Ban tables need to be updated

[Vanth]

Here are the current MCGamer ban tables for hacked client offences (made public 2 weeks ago):

Hacked clients have evolved since the table's engenderment, and more subtle combat hacks are far more prevalent than they once were. Hence, for me, there are some glaring omissions from this table, the most notable of which I feel are clickaimbot, triggerbot and the toggling of combat hacks. These omissions have led to many players going unpunished despite them evidently using one of these hacks. Certain staff members also seem to be under the impression that a player's head absolutely has to snap in order for them to be able to ascertain that they're hacking.

The existing descriptions of combat hacks should also be updated to include that a player using combat hacks may land their first hit from an otherwise impossible distance if they have their range set high enough. This is absolute proof of a player hacking as the first hit distance is not affected by latency in the way subsequent hits may be, as latency causes the server's positioning of the player being hit to be closer to the hacker than that of the player's client.

Thanks for reading. I hope these changes will be considered. ^_^

However true this may be, the "old" clients still get used, more than you may think. New clients will come and go, thats how it has always been and how it shall stay. If we were to update the "ban table" every time a new client came out, then there would be a new one every week. Now, I'm not a hacker so I'm not sure if this is true. But It's seems as though even the "new" clients contain the tools that the "old" clients had.

I mean, staff members are constantly being bombarded with people saying "Lobby 281, (name) is using killaura! Ban now!". Killaura is the most commonly known hack/modification. Everyone can tell when someone is using killaura, and or reach hacks. All hacks look the same, and you can't hit them because they are miles away. Just earlier today, I saw the player "_Vertix_" using killaura, which i'm used to seeing as this is MCSG. But he then fired an arrow at me, Not one arrow, but 20. All in one shot. I'm not sure what this would be called, if you know let me know .

I agree to the extent that the current ban table does need an update, but not every time a new client comes out. Who knows, perhaps a punishment for hackers could be to rewrite the ban table? And in return they could receive an un-ban? In theory, this would save the mods a lot of time and effort. I'm not expecting this to happen, just making a point. Hope you understand

~Vanth

 

[Exult]

Actually, I used ad hominem correctly. You focused on moderators and me, rather than the point of "we should add this to the ban guide." As defined by Google, an ad hominem argument is one focused on a person or group of people rather than the position they are maintaining. It doesn't necessarily have to do with anyone's character at all, rather any aspect about them. Now that I understand exactly your reasoning, I see what you're saying; however, the staff doesn't need to see it on the ban guide. They need to be trained on what they are and how to deal with them.

No you did not use ad hominem correctly and there was nothing wrong with my argument. I'm not going to reiterate why, but will instead kindly ask Col_StaR to offer his judgement since you refuse to take my word for it.

If I may ask, what are some of the big one's that are not on there?

Did you even bother to read the OP?

Also, a general point to all the neigh-sayers who don't believe the hacks I mentioned are worth adding to the ban table: these combat hacks are far more common than hacks like 'bunny' and 'glide'. Furthermore, 'bunny' and 'glide' are obvious enough as it is, whereas moderators could truly benefit from having a description of click aimbot in the ban table to refer to. It honestly makes zero sense for my suggested inclusions to be excluded but for those hacks to be included.

Incorrect. It doesn't take place until August 6th...

I'm actually not sure about this one as the wording is a bit ambiguous:

Due to the decision regarding Chestfinder and ESP, any mini-map modification that detects player locations or chest locations will be considered a Hack as well. However, any mini-map modifications that do not offer such functionality, such as those that only show topographical terrain information, are acceptable.

I feel as though the words 'will be made' would have been more appropriate if topological minimaps are to be allowed at a later date. Col_StaR would you mind clarifying this as well?

 

[Scott]

I feel as though the words 'will be made' would have been more appropriate if topological minimaps are to be allowed at a later date. Col_StaR would you mind clarifying this as well?

Okay, allow Col to give his judgement. You were arguing that the staff doesn't recognize hacks, not that we should add things to the ban guide.

Did you even bother to read the OP?

You mentioned 2, and only 2. Both of those are already well-known within the staff team, and are rather easy to tell hacks. Other than those 2, what are the big ones you feel need added?

About the date it takes place...
Pretty self-explanatory to me:

Due to the decision regarding Chestfinder and ESP, any mini-map modification that detects player locations or chest locations will be considered a Hack as well. However, any mini-map modifications that do not offer such functionality, such as those that only show topographical terrain information, are acceptable.

The staff will be enforcing this decision starting August 6th.

 

[Exult]

Okay, allow Col to give his judgement. You were arguing that the staff doesn't recognize hacks, not that we should add things to the ban guide.

Why are you telling me what I was arguing? I know what I was arguing, and I argued it clearly. Arguing with you is completely fruitless so I won't be replying to your posts anymore.

 

[Tenebrous]

Okay, allow Col to give his judgement. You were arguing that the staff doesn't recognize hacks, not that we should add things to the ban guide.

You mentioned 2, and only 2. Both of those are already well-known within the staff team, and are rather easy to tell hacks. Other than those 2, what are the big ones you feel need added?

About the date it takes place...
Pretty self-explanatory to me:

The staff is physically unable to recognize some hacks. You could fight someone with a ghost client and you wouldn't be able to tell if they're hacking- They're designed so they are undetectable.

And there are 100-200 people running around using them

 

[Scott]

The staff is physically unable to recognize some hacks. You could fight someone with a ghost client and you wouldn't be able to tell if they're hacking- They're designed so they are undetectable.

And there are 100-200 people running around using them

Yes, I agree to an extent. However, hacks that staff cannot recognize often mean that community members cannot recognize them. If a group of people highly trained in finding and recording hackers and the hacks they user doesn't recognize it, then the community probably can't either.

 

[Tenebrous]

Yes, I agree to an extent. However, hacks that staff cannot recognize often mean that community members cannot recognize them. If a group of people highly trained in finding and recording hackers and the hacks they user doesn't recognize it, then the community probably can't either.

Of course..

 

[Britsh]

OMG, I didn't know that there are a number of cheats. Heard about auto bot that opens the chests, kills, and eats the rest. Should also add it there

 

[Col_StaR]

They should add
-Triggerbot
-rTrig
-Safe Aura
-Click Aura
-pSilent
-External Aim
-HMR Aura
-Aim Assist
-Silent Aim
-Autoclicker
-Blink
-rLimit and rSpeed ixAura
-MultiAura
-Fight Bot

Thank you for providing a list of suggested hacks to add to the ban table. It may take some time for the Sr. Staff to research an come up with characteristics to identify such hacks, but we'll make sure it gets done.

I know that Nephilim, who also spearheaded the Hacking Identification Training program, was interested in adding more hacks to the list. I'll make sure he knows about these suggestions.

In order to save some research time, it would help us if we had examples of the hacked clients that use these hacks. If you know of the clients that offer these hacks, please PM me a download link so that we can jump right into recording examples and analyzing what they look like.

Exult Scott
Calling me in to clarify our policy decisions? I'm cool with that; I'm happy you both did, since that's my job.
Calling me in to determine whether a certain statement was an ad hominem argument or not? Not so cool, and pretty petty on both sides to be honest.

Let's break down the individual requests and details that are being argued over:
1. ESP and Chestfinder being classified as Hacks on August 6th.
That was a typo on my part, which has since been corrected. The date was supposed to be June 6th, as stated twice in the announcement post. My bad.

2. Are topographical mini-maps acceptable now?
Looking back on that quoted section, yeah, that is very vague wording. It doesn't help that I switched tenses when I stopped talking about Hacking mini-maps and started talking about acceptable ones, too.

For the record, everything in that post was supposed to go into effect June 6th, including that decision about topographical mini-maps. As such, I've changed the statement to the following:

However, any mini-map modifications that do not offer such functionality, such as those that only show topographical terrain information, will be acceptable.

That being said, I will admit that the decision to allow topographical maps was more or less made in passing; the Sr. Staff was focusing more on disallowing the hacking elements of ESP and Chestfinder in certain mini-map modifications versus more benign mini-maps that may only be considered hacked clients (e.g. topographical minimaps).

I'll get the Sr. Staff's opinion on whether topographical maps will be entirely allowed, or whether they'll merely be more acceptable in the vein of being considered Hacked Clients instead of Hacks.

3. What is the OP trying to suggest?
On the surface, it's suggesting that our ban tables have its Hacks punishment section expanded in order to include a greater number of other hacks. The intention is that, by listing a greater number of hacks and examples, the moderators would be better able to identify the hacks not listed on current guide.

Personally, I feel like our ban guide definitely could use some expansion, but it'll take more than that too. Really, we should be expanding our hacks training as well, which ultimately would prove more effective than expanding the ban guide. We'll see what our research comes up with, and take the best steps from there.

4. Was that an ad hominem attack?

Except that they don't most of the time, yourself included.

Technically, both of your claims are correct. The key is how you interpret the above phrase, how you define ad hominem, and whether you consider Guilt by Association an ad hominem attack.

Scott: your claim is that the above phrase is an ad hominem attack, based on the fact that he is pointing you out and disregarding your statement due to the fact that you are a staff member. The key here is that he picked you out because of your staff position, and the association it brings (i.e. you don't have the time to do as he requested).
This would be an example of Guilt by Association, which can sometimes be considered an ad hominem attack. He is using your personal position as a staff member as a way to invalidate your counter-argument. But just because you are a staff member doesn't mean your argument isn't valid, thus it's a logical fallacy.

Exult: your claim is that the above phrase is not an ad hominem attack, using the definition of an Abusive ad hominem in your defense and stating that Scott's position as a staff member is relevant to the argument. If you do not believe that Guilt by Association is an ad hominem attack (which depends totally upon personal perspective and definition), then you are correct.
But Guilt by Association, or its non-personal generalized version the Association Fallacy, is still a logical fallacy. Had you stayed away from the personal accusations to Scott in the above statement (i.e. kept the argument contained and aimed entirely at the staff in general with the inference that Scott would be included), your argument would have avoided that Guilt by Association territory altogether and generally been sound (in the murky waters of broad generalizations).

Rhetoric is tough to pick apart, but fun once you get into it. I probably spent way too much time thinking about this one. But either way, let's stop poking holes at each other and start focusing on how best to address the suggestion.