps without inconveniencing those who aren't worried about it, like the idea of forcing fansites to have API authorization. It would also allow newbies to be helped, unlike the API suggestion.

[Troubletail]

I'm in favor of this being available as a toggle in Site Preferences, but in light of the recent complaints after the Javascript-forcing I'd be concerned that it might not be viable for all users- apparently there's a contingent of users who play with a variety of scripts and processes disabled, not only to modify the AP and biome pages for easier catching but also out of actual security fears. Is the site still able to monitor referers for users who have so much turned off, particularly those who go out of their way to prevent information from being collected on them?

[pinkgothic]

although I don't know how easy it would be to set up.

 

It should be easy to code if there isn't some technological voodoo going on that makes this unusually difficult.

 

Very rough pseudocode mock-up on the Dragon Cave side:

 

acceptClickOrView = true;

if (usingWhitelistSetting) {
   acceptClickOrView = false;
   domain = extractDomainPartFromUrl(getReferer());
   acceptClickOrView = (domain in userWhitelist); // true if domain is in whitelist
}

if (acceptClickOfView) {
   // all of what the page currently does invisibly goes here, basically
}

displayDragon();

 

I think the biggest hurdle to this might be that either the database retrieval of your settings or the domain extraction are a greater load than TJ wants to see on pages.

 

I'm in favor of this being available as a toggle in Site Preferences, but in light of the recent complaints after the Javascript-forcing I'd be concerned that it might not be viable for all users- apparently there's a contingent of users who play with a variety of scripts and processes disabled, not only to modify the AP and biome pages for easier catching but also out of actual security fears.   Is the site still able to monitor referers for users who have so much turned off, particularly those who go out of their way to prevent information from being collected on them?

 

The protection would be opt-in; presumably, most people wouldn't have it on.

 

Either way, though, if you don't send a referer, you won't be able to provide clicks and views to people who've chosen to whitelist things, but you'd still see their dragons*. You just couldn't affect their stats. That's assuming this does take the route "no referer = automatically not on whitelist", rather than the just as imaginable "no referer = automatically on whitelist". Or that could be a separate setting. (But, to be fair, I suppose if I could be said to have a preference, it's for "no referer = automatically not on whitelist".)

 

* unless we decide to block that, too, but I don't really see a reason for that; the site is dealing with the server load from viewbombing now, so I imagine the extra views aren't causing a server load issue.

Edited May 25, 2013 by pinkgothic

[DarkEternity]

I don't intend to be a kill joy, but referrers can be spoofed and very easily with various addons and technically all web debuggers. It is also how people can often get their accounts hacked by hackers.

Edited May 25, 2013 by DarkEternity

[angelicdragonpuppy]

BSAs to prevent and heal sickness might be a simpler (and cooler) way to help with view bombing issues.

[aangs-sister]

BSAs to prevent and heal sickness might be a simpler (and cooler) way to help with view bombing issues.

I second this. If it could safeguard an egg for X amount of time, remove sickness, or potential revive an egg/hatchy that died of sickness (not running out of time or manually killing) would be much easier to program and make sense RP wise.

[skauble]

I've been viewbombed twice. Once over an extended period of time after I caught a CB Gold, and a one shot during a rather heated topic on the forum where a number of us were targeted. It's definitely annoying, and genuinely distressing for many folks. It used to happen, but it wasn't a huge thing, and most times it was suspected it actually did turn out to have just been from things like using too many hatcheries, events that cause a surge in players, etc. But lately it's become a way that a most likely small number of people handle their unhappiness, and so I think we're reaching a point where it really does need to be addressed beyond hiding and fogging everything all the time, which really does detract from the fun of the game to a certain extent.

 

This is a very interesting idea and a new take on the issue. As mentioned, I do wonder about the resources it might consume. Also, although I'm sure it could be greatly simplified, I think this might be a bit confusing to new players who often don't entirely get the whole view system, ratios, fansites, etc. That could very well leave them unprotected at the most vulnerable time - when they don't know about the issue, may not know how to handle sickness, and are generally more panicky about their eggs.

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think that the simplest solution is to either remove or greatly delay the death part of sickness. When an egg gets sick it has that message at the top of the scroll and a link to the page about sickness, I believe. That page could explain that it takes eggs that have been sick longer to hatch - the longer they're sick, the more time it will take.

 

I guess if it were sick for 3 days straight then maybe death would be the result, because that's a lot of time to go without even glancing at your eggs. But as it stands right now, they can die in an amount of time that it's very reasonable for someone to be away from the computer and not check on them.

 

People viewbomb eggs because they want your eggs dead and for you to feel terrible. Being able to only mildly annoy someone really doesn't carry the same impact, so it would be much less inviting as some kind of ultimate DC revenge. At the same time, I think it still creates an incentive for people not to stick their own eggs in a ton of hatcheries, thus putting the extra work on the server, because delayed hatching time is annoying and so players would want to avoid it.

 

I just think that adjusting how sickness works so that there's a balance of "something strong enough to motivate players to do X, Y, and Z" and "something moderate enough to not make for a very effective revenge tool" would work best because it would ease up on the fear and paranoia about being viewbombed but still get people to actively care for their eggs/hatchlings.

 

ETA: This would also prevent the wave of holiday egg deaths each year that I find particularly sad because those dead eggs count towards the limit and the people have to wait another year to get those dragons. True, that's not generally due to viewbombing, but it's still a really depressing aspect of a festive time on DC and it would be nice to not see that happen every year.

Edited May 26, 2013 by skauble

[angelicdragonpuppy]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think that the simplest solution is to either remove or greatly delay the death part of sickness. When an egg gets sick it has that message at the top of the scroll and a link to the page about sickness, I believe. That page could explain that it takes eggs that have been sick longer to hatch - the longer they're sick, the more time it will take.

TBH I'd rather have eggs risk death when sick then have their hatching time delayed when sick. My eggs have been getting sick on and off the last few days from over viewing; fogging them and then unfogging them at the right times has always still allowed them to hatch healthy and on time, whereas having a delayed hatching time would seriously screw me up. People could mess with others even more if they could delay hatching by making things sick... at least with viewbombing, an alert person can catch it and perhaps even use all those extra views to their advantage by having an egg ready to hatch as soon as it gets better.

[skauble]

TBH I'd rather have eggs risk death when sick then have their hatching time delayed when sick. My eggs have been getting sick on and off the last few days from over viewing; fogging them and then unfogging them at the right times has always still allowed them to hatch healthy and on time, whereas having a delayed hatching time would seriously screw me up. People could mess with others even more if they could delay hatching by making things sick... at least with viewbombing, an alert person can catch it and perhaps even use all those extra views to their advantage by having an egg ready to hatch as soon as it gets better.

Except that eggs can die within the time that it's reasonable for someone to be away from the computer. Also, new players are far less likely to have a handle on all of this (or have the BSA dragons) and so are at a higher risk.

 

I supported the BSA answer when this was a minor DC problem. But it's really growing now and I don't think that people should have to have certain dragons to protect themselves or to have to have an understanding of all of this to be adequately protected.

 

Also, since most sickness isn't viewbombing, but us getting our own eggs over-viewed, this might work even better towards the goal of people moderating their stats to reduce serve load. If many people would rather risk death than inconvenience, then it would seem that inconvenience would be the better motivator.

 

Or the time that it can take now for sickness to progress to death could be penalty free and time accumulate after that. That means that people who check enough that sickness wouldn't have killed their eggs wouldn't get the delay, but that people who are offline a bit longer won't end up with dead eggs.

 

ETA: Or we could have both. Change sickness so it doesn't result in death like it does now and also create a BSA for those who want to protect against the inconvenience of hatching delay.

Edited May 26, 2013 by skauble

[HeatherMarie]

BSAs to prevent and heal sickness might be a simpler (and cooler) way to help with view bombing issues.

I have to agree with this.

 

In *general*, I haven't seen a huge upswing in viewbombing, at least not being mentioned on the forums. Is it there? Sure, it always is. But is it SO much BIGGER of a problem that it needs a whole whitelist/referrer/etc thing put in place to combat it? No, I don't think so. (And for "viewbombings" that have been happening in the past few days, the majority of people seem to forget that new releases are *always* more vulnerable to high stats and sickness because *tons* more users are in the fansites in general).

 

I just don't see a huge need for this. And it would be a pain, frankly. If I turn this on, ny dragons can't get any views except from sites I specifically put in the "whitelist"... Okay, well I hardly ever use any other site except for AoND, so that's the only site I put in my whitelist. What if an occasion comes around where I've forgotten about an egg (it happens), and it's seriously-about-to-die time, and I NEED to shove it into as many ERs as possible for it to live? By the time I change my whitelist to include all those ERs, the egg will be dead anyways.

And what about ALL those users who post about going on vacation or not having access to the internet for a bit, and would someone PLEASE scroll-sit or put their dragons in hatcheries for them? Kinda hard to take care of someone else's dragons if, say, the only site they have whitelisted is one you need a log-in for.

 

With BSAs in the works to not only "heal" sickness but to *prevent* it for some amount of time, I really see no reason for anything like this. The BSAs will do the job just fine.

[whitebaron]

Adding to DEs post:

 

 

First thing you learn in any web security workshop:

cookies and referrers can be easily faked, only trust them as far as you can throw them.

Edited May 26, 2013 by whitebaron

[Pokemonfan13]

I absolutely support this. Even if stuff can be faked, I doubt many viewbombers would bother to do it, or even know how to. If nothing else it would severely cut down on the number of successful viewbombings.

 

 

What would be extremely useful would be the ability to add a site to the whitelist, but then uncheck it or something. Basically I'm thinking about neglected makers here [and people who use one or two sites regularly, but sometimes use a third or fourth when they want to get lots of views but don't wan those extras permanently on their whitelist because those four together could be enough to viewbomb], so they don't have to add sites and them remove them, only to have to add them again later. Basically you would have a list of your added sites, each with a checkbox. Checked is whitelisted, unchecked is not. And you'd have a way to remove a site from the list completely.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[pinkgothic]

I don't intend to be a kill joy, but referrers can be spoofed and very easily with various addons and technically all web debuggers. It is also how people can often get their accounts hacked by hackers.

 

Adding to DEs post:

 

 

First thing you learn in any web security workshop:

cookies and referrers can be easily faked, only trust them as far as you can throw them.

 

...yes? You'll notice I mentioned referer spoofing in my first post. ^_~

 

Referers being spoofable with web developer tools is not relevant for this suggestion - or a deep misunderstanding what they can be spoofed for (namely the person wanting to do the spoofing, and no one else).

 

Why? Well:

 

We're not concerned about individual people who spoof their referer. We're concerned about individual people who try to get many other people to unknowingly participate in viewbombing (e.g. by putting eggs on fansites).

 

Meanwhile, third-party referer spoofing beyond blanking is simply not possible (otherwise, [citation needed]; it would also be very useful for me to know), unless your victims have a thoroughly compromised machine and you genuinely want to use that to viewbomb someone on Dragon Cave - and the few people who can get into many PCs reliably in this day and age are much more interested in your bank account or extorting websites by threatening to DDoS them.

 

I feel reasonably secure in this statement since in my time in IT security (I did do this for a living for three years of my life (for a global player and a project with PayPal levels of deliberately paranoid security)), I didn't come across anything that would allow third-party referer spoofing... but if you do know a way, let me know the details, please (in PM if you're worried?). At the very least, it would be good to know for future stuff. I'd be grateful.

 

BSAs to prevent and heal sickness might be a simpler (and cooler) way to help with view bombing issues.

 

Yeah, that's also a cool idea.

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think that the simplest solution is to either remove or greatly delay the death part of sickness.  When an egg gets sick it has that message at the top of the scroll and a link to the page about sickness, I believe.  That page could explain that it takes eggs that have been sick longer to hatch - the longer they're sick, the more time it will take.

 

Also pretty cool!

 

Can you two make your own threads about it, maybe? I definitely don't want your ideas going under.

 

What if an occasion comes around where I've forgotten about an egg (it happens), and it's seriously-about-to-die time, and I NEED to shove it into as many ERs as possible for it to live? By the time I change my whitelist to include all those ERs, the egg will be dead anyways.

And what about ALL those users who post about going on vacation or not having access to the internet for a bit, and would someone PLEASE scroll-sit or put their dragons in hatcheries for them? Kinda hard to take care of someone else's dragons if, say, the only site they have whitelisted is one you need a log-in for.

 

Why not just turn the feature off for those timeframes? Just a quick toggle. No need to add or remove domains.

 

What would be extremely useful would be the ability to add a site to the whitelist, but then uncheck it or something.  Basically I'm thinking about neglected makers here [and people who use one or two sites regularly, but sometimes use a third or fourth when they want to get lots of views but don't wan those extras permanently on their whitelist because those four together could be enough to viewbomb], so they don't have to add sites and them remove them, only to have to add them again later.  Basically you would have a list of your added sites, each with a checkbox.  Checked is whitelisted, unchecked is not.  And you'd have a way to remove a site from the list completely.

 

Ooh. That also sounds interesting. Not sure if that makes handling the settings page needlessly complex, though? (As in, genuinely not sure.)

Edited May 26, 2013 by pinkgothic

[DarkEternity]

I am talking about your proposal which will limit the number of UV obtaininable from a whitelisted website but completely falls short in preventing the 15x view limit. Once you have a ref faker, you can then multiply the number of views by 15. The fact that the 15x view limit exists is most obvious when creating a neglected dragon. Once an egg gets onto a website, like it will, a person would be able to spoof their referrer and still be able to kill an egg because their referrer is spoofed and counts towards the view limit.

 

How on earth is referrer spoofing not possible with a third party when I am able to do that and replay HTTP requests with the same header/etc.?

 

Also, to prove the point against:

The only way for a malicious user to prevent the referer being sent to Dragon Cave for a third person is to reroute the click through a redirection service, i.e. by linking to (instead of to the dragon's view page on dragcave.net) to another site (e.g. example.com/view/dragoncode) which then silently redirects you to the view page. There is no way (that I'm aware of) of a malicious user faking the referer to pretend to be from a specific other place for a third person. (They can fake it for themselves, by simply telling a suitably equipped browser (example) to send a fake referer, but that's not going to get any viewbombing very far

I installed ref control and proceeded to visit one of my own dragons:

The screenshot is from a web debugger. I am not using it to manipulate the header, but it can be manipulated if you know stuff (I don't but it's possible.) The web debugger can see the information/data sent to the server and the reply received.

 

You can see that the referrer is indeed being faked. It does not just affect me, but is being sent to Dragoncave's server. As a short example of how referrer detection is inadequate, for a short period I am reliably informed that it was possible to grab multiclutches or indeed eggs in the AP backlog after teleport was implemented by faking the referrer. This is why the additional measure of adding a 8 digit alphanumeric code was added to the AP URL string of caught eggs, I believe. Because why add said code? It's a further security measure.

 

Between this suggestion and the white 'heal' BSA I trust the BSA more. One of these suggestions should be implemented, however.

Edited May 26, 2013 by DarkEternity

[pinkgothic]

I am talking about your proposal which will limit the number of UV obtaininable from a whitelisted website but completely falls short in preventing the 15x view limit. Once you have a ref faker, you can then multiply the number of views by 15. The fact that the 15x view limit exists is most obvious when creating a neglected dragon. Once an egg gets onto a website, like it will, a person would be able to spoof their referrer and still be able to kill an egg because their referrer is spoofed and counts towards the view limit.

 

How on earth is referrer spoofing not possible with a third party when I am able to do that and replay HTTP requests with the same header/etc.?

 

Also, to prove the point against:

 

I installed ref control and proceeded to visit one of my own dragons:

You can see that the referrer is indeed being faked. It does not just affect me, but is being sent to Dragoncave's server. As a short example of how referrer detection is inadequate, for a short period I am reliably informed that it was possible to grab multiclutches from the AP after teleport was implemented by faking the referrer. This is why the additional measure of adding a 8 digit alphanumeric code was added to the AP URL string of caught eggs, I believe.

 

I'm confused what you're trying to argue? The 15x view limit is per IP, not per referer.

 

Do you know how to change the referer for someone else (= third party)? If you don't, this really isn't a problem. That's all I'm saying.

 

Yes, you are faking the referer, for your connection (which is precisely what I mean with "for you") - Dragon Cave assumes you are coming from somewhere you are not coming from. But you can't give more views to the dragon than you normally could.

 

You're misinterpreting what power that add-on gives you.

It doesn't limit the effectiveness of this suggestion at all.

Edited May 26, 2013 by pinkgothic

[DarkEternity]

Ok. For the record, when I won my CB Holly I proceeded to add as many views as possible. I managed to add about 30 000 from my own IP. Sure, it had a lot of UVs, but 15x UV does not apply per IP, I believe. At least it didn't when I added about 30 000 views.

 

The fact that the addon exists means that plenty of people could get around the limit and kill eggs regardless of the fact that it is implemented.

Edited May 26, 2013 by DarkEternity

[pinkgothic]

Ok. For the record, when I won my CB Holly I proceeded to add as many views as possible. I managed to add about 30 000 from my own IP.

 

Oh man. Then that's a bug in the per-IP view-throttling that's supposed to be in place. Did you report that?

 

Edit: Nope. Just me derping, it's not per-IP. It may still not be a problem, though, depending on other insights gathered (need your help! ).

Edited May 26, 2013 by pinkgothic

[DarkEternity]

Oh man. Then that's a bug in the per-IP view-throttling that's supposed to be in place. Did you report that?

I thought that was what it was supposed to be? Well I got it in 2010.

 

Wikia says:

For every unique view your dragon accumulates, it can receive a maximum 15 views.

It doesn't say anything about an IP limit. :s I always thought that when those of us made NDs as well and when we added views it seemed pretty effective...

 

Oh well if there is a per IP limit I support this suggestion

Edited May 26, 2013 by DarkEternity

[pinkgothic]

Hmm. Guess we should test that to be sure, though... I was genuinely always under the impression it was per-IP. Wanna hit me up and try this out on something on my scroll?

 

(Edit: Just in case this confuses someone - I'm not sure when the limit was added in. By circumstance, I know the limit was in place in August 2012, but the time before then is chiefly a blank for me. So I don't know if it should have been in place when DarkEternity did the CB Holly test. Hence wanting to test.)

Edited May 26, 2013 by pinkgothic

[DarkEternity]

Not really, too many viewbombings have happened recently /queasy. I believe NDer has an autoviewer though.

Edited May 26, 2013 by DarkEternity

[pinkgothic]

Not really, too many viewbombings have happened recently /queasy. I believe NDer has an autoviewer though.

I understand. I'll give it a try with another friend and report back!

[Rosedamai]

Oh well if there is a per IP limit I support this suggestion

I'm not sure about the IP limit, my bloodscales weren't gendering fast enough so I added about what.....500? views by opening another window and autorefreshing.