1. Welcome to the Brawl website! Feel free to look around our forums. Join our growing community by typing /register in-game!

We are being too lenient on hackers

Discussion in 'Capture the Flag' started by Proterozoic, Jul 17, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Please be aware that this thread is more than 30 days old. Do not post unless the topic can still be discussed. Read more...
  1. Proterozoic

    Proterozoic Wiki Team is a Semi-Staff Rank

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +917
    I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking we're being far too lenient on hackers, but I think a full thread is needed so that we can draw some attention to this glaring issue. However, before I start I want to say that no names will be mentioned on this thread about who is hacking or who is not. I have my own opinions about who is or isn't just as you do, but this thread is not about that - it's about how we treat them.

    The current staff protocol is absolutely ridiculous for catching hackers - to the point where it is laughable. I'm sure we've all been in various discussions in discord servers about how the staff do nothing about them. This isn't because they don't want to, it's because the sheer amount of evidence needed to catch one hacker using something less blatant than a client which makes them fly or turns their bow into a machine gun. They're able to get away with it for months if not permanently simply because there's not enough sufficient evidence to get them banned. Even if there is something it's often not accepted solo, with multiple clips being needed to take a hacker down.

    This system does not work. Yes, your chances of being right when catching a hacker are higher than elsewhere because of the necessary checks involved. The problem is, the number of checks needed are so high that the staff can't do anything - basically allowing these players to get away with it. This system, whilst "robust", is inefficient enough to allow these players onto the server whilst the mods hands are tied. It's not practical to have a system like this. To those in power, I'm all for making the right call, but there's also a right time. You need to give your staff the ability to do something about these hackers sooner. That doesn't mean you should just cut all the red tape - obviously you want to make sure that things are done well. With that said, this is way too much.

    Of course, that would be fine if it were the only problem. Sadly however, when you ban a player on brawl they don't really stay banned. They can be unbanned very quickly, and you need 3 accounts banned to be IPbanned, a ridiculous concept given most players have at least 1 alt. This allows those hackers to essentially switch account and carry on doing exactly what they were doing before. The only difference this time is now the staff need to collect evidence for this account, starting the process all over again. This delays the process of removing hackers even longer, allowing them to quite literally keep going for months before they're caught. Even then, you can buy unbans. This means even when they are banned, they can just come right back again! What is the point in banning hackers if they can just come back again and again. At least it would cost them some money to do something like that if bans were more frequent for cheaters, but with the amount of time it takes, it's easily achievable!

    I understand at this point that talking to brawl on these kind of occasions doesn't really result in much change. I'm not the first person to have said any of this, but this has not changed since I first came to brawl. I personally think what should happen when you hack is you're banned, permanently. However, that's a bit of a difficult situation due to the revenue from unbans and other such things. I just wish it were easier to actually catch these hackers so we can penalise them for what they're doing.

    Failing that, I think there's one thing we can all do regardless of brawl rules, and it can be put in place by the CTF committee. When hacking, you should not get restrictions, you should receive three strikes and be banned from the match server. I say this because the match server is a privilege, we get that to play competitive CTF with the best players in the game. I don't see why we should afford that privilege to hackers. Not only is hacking bad sportsmanship (1 condition worth a strike), but it also violates brawl's rules (2) and displays a lack of common sense (3) as it's clear that if cheating on a casual server is blatantly wrong, playing like that in the competitive scene is blatantly wrong. Just because they buy an unban, doesn't mean they've changed their ways - it just means they've given some money to you. Their actions should also have lasting consequences, to deter people. Right now, there's nothing that would do that, probably contributing to the rising number of regulars people say are hacking.

    Of course, none of this means people don't deserve the right to appeal and false bans do occur. In those cases, obviously the consequences should be reversed so players aren't penalised for something they didn't do. All I am trying to say is that there should be lasting consequences for players that are hacking. Right now that isn't happening and they're essentially running riot.
     
    • Agree Agree x 11
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Mod Honor Mod Honor x 2
  2. _featherpaw_

    _featherpaw_ Your friendly neighborhood kitten! :3

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2015
    Messages:
    2,522
    Ratings:
    +1,393
    Branching off of that, with the not-so-recent addition of the /warn command to the jmod's/mod's agenda, many chat offenders go without much punishment and, many times, the remainder of the server feels the repercussions of the lenient method of punishing them.

    Specifically speaking, spammers and flooders are free to completely fill the chat for typically 1 to 2 minutes before a jmod/mod is able to /warn them enough to have a lasting mute. This is, of course, assuming the jmod/mod is already on the server. Because of the lack of swift punishment, it's typically the jmod/mod that is ridiculed by the server for not "handling the situation" quickly.

    A solution I propose would be to have the /warn system be more of a suggestion instead of a protocol. There are times where I believe /warn to be more useful than a written out warning in chat, but otherwise, swift action may have to be taken.
     
  3. BrandinoB

    BrandinoB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    874
    Ratings:
    +341
    Preach, though you may be preaching to the choir here
     
  4. Nakatago

    Nakatago Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    731
    Ratings:
    +234
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
  5. puhdgy

    puhdgy ♥(ˆᴗˆԅ) CTF Mod !

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    284
    Ratings:
    +301
    Discord:
    pudgy#2860
    Finally someone said it...
    I had a discussion with you and others yesterday over this, which I was very glad to hear someone else felt this way. Thank you for making a thread on it!
    I would like to add a friend’s input on this though: He said that making it so hacking is an instant 3 player strikes may make the importance of things seem a bit off. For example: if someone is getting flamed consistently and harassed in game, maybe they will get one player strike, whereas a hacker will get 3 for the first time they commit the offense. He said it would make it seem like hacking is a MUCH worse thing to do to someone, when hacking can impact within the game, but harassment could easily affect the victims lives outside the game.
    Personally, I do see this point. I feel like making the punishment harsher for things such as sexual harassment or even general harassment would be a good thing aswell. However, I continue to find the change on banning hackers a bit more important right now, as it’s clear the amount of hackers is spiraling out of control.

    Additionally, it’s not only hacks that go under the radar a lot. The warning/mute system is also very lenient imo.. just look at Liona’s punishment history. Liona’s punishment history alone shows that all the mutes have been doing is giving a temporary fix. She has violated the chat rules so casually and often that she knows all she will get is a mute for a while. At this point, I think we’ve got to ask, why not make it longer when it reaches that point? The point when people really don’t care about the rules anymore due to the consequences being so minor.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Proterozoic

    Proterozoic Wiki Team is a Semi-Staff Rank

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +917
    Completely agree with the message. My personal opinion is the whole system is far too lenient, but it's very difficult to create a thread that covers all of the flaws in the brawl system. It would probably amount to an essay longer than any I've written before (and frankly noone wants to read that). It's the same reason I overlooked bias with regulars and new players. Those are important topics, but focus on one thing at once. Just a note on harassment specifically - I'd say that the problem is the lack of punishment rather than the punishments themself
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Feeliq_

    Feeliq_ Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    383
    Ratings:
    +70
    Discord:
    Wrathation#6384
    Took us long enough.

    I was also one of those people who discussed it yesterday/today (timezones) with @Proterozoic and @puhdgy .
    Another issue that brawls system has, is that a normal mod cannot be judge, jury and executioner for the regs in case of hacking unless it's blantant af
    (mineshizzle ban). There are multiple mods involved in a regulars ban, which increases the time they need to ban a single regular.
    Thus the current system has way tomany flaws just to make a correct ban, but with the option of buying unbans and alting to keep hacking, it's very ineffective.

    Also Puhdgy has brought up a good point, there need to be harsher punishments for chat offenses by players who have done those things before. It's just sad that harsher punishments do not really exist on brawl.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. tallscot

    tallscot sceptiiiiiii

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,390
    Ratings:
    +1,558
    the whole 3+ idea is stupid in itself, I don't get why the staff give you 3 chances to quit cheating when they already have the "purchase an unban" system setup which gives you 2 chances as well.

    if you hack, you should be permanently banned from the server. the 3+ rule shouldn't apply to cheaters, but only to chat offenders/other rule breakers.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Signifies

    Signifies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +320
    ok so are we being too lenient on u chaos???
     
  10. Pizze

    Pizze Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    453
    Ratings:
    +234
    Obligatory "They are just good" comment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. SoGhoul21

    SoGhoul21 7 Year McPvPer

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,995
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    No, this isn't the case whatsoever. Recent bans we've made on ghost clients/tracers:
    1. Tracer ban - 1:27 worth of evidence, single clip
    2. Tracer ban - 3:14 worth of evidence, single clip - a lot of which not showing the player at all, if edited this could be under a minute
    3. Tracer ban - 1:27 worth of evidence, single clip
    4. Tracer ban - 1:24 worth of evidence, single clip
    5. Combat-related ghost client - 0:41 worth of evidence, single clip
    6. Combat-related ghost client - 0:23 worth of evidence, single clip (admittedly I'm on the fence about if this is a ghost client or just a regular hacked client)
    7. Tracer ban - 0:45 worth of evidence, single clip
    8. Tracer ban - 0:10 worth of evidence, single clip
    9. Combat-related ghost client - 0:20 worth of evidence, single clip
    10. Combat-related ghost client - 1:56 worth of evidence, single clip
    This isn't me cherry-picking. This is me going through mod chat, where every ghost client and tracer ban must be brought up, and revealing every single bit of evidence deemed sufficient. The last 10 bans I found in mod chat have been listed here, no bans have been redacted.

    All you had to do was ask me for this. It's simply untrue that we need a "sheer amount of evidence" to ban hackers, which completely invalidates the first 3 paragraphs of this entire thread. Please, if you're going to write such long threads, do a bit of research beforehand.

    Agreed with this. The only issue and the reason why I don't think this would be feasible is we don't have enough staff performing IP checks to do the considerably higher amount of IP checks required to enforce this. At the moment it's mostly Eil doing IP checks (and he's an admin, who has more important things to do than spend hours upon hours of IP checks). I do them occasionally but I'm fairly inexperienced with them - complicated IP checks can usually take me over 3 hours to do and I still double check with Eil before banning to avoid false bans as much as possible.

    If we get more SMods soon, which we definitely need, this shouldn't be too much of an issue as long as these SMods are properly trained to deal with IP checks efficiently and accurately.

    Though, I don't think we should get rid of unbans. Bans I've made (since the ban wipe) have made $170 in unbans and I've made roughly 1/10th of bans. Removing $1700 of revenue a year is way too big of a sacrifice.

    Network-wide issues should never ever be fixed by the committee. It is not their job whatsoever to fix network-wide issues, it is their job to fix issues in the team scene.

    Never giving anyone a second chance is way too extreme (yes, there is the strike appeals system but it is an ineffective system - 2 strikes have been successfully appealed, ever). I agree restrictions should be increased - evidence of someone hacking on the match server should result in a ban from it much longer than just 1 month - but permanently banning someone from the team scene makes absolutely no sense.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Xelasi

    Xelasi Retired Mod | CTF Map Builder

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,023
    Ratings:
    +930
    I get irritated when crappy people get to stick around forever just because they're regs. Regs who constantly break rules get more leniency than new visitors, and they know how to bend protocol to their favor.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Aboves

    Aboves meh

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,365
    Ratings:
    +349
    I agree with this. The main issue is that if people are perm-banned for one infraction, then staff members will be the ones handing out second chances. This means that there will be more appeals than ever. This also ties into issues within the appeal system itself, mainly who can give out second chances and what it means to be deserving of a second chance.
     
  14. Proterozoic

    Proterozoic Wiki Team is a Semi-Staff Rank

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,230
    Ratings:
    +917
    Very well, next time I won't bother trying to get things changed without doing my homework.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. SoGhoul21

    SoGhoul21 7 Year McPvPer

    Joined:
    May 17, 2015
    Messages:
    5,995
    Ratings:
    +2,344
    Lock requested by report.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Alerts- Being raided Ideas Apr 27, 2019
Being Staff Discussion Apr 3, 2019
Sign Text Being Wiped on Minecraft Build Q & A Nov 3, 2018
Back Back again from being gone so long :) Back Feb 8, 2018
Being able to view every team and more Ideas Jan 18, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Please be aware that this thread is more than 30 days old. Do not post unless the topic can still be discussed. Read more...