hm, the problem i see here is the following: lets assume the admins got little hints for quite a while, specced some players over aperiod of time and generally are sure one player cheats, BUT they have no striking evidence
you can sometimes even debated about a demo if its a real aimbotter or if the player is just really good
id like some people to tell me how a evidence on the internet should look like there is NO way to get 100 % proof evidence..
Minstrel_KnightThe truth and nothing but the truth...Join Date: 2002-11-21Member: 9562Banned
<!--QuoteBegin-surprise+Apr 4 2005, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (surprise @ Apr 4 2005, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> hm, the problem i see here is the following: lets assume the admins got little hints for quite a while, specced some players over aperiod of time and generally are sure one player cheats, BUT they have no striking evidence
you can sometimes even debated about a demo if its a real aimbotter or if the player is just really good
id like some people to tell me how a evidence on the internet should look like there is NO way to get 100 % proof evidence.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem stems from the fact that the evidence and the logical gymnastics used to justify the banning is so flawed that the CAL admin himself could be banned right now using the same reasoning.
If you find a solution to this problem, then you have solved the age old problem of inequites of court justice. Even our so-called systematically perfected justice system, ultimately, the fate of the defendant can rely on many unperfect and varying factors. For instance, the biggest bias is the judge himself. Regardless of his many years of experience and training and knowledge of the law, a judge is still human and still pervious to bias, human error, and reasonable doubt. Even more of a source of fallacy are eye-witnesses. Even today we still continue to use eye-witness testomony as damning evidence in a case, when, it has been factually proven that eye-witness testomony is ridden with bias, memory-time loss, and exaggeration. How does all of this relate to the situation at hand: Your CAL admin is your judge, your demo/submitter, your eye-witness. No matter what the evidence, the decision to be made will always be made much in the same way decisions are made in our courts of justice: by persons who are qualified to do so, but nonetheless are still persons, and are liable to human error.
<!--QuoteBegin-lynXij+Apr 3 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lynXij @ Apr 3 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CAL's bans aren't up for dispute, they are what they are. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted to emphasize reality. You guys got a response directly from cal regarding this, not much else to discuss.
<!--QuoteBegin-digz+Apr 4 2005, 02:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (digz @ Apr 4 2005, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lynXij+Apr 3 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lynXij @ Apr 3 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CAL's bans aren't up for dispute, they are what they are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted to emphasize reality. You guys got a response directly from cal regarding this, not much else to discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is plenty to discuss. That was just a statement of how the matter stands at this moment. If everyone just gave up and didn't question systems, progress would never come about.
All the accusations were in pubs. I forget who submitted the (****) demos, but he specifically said that I never hacked CAL, nor was I ever hacking while in FTA.
jmmsbnd, Fraid I wasn't hacking. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taken from the Cal website in the rules section <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->8.30 Cheating
Anyone who has been caught cheating at any time from May 2001 forward, whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches or anything may be suspended from any CAL event. Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL. CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point. If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
That pretty much says it all, there is no debating it - <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The best "proof" CAL had was the s4 ****, and I've been reading PAGES of all of you guys saying that it means ****.
I find it quite amusing that on the cal-ns main page, there was a request for applicants for an ns anticheat admin who had an extensive background in the creation, use, and detection of hacks. If any players stepped forward for that position, how would it make them look? "Yes, I know all about hacks in competitive ns, here are my qualifications..."
<!--QuoteBegin-slipknotkthx+Apr 4 2005, 12:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (slipknotkthx @ Apr 4 2005, 12:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Minstrel Knight+Apr 4 2005, 09:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Minstrel Knight @ Apr 4 2005, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CAL should only allow disputes to be made based on matches due to the recent fiasco with fake hacking demos of jmmsbnd007.
The standard of proof which Hsu used to ban Photek is such that Hsu himself would be banned from CAL in an impartial application of his rules.
If anyone cares to my knowledge Photek never cheated in a match or scrim, Anubis might very well have seeing as he disappeared shortly after the s4 pige0n demo of him was released, and I know that I personally haven't used a cheat since the original team fortress. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> "Fake demos"? The demo showed jmmsbnd with a s4 pigeon. It was from a marines point of view, yeah it didn't show much. Of course he denies it. And I have asked milk, they aren't edited. But say what you will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course they're not edited, by the way, I got some prime real estate (including a bridge!) I'd like to sell to you! Get over it folks, I refuted this BS a long time ago. It was just a lame attempt from a certain person or two to start something. Oh, and lol, my config has been read-only ever since I came back to NS (1 year anniversary late april, I'm sure you'll all send me presents).
All the accusations were in pubs. I forget who submitted the (****) demos, but he specifically said that I never hacked CAL, nor was I ever hacking while in FTA.
jmmsbnd, Fraid I wasn't hacking. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taken from the Cal website in the rules section <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->8.30 Cheating
Anyone who has been caught cheating at any time from May 2001 forward, whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches or anything may be suspended from any CAL event. Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL. CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point. If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
That pretty much says it all, there is no debating it - <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The best "proof" CAL had was the s4 ****, and I've been reading PAGES of all of you guys saying that it means ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, actually, their best proof was that blatant aimbotting in the pub demo.
<!--QuoteBegin-digz+Apr 4 2005, 02:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (digz @ Apr 4 2005, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lynXij+Apr 3 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lynXij @ Apr 3 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CAL's bans aren't up for dispute, they are what they are. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted to emphasize reality. You guys got a response directly from cal regarding this, not much else to discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, in a hypothetical situation. If more and more players were banned under the same 'guily until proven innocent' clause. Without really any closure, they would just have to accept it as it is? That's not fair.
<!--QuoteBegin-whenyougofowards+Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (whenyougofowards @ Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, in a hypothetical situation. If more and more players were banned under the same 'guily until proven innocent' clause. Without really any closure, they would just have to accept it as it is? That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts.
So what your implying is that CAL really dosen't have to justify any of their decisions and can be completely biased if they see fit? I think that is the point myslef, and amnesiac and a couple others are trying to make...
<!--QuoteBegin-digz+Apr 4 2005, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (digz @ Apr 4 2005, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-whenyougofowards+Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (whenyougofowards @ Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, in a hypothetical situation. If more and more players were banned under the same 'guily until proven innocent' clause. Without really any closure, they would just have to accept it as it is? That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't say much more than that. Only the consequences from this could be great. For example teams may degrade in skill, the league could become less fun and unpopular or even collapse.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thaldarin+Apr 4 2005, 05:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thaldarin @ Apr 4 2005, 05:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-digz+Apr 4 2005, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (digz @ Apr 4 2005, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-whenyougofowards+Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (whenyougofowards @ Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, in a hypothetical situation. If more and more players were banned under the same 'guily until proven innocent' clause. Without really any closure, they would just have to accept it as it is? That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't say much more than that. Only the consequences from this could be great. For example teams may degrade in skill, the league could become less fun and unpopular or even collapse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, but allowing hackers to play is NOT a good way of raising the average skill level. I'm not claiming to know who was hacking and who wasn't or weather or not players deserve thier bans, but it goes without saying, the bans are made with the best possible intentions. Hacking should not be supported by CAL in any way shape of form.
<!--QuoteBegin-PsiRedEyexxii+Apr 4 2005, 12:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PsiRedEyexxii @ Apr 4 2005, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Plenty of admins have to use things such as blackwalls and Aimbots, so they know what to look for exactly when a demo or screenshot is sent to them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But, with the admins being players they are subject to the same rules. If a player was banned for cheating outside of a match they shouldn't be treated any different.
This would make the following demo: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, actually, their best proof was that blatant aimbotting in the pub demo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Dismissible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Emanon+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emanon @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But, with the admins being players they are subject to the same rules. If a player was banned for cheating outside of a match they shouldn't be treated any different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is an absolute and irrefutable difference between a server admin or a dev or whoever using an exploit or hack in the manner described here:<!--QuoteBegin-PsiRedEyexxii+Apr 4 2005, 12:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PsiRedEyexxii @ Apr 4 2005, 12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> PM Plenty of admins have to use things such as blackwalls and Aimbots, so they know what to look for exactly when a demo or screenshot is sent to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->and someone using one while playing the game to win, and that is their <b>intent</b>. That's so incredibly fundamental yet its being completely ignored in your argument. It's why CAL doesn't ban soley on the presence of pige0n, and it's why Zunni shut-down the recent I&S suggestion of having NS not allow a player with it to connect to a server.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-MrGunner+Apr 3 2005, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrGunner @ Apr 3 2005, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I mean all else fails you can convert incriminating parts of the demos to avi and post them somewhere. Is it so much to ask to see proof of some sort as opposed to one person getting railroaded by certain people that didn't seem to like him in the first place. I'm all for people getting banned for hacking but I'm going to give them the benifit of doubt until I see conclusive evidence. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ^^
Hell if it comes to it you can blur names of the kills to prevent ID yada yada yada
Give the masses proof, lest they eventually find y'all corrupt and exercise the right to overthrow illegitimate rule
<!--QuoteBegin-Emanon+Apr 5 2005, 04:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emanon @ Apr 5 2005, 04:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-PsiRedEyexxii+Apr 4 2005, 12:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PsiRedEyexxii @ Apr 4 2005, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Plenty of admins have to use things such as blackwalls and Aimbots, so they know what to look for exactly when a demo or screenshot is sent to them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But, with the admins being players they are subject to the same rules. If a player was banned for cheating outside of a match they shouldn't be treated any different. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What a brilliant loophole in the CAL rules. As CAL say, bans are not up for dispute, so they have to ban theirselves immedietly.
Isn't it nice when you see a failing system? (Communism)
<!--QuoteBegin-JazzX+Apr 4 2005, 11:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JazzX @ Apr 4 2005, 11:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Emanon+Apr 4 2005, 10:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emanon @ Apr 4 2005, 10:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But, with the admins being players they are subject to the same rules. If a player was banned for cheating outside of a match they shouldn't be treated any different.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is an absolute and irrefutable difference between a server admin or a dev or whoever using an exploit or hack in the manner described here:<!--QuoteBegin-PsiRedEyexxii+Apr 4 2005, 12:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PsiRedEyexxii @ Apr 4 2005, 12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> PM Plenty of admins have to use things such as blackwalls and Aimbots, so they know what to look for exactly when a demo or screenshot is sent to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->and someone using one while playing the game to win, and that is their <b>intent</b>. That's so incredibly fundamental yet its being completely ignored in your argument. It's why CAL doesn't ban soley on the presence of pige0n, and it's why Zunni shut-down the recent I&S suggestion of having NS not allow a player with it to connect to a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My argument stands as the intent of the accused isn't known. Also the CAL rules dont say anything about allowing any type of player whether they are an admin or not to use them at any time for any reason, the rule itself it quoted many times in this thread. I'll quote them again: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8.30 Cheating
Anyone who has been caught cheating at <u><b> any time from May 2001 forward, </b></u>whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches<u> <b>or anything</b> </u>may be suspended from any CAL event. Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL. CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point. If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no relation to any of the players involved but I would like the rules that everyone is forced to follow, enforced. The rules are there and clearly stated.
pige0n issue has nothing to do with my argument as I think it isn’t creditable.
<!--QuoteBegin-Emanon+Apr 5 2005, 09:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Emanon @ Apr 5 2005, 09:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My argument stands as the intent of the accused isn't known. Also the CAL rules dont say anything about allowing any type of player whether they are an admin or not to use them at any time for any reason, the rule itself it quoted many times in this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The intent of the accused hackers might not be known, but the intent of the Dev or Server Admin is and that's what is relevant to my point. Their intent is to know how the cheat works so they know what to look for, or so they can try to create a method so that the exploit will no longer work. They aren't doing it to increase their Kills Per Death, or to win, and almost anyone who can legitimately explain their use of an exploit/hack in this manner does so in as closed of an environment as possible. Either in a Local Server by themselves or with some bots, or with others of standing similar to their own who know what they are doing, and whey they are doing it.
You highlighted "or anything" from that rule, and I'll just point out that the next phrase is "may be suspended" not "will be suspended". And since we are pulling out the CAL rules, I'll just say that the second to last rule in that list is a Commen Sense Clause, which this argument kind of flies in the face of.
<!--QuoteBegin-Thaldarin+Apr 4 2005, 11:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Thaldarin @ Apr 4 2005, 11:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-digz+Apr 4 2005, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (digz @ Apr 4 2005, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-whenyougofowards+Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (whenyougofowards @ Apr 4 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, in a hypothetical situation. If more and more players were banned under the same 'guily until proven innocent' clause. Without really any closure, they would just have to accept it as it is? That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't say much more than that. Only the consequences from this could be great. For example teams may degrade in skill, the league could become less fun and unpopular or even collapse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes, and thats why admins usually are very careful with bans... they cant ban to the right and to the left, that doesnt work...
Anyone who has been caught cheating at any time from May 2001 forward, whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches or anything may be suspended from any CAL event. <b>Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL.</b> <b>CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point.</b> If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. <b>CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players</b>. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't news that CAL bends its own rules - not just CAL-NS. Suspension lengths and enforcement are top of the list.
In-between the lines between the first bolded sentence and the second: CAL admins decide what kind of evidence is admissible and whether or not it is notable. CAL admins make the final decisions.
After the second: CAL admins may review cases, but may choose not to.
The last bolded sentence has a ferric taste to it.
This section and the additional common sense clause basically allows the CAL admins to exercise their power without being held accountable for any of their actions. They may say they've reviewed a case without even looking at it. They may not have conclusive evidence (if any at all) and claim that they do. The system is open to corruption.
I propose a petition for an inquiry into the CAL-NS administrators' handling of this case (Photek, March 2005) and mosis's case in November 2003.
Minstrel_KnightThe truth and nothing but the truth...Join Date: 2002-11-21Member: 9562Banned
A petition is worthless the only thing worth doing is sending an email to the people with the title operations on this page. <a href='http://www.caleague.com/?page=organizers' target='_blank'>click</a> If enough people did that and complained about how CAL ns is being run something might actually happen.
You're a <span style='color:orange'>mistaken</span> if you're going to complain about Hsu. He's credited with making CAL-NS what it is right now. I garuntee that you'd see at least 3 or 4 times as many people line up to support him than you'd see complain about him.
<span style='color:orange'>Be carefull of the name calling.</span> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
and THEN when your on the exact other side think back <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
lets assume the admins got little hints for quite a while, specced some players over aperiod of time and generally are sure one player cheats, BUT they have no striking evidence
you can sometimes even debated about a demo if its a real aimbotter or if the player is just really good
id like some people to tell me how a evidence on the internet should look like
there is NO way to get 100 % proof evidence..
lets assume the admins got little hints for quite a while, specced some players over aperiod of time and generally are sure one player cheats, BUT they have no striking evidence
you can sometimes even debated about a demo if its a real aimbotter or if the player is just really good
id like some people to tell me how a evidence on the internet should look like
there is NO way to get 100 % proof evidence.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem stems from the fact that the evidence and the logical gymnastics used to justify the banning is so flawed that the CAL admin himself could be banned right now using the same reasoning.
How does all of this relate to the situation at hand:
Your CAL admin is your judge, your demo/submitter, your eye-witness. No matter what the evidence, the decision to be made will always be made much in the same way decisions are made in our courts of justice: by persons who are qualified to do so, but nonetheless are still persons, and are liable to human error.
Quoted to emphasize reality. You guys got a response directly from cal regarding this, not much else to discuss.
Quoted to emphasize reality. You guys got a response directly from cal regarding this, not much else to discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is plenty to discuss. That was just a statement of how the matter stands at this moment. If everyone just gave up and didn't question systems, progress would never come about.
Funbags aimbotted in pubs as well.
All the accusations were in pubs. I forget who submitted the (****) demos, but he specifically said that I never hacked CAL, nor was I ever hacking while in FTA.
jmmsbnd, Fraid I wasn't hacking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taken from the Cal website in the rules section
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->8.30 Cheating
Anyone who has been caught cheating at any time from May 2001 forward, whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches or anything may be suspended from any CAL event. Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL. CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point. If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
That pretty much says it all, there is no debating it - <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best "proof" CAL had was the s4 ****, and I've been reading PAGES of all of you guys saying that it means ****.
The standard of proof which Hsu used to ban Photek is such that Hsu himself would be banned from CAL in an impartial application of his rules.
If anyone cares to my knowledge Photek never cheated in a match or scrim, Anubis might very well have seeing as he disappeared shortly after the s4 pige0n demo of him was released, and I know that I personally haven't used a cheat since the original team fortress. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Fake demos"? The demo showed jmmsbnd with a s4 pigeon. It was from a marines point of view, yeah it didn't show much. Of course he denies it. And I have asked milk, they aren't edited. But say what you will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course they're not edited, by the way, I got some prime real estate (including a bridge!) I'd like to sell to you! Get over it folks, I refuted this BS a long time ago. It was just a lame attempt from a certain person or two to start something. Oh, and lol, my config has been read-only ever since I came back to NS (1 year anniversary late april, I'm sure you'll all send me presents).
Funbags aimbotted in pubs as well.
All the accusations were in pubs. I forget who submitted the (****) demos, but he specifically said that I never hacked CAL, nor was I ever hacking while in FTA.
jmmsbnd, Fraid I wasn't hacking.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taken from the Cal website in the rules section
<!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->8.30 Cheating
Anyone who has been caught cheating at any time from May 2001 forward, whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches or anything may be suspended from any CAL event. Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL. CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point. If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
That pretty much says it all, there is no debating it - <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The best "proof" CAL had was the s4 ****, and I've been reading PAGES of all of you guys saying that it means ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, actually, their best proof was that blatant aimbotting in the pub demo.
Quoted to emphasize reality. You guys got a response directly from cal regarding this, not much else to discuss. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, in a hypothetical situation. If more and more players were banned under the same 'guily until proven innocent' clause. Without really any closure, they would just have to accept it as it is?
That's not fair.
That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts.
That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't say much more than that. Only the consequences from this could be great. For example teams may degrade in skill, the league could become less fun and unpopular or even collapse.
That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't say much more than that. Only the consequences from this could be great. For example teams may degrade in skill, the league could become less fun and unpopular or even collapse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, but allowing hackers to play is NOT a good way of raising the average skill level. I'm not claiming to know who was hacking and who wasn't or weather or not players deserve thier bans, but it goes without saying, the bans are made with the best possible intentions. Hacking should not be supported by CAL in any way shape of form.
But, with the admins being players they are subject to the same rules. If a player was banned for cheating outside of a match they shouldn't be treated any different.
This would make the following demo:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, actually, their best proof was that blatant aimbotting in the pub demo.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dismissible.
There is an absolute and irrefutable difference between a server admin or a dev or whoever using an exploit or hack in the manner described here:<!--QuoteBegin-PsiRedEyexxii+Apr 4 2005, 12:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PsiRedEyexxii @ Apr 4 2005, 12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> PM Plenty of admins have to use things such as blackwalls and Aimbots, so they know what to look for exactly when a demo or screenshot is sent to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->and someone using one while playing the game to win, and that is their <b>intent</b>. That's so incredibly fundamental yet its being completely ignored in your argument. It's why CAL doesn't ban soley on the presence of pige0n, and it's why Zunni shut-down the recent I&S suggestion of having NS not allow a player with it to connect to a server.
^^
Hell if it comes to it you can blur names of the kills to prevent ID yada yada yada
Give the masses proof, lest they eventually find y'all corrupt and exercise the right to overthrow illegitimate rule
But, with the admins being players they are subject to the same rules. If a player was banned for cheating outside of a match they shouldn't be treated any different. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What a brilliant loophole in the CAL rules. As CAL say, bans are not up for dispute, so they have to ban theirselves immedietly.
Isn't it nice when you see a failing system? (Communism)
There is an absolute and irrefutable difference between a server admin or a dev or whoever using an exploit or hack in the manner described here:<!--QuoteBegin-PsiRedEyexxii+Apr 4 2005, 12:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (PsiRedEyexxii @ Apr 4 2005, 12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> PM Plenty of admins have to use things such as blackwalls and Aimbots, so they know what to look for exactly when a demo or screenshot is sent to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->and someone using one while playing the game to win, and that is their <b>intent</b>. That's so incredibly fundamental yet its being completely ignored in your argument. It's why CAL doesn't ban soley on the presence of pige0n, and it's why Zunni shut-down the recent I&S suggestion of having NS not allow a player with it to connect to a server.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My argument stands as the intent of the accused isn't known. Also the CAL rules dont say anything about allowing any type of player whether they are an admin or not to use them at any time for any reason, the rule itself it quoted many times in this thread. I'll quote them again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->8.30 Cheating
Anyone who has been caught cheating at <u><b> any time from May 2001 forward, </b></u>whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches<u> <b>or anything</b> </u>may be suspended from any CAL event. Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL. CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point. If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no relation to any of the players involved but I would like the rules that everyone is forced to follow, enforced. The rules are there and clearly stated.
pige0n issue has nothing to do with my argument as I think it isn’t creditable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The intent of the accused hackers might not be known, but the intent of the Dev or Server Admin is and that's what is relevant to my point. Their intent is to know how the cheat works so they know what to look for, or so they can try to create a method so that the exploit will no longer work. They aren't doing it to increase their Kills Per Death, or to win, and almost anyone who can legitimately explain their use of an exploit/hack in this manner does so in as closed of an environment as possible. Either in a Local Server by themselves or with some bots, or with others of standing similar to their own who know what they are doing, and whey they are doing it.
You highlighted "or anything" from that rule, and I'll just point out that the next phrase is "may be suspended" not "will be suspended". And since we are pulling out the CAL rules, I'll just say that the second to last rule in that list is a Commen Sense Clause, which this argument kind of flies in the face of.
That's not fair. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doesnt matter if it fair tbh, because the reality is the CAL can run their competition any way they decide. Their rules, their league. Im not saying I agree or disagree with this, Im just stating the facts. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can't say much more than that. Only the consequences from this could be great. For example teams may degrade in skill, the league could become less fun and unpopular or even collapse. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yes, and thats why admins usually are very careful with bans...
they cant ban to the right and to the left, that doesnt work...
Anyone who has been caught cheating at any time from May 2001 forward, whether it be in pubs, LANs, scrims, matches or anything may be suspended from any CAL event. <b>Please be advised as to what evidence is permissible by CAL.</b> <b>CAL supervisors will review cases and players may be suspended for a period of not less than one year and is subject to review by CAL for readmission after that point.</b> If a player is caught cheating in a CAL match, their team shall forfeit the game, and the team will be suspended from league play until that member has been removed from the team. Any matches played with that player up to that point should have the losses overturned. If a member is caught cheating outside of a CAL match, the suspension shall be enforced on the player with no matches overturned. The computer system that you that you play from is not the responsibility of the Cyberathlete Amateur League. You are responsible for the system that you play from. If you allow others to use your computer(s) or you borrow/rent systems to play from, you need to ensure that they are cheat free prior to playing. It is impossible to trust a player who has been caught cheating on a pub to withstand the temptation to cheat when a title or prize is up for grabs. <b>CAL will not conduct witch hunts to try and find cheat violations against players</b>. If a team is scheduled to play a team with members on blacklists or watch sites, this should be reported to CAL a minimum of 5 days in advance so that an investigation may be conducted. Failure to request the investigation in advance will mean that the suspected individual will be allowed to play in the match. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't news that CAL bends its own rules - not just CAL-NS. Suspension lengths and enforcement are top of the list.
In-between the lines between the first bolded sentence and the second: CAL admins decide what kind of evidence is admissible and whether or not it is notable. CAL admins make the final decisions.
After the second: CAL admins may review cases, but may choose not to.
The last bolded sentence has a ferric taste to it.
This section and the additional common sense clause basically allows the CAL admins to exercise their power without being held accountable for any of their actions. They may say they've reviewed a case without even looking at it. They may not have conclusive evidence (if any at all) and claim that they do. The system is open to corruption.
I propose a petition for an inquiry into the CAL-NS administrators' handling of this case (Photek, March 2005) and mosis's case in November 2003.
If enough people did that and complained about how CAL ns is being run something might actually happen.
<span style='color:orange'>Be carefull of the name calling.</span> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
but if you cant stand it make your own league...
and THEN when your on the exact other side think back <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->