+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Main (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Site Announcements (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: A frank and open dialogue about hacking (/showthread.php?tid=55126)
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - IImaplers - 2012-06-26
Eos Wrote:Generalizations are where the whole idea of punishing for perception breaks down.
I'm not trying to imply that punishing for perception is the correct way to handle it in the case of things like 27 attack shoes merely because there could be that ridiculously miniscule amount of new players who honestly do not know what they brought was made illegitimately. Those miniscule amount of new or unsuspecting players are still guilty of either being ignorant or just dumb. And I'm not generalizing, I'm making a logical inference that an overwhelming majority of players know whether or not an item like 27 attack shoes in their possession is made illegitimately. Can someone try to prove me wrong here?
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - Eos - 2012-06-26
IImaplers Wrote:Those miniscule amount of new or unsuspecting players are still guilty of either being ignorant or just dumb.
If ignorance were a punishable crime no one would ever live to graduate kindergarten.
IImaplers Wrote:Can someone try to prove me wrong here?
Not necessary because it's ultimately not relevant to this thread. We're not going to entertain ideas of ways we can witch hunt people, or what degree of witch hunting is acceptable. that's right up there with 'how much can we get away with before its obscene'
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - IImaplers - 2012-06-26
I must apologize for digressing too much, but this is too interesting of a topic. I had to interject when I think some people eluded to 27 attack shoes being significantly more ambiguous than something like 301 attack cravens, and was just trying to prove a point that, no, they are not that much more ambiguous than 301s. Both were ridiculously duped to hell and made through illegitimate means.
Eos Wrote:If ignorance were a punishable crime no one would ever live to graduate kindergarten.Not saying those ignorant players in my example should be punished on SP unless showing off, but I think they should be in-game (in the way of such items needing to be completely deleted).
Eos Wrote:Not necessary because it's ultimately not relevant to this thread. We're not going to entertain ideas of ways we can witch hunt people, or what degree of witch hunting is acceptable. that's right up there with 'how much can we get away with before its obscene'I understand it's irrelevant to the thread but debates like this come up out of nowhere and it is at least relevant to the game in general.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - Stereo - 2012-06-26
I just think
Quote:If a person is stupid enough to say, "I am a hacker", then he deserves a banning.If a person is saying "look at all my duped items", even without saying he duped them, that deserves at least a warning if not a ban. I'm sure the dupers are smart enough to carry it all out on mules, transfer it over... that doesn't diminish the responsibility on the accounts that actually use the items knowing they are duped.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - DeanNim - 2012-06-26
remember that one thread with that one screenshot that obviously shows the TS was hacking ? yeah, no one banned him for that. so yes, recapping this is pointless if such thing is going to repeat.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - yo72 - 2012-06-26
If you have a problem with hackers parading with an inflated ego, then why are other "legit" people allowed to post with hacked gear with "accomplishments". And funny a couple months most of the community on southperry agreed that nobody is legit anymore.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - SaptaZapta - 2012-06-26
Stereo Wrote:I just think
If a person is saying "look at all my duped items", even without saying he duped them, that deserves at least a warning if not a ban. I'm sure the dupers are smart enough to carry it all out on mules, transfer it over... that doesn't diminish the responsibility on the accounts that actually use the items knowing they are duped.
Depending on how they put it and in what context, they might be warned or even infracted for Drama, or something of the sort.
We don't warn for hacking: either they just admitted to hacking, in which case they're gone; or they didn't, in which case they're fine.
Also, if you want such people off SP ASAP, you probably don't want us warning them that they've just come awfully close to admitting they hack. Rather, you want them posting freely until they get carried away and incriminate themselves.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - byakugan - 2012-06-26
IImaplers Wrote:Very well-said and a great message. But I think if it is common knowledge that the person posting is a hacker and continues to be a proponent of hacking, they should not be allowed to be a member of the forum, even if they would follow the rules of the forum to a tee.
I agree pretty much with this. I know I discussed this once before, but I still think if someone is a well-known hacker or passing as one they should be banned on sight, even if you can't be proven it isn't someone impersonating the hacker, that's what it'd bring to themselves. It would help strengthen the sense of southperry as a hacking intolerant community, even if it was just appearance.
But that is just me, go on with your business.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - SaptaZapta - 2012-06-26
byakugan Wrote:I agree pretty much with this. I know I discussed this once before, but I still think if someone is a well-known hacker or passing as one they should be banned on sight, even if you can't be proven it isn't someone impersonating the hacker, that's what it'd bring to themselves. It would help strengthen the sense of southperry as a hacking intolerant community, even if it was just appearance.
But that is just me, go on with your business.
Not sure what you mean by impersonation.
If a person comes on here saying "I am the Dread Hacker Roberts" we will ban him, regardless of whether he truly is said hacker, or even of whether there is such a hacker.
But if someone simply registers by the name Roberts, and says nothing about it, we can't know whether he is the hacker, an impersonator, or just a random person who happens to use the same name.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - yo72 - 2012-06-26
CarrionCrow Wrote:There are limits as to how high your range can go without illegitimate methods, regardless how much money you throw at cubes.Just curious where you would draw that line
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - byakugan - 2012-06-26
SaptaZapta Wrote:Not sure what you mean by impersonation.
If a person comes on here saying "I am the Dread Hacker Roberts" we will ban him, regardless of whether he truly is said hacker, or even of whether there is such a hacker.
But if someone simply registers by the name Roberts, and says nothing about it, we can't know whether he is the hacker, an impersonator, or just a random person who happens to use the same name.
Let's say there is a guy well known as one of the head hackers through a server, say "AstroDinoMan" just as a made up example. Then someone registers using that as username here and posts as his in-game info that of the well-known hacker. That should be bannable.
We've had it happen before, more often than even I am aware of and I think it's stupid you should wait for them to admit to it even while the rest of the comunity knows its them. Even if that wasn't the true hacker, it takes you knowing who that one is to try pretend to be them and trying to use their fame or w.e.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - Raul - 2012-06-26
SaptaZapta Wrote:If a person comes on here saying "I am the Dread Hacker Roberts" we will ban him, regardless of whether he truly is said hacker, or even of whether there is such a hacker.
The Dread Hacker Roberts sounds pretty cool, won't lie.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - MrTouchnGo - 2012-06-26
byakugan Wrote:Let's say there is a guy well known as one of the head hackers through a server, say "AstroDinoMan" just as a made up example. Then someone registers using that as username here and posts as his in-game info that of the well-known hacker. That should be bannable.
We've had it happen before, more often than even I am aware of and I think it's stupid you should wait for them to admit to it even while the rest of the comunity knows its them. Even if that wasn't the true hacker, it takes you knowing who that one is to try pretend to be them and trying to use their fame or w.e.
As long as it doesn't disrupt the forum, it doesn't matter that they're here. I think that's what they're trying to get at.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - DeanNim - 2012-06-26
MrTouchnGo Wrote:As long as it doesn't disrupt the forum, it doesn't matter that they're here. I think that's what they're trying to get at.
i dont mind that but i get really really pissed when they get blatant about it but go scot-free.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - Andross - 2012-06-27
So uh, sorry if this got asked already but I only took a look down the first page of the thread, saw it heading in a familiar direction, and decided to take my chances with getting people annoyed at me if this has already been asked (ha ha joke's on you, people are already annoyed with me).
What about people admitting to using private servers in the past? I know that if someone were to say "yeah I go play on SuperDuperMaple all the time, it's a PS you should all come join" then they'd almost certainty get banned (definitely infracted at the least), but what about people just mentioning it offhand as part of a statement they're making? Like discussing something else, stuff they did earlier regarding maple or whatever, and they just let drop that oh yeah, they used to be dumb and played on one for a while?
I'm thinking the answer I'm going to get is that it's better to not mention them ever and never bring up if one's played on one at all whether it's currently or 4 years ago, but how exactly should we as users handle this? Reporting people for even mentioning private servers seems like it'd probably lead to a bunch of useless busywork reports, so unless it's something blatant like mentioned above should we just ignore it, assuming that if the mods found it objectionable enough that they'd do something about it?
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - Link - 2012-06-27
No one really gives a crap about private servers. It's okay to talk about private server impacts on the game and whatnot, just as long as you don't name/advertise them or link to them. Playing a private server and hacking the game aren't the same thing. Southperry isn't a site that condones private servers or anything, but their impacts on the game, the lawsuits that happen, etc. are okay to talk about. If you want to invite people to play one with you, it'd be better to keep it under wraps and do it via private messages.
Quote:TOS
Point Value: 2 points
Definition: "The posting of information regarding how-to's on private servers or hacking."
Additional comment: You can discuss the effects of private servers or hacks on the community. You can also discuss the basic premise of how and why the hack works. You cannot discuss how to perform hacks or link to places where hacks can be found. You cannot discuss how to set up a private server.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - ShinkuDragon - 2012-06-27
the rules as they are seem good enough, going into "hacked items should get you banned" i disagree, there's just too much, there's (with an example):
>2xx enhance items (608 Stonetooths)
>dupe-chaosed items (50 attk warrior overall)
>duped items (89% boss mercedes arrows)
>items made through duping of ingredients (dominator pendants)
>items scrolled with duped scrolls (pretty much everything with WS)
>items scrolled with normally impossibly rare scrolls (27 attk VSS scrolled with 10% for shoe attk)
and i'm sure i'm missing some other combinations.
if you want to ban people for possession of "illegal/duped items" where do you draw the line? plus it would require the mods to know everything hacked and whatnot, i'd say that's beyond the call of duty.
ban people who hack, tolerate those who don't, no matter how retarded their choices or how duped their gear is.
as for getting known hackers (for which you have non-SP evidence) banned, i am kinda OK with how the rule is, some people, known hackers or not, can be very useful knowledge-wise, i'd rather see how informative the guy is, which the addition of "banned on outside evidence" would not allow me to.
my two cents.
and ooh, damagecalc got banned? god, i'm missing all the good stuff here without internet!
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - IImaplers - 2012-06-27
ShinkuDragon Wrote:if you want to ban people for possession of "illegal/duped items" where do you draw the line? plus it would require the mods to know everything hacked and whatnot, i'd say that's beyond the call of duty.The game is at a point where you can't really draw a line. But, I'd ban/infractionate people (depending on severity) if they post an SS containing illegit items and the mod knows for a fact that they are illegit items. If the mod does not know for a fact the the items in the SS are illegit, that's what reports are for, and a bit of merit can be involved (i.e. if we had a pomegranate system, it can help in a manner like that).
If someone posts a picture of their character containing a few duped scrolls (i.e. GMs), that's okay I guess (maybe a warning is required in that case), but if they post a picture with 99 GMs in a stack, I think a temp ban is in order. I think this would be fair and would discourage idiot hackers like Damageclac or whatever from showing off. If a post contains an EE hacked item, a perm ban is in order. If a mod is unsure, it can slide, but that type of system would be better than just disregarding things completely.
ShinkuDragon Wrote:ban people who hack, tolerate those who don't, no matter how retarded their choices or how duped their gear is.Agreed, except that if those non-hackers make it a habit of showing themselves as not having a problem with duping (SS, or reference), they should not necessarily be welcome here with the open arms they are welcomed with now.
ShinkuDragon Wrote:as for getting known hackers (for which you have non-SP evidence) banned, i am kinda OK with how the rule is, some people, known hackers or not, can be very useful knowledge-wise, i'd rather see how informative the guy is, which the addition of "banned on outside evidence" would not allow me to.Can you name some people here who hack for personal gain that would actually be informative? Me neither.
ShinkuDragon Wrote:and ooh, damagecalc got banned?Yes, it was way overdue. That guy was absolutely useless and unfortunately there was no fixing him.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - ShinkuDragon - 2012-06-27
IImaplers Wrote:The game is at a point where you can't really draw a line. But, I'd ban people (depending on severity) if they post an SS containing illegit items and the mod knows for a fact that they are illegit. If the mod does not know for a fact the the items in the SS are illegit, that's what reports are for, and a bit of merit can be involved (i.e. if we had a pomegranate system, it can help in a manner like that).
If someone posts a picture of their character containing a few duped scrolls (i.e. GMs), that's okay I guess (maybe a warning is required in that case), but if they post a picture with 99 GMs in a stack, I think a temp ban is in order. I think this would be fair and would discourage idiot hackers like Damageclac or whatever from showing off. If a post contains an EE hacked item, a perm ban is in order. If a mod is unsure, it can slide, but that type of system would be better than just disregarding things completely.
Agreed, except that if those non-hackers make it a habit of showing themselves as not having a problem with duping (SS, or reference), they should not necessarily be welcome here with the open arms they are welcomed with now.
Can you name some people here who hack for personal gain that would actually be informative? Me neither.
Yes, it was way overdue. That guy was absolutely useless and unfortunately there was no fixing him.
that multi-quote you pulled made me think you were actually khaini for a moment heh.
in order: what i meant is "where would YOU draw the line of legit, the dominator, the VSS, all i listed are illegit items one way or another, and almost* everyone has come in contact with a variation of them, heck i think 27 attk's are less than 1b in scania atm? it's ridiculous
but think about it, stockpiling, merching, preparing for a new weapon, i wouldn't be surprised if someone had a stack of 20%'s, WS and protects saved for phantom from long ago, which they obtained through merching or other non-duping means.
it would also mean that:
fully scrolled self-made dominator=A-ok
30 protects+WS+a clean dominator=warn/ban
they both produce the same result, your method would be punishing the one who hasn't scrolled yet, i know you want to punish the gloating hackers, but others shouldn't pay because of that
the rules may allow them in, and they should, because the person isn't hacking, nowhere does it say that the community has to welcome them though.
dunno if the people i think hack or not, but a lot of the informative people have connections/knowledge to/of people hacking
agreed.
A frank and open dialogue about hacking - Eos - 2012-06-27
IImaplers Wrote:I'd ban/infractionate people (depending on severity) if they post an SS containing illegit items and the mod knows for a fact that they are illegit items. If the mod does not know for a fact the the items in the SS are illegit, that's what reports are for, and a bit of merit can be involved (i.e. if we had a pomegranate system, it can help in a manner like that).
That's where things become an epic disaster of he said/she said, favortism accusations, 'why did you punish x but not y' and endless protests of bias and inequity.
In order for a rule to be carried out with any degree of consistency it has to be measurable and have set limits for what is inside and outside of bounds.
Moderators have discretionary power, but that power is meant to cover things outside the norm, and things that stretch or push rules, not to infract on whimsy, hunch and hearsay.