now, would you still include no VAC Bans as a requirement?
On a game with emphasis on MP, it is more than logical.
On an SP-only game… overkill.
Comment has been collapsed.
that the thing tough, VAN bans pop on an account without any context, a VAC ban could have come from a single player game sesion, without a single second on multiplayer.
Comment has been collapsed.
It couldn't. VAC only protects online servers. It is impossible to have a VAC protected SP-only game. YOu can only get a VAC ban if you logged into a secured server using a game modification. This is why it is funny when the CS:GO kids are so scared to use a simple EXE hook for Bethesda games.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it modifies MP games for SP stuff and logs like this into the secured server then. Last time I checked, there are still only a handful of games which log you into a server even for offline play, and those are mostly related to Electronic Arts.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's actually possible for "offline scans" even without joining MP VAC-protected servers, I noticed such requests when developing ArchiBoT. They're handled by Steam process directly, hence they're being sent to steam client, and it's responsible for returning result.
It's funny because if I used e.g. ASF for running a VAC-protected game, then that part can't work properly (I don't have any VAC-request handling), and that's one of the reasons why ASF is 100% VAC secure, while idle master is not.
Comment has been collapsed.
But Idle Master doesn't do anything other than tell Steam that the game is running. How can you get a VAC ban if the game isn't even installed and the process emulating it running isn't doing anything.
I don't follow your differentiation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Idle master launches a game which needs to hook (and use) Steamworks.NET.dll library for interacting with steam client.
Because steam client is in fact doing a VAC check, valve may release an update that will mark Steamworks.NET.dll library used by idle master as malicious, and therefore issue VAC ban on all IM users, if they wanted.
Stop believing in a myth that you can't get VAC when game is not installed - IM interacts with steam client the same way the game interacts with it, you can't get ban issued by the game because it's not launched, but yes you can get ban issued by steam client, because it is installed and you're in fact interacting with it - through idle master that imitiates the game. Also read response below.
ASF is steam client itself, and I have full control over all requests being sent and received, so even if steam network asks ASF to perform VAC scan - ASF will simply respond "yeah yeah, all fine here" and do nothing, while normal steam client will start checking for hooked libraries and other stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't "believe a myth"--I was asking for clarification. "How can" as opposed to "you can't"
If Valve suddenly has a problem with idling, how is your program fully exempted? Are they only going to target programs that accomplish it in a specific way? That's not to say that I don't see distinctions between the two, but if Valve doesn't want people to use programs to idle how are you going to circumvent that with 100% security, as you tout for your program as it relates to VAC bans?
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam client is responsible for responding to steam web request about current programs, hooked DLLs, MD5 sums and other things that are related to VAC bans. When you're running original steam client, and you're interacting with it through IM, then the situation that considers you is the fact that currently it's OK, but it CAN change ANYTIME, without your prior knowledge, as steam client is reporting the dll being used by the idle master 24/7, and the interpreter of the results is located in steam web under Valve, they can change the result at anytime, without any update to steam client, just suddenly interpreter will say that the dll used by idle master is malicious.
ASF does not respond to VAC check, it doesn't disclouse any dlls, exes or applications. It just sends a response that contains "OK" and nothing else, without disclosing any of the above. Hence, as I said, in worst case ASF can suddenly stop working, if steam web will require from now on to always respond with proper data (which can be faked, hence it's not a solution, I'd just send fake data in this case, or find other workaround). Therefore, even if Valve changes steam web interpreter, ASF users won't be affected in any way by that.
For more info I suggest to read ASF FAQ, because what I said above and in the FAQ is only the truth - idle master is not VAC bannable now, but it may become at anytime, while ASF is not only not bannable, but not detectable as well - I have full control over requests received and being answered, and in worst case it can only stop working, not suddenly answer in the way that was not programmed by me. I have better things to do than informing all idle master users that they can be in danger, I really don't care what you're asking and what you think of that, what I care about is the fact that IM hooks libraries, communicates with steam client, and can be a result of VAC ban, while ASF can't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Doesn't fully answer my question but I'll read your FAQ.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it did.
If Valve suddenly has a problem with idling, how is your program fully exempted?
It's not possible to tell if request of PlayGames is sent by legit steam client or ASF, because both work the same way. Even if Valve introduces something new ASF client won't know about, and steam client will, ASF will be just falsely considered as "older steam client" running. If Valve suddenly wanted to ban all ASF users, they'd also falsely ban all older steam clients and innocent people with similar symptoms, which is absolutely impossible to do, while IM ban is as simple as adding md5sum of the library to the blacklist of VAC interpreter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait… they are running VAC checks client-side?!
What insane logic checks every damn user instead of protecting the server itself and just scan a fraction of the users, the active ones?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's always been like that - client (or game) reports the status, and based on that status steam network decides whether to issue VAC ban or not.
There are two types of checks - check done by game (with hooked Steamworks.NET.dll, or similar), and check done by client.
Check done by game is usually done during playing VAC-secured server, BUT NOT ALWAYS, game can issue check at anytime because it's connected with steam client for the whole time of running.
Check done by the client is possible, because I already found packets and responses responsible for that, but currently I don't know when it's issued, because for the whole ArchiBoT runtime, it was issued only once when I launched some VAC-protected game (launched as in - idled, the same method ASF uses), and of course my client responded with "all fine" as I wrote in response above, but in fact steam web asked steam client to do the check even without game being installed (physically, because request of start playing game was sent regardless).
So yeah, it can be "all fine" now, but Valve can change that mechanism anytime and issue VAC only because idle master started "idling" the game, the thing is - with ASF I can control that behaviour and in the worst case ASF will simply stop working, while with idle master you'll hear about that when it's already too late. I don't care if people follow my logic and understand the risk or not, they can use anything they wish. I care about myself and try to warn the others so they won't wake up with VAC ban issued because IM started idling new cool VAC-protected game that tells steam client to do the check on game launched event. With ASF situation is different because I have full control over it, and when Valve suddenly asks for something that is not implemented, or for above VAC check - ASF will simply respond with "all fine" or "I don't know what you're asking for" instead of newly introduced by Valve mechanism to catch all idle master users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed the Vac ban should be shown with the reason behind
Comment has been collapsed.
while i don't plan on using the VAC flag anyway, i think there should be a time period as an additional criterium. like "VAC-ban within the last 12 months". even if someone really cheated, if he did that 10 years ago, it's not fair to exclude him from sgtools giveaways for life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely agree. It's a lot more important to know when they've cheated rather than that they've cheated. People grow up and they make mistakes. Mistakes Valve will never erase from your account, as if they've tattoo'd bloody murder on your face when you were asleep.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 I think this is possibly the most important post here.
While I agree that VAC bans can happen to users who don't deserve it, I think that they are the vast minority.
Things should be based on time since your last offense.
Comment has been collapsed.
That and the number of times it's been VAC banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to provoke some extra thought:
People should be given a second chance...in every situation?
Because although I agree with your statement for some situations, there are plenty where I think a second chance is not deserved.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll continue to use that option because I believe the majority of people were genuinely banned for cheating. If the case is otherwise I wouldn't object to being contacted via Steam by the person and sending them a direct link to the GA. If someone cares enough to go to the trouble of contacting me then I'm more than happy to have them enter one of my VAC ban restricted GAs.
I think VAC bans should have an expiry anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I could not care less if someone was banned from something mostly unrelated to SG and I'm legitimately perplexed that it's such a popular option, or even one that's offered by SGTools by default.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a video game. It's not worth getting that worked up over. Of course, ban these people from playing TF2 or whatever so they don't ruin the experience for other people, but holding an undying grudge against every single "sick, perverted little prick" seems like a little much.
I guess "People take video games too seriously," was the obvious answer all along, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
"It's a video game. It's not worth getting that worked up over."
If this logic can apply to VAC bans, can't it apply to low ratios, regifting, circumventing giveaway requirements, multiple accounts, et al?
You're essentially dismissing out of hand one arbitrary reason for how people choose to limit access to their giveaways without actually demonstrating that it is a less valid reason than the myriad of other reasons people restrict access to their giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
All of those things you listed are directly related to Steam Gifts, its rules, and giveaways. VAC bans are not. Don't insult yourself by saying you don't see the difference.
I'm also guessing you didn't read the comment ChibiCthulhu linked to where he seems really, honestly upset that anyone would ever cheat at a game. That's mostly what I was addressing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I listed variables that many people find valid for judging other members as unworthy of receiving consideration to receive a free game. I'm aware that VAC bans have nothing to do with SG, but I don't think that particular variable means anything by itself. By that logic, someone known to have knowingly and repeatedly violated a rule of another game giveaway site that has a rule that SG does not have would qualify as an insufficient reason for a giver here to use as a valid reason for exclusion.
And I wasn't addressing or responding to his hostility toward cheaters. I was addressing you alone because you said, "I could not care less if someone was banned from something mostly unrelated to SG," and, "It's a video game. It's not worth getting that worked up over."
Personally I don't care for generic thanks replies to giveaways, but I realize other people do and I don't deny others the option to exclude people for that not posting thanks (or for posting thanks), nor would I say, "it's just a giveaway. It's not worth getting that worked up over."
I'm saying it's all rather arbitrary. I don't see why VAC bans are somehow worse just because they aren't directly related to SG itself; to use the statement you used in response to me, don't insult yourself by pretending like you don't see how an individual with VAC bans on their account might come across to some as dishonest and disruptive to others' enjoyment of games.
P.S. Someone might read this post or any other post I have made, look at my avatar, my giveaway activity, my Steam profile, or anything, and say to themselves, "I don't like that guy. He's an ass. I'm going to blacklist him." I certainly wouldn't like that but it's their privilege to be arbitrary regarding such matters.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I wasn't addressing or responding to his hostility toward cheaters. I was addressing you alone because you said, "I could not care less if someone was banned from something mostly unrelated to SG," and, "It's a video game. It's not worth getting that worked up over."
If you're going to try to argue with me while totally ignoring the context of my statements, you're not really worth engaging, sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
The context is that you "could not care less if someone was [VAC] banned," and the additional response to his statement is that "it's just a game." I addressed the core of your statement.
If you don't want to engage, that's your prerogative. I could not care less if you are unwilling to acknowledge that my responses were directed to you for the specific reasons I detailed.
Comment has been collapsed.
The context was that I was responding to a specific comment made by ChibiCthulhu. Which he helpfully linked you to. I don't know why you feel the need to distort this, but again, this is just tedious. It seems like you want to argue with everyone who posted in this thread, so good luck doing that with everyone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
The issue is whether a VAC ban itself is a valid reason for excluding from a giveaway. You initially indicated that you didn't think it was personally, that you didn't understand why it was such a popular option, and when ChibiCthulhu responded to you, you took issue with his vehemence toward those with VAC bans without ever indicating that you understood why he or anyone might consider VAC bans to be a valid reason for exclusion. This is what I have addressed--VAC bans as a valid reason for exclusion as opposed to violation of the official rules, or ratios, or even personal reasons that are by definition arbitrary.
Pretend like it is a distortion all you like but I responded to you because of your statements on the issues of VAC bans, or someone's feelings about it. Your responses in return have merely been to point out that VAC bans are unrelated to SG, and then to pretend like I've been responding to you while not understanding or misrepresenting the context.
Now you want to pretend like I've been trolling the thread picking fights. Bravo. The Trump is strong in you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm not even saying you're wrong. I'm just pointing out that you're being an asshole.
Please respect the fact that I don't want to hear anything else from you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I am definitely being an asshole. Took me a while to get there, but to me, you were being an asshole first. But it's all arbitrary and subjective. I didn't respond with the intention of antagonizing you; I legitimately wanted to have a discussion.
As for respecting that you don't want to continue, that's fine, but you can either try to bow out, or try to have the last word and get a last zinger in. Not both. So I'll assume you've bowed out and we'll leave it at that.
Hopefully in the future we'll have a more fruitful exchange.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a "zinger" when all I'm asking is the basic level of respect it would take for you to stop harassing me. I "bowed out" the first time I told you I wasn't interested in this discussion. Do you not understand that?
I already have you blocked on Steam; if I could block you here too, I would. It's not a matter of our opinions on VAC bans; you are insisting on pestering someone who does not want to be contacted by you and acting like this grants you the moral and dialectical high ground.
This is the last thing I'll say on the matter. But I just wanted to be 100% clear with you: I don't care about your opinion or your argument. I don't really care if people want to exclude users with VAC bans from their giveaways. I just want you to stop bothering me. If you can't do that, I suppose I'll go to support, for what little help that would be.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I don't care but I need to have the last word."
Don't turn this into a specious harassment claim. Don't make this about how I won't stop responding but you have. You want the last word, or you really want it to end and won't keep responding. These are mutually exclusive options. You have tried to choose the last word. But I assure you as a measure of good faith that regardless of what else you try to slide past the goalie at the last second that I'm not going to respond again.
Have a nice day.
Comment has been collapsed.
That got out of hand fast! It's kinda cute when someone post in a public discussion and want stop others from replying!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why VAC bans are somehow worse just because they aren't directly related to SG itself;
You should though. Since VAC status is completely outside SteamGifts "jurisdiction", one could also say that include an option that anyone banned in any Steam Community forum can be excluded. Or anyone with a negative trade rep. Or anyone with a low played game ratio according to SteamDB.
Or heck, just exclude anyone with a traffic fine, with late taxes, non-voters, and the list could go on.
Comment has been collapsed.
You could have went the opposite direction with your examples. What if someone is a known domestic abuser, rapist, or murderer? Are those examples too extreme? The core thing they share with VAC bans is that they have nothing to do with SG itself, but that people may feel that they are valuable reasons for exclusion as they say something about the person.
Or what about a person that uses domestic abuse, rape, and murder in an analogy to demonstrate a point? Maybe that's a valid reason for exclusion.
Comment has been collapsed.
How about I spend a short amount of my time and implement a rule that will prohibit from joining all people that played L4D2 for more than 2000 hours?
I can understand SG-based restrictions, but this is going too far.
Comment has been collapsed.
But you haven't actually made a case for why people who have played L4D2 for more than 2K hours should be prohibited.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because I like. I don't know - let's say I don't like L4D2 as the game and I think that everybody who plays it should not join my giveaways (just an example).
Same as you can say that you don't want cheaters who got VAC in your giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oooooh, can I then exclude anyone who ever bought a single CS/TF item from the Steam store? I could write a small essay on how it would totally make sense!
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said that I don't want cheaters who have VAC bans in my giveaways. I've never used SGTools for a giveaway.
And I already addressed the arbitrary nature of the exclusions people use for giveaways on SG. I haven't argued against them.
To take your example seriously, if you don't want to have people who have played L4D2 for 2K hours eligible for your giveaways, that's your prerogative.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thread is about a discussion of fairness for VAC related rule used by SGT. If there was an option that would exclude people following certain religion or being from certain race, would you still find it OK, that I allowed only white christians to join my giveaways? Assume that there is a way to implement that.
People above provided some really good arguments when VAC ban was issued on innocent people. They're probably minority, and as you can see I never got VAC ban myself (and I'm not going to), yet I still find it very silly that we restrict people from joining a freaking giveaway on giveaway site for some third-party totally unrelated factor as VAC record. In fact, I find it already silly that we restrict people based on their ratios, but I can see a point in that, while I can't see a point in restriction based on VAC ban, which is unrelated to SG.
It's the same as the restriction based on religion or race, or as stupid factor as the fact that your most played game is L4D2. Those restrictions simply don't make any sense, if there was an option I'm sure people would prefer for their giveaways to be even more exclusive, disallowing e.g. black people or Muslims from joining, just because they can, even though it doesn't make any sense.
Same with VAC. Sometimes the only good choice is to NOT release something to the public, because people tend to be too stupid to understand the effect. I wanted to release my blacklist checker to public, and eventually I decided that people here are not ready for such data, they wouldn't try to understand blacklister, contact with him or fix their mistake, they'd simply blacklist back and cause even more drama. Some people prefer to provide everybody with a gun and say "gun is just a tool, they're shooting each other" (KnSYS), while I prefer to avoid the cataclysm by not doing any of that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't find race/religion to be a good analogue to VAC bans. VAC bans at least have a relationship in the minds of many with how one has chosen to conduct oneself as a gamer in the Steam community.
A VAC ban is kind of like Match.com users using a Chrome extension that blocks responses from users whose account is registered with an email found in the Ashley Madison data hack. It's not directly related to Match, there's a chance the person was never registered to AM, and even if they were there's the possibility that this person was never in a committed relationship when they used the site, but it's something some people would find relevant and useful, and use it.
If someone sees a thread here and says, "that guy [me] is an ass" and blocks me as AttackSlugD did, that's on them. That's their right. If they say, "that guy is [race]," or "he believes in [spiritual philosphy]," again, that's on them. I wouldn't like that, but I support their option to be capricious, even if that capriciousness is bigoted. Sponsored bigotry, such as if SGTools could have a race/religion option, that I would not support. But I don't think allowing to filter for VAC bans qualifies.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say that exclusion based on VAC ban is as bad as exclusion based on your steam account being a member of original network group, or supporting gay marriages. It's same crap, exclusion based on silly, not-connected-at-all-with-steamgifts factors. What you compare above is which reason is more stupid, while I state that all of them are equally stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you mean adding an anti-group function of "if user is member of this group, they cannot see the giveaway" is a bad idea? :3
But imagine the armies of Salz groupies that would bitch endlessly all over reddit!
Comment has been collapsed.
You know what's the best? That this is actually pretty easy to implement and KnSYS could implement that in notime. Just imagine the drama.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeeees! SG could always use a little more drama! >:D
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree.
Comment has been collapsed.
i still don't know why people in this thread are defending vac banned users so much.
in the end it's up to the ga creator to filter out all the entries he wants with any option available sgtools offer...
Comment has been collapsed.
Filtering people with a mark on their permanent record for cheating seems like just as good a reason as filtering people whom didn't RTFM upon joining SG and failed to activate a win or regifted.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the internet. Who needs logic when your wrong >:D
I'm indifferent, please don't hate me ;_;
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly, it is more like hard facts. VAC bans are often issued for graphical mods. That is commonly known.
Comment has been collapsed.
Common people don't have to know that this certain graphic mod triggers VAC ban, because creator used this and not other file as base to make explosions blue instead of yellow. Sure, it will surface after lots of people get VAC banned and be noted somewhere, but what about people who used it as guinea pigs?
It's Valve fault that this mechanism is not working properly,and even if someone has got strong evidence that it's system fauls and not players for getting VAC banned people can't lift up these bans.
Something else is using haxes to shoot through walls in CS:GO and something else it simple graphic mod which will be flagged wrongly by VAC as cheat.
Comment has been collapsed.
By changing the textures you can get an unfair advantage over the other players. You can even make it like a wallhack. So there is a valid reason for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
By changing the textures you can get an unfair advantage over the other players.
0.o
How? If that would be the case, the entire CS:GO market is a legalised cheat store.
Comment has been collapsed.
How? Easy. A bright yellow model is easier to spot than a guy with camo. Make the walls all white and smoke textures see through.
Those skins may only affect the visability of your own model and they are first party.
I said you CAN not that it is always the case.
You could also make all textures plain black and run around blind if you want to but the anticheat doesnt know the difference (which i think is quite fair considering what they would have to implement).
Comment has been collapsed.
People would do this exact thing in Enemy Territory.
Comment has been collapsed.
isn't it important, if a certain mod actually does something that could be considered cheating or not? sure, a texture mod could do what you described below. all walls white, so you can see the enemies really well. but if a mod just adds some high-res versions of the old textures, that's really no cheat. and it shouldn't be treated as such, just because it uses dll injection.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the problem is impossible to know, hence there only to fair solutions: allow all or ban all.
May not be the best solution, but by the limits of our technology its a fair one
Comment has been collapsed.
by your logic, if it is known to not go to a certain dangerous part of the city, and i as a stranger go there anyway and get killed, it's my fault. ^^
you can't expect people to always know everything. if you implement a system that marks you as a cheater for life, you better make sure there is absolutely no possibility for false positives. and if they occur anyway, you better make sure your support handles those cases correctly and lifts the ban if unjustified. Valve does neither of those things.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would like to point you to my other comment.
(http://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/M8j5X/not-vac-banned-as-a-requirement-fair#IPmfCh2)
Comment has been collapsed.
and i would like to point you to the video i posted down there:
http://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/2BbuTwS
if you are willing to watch it (i understand if you're not, of course) - would you say the ban is justified? i know i would not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just watched it. Yes I think it is.
If VAC had to check all your modified files for what they do it would become very complex (and may result in even more false positives) and would use more resources of your computer (some peoply dont like that).
It was a third party file and it could have given you an advantage.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, but that's why you have to have a proper support who handles those false positives you inescapably will produce. if someone proves to you that the mod he used was not a cheat, then you have to unban him. else you punish a good customer for life for something he didn't do.
imagine this happens to you, after you bought hundreds if not thousands of games from valve. imagine they mark you as cheater for life, although you didn't even cheat. wouldn't you be pissed? ^^ i would, and i think a system like that needs to prevent false positives by any means. i will be honest, i would even accept a more lose system and a few more cheaters, if that would mean guaranteed 0% false positives.
you just can't treat customers like that. i am in constant fear when using graphical mods now. especially because i read about cases where VAC was not announced on the store page of a game, but used anyway. so worst case looks like this: you think you're safe to use the mod which is not a cheat anyway, you use it, but VAC activates, although there was no sign at all that VAC is even active for that game. and then you explain the case to support, and they ignore you, like valve support likes to do. congratz, you're banned and marked for life. short version: you did nothing wrong, but you're fucked. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok so the support would have to check all your modification files by hand and realy look into them what they do (in the means of looking at the code). This means highly qualified people which cost a lot. I dont even think bigger companies could actualy do that.
Getting VAC bans from games that state to not have VAC is realy bad and i would probably be pissed about it, yes.
Still if you are using modified files in multiplayer games it is (from my point of view) correct.
And how do oyu know that the file "is not a cheat anyway" ? Do oyu check all the code in the modifications you download? No? I cant blame you for that but that does also mean that you cant say it is not a cheat. There COULD be some hidden features you dont know about.
We are still talking about a very low percentage of players (in both ways) and i dont see how we cannot accept that but accept false positives in the legal system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok so the support would have to check all your modification files by hand and realy look into them what they do (in the means of looking at the code). This means highly qualified people which cost a lot.
true, but you would only have to do that once per mod (or once per version). you could then easily save a hash for the files included in the mod, and next time it's not that much work anymore (it might even be possible to automate it then). i really think it would be doable.
We are still talking about a very low percentage of players (in both ways) and i dont see how we cannot accept that
as i said, i think if the punishment is so harsh, there should be no room for false positives. if those bans were lifted after a while (let's say a few months), false VAC bans would be way more acceptable than they are now. but they mark your account for life, which in my opinion should mean they have to prevent false positives at any cost.
but accept false positives in the legal system.
do we? ^^ ok, do you have an example?
Comment has been collapsed.
rue, but you would only have to do that once per mod (or once per version). you could then easily save a hash for the files >included in the mod, and next time it's not that much work anymore (it might even be possible to automate it then). i really think >it would be doable.
Okay so every file of every mod for every game have to be checked for each version. Manualy. That seems like quite a lot.
as i said, i think if the punishment is so harsh, there should be no room for false positives.
Ok lets compare it to the legal system again. In all legal systems that are used and that I know of are false positives and those punishments are not realy comparable with loosing money. And you are marked for your whole life and cant just buy a new account.
do we? ^^ ok, do you have an example?
Yes we (as humans) do. Otherwise we wouldnt have the death penalty anywhere in the world nor would we have miscarriage of justice.
German Link for you : Justizirrtum
English links : miscarriage of justice
I know this drifted a little bit away from the original topic but I just wanted to state that we accept false positives with a bigger impact. Yet we talk about games that we only own the license to play them.
Edit : It has improved a lot since the DNA tests were invented.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not like graphical mods in multiplayer games should be allowed..
Comment has been collapsed.
no, it's just the truth. i didn't mean that as an attack or something (sorry if it sounded that way). what you say is just not completely true. there are documented cases where people got a VAC ban for something else than cheating.
Comment has been collapsed.
There were few false VAC bans, but most of them were rescinded.
BUT! If someone steals your account and "as a joke" gets you a VAC ban, Valve will not reverse it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never heard about a single one that was. And knowing their "wonderful" and "helpful" support first-hand, I'd believe the less optimistic stories.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
But this is for one single game. What about all the dozens of other VAC protected games where false positives resulted in an online ban?
Not to mention that since apparently the CoD crowd is made up of a bunch of hypersentsitive whiny kids, the industry tends to tread really lightly among them so they don't have to hear the constant bitching. After all, they (or more precisely, their parents) give them hundreds of millions each year for the same product.
Comment has been collapsed.
There were also false bans in CSGO, false bans in TF2, all reverted.
You need to remember, graphical mods CAN change how good/bad you see enemies, borderline example where walls are purple and enemies yellow. And unfortunately, since one guy found a way to make such a mod/cheat, everyone who will use it will be flagged as cheater :(
Comment has been collapsed.
That kind of high contrast, especially with a fast-paced gameplay, should kill their eyes more than any paltry little online ban could hurt them anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
this is not always the case, although i believe that a good 90-95% of the times it is due to cheating
but... i remember reading a while back about people getting VAC bans from CoD games for increasing the field of view in the options, even though some people need to alter it because they get nausea and that stuff... how true this is? no idea, but if it is true then that's kind of a dick move from steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was a 3rd-party plugin, not in options. And, unfortunately, bigger FOV = easier game as you can see more ground.
So people could use it to get easier game.
If someone doesn't know how bigger FoV makes game easier, picture. Notice that in lower FoV you can't see that box-thingie on left side, so if someone was there you'd be completely blind:
Comment has been collapsed.
does CoD only support 16:9? because if they support different aspect ratios (16:10, 5:4, 4:3, 21:9...), the players have different FOVs anyway, right?
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont know about the aspect ratios but that doesnt matter because it is implemented in the game so everyone can use the options by default.
Comment has been collapsed.
sure. i just meant that adjusted FOV as a means to see more on front of you is not really a valid justification to treat someone as cheater, if the players don't have the same FOV anyway, due to different resolutions and aspect ratios. for instance, let's assume CoD would support 21:9 (which i guess it doesn't, since CoD games are not the best PC ports, usually). so someone with such a monitor has a wider FOV anyway. then how would it be cheating if someone with a 16:9 monitor widens his FOV a little?
aside from that, we should generally allow people with motion sickness to alter the FOV (so they can play at all), regardless of the possibility that people may get a small advantage that way. we could just permit that for offline tournaments, for example, and not make such a big deal out of it for everyone else. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
No need to support 21:9. Some engines can do dual 16:9 natively, which would equal to a 32:9 ratio. Sure, the distortion really kicks in (and it is brutal on triple monitors), but the FoV is there.
Comment has been collapsed.
"i just meant that adjusted FOV as a means to see more on front of you is not really a valid justification to treat someone as cheater" - it kinda is, because two people who use exactly same hardware would not have exactly same games.
Yes, I agree FoV sliders should be a normal thing in PC Gaming, so everyone could set the games however they like. And after many years they finally become a normal thing.
Yes, that also means games like CS or CoD are PayToWin - more money you put into hardware, more chances to win :P
Comment has been collapsed.
So basicly every game is PayToWin.
(competitive players often play with low settings anyway)
Comment has been collapsed.
I also think that all games should have custom FOV.
Besides that if a game doesnt have it and you are changing it via a third party file/ extension you are going out of the default boundaries which can give you an advantage.
I dont know why people are having such an issue with VAC. It is like sports and even like the legal system (which also creates false positives).
For example in table tennis you are only allowed to you certian rubbers on you racket. If you get a "third party" one you cant play even if no one can confirm that it gives you an advantage.
Comment has been collapsed.
oh right, i thought it was in the default options, but yeah i do know how bigger FOV is easier, at the same time tho, some people (i dont... but i know there are ppl that do) get ill playing with small FOV and stuff, i see that less about cheating and more about trying to enjoy a game, at the end of the day if you are bad... a bigger FOV aint going to help :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe they did something wrong, but anyway they were punished for it and served their time. I do not think that we should hold grudges and keep on punishing them.
Repeat offenses on the other hand might be something to consider very differently...
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem in this whole scenario are the false positives.
VAC isn't a flawless system, and it does occasionally trigger on modifications that aren't cheats or even active on a MP-environment.
So if by "did something wrong" you refer to anyone that modifies their games?
Then you'd be technically correct. But its a bit of a black and white statement applied to lots of shades of grey.
Its easy to be okay with such a system if you've never had a false positive hit you, its a lot less so when you do have to deal with it even though you did not do anything wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Think not only the vac ban thing is unfair and there are way too many restrictions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then again similar things can be said over puzzle giveaways I have seen on these forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe but the difference is people have a choice to participate in a puzzle or not, it gives some for the witty, if your real cv ratio isn't 1on1 or (i given more in numbers but somehow cv wise i am at 0.6 because i gave alot of bundled games and guess i won 1 or 2 games with big cv that weren't considered to be bundledand weren't aaa games like a fallout 4).
It's not a matter of choice nor easily fixed.
I can understand the activated all your wins, ratio of 1 etc but many set it too strict.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically there's no difference between both types of giveaways as they are both restrictive and that is most probably the intention of both the giveaway creators of a puzzles giveaway and a SGTools giveaway.
And for both the bottom line in the end is: their giveaways their restrictions.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ This! Thanks... saved me some typing it IS a choice someone has made to have a bad ratio.
Solution?
Give more, Enter less. SOLVED.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a matter of possibility - if KnSYS didn't give you the option to easily restrict people based on given factor, you wouldn't have willings neither skills to code it yourself, therefore you wouldn't use it. Same goes for puzzles and itstoohard service.
Whether KnSYS acted properly giving you the tool is another story. Personally I think that people are too stupid to use some of those options correctly, they use them because they can. And it's not always proper doing that - imagine a button "start nuclear war" mounted in every typical american house, that would actually launch nukes on Russia when pressed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that you either are underestimating the people that in your words are too stupid and/or that you're overestimating your own opinion but neither negate the fact that between SGTools, puzzles, ITH, CV level 10 giveaways, forum nominating invite only and whitelists there's no basic difference because users that use and create any of these are most probably intentionally making these restrictive types of giveaways so that only certain users can enter and win these types of giveaways.
I heard and read many times on the forums that it's up to the giveaway creator how he does his giveaways. So a SGTools giveaway with a no VAC ban as requirement is nothing else or nothing different than all the other types of restrictive giveaways listed above.
I personally find that regifters, multiple winners, cheaters and scammers are just more of the same and I personally wouldn't like that these people win giveaways that I created. And I don't think I'm the only one that wouldn't like that because when looking at other users their SGTools giveaways the most used requirements are: all activated; no multiple wins and no VAC bans. I really do like SGTools giveaways a lot and will continue to use them when I want to and set the reqs like I want to and that coming from someone that has done 405 public giveaways and 73 group, WL and SGT giveaways. It isn't about the raw numbers It's just that I have really tried doing mostly public giveaways and have been disapointed with them as of late.
SGTools protected giveaways work as a gate and have loads of usefull functionality.
SGT giveaways give me far less support tickets, no more regifters, no more multiple winners, no more cheaters, no ratio's in the vicinity of 100/1 and 200/5, each wagon can now be checked in the train checker, SGT giveaways are very fast to check the winners comparing to other giveaways so I can expedite the winners gifts. And you can change or lower the requirements on the fly even when the giveaway is started.
I will still do some other types of giveaways but I'm thinking of transitioning the bulk of my giveaways to SGTools because I like them and I believe that these SGTools giveaways are part of the future of SG. Time will tell.
And off course I can't make things like SGTools and Archibot but then again who can? But that doesn't mean I can't work with SGTools as most of the stock/vanilla SGT requirements are self-explanatory and also SG users help each other, I helped users with SGTools and other users helped me with SGTools.
I thank Knsys for making SGTools, sharing it and making it even better. Also there's a lot of useful information to be found on the SGTools site.
Btw I grew up under the treat of the Soviets/USSR and I still aint seen thermonuclear ballistic missiles rain down on Germany and the rest of Europe. I would be more afraid that a religious nutter in Iran or a megalomaniac nutter in North Korea would use their terrorists/spooks to plant a dirty bomb in Europe or anywhere else.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your logic is flawed, because you automatically assign every person with VAC ban, even the one from 10 years ago, and every past rule breaker, even which happened 3-4 years ago, as a bad person.
I'm 22, nearly 23 years old. Steam exists at least for 10 years now (most likely around 12). 8 years ago I had 14-15 years. If I were stupid enough to use some sort of cheat, for instance because I wanted to see how it works, or I used some graphical mod that is not a cheat at all, and I used it on single player, yet it triggered VAC - I got it. That was 8 years ago, and you today, 8 years later penalize me for that moment of stupidity, on steamgifts - a site which is in no way connected with steam VAC system, just because you can - somebody made it optional, gave you the tool. And yes, I've seen people VAC-banned 10 years ago.
Same goes for rule breakers, I met a bunch of people who did break the rules in the past, especially in my "rule breakers appreciation thread" you probably saw floating around, and I don't consider neither of them as bad person that I would want to restrict from my giveaways. There are people who don't care at all, are breaking rules over and over again, or are leeching to some awful degree like 1/200. But there are also many awesome people who did mistakes in the past, and can't correct them, be it because giveaway creator from 3 years ago doesn't bother with SG anymore, or because VAC issued 8 years ago is permanent. They are already punished enough for what they're doing, there's really no logic in putting them in the same group as 1/200 guys or repetitive rule breakers. It's like you'd penalize the guy wanting to get a job because he stole a candy when he was 8 years old, just because police or some other institute put that incident in guy's papers.
But that's my 5 cents, neither of those rule considers me, I don't have VAC. I just for one, understand the effect of SGT and I'm thinking twice before creating a restricted giveaway, which I don't expect from you. People just tend to use population generalization to some unbelievable degree, and that's why I state that most of them can't understand what they're doing. I don't have anything against people putting SGT giveaways - it's their choice, but the logic behind using them is flawed mostly. Somebody gave them the tool, believing that it will be used in right intentions, and people use it without understanding it, or considering consequences - just because they can.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm nearly 12 years on Steam, again it isn't about the raw number but I know the time that a VAC ban was temporary and it became a permanent suspension because steam users that cheated shot themselves in the foot again and again. In other words a VAC ban became permanent because Valve/Steam support noticed that the accounts that were VAC unbanned were getting VAC banned again and again. Most cheaters don't change their habits they just come more adept cheaters and keep on ruining the online experiences of those that don't cheat.
So the only credits for getting in a situation that VAC is a permanent ban go to cheaters themselves.
And the one certainty is that a VAC banned account can't be used for cheating again for the games that they are VAC banned in.
Cheaters have tons of excuses (just look at the Steam VAC discussions war zone) but they all say they never cheated or it's their little brother that played on their account or its a roommate that played on their account or they forgot to turn of a cheat engine or they were bored and there are zillions other excuses but all with little or no credibility.
Lot's of useful information can be found on sites like for example VacBanned.com and Steam.db.
https://steamdb.info/stats/bans/
For the month of January 2016 there were given on Steam: 129 816 VAC bans and 25 748 Game bans.
All VAC and Game bans on Steam to date: there are 3 679 399 VAC and 246 557 game bans given.
Those numbers of cheaters are more than sufficient enough to ruin and spoil the online game experiences of a lot of users that don't cheat.
When I see these kinds of numbers It's totally warranted that VAC bans are permanent.
What I also noticed in my nearly dozen years on Steam is that a lot of users that tried to scam me and that are now blocked had/have private profiles and/or (multiple) VAC/Game/trade ban(s). Another thing that shows that some use their cheating mentality/ability to cheat not only in online games but also in trades.
And we can talk about it until doomsday, in the end it's up to the giveaway creator to use what types of giveaways and requirements as he/she wants to and there's no restrictive difference what's so ever between SGT giveaways and puzzles, ITH, level 10+, forum nominations, invite only and group giveaways because they all achieve the same purpose: restricted giveaways that have a gate so that only certain users can enter and win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do understand your point here, the most correct way is to use a time limit, block all user VAC banned or Rule breakers less than year, kinda like in some countries, after a arbitrary amount of time, your police record is cleaned (at least the one exposed for the general public)
Sadly that's not the case here, it's block or allow them all, in any case is unfair. I do agree you have to contemplate the consequences before choosing, neither option is wrong or good. I choose to block cheaters in respect of the other good behavior or allow them all in respect of users suffering of unfair accusation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate false positive more than real cheaters... still, it is a fragment of cases, so I think it is still reasonable to include the condition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't care much for giveaways and less for sgtools ... VAC Bans however are public shaming and plain wrong - whats the darn point?
Disallowing cheaters and wrongly accused accounts from playing those games online that is reasonable, but considering steam
support is one of the worst in existence, why not slap over that fancy red VAC Ban Notices as if you were a criminal 4 life ... almost
as bad as having to wear your creed sewed on every piece of clothing "jewish, muslim, christian, atheist".
In addition to that - not even showing in which darn game the VAC occurred and 0 specifics ... what if its 100% Orange Juice or
Clickr or some other utterly worthless game that might've triggered a correct or false-flag Vac Ban which is broadly known.
https://steamdb.info/stats/bans/
^ This is a neat overview on VAC Bans, some of the listed
accounts seem to be obvious cheater imbeciles ... still no
need for a branding that shows up literally everywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
People who cheat at "utterly worthless games" are still utterly worthless cheaters. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
Public Shaming is something that works in discouraging people from doing something naughty.
Bad-Guys will still do it, but Normal-People will think twice if they want to be branded as Bad-Guy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah that sounds about right.
With all the Early Access Games and Mods or manually changeable Options i could see myself getting a VAC/Game Ban
for altering some option - greater field of view, fixed fps, other textures/settings. That is, if i wouldn't know what triggers
the VAC/Game Bans in the first place, nor about the Bans in general, which many do not, i'd assume ...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, to get VAC ban you need to edit multiplayer. And in the end, even mod that change textures can be a cheat, if you make all walls purple and enemies yellow...
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really interested in the "cheater" topic, but your sentence has somehow triggered me.
I don't know where you are from, I bet this public shaming thing is strongly culturally based, but around here public shaming is considered as bad as the incrimanating act itself. Also shaming put you on a very risky spot because legally speaking you are doing a wrong to someone (even if this someone is a criminal) and you are liable to a fine or even time in extreme cases (that is usually converted on a heavier fine).
What I wanted to say is that people should use some more consideration sometimes, in the middle ages we used to have the public shame penalty, but we are past that time, are we?
PS:
Just in case my post is appearing aggressive, I have nothing against you psyko, is just that this line of thought seems to be very popular among some online communities and it is quite alarming.
Comment has been collapsed.
Online Communities public shaming usually is bullshit, I agree.
And then newspapers/other-media, especially tabloids are doing their own public shaming, sometimes totally fake.
But I'm talking about law-allowed public shaming, like putting your drunken-photo in local newspaper is part of a punishment instead of fine. And stuff like that works to scare Normal People from doing Stupid Stuff.
When someone has 500 games on Steam, don't you think he'll think twice knowing if he'll get caught, his account forever will bear the mark of being Bad-Guy?
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest I'm not aware of law-allowed public shaming where I live. If you are a normal law abiding citizen you better keep your opinions to yourself, cos it is very likely that the shamed person will sue you and drag you in court. A common example is politicians, even if one of them is caught doing something morally/legally wrong you can't safely shame them publically, the probability of getting sued is very high in this case. We had cases of random citizens getting sued for things they posted on their facebook pages, stupid things probably posted in a moment of low lucidity, but that's what puclic shaming earns you.
Only the media and the powerfull usually can get away with it, that's why I'm against it in all of its forms. If you do something wrong you must pay, there is a legal system that states the fine/sentence, what right have other people to interfere with this process?
Criminal records here are not public, there is a form of protection that only allow your future employer to know if you have committed some serious felonies, but nothing more. After 5 years of good conduct the less serious crimes get deleted from your criminal record with the possibility of having it clean again.
Obviously I'm talking about real life problems here, not some silly ban on a game, but the principle still applies. I personally don't like the way steam manages VAC bans, primarily cos of the false positives, but even in the case of a true cheater it seems objectionable, why? Because the average steam user is still in his teens. I'd say, give them a (positive) lesson, ban, perma-ban whatever, but once you have "served your sentence" you should be able to get back to the community, but how can you do it with that big scary red text in your profile? It seems to me something intended to force users into getting a new account and buying the games again.
What is the lesson here? Who cares if you get banned, with enough money you can create a new account and cheat again and again and again...
Same disclaimer as above, this post is not meant as an attack towards anyone, it's more like a rant (gonna thanks Valve for that).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, not sure if your definition of public shaming will be same as mine (might be even some language translation difference), so not sure if you'll consider this public shaming or not: in USA there are Sex Offenders List where you receive photos, names and address of people lawfully convicted of being sex offender. And all you need is a zipcode to receive full info.
But I agree with you about those politicians and media stuff. That's bullshit.
As for "What is the lesson here? Who cares if you get banned, with enough money you can create a new account and cheat again and again and again" - those guys are "crazies", stuff like public shaming in form of VAC-ban-info is something that's supposed to scare "normal people". And I guess after some time those bans could disappear from public view.
Some people would be sad if they would buy those accounts and learn about bans after paying, but then it's not like Steam TOS allows that...
Comment has been collapsed.
Ye, I heard about that thing on sex offenders in the US and I'm glad nothing like that exist here, it is highly uncivilized in my opinion.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but when talking about big companies like Valve It is really difficult for me to believe that their actions are driven by anything other than money. I've seen accounts with 2600+ games getting vac banned, something in this scare tactic is not working I think...
Anyway, I'm glad that the issue here is related to the digital world, I mean, if you are "bad guy" on steam and got vac banned no one is gonna point his finger at you in real life, there is no red text here (not yet :P).
Comment has been collapsed.
VAC bans shouldn't be indefinite regardless of the reason. Excluding people for things that happened years past also seems really unreasonable. Yes, they probably did cheat but there are worse things they could have done and were probably nothing more than a foolish kid when it happened.
However a person has every right to choose what restrictions to put on their giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
A very long time ago VAC bans used a grandfather system where after X amount of time the ban was lifted (if I remember correctly it was 10 years). A little bit after steam became 10 years old they lifted quite a few bans but shortly after got rid of the system and made all bans permanent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, you were sharing that you feel that the bans shouldn't be indefinite and I just wanted to share that before they weren't indefinite but valve changed their minds and made them so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, I see. It was probably too much work for them. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually they didn't have to do anything, as soon as you would be vac banned your ban would be on a timer in your settings it would say something like "VAC banned: 1500 days remaining" as soon as the last day ended your vac would automatically be lifted with no work on valves side. They only got rid of it because they changed from VAC1 to VAC2.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I ask where you're going with this? I don't care what their system is, I still don't think bans should be flat out permanent.
If it's not too much work for them then it just seems more ridiculous that they are.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically I was agreeing with you and pointed out how they originally dealt with vac bans was fair and they changed it to something not so fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah I see. It wasn't really clear why you were talking about that.
It does seems like they took a step backwards. Probably with a 3 strikes system would work best and be most fair. It's pretty difficult to be banned accidentally three times.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't even know what a VAC ban is, but it has the word 'ban' in it, so the person probably did something stupid, untoward or most likely both. Discriminating on that basis? Sounds fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve Anti-Cheat. A system that tries to automatically identify cheaters in online PvP games, the primary target being Valve games (CS:GO and TF2). It is so good that auto-bans you for using a graphical shader mod, ye you can buy a simple aimbot program for 5-10 bucks and it will never pick it out.
Sarcastic remark: so, in a nutshell, a typical Valve product.
Comment has been collapsed.
How dare you, all Valve products are plain quality!
But srsly, thanks, that gave me a better grasp on VAC. Had a vague idea before, but no idea how it worked/what it looks for etc. Too lazy to look it up.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think some people might have been caught off guard rather them genuinely cheating.
You will trigger a VAC ban when you forget to remove the dll from whatever folder you left it in while playing MP
Same thing happens with GTA V
As for DS1 i have no idea, as it never happened to me, being banned from playing that game online wont prohibit you from passing Stools though
Comment has been collapsed.
Their money/game, their rules. False positive VAC bans are pretty rare to begin with, so I think its more than reasonable to include it as an exclusion if it is something you care about.
Comment has been collapsed.
just to clarify this is more a discussion about how bad Valve Anti Cheat thing is.. rather that make giveaway creator feel bad or something, i love you all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that's the problem of VAC banned people, not the giveaway creators. If someone was banned for cheating and ruining other people's games, I'd be glad to exclude that person from anything. If someone was banned unjustly, they need to resolve it by dealing with Steam support and remove the flag from their account or use a new account instead to enter these things. In the worst case you miss out on a giveaway or two, there are plenty of others to enter that won't be that strict, so whatever, it's not a big deal. Let's remember that you're already missing out on a shitton of giveaways because your level isn't high enough to enter every giveaway, blacklisted for various reasons or you just don't see certain private giveaways, so a few more that you can't enter don't change anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if VAC ban was given wrongly it will never be lift up. That's Valve policy.
They just have automatic system which can flag random people as cheaters for using graphic mods which doesn't give them any advantage in games. Every algoritm makes mistakes and VAC is no different. It's just it marks your account for life and you don't have any way of appeal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong, sometimes they lift it. Usually when issue was caused by Valve, there was also VAC-bans that were caused by some trojan.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that's just the risk you're taking when using mods like that. I've seen plenty of mods state that they take no responsibility if you get banned for using them and all that jazz, so I never used them and never had to deal with that. I agree that it's stupid that you can get VAC banned for legit mods, but if I don't want cheaters in my giveaway and on the way I also exclude a bunch of people who were banned wrongly, it's not really my problem to deal with, the people who have a VAC ban on their account should start doing something about it, whether it's to start bugging Valve until they soften their policies or just make a new account.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's really rare to have constructive dialog with Valve support instead of getting these automated messages without sense (some time ago Valve confirmed that they pay 3rd companies to do support work for them and that it was working poorly).
And getting new account is not an option. Would you start new account and rebuy every game you have (well at least multiuplayer ones) just because Valve f***** up and flagged your account as banned? I don't think so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, making a new account seems like a dumb option, but if entering some giveaway is not important enough to make a new account for, then maybe this whole thread isn't really important enough to argue over. If you're not willing or unable to deal with your own VAC problem, then it sucks, but it's definitely not the problem of giveaway creators that they need to go over each case individually or take this stuff into too much consideration. It's the same thing as setting a rule against people who didn't gift the game or didn't activate all their games, there are plenty of reasons that this would be considered fine if you went into deep details of it. Like the person's key didn't work because he got scammed and thought the key was real or some other problems like that and then the person has to deal with his own problem like buying the game again, but it's not really worth buying it just to gift it if it was like a 60$ game. This is the same situation pretty much, if you have an unjust VAC ban then you're the one that has to deal with it, not the giveaway creators and if it's not important enough for you to change an account then it's definitely not important enough for a giveaway creator to take into consideration and it's not supposed to be. It's like screaming that you have a problem and everyone else has to act accordingly just to please you because they're not being fair, when you're the one that has to fix your own problems or stay with them and don't complain about it to people that exclude you when they just exclude a general public(so it's not personal) and they can't go over every single case because it's too much unnecessary and unimportant work.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Tough but fair, people take this site way too seriously sometimes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve policy is that VAC bans are forever because they don't want to waste time with all the appeals. But I do know somebody who has had a VAC ban lifted and I have heard of a few more cases. In all cases they went straight to Valve and reported the software that they believed had caused a false positive and why and Valve agreed rather the more usual 'OMG I got VAC banned for no reason it must have been haxxors!' complaint.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a chance that Valve in few cases (out of hundred of thousands) will lift up bans. I saw few cases like this for known CS:GO players or in reddit threads (tho people there sometimes write that they know private Valve emails and they were writing there in addition to answering to Valve automatic messages).
But system where they just assume that "There is no ban lifts" will never be user-friendly. As you said, they hold the line of "We don't care it's your problem, we don't want to be forced to take care of every case individually" so they don't have to have working and efficient support system.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, and heaven knows I despise Valve support myself. And VAC is clearly far from infallible. I'm just saying it is possible to get VAC bans overturned - and in the case of the person I actually know without being a 'known CS:GO player', without making reddit threads or without knowing private e-mails.
But on the other hand I do have at least some sympathy for Valve in terms of the number of spurious appeals they must receive, the difficulties in giving out information about VAC bannings without giving hackers more information on their detection methods and the potential difficulties in differentiating between certain cosmetic mods and cheating.
Given the hassle and expense of running an entirely fair system I think I'd be at least myself tempted to take the position of 'anyone using any kind of mods in competitive multiplayer gaming is doing so at their own risk'.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a reason that VAC bans are permanent. I know the time when VAC bans were temporary but Valve changed this to permanent VAC bans when they noticed that the Steam users they unblocked just started to cheat again as soon as their VAC ban was lifted.
A classic case here for breaking ones own windows.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even if legitimate, how long do we want to hold someone accountable?
12 year olds, 15 year olds, 17 year olds.. the basis may differ, but any age category is going to have kids making stupid mistakes.
2, 3 years is a phenomenally long time in changing a younger individual's outlooks- is that ban going to follow them through their late 20s? 30s? 40s?
Kinda feels like there ought be a juvenile record approach to the whole thing, but since there isn't, at the very least we can implement a max-length-since-occurrence by default for the setting.
sure, some people did it intentionally, fully knowing what they were doing, still feel no shame, and simply got smarter about how they do it.
But for the people who made honest mistakes or were affected by bugs, they ought know the matter isn't going to haunt them forever.
It's not my role to make assumptions on something so indirectly related to a user's sg status, so until there's some sort of limit to it, not going to include the restriction.
Besides, if they can manage not to be a total scumbucket in trading, or on steam or sg community, and maintain a tolerable ratio, isn't that enough ? :P
Which isn't to say I don't approve of the binary restriction existing- to the contrary:
For some heavily multiplayer-minded players, that's a perfectly valid reason for restricting users, and there's nothing wrong with giving creators more options in giving giveaways the way they want to.
Just, a binary option on that oughtn't seem intuitive to most creators, since unless multiplayer cheating is a pet peeve of yours, it really isn't too relevant to general status- certainly not to a point that a complete lack of expiration seems preferable.
Note also that unlike sg infractions, there's no easy way to remove a Valve infraction. So that in itself makes it the most restrictive entry limitation, for the most minor infraction.
Actually, while on the topic, it's kinda weird there isn't a 'limit by sg trade feedback' option.
Though, given that that's at a valve level of moderator inattention, probably for the best :P
tl;dr version:
VAC ban is a perfectly valid sgtools filter, but it ought have more variety in implementation options and a different default setting.
Comment has been collapsed.
My own issue is that a permanent ban rules out any kind of incentive for rehabilitation or reintegration. In my experiences people go on and make new accounts for playing CS:GO or whatever and use their VAC banned accounts for scamming or such (which is absolutely the experiences that I have had with VAC banned accounts here).
Like large chunks of the real life criminal justice system it is 'tough' but doesn't actually make things better for anyone - it just encourages more bad behaviour because people don't have anything more to lose.
Comment has been collapsed.
Their money/game, their rules.
Exactly.
I think there are "unfairer" rules. I was blocked from a GA the other day for not having made any private GAs. Still, I think the creator should be able to do as (s)he pleases.
Comment has been collapsed.
On one of my first giveaways on the site the winner didn't activate the game to his account and instead regifted it. I asked why and he said it would have been a waste of time adding it to his account because he had a VAC ban. When I was doing trading there were several traders who got VAC bans and then just started scamming people until their reputation was completely shot.
Whether they did cheat or not and whether cheaters deserve free games or not - the thing that would put me off giving games to people with VAC bans is simply that they have almost certainly made new accounts for playing their CS:GO or whatever and they probably don't give a crap about the reputation of their banned account any more, or following any rules with it, or even using it to play games.
I know there would be a few exceptions, but I still suspect I'd be tempted to block VAC banned users if I made an sgtools giveaway just to save me potential hassle...
Comment has been collapsed.
I always thought this rule was a little arbitrary (because of the fact that most games aren't impacted by a VAC ban) but I suppose it could be important enough for someone to decide not to want to give a game to someone with a VAC ban. Perhaps because it reveals disrespect for other players (if the ban is legit) or a propensity to cheat at games (and, by extension, not play them "the way they're meant to be played"). It doesn't bug me though, unless I'm giving away a game in which VAC bans would affect the majority of the gameplay (CS:GO for example).
Comment has been collapsed.
I have account for 2 years and gave games to ~140 different people. And never saw someone with VAC ban. I don't think it's that common.
Activation and multiple wins rule + some ratio is enough for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think we've 3-5 members in PosTho with VAC bans atm [all are like, 3 years old].
Obviously, they're theoretically otherwise quite admirable individuals on sg, given that they met our entry requirements.
So I try not to make any assumptions about the matter, at least not until I've been given enough reasons to expect the worst. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd "like" idea of VAC ban but only if it'd have condition "banned in last x days". Otherwise we can punish now clean people who few years ago were unrightly banned or were stupid as teens and used some cheats.
There is easy way of fixing not activated games and multiple wins. Lifting VAC ban is nearly impossible knowing Valve monkey support.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically that. Even if I agree that cheating is entirely, 100% negative behavior, the fact that no-limit restricting by it would make it treated more harshly than more serious, more outright deliberate offenses, just doesn't sit well with me.
I'm just not yet willing to put people who use cheat-mods in games on the same level as outright scammers and the most vile behaved individuals out there. That feels like sticking a shoplifter in with bank robbers- it's a totally different tier of misbehavior, regardless of the intentions behind either act.
Certainly, if you're major into multiplayer games, I respect your right to filter by it.
But I'm primarily a single player/co-op with close friends player. I have no real right to make judgement on that sort of behavior.
All I know is, while I never cheated, I did a lot of stupid things as a kid, just not knowing better, and I wouldn't want to be held to any of those behaviors either.
And besides, why not just assume people who haven't been VAC banned for years- even if they didn't start as kids- haven't improved their character, since?
Sure it's on the unlikely side, but it's a nicer concept to choose to believe in. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Cheaters ruin the fun for other people and only care about themselves. They're sick, perverted little pricks. I'd never want to give a game to one of those people. If they ruin games for other people, they don't deserve to be given any games.
Now I am aware that there are some people that got VAC banned even though they didn't cheat, but those are very very rare cases. And from what I've read on various forums you can get your VAC ban lifted if you send support ticket to Valve and their investigation proves that you were wrongly banned.
So not only am I going to use "No VAC Ban" requirement whenever I use SGTools, but I will continue blacklisting everyone with a VAC ban on their profile, no questions asked.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they ruin games for other people, they don't deserve to be given any games.
+1
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you believe that the VAC system is a reliable or trustworthy source for determining whether a user is a cheater? If you seriously believe that erroneous VAC bans are "very very rare cases", then perhaps you trust and rely on the VAC system because you are unaware of just how flawed the system is.
I don't see why you treat cheaters as if they're morally bankrupt people unworthy of anything more than contempt. Do you simply assume that cheaters are, by definition, intrinsically malevolent people, or something of that sort?
So not only am I going to use "No VAC Ban" requirement whenever I use SGTools, but I will continue blacklisting everyone with a VAC ban on their profile, no questions asked.
So in other words, you're so uncritically reliant on an anticheating system with a documented history of erroneous bans that you are openly prejudiced against anyone who so happens to be demerited by it without giving them so much as a chance to explain or defend themselves? If that's the case, then why shouldn't everyone else blacklist you, since your behavior is similarly as repugnant as the behavior of a cheater?
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why you treat cheaters as if they're morally bankrupt people unworthy of anything more than contempt. Do you simply assume that cheaters are, by definition, intrinsically malevolent people, or something of that sort?
That's what they are. They are purposely ruining the fun of other people, caring only about their own. They're no different than thieves who steal for their own gain, not caring about how their victims will feel. People play games for fun and cheaters rob them of that fun, they prevent them from having any. So while thieves take away people's possessions, cheaters take away fun from people and make them waste their time on nothing but frustration.
Cheaters are rotten people, much like criminals. Not only should they be shamed for what they do, but cheating (at least in competitive online games) should be punishable by law with with serious monetary penalties.
Comment has been collapsed.
You sound like the type of person that never tried to understand why people behave the way they do, preferring instead to assume that people labeled as "bad" deserve it without bothering to verify and that people earned those labels because they are intrinsically evil individuals. You have no empathy for people in those positions, in part because you are ignorant about the causes of immoral (and criminal) behavior, and in part because you have deluded yourself into a prejudiced and virulently hateful view of them as being undeserving of even the most basic humanity. You don't understand that people often do wrong because of ignorance, immaturity, or pathology on their part—or, in the case of criminal behavior, due to the material conditions of their existence. You're more content with holding people culpable for the wrongdoings others claim they have done because, for you, people are guilty until proven innocent.
Rather than judging people by their actions and beliefs, you prejudge entire demographics based on your own presumptions and generalizations about the them and their circumstances. Instead of viewing people as complex individuals deserving equally complex considerations, you view people as walking stereotypes who automatically fit whatever preconceived notions you assign them based on the heuristics in your head. For you, a cheater is a contemptible and corrupt person because they are a cheater; why they cheated, how they cheated, what caused them to cheat, and who was affected by their cheating are as irrelevant to you as is the evidence that they even cheated. All you need to know is that someone or something somewhere labeled them as a cheater and you'll believe it to be true, especially if you trust the source.
Because of that, not only should people blacklist you, but people should continue blacklisting everyone who is as embittered, intolerant, and lacking in any semblance of nuanced critical thinking as are you, no questions asked.
If you disagree with my characterization of you—if you think I am being too prejudiced or presumptuous and I'm not basing my accusations on evidence—then perhaps you shouldn't treat other people that way, either. I didn't call you a "sick, perverted little prick" and "rotten" person who is "no different than thieves who steal for their own gain, not caring about how their victims will feel [...] much like criminals", however, so I was rather clement in my response. Then again, maybe I should have, since that aptly describes you as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always try to understand why people behave the way they do, I find it amusing and interesting. I am not ignorant on reasons people do bad things, it's just that I don't think their reasons justify their actions in most cases. I indeed have no empathy for the unreasonable people, nor for people who only think about themselves and are wiling to hurt others in any way for their gain.
Cheaters mostly cheat because they get frustrated at seeing how other people are better and more skilled at games then they are. Some do it just to troll and ruin people's fun. None of those reasons can justify their actions.
Some people steal because they're in desperate need of what they're stealing, whether it's money or something else. That still doesn't justify stealing. I come from a somewhat poor family and there were days when I'd have barely anything to eat. Things aren't that bad anymore, but my life is still pretty hard and I don't have many things that I want yet I have never even considered stealing or doing any kind of crime to improve my situation. I would rather suffer or even die then give up on my moral principles and my pride.
I usually don't generalize people, nor do I care about stereotypes. I don't generalize people based on their race or gender for example, but when it comes to criminals or cheaters then I do see them all as the same kind of people.
Now you may say for example that a father who steals so he could feed his children is not a bad person and I can somewhat agree with that. However he is also irresponsible and selfish because people shouldn't even consider having children until they sort their life out and are financial stable. So I wont have any empathy or tolerance for that person, albeit I will feel sorry for his children as they're his victims.
Anyway, when it comes to cheating in online games, there is absolutely nothing that can justify that. I don't think you can even argue with that. Unfair VAC bans are like I said very rare cases and people who get unfairly banned should contact Valve and have it sorted out. Considering how rare those cases are I think it's safe to assume that majority of people with VAC ban did indeed cheat. I would be more than willing to remove those who clean their name from my blacklist.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you do "try to understand why people behave the way they do", then surely you realize that the conditions that precipitated the action—the agent's motive and intent, the material conditions of their existence, the context and circumstances of their action, etc.—can explain why someone might cheat? If so, then it doesn't make sense for you to view and judge cheaters so harshly and with such prejudice. If so, you wouldn't be treating cheaters as if their actions are reflections of their intrinsically malevolent natures, and you wouldn't be generalizing all cheaters in such an oversimplified manner.
I am not ignorant on reasons people do bad things, it's just that I don't think their reasons justify their actions in most cases.
Who said that the reasons for one's actions had to justify those actions? I'm not saying that any malefactor, whether it be a criminal or a wrongdoer of any sort, is justified in their actions by virtue of their underlying reasoning for those actions.
I indeed have no empathy for the unreasonable people, nor for people who only think about themselves and are wiling to hurt others in any way for their gain.
On what basis can you defensibly claim that all (or most) cheaters are as you described?
Cheaters mostly cheat because they get frustrated at seeing how other people are better and more skilled at games then they are. Some do it just to troll and ruin people's fun.
Do you have any empirical evidence verifying this? What is your basis for that claim?
None of those reasons can justify their actions.
It doesn't matter if they do. What matters are the conditions that precipitated the action and response to that action. Justification is important when determining the morality of the action, but that is not the issue I'm trying to address. The issue here is your response, in particular that your response to cheating is by generalizing all cheaters and aggressively discriminating against anyone you even suspect to be cheating.
Some people steal because they're in desperate need of what they're stealing, whether it's money or something else. That still doesn't justify stealing.
It depends on the context. What is being stolen? Why is it being stolen? What alternatives are there to theft that could achieve the same goal? You treat theft as if it is inherently immoral when property is just a social relation and theft is a violation of the social contract that informs it. Unless you believe that violating the social contract is itself inherently immoral, it doesn't make sense to treat theft as an unjustifiable action.
I come from a somewhat poor family and there were days when I'd have barely anything to eat. Things aren't that bad anymore, but my life is still pretty hard and I don't have many things that I want yet I have never even considered stealing or doing any kind of crime to improve my situation. I would rather suffer or even die then give up on my moral principles and my pride.
What moral principle(s) do you have that prohibits theft even when it is essential for your survival or the survival of others?
I usually don't generalize people, nor do I care about stereotypes. I don't generalize people based on their race or gender for example, but when it comes to criminals or cheaters then I do see them all as the same kind of people.
How is generalizing, stereotyping, and prejudging criminals and cheaters meaningfully different from doing the same toward any other demographic, whether it be race or sex or gender or political affiliation?
Now you may say for example that a father who steals so he could feed his children is not a bad person and I can somewhat agree with that. However he is also irresponsible and selfish because people shouldn't even consider having children until they sort their life out and are financial stable.
Again, you are ignoring the conditions that precipitated the action. Perhaps the father was previously married and gainfully employed, but his wife had died and as a result he fell into a deep depression. The family was unable to save up enough money to afford the burial, so the father had to take out a loan at a high interest rate that will cause him to remain in debt for years to come. Due to his waning performance at the job, primarily due to his depression and the recent events in his personal life, he was fired. The job was low-paying and the government aid office rejected his unemployment benefits application. As a result, he was unable to even afford enough for himself to eat, let alone the two children that his wife left behind. Tell me, how was that father irresponsible or selfish for having those children with his now-deceased wife?
So I wont have any empathy or tolerance for that person, albeit I will feel sorry for his children as they're his victims.
And the father isn't a victim, as well? You're essentially blaming the father for being poor and condemning him doing what he has to do to keep him and his children alive. For someone who allegedly grew up impoverished, you apparently have no sympathy for the very people who are in conditions as bad as (or worse than) yours was.
Unfair VAC bans are like I said very rare cases and people who get unfairly banned should contact Valve and have it sorted out.
Where is your evidence that unfair VAC bans are "very rare cases"? How can you explain the plethora of well-documented unfair bans and glaring flaws in the VAC system that could theoretically cause countless unfair bans? Contacting Valve about a VAC ban is pointless because, per Valve Support policy: All VAC bans are permanent - Valve has a zero-tolerance policy for cheating and will not lift VAC bans on request. Just like you do, Valve assumes that if someone gets a VAC ban, they deserved it and must have been a cheater, regardless of whether there is even evidence and regardless of whether the user's activities even constituted cheating. Just like you apparently believe, Valve considers users guilty until proven innocent.
There have only been a small number of exceptions, but the overwhelming evidence points to the VAC system being flawed and unreliable and the cause of countless false positive bans.
Considering how rare those cases are I think it's safe to assume that majority of people with VAC ban did indeed cheat. I would be more than willing to remove those who clean their name from my blacklist.
Except you have literally no evidence to prove that, and because of Valve's own policy, you will theoretically never remove someone from your blacklist because VAC bans are permanent and irreversible.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 Most cheaters don't change they just come more adept cheaters and keep on ruining the online experiences of those that don't cheat.
As I said before : There's a reason that VAC bans are permanent. I know the time when VAC bans were temporary but Valve changed this to permanent VAC bans when they noticed that the Steam users they unblocked just started to cheat again as soon as their VAC ban was lifted.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 I'm not sure how "fair" enters into it. If the OP's statement about VAC bans getting triggered by single-player behavior is true, then that's an unfortunate problem with Steam, but either way giveaway criteria can be as arbitrary as the gifter wishes. It's no worse than obscure puzzles, private groups, whitelists, high levels, mysterious ratio/won/sent requirements, or any number of other things we see on here regularly.
Comment has been collapsed.
as much i wanted to see the discussion, it was also a bit to open the idea that VAC its not perfect to all those peeps who rush to bash someone with a VAC band for complaining, not here but on Steam forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
That sounds more like a systemic problem with the SteamGifts community than evidence that using VAC bans as a limiting criterion is somehow justified.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see it as a problem at all that different people set different criteria and conditions for how and to whom they wish to gift their games. If I didn't have that control, I simply wouldn't gift games on here - it would just feel like a key dump lottery instead of a gifting site.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is a gifting site if not essentially a "key dump lottery"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, I'm sure a lot of people on here have that same sentiment, but frankly I'm disappointed that I have to answer that.... To me it's all wrapped up in the word "gift" - you don't typically go out and buy a bunch of gifts and dump them in a bin somewhere and not care about where they go from there or who gets them. That would be more like a donation, and even then you still care where they go to some degree, you're just less directly connected. If nobody cared where their gifts went, they would just create level 0 public giveaways and be done with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If nobody cared where their gifts went, they would just create level 0 public giveaways and be done with it.
Ahem.
Comment has been collapsed.
My "sentiment" is that giveaway sites are a form of charity and, being charity, one should have a valid reason for excluding another person from one's charity or generosity. That is why I disapprove blacklisting or prohibiting based on VAC bans and why I am a vocal critic of abusive blacklisting practices on SteamGifts. Your "sentiment" appears to be that giveaway sites are places for people to selectively give away gifts based on whatever arbitrary, unfair, or otherwise capricious criteria and conditions they set. That sounds less like an act of giving and more like power-tripping to me.
To me it's all wrapped up in the word "gift" - you don't typically go out and buy a bunch of gifts and dump them in a bin somewhere and not care about where they go from there or who gets them. [...] If nobody cared where their gifts went, they would just create level 0 public giveaways and be done with it.
So, lower levels (Lv. 0–1) are basically "bin[s]" where people dump games they don't care about. And you approve of this?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, the comments to that effect strike me as absurd.
But the OP pushing for 'fair consideration' is totally fine, if that's their prerogative.
Certainly seems an odd option to offer in a binary manner, and place so significantly on the filter, as it currently is- but it's also a highly subjective option, so I'm sure to some it seems perfectly natural as is.
Honestly, I think any VAC-banned user prone to negative behavior is going to get noticed for other negative behaviors before their VAC ban gets pointed out. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree that raising awareness of potential considerations surrounding the use of that filter is absolutely fine. I personally don't use it, perhaps because I've never really played multi-player and had any frustrations with "cheaters" - it just has no relevance for me.
This would be a pretty boring site without the diversity in the ways gifts are offered, and would be a lot less satisfying to many of the gifters as well. I realize it wasn't the OP's intent, but I do get tired of people complaining about gifters' criteria, no matter what they are (provided they're within SG rules), so the use of "fair" bothered me. I think it would have been better to approach this topic as a PSA and discussion regarding problems with the Steam VAC ban system. No big deal either way, but that's where I'm coming from.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, right, forgot the thread title.
Yeah, that was terribly named, no argument from me. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
Out of nearly 12 years on Steam experience I can say that from those that tried/try to scam me on Steam that the things that always came/come back concerning those scammers is that they had/have Private Steam profiles and (multiple) VAC/Game/Trade bans.
A user with VAC/Game/Trade ban(s) are out of that 12 years experience and the experience of trading about 400 games on Steam trades and Steam a clear indication of someone with a cheating mentality and that kind of cheating mentality during trading is more a scare than a joy.
Also VAC has had only limited cases with false positives (According to VACBanned.com only 0.003% of those that are on VACation are false positives.) and VAC does it's work not only catching the common cheaters but also professional players that are stupid enough to cheat in major ranked tournaments and their names are infamously legion...
Also cheaters spoil the online experience of those that don't cheat.
I like SGTools and I personally will always use the three standard SGTools reqs being: all activated, no multiple wins and no VAC ban.
There is for me no difference between someone with non activated gifts and/or multiple wins and someone with VAC/Game/trade ban(s).
And I hope in future versions of SGTools that the no Game ban and the no Trade ban will be included in the SGTools reqs.
Comment has been collapsed.
sgtools has been used a lot lately for giveaways and i have no problems with most of the requirements peeps are using, ratios, maximums and minimums received and given its all well and good, BUT for one:
NOT ever being VAC banned.
but why...as i am not a cheater and i have to plans on cheating i should be allright... right?. The thing is that as with many things Valve does, the VAC ban system is incredibly flawed... As seen in the video, VAC bans can be triggered by mods, even Half Life 1 single player mods...
Exibit
So think twice before you go around judging peeps by a VAC bans.
<3
Comment has been collapsed.