Anticheat

[Multi]

How do you know they are innocent? It's pretty easy to say that you weren't hacking even though you were.

Im pretty sure opening a chest isnt hacks. Js!

 

[P3num6ra]

This is quite off topic and not too related to the anticheat, I was innocent in this video lol rip me

(can't snap and use rod at the same time, banned for kill aura)

 

[Twistology]

can't snap and use rod at the same time

who says? If i was a mod and I saw that clip i would ban you pretty quickly

 

[P3num6ra]

who says? If i was a mod and I saw that clip i would ban you pretty quickly

mostly because the sword automatically swings when i clearly use the rod instead lol

 

[Intensagod]

Well my appeal got denied for an Invalid reason

 

[P3num6ra]

Well my appeal got denied for an Invalid reason

I remember i posted 3 ban disputes and they all had the same reason because of the video, and all of them were different ways of providing proof that I didn't hack (server logs and poop)

 

[Col_StaR]

MCSG should do similer to what Badlion did in regards to Stimpay's ban - allow the few respected banned members who claim innocence to prove they're on a vanilla client and then give them a few hours on a private server with the anti-cheat to try and replicate the false positives they claim to have set off. This'll be beneficial to both the community and the staff, as the plugin is relatively new and more testing couldn't hurt.

We've done that in the past, and we're willing to do that now. And honestly, I'd love to see that sort of extensive false-positive testing in light of all of this, especially since knowing what trips the anti-cheat would help us add in checks to prevent such false positives.

In the interest of testing, I'm actually interested in allowing people to recreate the circumstances of their ban to see if it results in a false positive ban. Not only would that prove potential innocence, but it would also tell us what cases need to be checked for with the anti-cheat. Let me talk it over with the Administration, see what they say.

If you really want to clean mcsg, install badlion's auto clicker detector. Im pretty sure there are more auto clickers than hackers on mcsg.

If Badlion is willing to share that, then we'd love to have it; any community would. Might as well see if we can throw in anticheat in as well, though based on what I've seen their system is far from 100% flawless as they continually claim.

But that being said, this is a classic death penalty dilemma, one that really doesn't have a right answer. The dilemma essentially asks you, "what do you value more: punishing the guilty, or saving the innocent?"
Everyone in this thread is personally invested in the area of a more lax anti-cheat because, as it was stated:

I'd rather have 95 hackers and 5 of my friends back, not all of them gone....

But this mindset would not consider what the players whose friends aren't banned think. If we made our anti-cheat system any less strict than it already is, they won't even think about how great it is that their friends aren't banned; they're going to hate how many hackers there are, and we're back to square one. There are no right or wrong answers, just differences in perspectives and opinions, which is why I won't argue strongly in favor of either a stricter or a weaker anti-cheat.

What I will argue in favor for is more research and understanding so that we can refine our anti-cheat system to prevent such false positives. The stronger XAC/weaker XAC is a false dichotomy of extremes, and the best course of action is instead a smarter XAC. I read in Dev chat today that an edgecase was discovered that could potentially cause false positives (though, before anyone gets their hopes up, it would not affect anyone here based on the description of their case). We need to investigate, research, and report such instances without getting argumentative or political if we all want to get what we want: fewer hackers, fewer false positives.

But from a political side of things, there's no arguing that recent events with specific Youtubers in other networks has had a major impact on peoples' perspectives of public figures and claims of innocence. Those incidents showed us that even influential people claiming innocence can be lying through their teeth, and now anyone claiming innocence now against an anti-cheat system are less likely to be considered trustworthy.

 

[RasclartsRELOADED]

We've done that in the past, and we're willing to do that now. And honestly, I'd love to see that sort of extensive false-positive testing in light of all of this, especially since knowing what trips the anti-cheat would help us add in checks to prevent such false positives.

In the interest of testing, I'm actually interested in allowing people to recreate the circumstances of their ban to see if it results in a false positive ban. Not only would that prove potential innocence, but it would also tell us what cases need to be checked for with the anti-cheat. Let me talk it over with the Administration, see what they say.


If Badlion is willing to share that, then we'd love to have it; any community would. Might as well see if we can throw in anticheat in as well, though based on what I've seen their system is far from 100% flawless as they continually claim.

But that being said, this is a classic death penalty dilemma, one that really doesn't have a right answer. The dilemma essentially asks you, "what do you value more: punishing the guilty, or saving the innocent?"
Everyone in this thread is personally invested in the area of a more lax anti-cheat because, as it was stated:

But this mindset would not consider what the players whose friends aren't banned think. If we made our anti-cheat system any less strict than it already is, they won't even think about how great it is that their friends aren't banned; they're going to hate how many hackers there are, and we're back to square one. There are no right or wrong answers, just differences in perspectives and opinions, which is why I won't argue strongly in favor of either a stricter or a weaker anti-cheat.

What I will argue in favor for is more research and understanding so that we can refine our anti-cheat system to prevent such false positives. The stronger XAC/weaker XAC is a false dichotomy of extremes, and the best course of action is instead a smarter XAC. I read in Dev chat today that an edgecase was discovered that could potentially cause false positives (though, before anyone gets their hopes up, it would not affect anyone here based on the description of their case). We need to investigate, research, and report such instances without getting argumentative or political if we all want to get what we want: fewer hackers, fewer false positives.

But from a political side of things, there's no arguing that recent events with specific Youtubers in other networks has had a major impact on peoples' perspectives of public figures and claims of innocence. Those incidents showed us that even influential people claiming innocence can be lying through their teeth, and now anyone claiming innocence now against an anti-cheat system are less likely to be considered trustworthy.

i love u full homo

autoclick detection is needed though please, so many players macro you wouldn't believe it O_O

 

[BlueCaptain]

How do you know they are innocent? It's pretty easy to say that you weren't hacking even though you were.

How do you know they aren't innocent? You can't always be sure. There are flaws in everything.

 

[Intensagod]

i love u full homo

autoclick detection is needed though please, so many players macro you wouldn't believe it O_O

if there was autoclick detection 15 cps or + would be banned

 

[Evermore]

if there was autoclick detection 15 cps or + would be banned

Not if it's a well developed plugin.

I went on Badlion and maintained 18cps while fighting a friend and didn't get banned.

 

[RasclartsRELOADED]

if there was autoclick detection 15 cps or + would be banned

not if they did a good job of it. i get 14 max and i haven't been anticheat banned on badlion

edit: WTF EVERMORE