ns2bans.com - name and shame goes there, not here

1234689

Comments

  • MMZ_TorakMMZ_Torak Members Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 3770Posts: 1,866 Advanced user
    ma$$a$$ter wrote: »
    I took it as a "given" that everyone knew this player, and I take responsibility for not making it clearer

    I think that is Therius' point in a nutshell. The more this mod spreads the more the entire ban list will be taken as given. Careful attention must be paid to not take anything as given. Otherwise, McCarthyism ensues.

    I applaud your efforts; however it is lazy admins that can destroy all your hard work if you allow too many submissions as given. These lazy admins will install the mod and people will possibly get wrongly banned across multiple, or even a majority of servers if your mod becomes pervasive. Attention to detail now will only strengthen the mod later.

    And let me say once again, I think what you are doing is a Good Thing™. Just be careful; remember what Peter's Uncle Ben said...
    Auto correct, I am tired of your shirt!
    shonan
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Posts: 4,381 Advanced user
    Exactly what MMZ_Torak says.
    I do think that was Therius his/her point.

    There is evidence of, for example, inv joe. SO lets just link it to the steam id and be done with it. :)

    Leaving a single ID on the list can create doubt with the player part of the community. At best this just gives NS2 bad player > player advertising. Could be worse.
    Effort to grab a vid from a well known cheater & link it is next to nothing compared to what we can potentially lose.
    NS2
    Old/resigned Dutch Translation Lead. Give feedback about the translation, or help improve by clicking: Current NS2 Dutch translation project. Dutch players apply!
    NS2 Server Maintenance Manual
    WorkshopBackup Manual (WSB Server)
    Ingame: DCDarkling
    'DCDs Steam Workshop', for your NS2 X-Hairs and Viewmodel Weapon mods
    Viewmodels are the ones you hold in your hand, not the one shown in the world!

    Old NS2 Stuff:
    Marine Commander Guide NS2
    Alien Commander Guide NS2
    NS2 Mentor Program
    Old NS1 stuff:
    'Infested Pack v0.6' for models & props
    Darklings Guide to Commanding Version 1.001
  • shonanshonan Members, Reinforced - Shadow Join Date: 2013-01-28 Member: 182562Posts: 426
    Exactly what MMZ_Torak says.
    I do think that was Therius his/her point.

    There is evidence of, for example, inv joe. SO lets just link it to the steam id and be done with it. :)

    Leaving a single ID on the list can create doubt with the player part of the community. At best this just gives NS2 bad player > player advertising. Could be worse.
    Effort to grab a vid from a well known cheater & link it is next to nothing compared to what we can potentially lose.
    I just hope people will put proper thought into who is deemed bannable, so good speaker system wont result in wallhack ban etc/..
    Steam Lagshop :: Natural Selection 2
    http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/browse/?appid=4920
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Posts: 4,381 Advanced user
    How id this go from 'players can see the list & it should have evidence on all or players lose trust and give bad advertisement' to 'players get to ban'.
    Give them a opinion sure. But lets not let a player ban.

    So many have no clue. Hell, I had no clue for a very very long time on how to spot cheats and I am damn sure I made big mistakes because of it in the past.
    NS2
    Old/resigned Dutch Translation Lead. Give feedback about the translation, or help improve by clicking: Current NS2 Dutch translation project. Dutch players apply!
    NS2 Server Maintenance Manual
    WorkshopBackup Manual (WSB Server)
    Ingame: DCDarkling
    'DCDs Steam Workshop', for your NS2 X-Hairs and Viewmodel Weapon mods
    Viewmodels are the ones you hold in your hand, not the one shown in the world!

    Old NS2 Stuff:
    Marine Commander Guide NS2
    Alien Commander Guide NS2
    NS2 Mentor Program
    Old NS1 stuff:
    'Infested Pack v0.6' for models & props
    Darklings Guide to Commanding Version 1.001
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    ScardyBob wrote: »
    Good points as well. We should probably put together a 'what to look for' guide to distinguishing between cheaters and really good players (e.g. aim, movement, awareness, etc). Could even add in a series of first person vids from both hackers and really good players and have people 'tested' to see if they can distinguish between them.

    If guidelines are provided they MUST be kept internally.
    Providing the steps to follow to avoid being caught publicly sounds like a terrible idea to me, making our job spotting said persons that much more difficult.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    Calego
  • ma$$a$$terma$$a$$ter Members Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165651Posts: 306
    edited April 2013
    Give them a opinion sure. But lets not let a player ban.

    I have a hard time following your posts Darkling, I'm guessing you combine too many thoughts into one?


    Players can't ban, but they get a say - to prevent absolute authority by the admins/judges the players are given the ability to cause re-voting by the admins. I won't throw out the specific way this is done or handled because it's still a work in progress.

    One thing we also added was the ability of the server operators themselves to "white list" ID's. They can browse the list and if they decide that they don't agree with one of the submissions on the list, they can "white list" that ID on their server, removing it from the banned ID's for them.

    As for the listed ID's that were not approved , why not display them? Why not show the good, the bad and the undecided? If anything, maybe showing all will help some improve their choice on who they call "hackusations" on, and lessen the over all dismissal of skill for cheats. I think it could even potentially make better submissions.

    @Scardybob- would love to see something like that up on the internal message board - something the admins can discuss.

    http://www.ns2bans.com
    Record suspected cheaters and game abusers, submit your video to be reviewed for banning across multiple servers.
  • ToadvineToadvine Members Join Date: 2012-10-15 Member: 162405Posts: 31
    Let the individual servers do the banning. Having some kind of overshadowing ban clan is asking for more trouble than its worth imo.

    Blatant hacking is one thing, but how will "trolling" be gauged. If I talk smack to people ingame should I fear being banned universally? If I recycle the base and people don't agree with me should I fear not being able to play on most pub servers? Just my opinion (which has probably been brought up already but I didn't read all 6 pages)
  • ma$$a$$terma$$a$$ter Members Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165651Posts: 306
    edited April 2013
    Let the individual servers do the banning.
    Individual servers choose to participate
    Blatant hacking is one thing, but how will "trolling" be gauged.
    blatant and over the top "as if it's a second job" - Common sense is applied.
    If I talk smack to people in game should I fear being banned universally?
    No.
    If I recycle the base and people don't agree with me should I fear not being able to play on most pub servers?
    No, unless your`re jumping from server to server just to specifically do it.
    Just my opinion (which has probably been brought up already but I didn't read all 6 pages)
    ok.
    http://www.ns2bans.com
    Record suspected cheaters and game abusers, submit your video to be reviewed for banning across multiple servers.
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Posts: 4,381 Advanced user
    @Ironhorse
    I myself am not worried, I am informed about the biggest NS2 cheater we have. But not everyone who will see the lists will be informed of the person.
    So yes.. I would like to know that there are some vids linked as evidence. I know you got plenty. Should make it all the easier.

    You could also make a column "UWE confirmed alt of known cheater" to bypass the evidence section for alts.
    That would be within your own rules & make it transparent?

    Dont get me wrong.. I like the ns2 bans idea. But I am definately for keeping maximum transparency to have the best publicity from player to player that we can get.
    NS2
    Old/resigned Dutch Translation Lead. Give feedback about the translation, or help improve by clicking: Current NS2 Dutch translation project. Dutch players apply!
    NS2 Server Maintenance Manual
    WorkshopBackup Manual (WSB Server)
    Ingame: DCDarkling
    'DCDs Steam Workshop', for your NS2 X-Hairs and Viewmodel Weapon mods
    Viewmodels are the ones you hold in your hand, not the one shown in the world!

    Old NS2 Stuff:
    Marine Commander Guide NS2
    Alien Commander Guide NS2
    NS2 Mentor Program
    Old NS1 stuff:
    'Infested Pack v0.6' for models & props
    Darklings Guide to Commanding Version 1.001
  • amoralamoral Members Join Date: 2013-01-03 Member: 177250Posts: 1,331 Advanced user
    two things, firstly, one big thing regarding cursory evidence for known cheaters... catching the wrong fish in the net... i can very easily imagine a hacker spoofing someone elses name, that person getting tarnished and shoddy proof being used to ban the wrong steamid. secondly, i think you should add some form of commentingfor each evidence, so that for and against can be debated. someone might miss evidence that would have convinced them otherwise, and the public at large should have input into the matter... like the good representative from dc.

    for example, i was browsing the list, and under pending was a video of a suspected wallhack. now, im no expert, but part if the video has the guy shooting two shotgun shots at the wall where the skulk was highlighted in a wallhacking overlay. i dont care how bad you are, you dont shoot the wall twice in the same spot for no.reason. this video received 3 rejects. i would post a comment quesfioning how someone would explain it.
  • amoralamoral Members Join Date: 2013-01-03 Member: 177250Posts: 1,331 Advanced user
    Res wrote: »
    amoral wrote: »
    ... i can very easily imagine a hacker spoofing someone elses name, that person getting tarnished and shoddy proof being used to ban the wrong steamid. .


    Not even possible. Using someone else's name does not give you their steamid as well.... I'm pretty sure they said that the video needs to show the steamid of the person in question from the console as well.

    and my point may not have come across. player a is innocent, player b is a hacker. b spoofs a's name until people are unsure of who is actually playing in any given instance. but that name is now associated with hacking. a gets recorded playing really well, and due to the notoriety of the name a and b were both using, the proof is rubberstamped without people giving it too close a look. thus an innocent player might slip through the cracks if each piece of evidence isnt weighed blind. textbook bias, with all the flaws associated.
  • ResRes Members Join Date: 2003-08-27 Member: 20245Posts: 626
    edited April 2013
    amoral wrote: »

    and my point may not have come across. player a is innocent, player b is a hacker. b spoofs a's name until people are unsure of who is actually playing in any given instance. but that name is now associated with hacking. a gets recorded playing really well, and due to the notoriety of the name a and b were both using, the proof is rubberstamped without people giving it too close a look. thus an innocent player might slip through the cracks if each piece of evidence isnt weighed blind. textbook bias, with all the flaws associated.

    I'm pretty sure with the experience these admins have that they can tell the difference between someone hacking vs someone playing really good. Or at least they should be able to.

    Also, even if player b spoof's player a's name, they still won't have the same steamid. They care about steamid's, not about what the player is named.
    ma$$a$$ter
  • amoralamoral Members Join Date: 2013-01-03 Member: 177250Posts: 1,331 Advanced user
    Res wrote: »
    amoral wrote: »

    and my point may not have come across. player a is innocent, player b is a hacker. b spoofs a's name until people are unsure of who is actually playing in any given instance. but that name is now associated with hacking. a gets recorded playing really well, and due to the notoriety of the name a and b were both using, the proof is rubberstamped without people giving it too close a look. thus an innocent player might slip through the cracks if each piece of evidence isnt weighed blind. textbook bias, with all the flaws associated.

    I'm pretty sure with the experience these admins have that they can tell the difference between someone hacking vs someone playing really good. Or at least they should be able to.

    Also, even if player b spoof's player a's name, they still won't have the same steamid. They care about steamid's, not about what the player is named.

    this scenario is in direct response to the information that less substantial evidence was used against players who were already known generally to be hacking. they presumably take the steamid from the evidence.presented... and if the evidence is of the nonhacker, and the admins upvote the ban because its a notorious name, then the wrong steam id is banned. i dont know how to explain any clearer than i have.
  • TheriusTherius Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Join Date: 2009-03-06 Member: 66642Posts: 750 Advanced user
    [
    Res wrote: »
    amoral wrote: »

    and my point may not have come across. player a is innocent, player b is a hacker. b spoofs a's name until people are unsure of who is actually playing in any given instance. but that name is now associated with hacking. a gets recorded playing really well, and due to the notoriety of the name a and b were both using, the proof is rubberstamped without people giving it too close a look. thus an innocent player might slip through the cracks if each piece of evidence isnt weighed blind. textbook bias, with all the flaws associated.

    I'm pretty sure with the experience these admins have that they can tell the difference between someone hacking vs someone playing really good. Or at least they should be able to.

    Also, even if player b spoof's player a's name, they still won't have the same steamid. They care about steamid's, not about what the player is named.

    You are still missing the point. Like in this particular player's case: as IronHorse mentioned, he has multiple Steam accounts, with some accounts being voted for a ban on the list with no substantial evidence, because the evidence is present in other videos of the same player with different SteamID. Now if someone else, for any reason, started to use his name in-game, according to this logic he would get a ban with no evidence needed, because people 'know' that this guy has multiple accounts and is a known hacker. The same could apply later in a different scenario including an innocent player who a hacker has been impersonating, if this same logic will be applied. The only cure is to have each and every SteamID have it's own evidence, with no cross-reference between different SteamIDs, no matter how good the reason to assume that the same person is playing with that ID.

    I have no idea how IronHorse is supposed to know where the IDs come from, him refraining to tell us so, but it's still not grounds for a ban with no evidence. If you track it down to an IP-address or something it could just be someone else playing on the same computer with his own SteamID. Or are you stalking him from behind his window?

    Paniohitus wrote: »
    What is happening with the bullet-count in that video? I watched and it appears the bullets are going up and down in ammount while shooting @the lerk. Is that a lag thing? Local he shoots below 14, and the server registerd less bullets?

    It's one of the flaws of the 1st person spectating system, bullet count can't keep up. I've actually seen people hell-bent on someone being a cheater accuse them of some kind of a "fire rate hack thingy" because of this, showcasing why the NS2 1st person spectating isn't really too suitable for gathering evidence with so many stubborn people taking everything on the screen with face value.

  • invTempestinvTempest Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue Join Date: 2003-03-02 Member: 14223Posts: 233
    amoral wrote: »
    and my point may not have come across. player a is innocent, player b is a hacker. b spoofs a's name until people are unsure of who is actually playing in any given instance. but that name is now associated with hacking. a gets recorded playing really well, and due to the notoriety of the name a and b were both using, the proof is rubberstamped without people giving it too close a look. thus an innocent player might slip through the cracks if each piece of evidence isnt weighed blind. textbook bias, with all the flaws associated.

    The system we use doesn't care about the name and the only way a given name would be associated with hacking would be if server admins or players deem it as such, which is totally irrelevant to the system we have that only displays NS2ID. The system won't care about the in game name as that isn't even recorded with the ban.

    Each submission, in my eyes at least, is given the same amount of scrutiny regardless of name. Now I won't pretend to say that the other admins view each submission in the same light and don't judge based on a users name but I'm pretty sure that all the admins take each report seriously and want to make sure they are doing the right thing for each and every submission.

    The basic system that we have setup here is designed to limit the amount that bias can influence the outcome. No one is going to get banned (via ns2bans.com server mod) due to someone else being banned while using your name. This isn't to say that server admins won't form a bias and be quick to ban you (poor inv. Joe!) due to the antics of one very sad individual, but that isn't something that we can control unless we have people hide all usernames from uploads (too much work).
    CEO of NS2Servers.
    image
    Looking for a high quality, overclocked NS2 server capable of running 20+? Check out ns2servers.com for more info.
  • CalegoCalego Members, NS2 Map Tester Join Date: 2013-01-24 Member: 181848Posts: 763 Advanced user
    I think we've reached a spot where everyone agrees that in order to maintain the idea of fairness. Every report submitted should have suficcient evidence in the form of a Video.

    Names or "known hackers" should have no special treatment simply because they're "known." There's a protocal to follow in order to keep the integrity of the system intact. I believe this is what @Therius is getting at. By bending the rules even slightly for a "special case" now, it will only be easier to continue bending the rules later.

    Obviously the system doesn't allow someone to just hop in and enter the ID of a "known hacker" but it does allow the submission of skimpy evidence, and then allowing the Admins' prior knowledge to effect their vote. This should be avoided.

    As long as we're all in agreement here there's no problem. It's just a little reminder of another of the pitfalls the concept might fall into.
    TheriusMMZ_TorakDC_DarklingIronHorse
  • TheriusTherius Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Join Date: 2009-03-06 Member: 66642Posts: 750 Advanced user
    Calego wrote: »
    I think we've reached a spot where everyone agrees that in order to maintain the idea of fairness. Every report submitted should have suficcient evidence in the form of a Video.

    Names or "known hackers" should have no special treatment simply because they're "known." There's a protocal to follow in order to keep the integrity of the system intact. I believe this is what @Therius is getting at. By bending the rules even slightly for a "special case" now, it will only be easier to continue bending the rules later.

    Obviously the system doesn't allow someone to just hop in and enter the ID of a "known hacker" but it does allow the submission of skimpy evidence, and then allowing the Admins' prior knowledge to effect their vote. This should be avoided.

    As long as we're all in agreement here there's no problem. It's just a little reminder of another of the pitfalls the concept might fall into.

    This is exactly what I'm getting at. I'm also worried about the lack of evidence in some videos about people who aren't stamped with the "known hacker" label, though how can I know which ones of these people have or haven't been labeled, which brings be back to the point that no one should be labeled in the first place. Also, are these "know hackers" all from the US, since I haven't run into any of them in European servers?

  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Posts: 4,983 mod
    edited April 2013
    Therius wrote: »
    Calego wrote: »
    I think we've reached a spot where everyone agrees that in order to maintain the idea of fairness. Every report submitted should have suficcient evidence in the form of a Video.

    Names or "known hackers" should have no special treatment simply because they're "known." There's a protocal to follow in order to keep the integrity of the system intact. I believe this is what @Therius is getting at. By bending the rules even slightly for a "special case" now, it will only be easier to continue bending the rules later.

    Obviously the system doesn't allow someone to just hop in and enter the ID of a "known hacker" but it does allow the submission of skimpy evidence, and then allowing the Admins' prior knowledge to effect their vote. This should be avoided.

    As long as we're all in agreement here there's no problem. It's just a little reminder of another of the pitfalls the concept might fall into.

    This is exactly what I'm getting at. I'm also worried about the lack of evidence in some videos about people who aren't stamped with the "known hacker" label, though how can I know which ones of these people have or haven't been labeled, which brings be back to the point that no one should be labeled in the first place. Also, are these "know hackers" all from the US, since I haven't run into any of them in European servers?
    Each ban is treated as a separate report, so there is no 'known hacker' bias in ns2bans. However, the whole purpose behind ns2bans is to deal with the serial and repeat hackers that we've been encountering in (apparently just US) NS2 servers. There are a few different ways to distinguish the same hacker over multiple steamID's, but the biggest are:
    - Same IP (the old 'my friend got on my computer/steamID and did the hacking' is so improbable to be laughable)
    - Same nickname (its not uncommon for a serial hacker to use the same nickname across multiple steamID's because the purpose of the serial hacking is to gain attention)
    - Same method of operation (e.g. serial hackers aren't employing different hacks with different steamIDs, but the same ones with each until those steamID's get mass banned)
    Post edited by ScardyBob on
  • lwflwf Members, Constellation Join Date: 2006-11-03 Member: 58311Posts: 486 Fully active user
    Same MO? I have no idea what that means.
  • TheriusTherius Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Join Date: 2009-03-06 Member: 66642Posts: 750 Advanced user
    ScardyBob wrote: »
    Each ban is treated as a separate report, so there is no 'known hacker' bias in ns2bans.

    I believe you skipped the entire conversation last page. The problem was that some videos currently on the site had no proof whatsoever (a 50-second video with nothing explicit happening), with 5 admins voting for an unanimous ban because they knew that this ID is one of many IDs used by person x, who is a known hacker. Massasster himself admitted that an exception was made concerning this person, that no additional evidence is needed since conclusive videos of the same person exist under different IDs. The problem is, if you start justifying this kind of behaviour with the argument of a "known hacker", you are going to start running into all kinds of trouble in the future.
    ScardyBob wrote: »
    - Same IP (the old 'my friend got on my computer/steamID and did the hacking' is so improbable to be laughable)

    You got it the wrong way around (see conversations on the previous page): I'm not saying a video showing conclusive evidence of hacks should not be grounds for a ban, I'm saying that a video from a "known hacker" with no evidence should not be grounds for a ban just because that person has been seen hacking with a different ID. I do not know what magic detective tricks you use to track these people down, but there is no certainty that a different ID is in the hands of the same person.

    There should be NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER to limit the bans to what's shown in the videos alone. If every ban is accompanied by a video showing CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of hacking being conducted with that ID, there is no room for error. There is nothing to lose here. The only con is that you need to wait for the hacker to hack with a specific ID before you can ban him, but if he's a hacker, that's going to happen sooner or later. If no hacking can be found from that ID, what right do you have to ban that person? Solely because the ID comes from the same IP? There is nothing conclusive there.
  • ma$$a$$terma$$a$$ter Members Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165651Posts: 306
    edited April 2013
    Therius,

    What was neat was at the time, no one knew who the other admins were. I kept that under wraps until I was sure each one would be ok with it being public. Now, having said nothing about each other, no communication about the videos was posted, no one knew what was being put up onto the site.

    The admins reviewed the videos just as they had been instructed, taking their time to look at each one and see for themselves. The exception that was made, was video that was not recently recorded was allowed to be entered. None of them were told "this is a known hacker" - in fact I believe the only instruction I gave to them was to log in , review what has been submitted and vote based on your experience and knowledge.

    The exception was we didn't use the BEST evidence, still the evidence that we did use was more than enough to pass the admins, even if you disagree. I have to side with them, they know worlds beyond me.

    I agree that , if there was a doubt in the validity of an ID and it's owner, It should never be posted for review. This is why we require that you get the SV_STATUS in the console recorded in your video.

    There is only one player that received this exception. I apologize if you do not agree with that exception, if you have never played on the USA side of the server pool you may not be aware of why this player got this special treatment.

    Each server operator now has the ability to "white list" what he or she feels does not provided enough evidence, they can do so directly through the ns2bans.json file.
    http://www.ns2bans.com
    Record suspected cheaters and game abusers, submit your video to be reviewed for banning across multiple servers.
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    edited April 2013
    Incase my point in my previous post was missed, Long story short : the scenario @therius describes won't exist.

    A video will always be posted with each id.
    There's no shortage of videos.
    Maybe the eu doesn't have this issue but I get at minimum a video a day. (just caught two more last night crashing a server)

    But what if you disagree with said video?
    If you as a public player disagree with the dozen admins, you can cast your vote of no confidence.

    I see no actual issue here, just repeated concerns.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • TheriusTherius Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Join Date: 2009-03-06 Member: 66642Posts: 750 Advanced user
    You have no doubt, yet you can't discuss the means by which you have made it certain? You just don't wake any kind of trust in me. And if the videos on that site were voted on with no bias against the player in question, then I must say that the admins' ability to discern between conclusive proof and suspicious behaviour wakes no trust in me either.

    However, since it seems very few people share my opinion here, I'm going to abandon this thread. I'm also going to hope that this mod will never gain wide acceptance with such loose foundations. Best of luck to you.
  • ma$$a$$terma$$a$$ter Members Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165651Posts: 306
    yeah was still working on my post - we are aware of the other ID's - but they were not listed, in fact they are not even in the system, I think there are more than 4 - but what I intended to say was the BEST evidence was not used, there is video of this player doing all sorts of nasty things, however the evidence USED was more than enough to show the fact - even if you disagree
    http://www.ns2bans.com
    Record suspected cheaters and game abusers, submit your video to be reviewed for banning across multiple servers.
    IronHorse
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Posts: 4,983 mod
    edited April 2013
    lwf wrote: »
    Same MO? I have no idea what that means.
    Ah, sorry, that stands for modus operandi (or methods of operation). I need to keep away from idioms :)
    Therius wrote: »
    ScardyBob wrote: »
    Each ban is treated as a separate report, so there is no 'known hacker' bias in ns2bans.

    I believe you skipped the entire conversation last page. The problem was that some videos currently on the site had no proof whatsoever (a 50-second video with nothing explicit happening), with 5 admins voting for an unanimous ban because they knew that this ID is one of many IDs used by person x, who is a known hacker. Massasster himself admitted that an exception was made concerning this person, that no additional evidence is needed since conclusive videos of the same person exist under different IDs. The problem is, if you start justifying this kind of behaviour with the argument of a "known hacker", you are going to start running into all kinds of trouble in the future.
    ScardyBob wrote: »
    - Same IP (the old 'my friend got on my computer/steamID and did the hacking' is so improbable to be laughable)

    You got it the wrong way around (see conversations on the previous page): I'm not saying a video showing conclusive evidence of hacks should not be grounds for a ban, I'm saying that a video from a "known hacker" with no evidence should not be grounds for a ban just because that person has been seen hacking with a different ID. I do not know what magic detective tricks you use to track these people down, but there is no certainty that a different ID is in the hands of the same person.

    There should be NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER to limit the bans to what's shown in the videos alone. If every ban is accompanied by a video showing CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE of hacking being conducted with that ID, there is no room for error. There is nothing to lose here. The only con is that you need to wait for the hacker to hack with a specific ID before you can ban him, but if he's a hacker, that's going to happen sooner or later. If no hacking can be found from that ID, what right do you have to ban that person? Solely because the ID comes from the same IP? There is nothing conclusive there.
    Are you talking about that nemesis video? If so, I think there is sufficient evidence in that video to prove some combo of aimbot and/or wallhack. Specifically:
    - Uncanny level of aim (the two lerk kills at roughly 0:52 and 1:04)
    - Almost zero waste of bullets to achieve those kills
    - Lack of situational awareness of the aliens until they are upon him/attacking him
    - The crosshair snapping/freaking out when fighting the fades (at 0:17 and 1:08)
    Particularly, its the combo of all these issues (e.g. a very accurate/efficient shooter with little apparent situational awareness and a propensity to have his crosshair snap to target) that proves hacking rather than any single instance.

    We can certainly debate and I welcome getting more explicit about what is needed to be conclusive evidence (e.g. is crosshair snapping good enough? How many instances of good aim/crosshair snapping/kills do you need? How do you distinguish between a very skilled player and a low skilled player that's hacking or a high skilled player that's hacking <- this does occur). I don't condone ban by proxy and obviously any admin who did so for that reason should rescind his vote. Tracking hackers via IP, nickname, or methods of operation is a valid and necessary exercise and its frequently not difficult to quickly find the necessary standalone video evidence to support a ban. However, it does look like their needs to be a tiered system to facilitate this process in ns2bans without undermining its credibility:
    • Flag = No action taken, but identifies the steamID as a potential threat. Requires much less evidence (e.g. similar IP to a banned player, similar method of operation, same nickname as a banned player, server/client log, screenshot, video without clear and/or standalone evidence, etc)
    • Temp Ban = A temporary ban is issued based on a preponderance of evidence (from the flags) or due to clear, immediate harm to NS2 servers (e.g. hacker frequent server hopping). The length of the temp ban is dependent on the number of admins voting for the temp ban (e.g. +1 vote = +2 days to temp ban), is limited to a total of two weeks for a single temp ban, and may not exceed twice the single temp ban limit (e.g. four weeks) for any steamID (so admins can't create a de facto permaban with repeated temp bans)
    • Perma Ban = Requires clear and standalone video evidence of the persons steamID and offenses (e.g. the current banning system)

    Remember, the whole point of this project is to deal with the serial NS2 hackers/griefers so sticking to a 'banning only once its become beyond a reasonable doubt someone is hacking' standard undermines its effectiveness too much. However, transparency and clear rules protecting accused hackers is necessary to build credibility.
    IronHorsema$$a$$ter
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorMembers, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 8,194 admin
    Great post bob.
    And I stress again, the choices are there for any user or server admin that disagrees with a call :
    you can white list, or you can disagree by voting yourself, inviting the judges to review their casted votes.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • MouseMouse The Lighter Side of Pessimism Members, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Join Date: 2002-03-02 Member: 263Posts: 3,567 mod
    edited April 2013
    I've removed the recent posts from this thread that discuss a specific case. I have also removed the threads that sprung up as a result of that discussion.

    As has been mentioned before, these forums are not the place for name & shame (or the associated shenanigans that arise as a result). ns2bans.com is a noble undertaking, but make sure that discussion regarding specific cases does not drift onto these forums.

    [EDIT] While the posts in this thread have been largely well behaved, as a precaution I've also made a slight edit to the topic title & first post to make it a bit more explicit that this thread isn't the place for witch hunts.
    -/AUS/- PS_Mouse
  • nSidianSidia Members Join Date: 2012-08-15 Member: 155651Posts: 208
    LOL this is funny. In my 2+ years of playing ns2 ive never seen anyone that knew anything about what it actually took to be a skilled shot. This project will only result in false bans.
  • GodCommGodComm Members Join Date: 2013-04-26 Member: 185003Posts: 18
    edited April 2013
    *snip*
    As mentioned above, these forums are not the place for witch hunts. That also means that it isn't the place to claim innocence.
    - Mouse
Sign In or Register to comment.