RMT spambots seem to have a new workflow now?

@Anarchy-Marine said in RMT spambots seem to have a new workflow now?:

@condor Give me an example, of a game developer/publisher, directly listing names in a ban wave.

I already gave you the link to VAC ban lists, that are publicly accessible and vac is implemented by games' developers. Vac is managed by Valve, which in turn owns steam. Its API is public and they are not censoring names.

Any developer using vac is aware of this, so you can just search for vac protected games.

@condor I just ran several searches, and outside of the competitive links you gave, nowhere do I see private users, that weren't apart of tournaments getting directly named in ban waves. There are also no lists available in the US, according to their own site.

Edit: Considering how much of a pain it is to find info on VAC banned players, that weren't apart of a tournament, involving real money, that are technically private gamers, I'd say their anonymity is pretty well protected.

I agree that competitors in public tournaments should be named, as to bar them from further competition, but never should it be legal to name private players, regardless of reasoning.

@Anarchy-Marine said in RMT spambots seem to have a new workflow now?:

@condor I just ran several searches, and outside of the competitive links you gave, nowhere do I see private users, that weren't apart of tournaments getting directly named in ban waves.

Don't want to sound rude again, but I guess you do not understand how these lists or even vac works.

Aside one of the links I gave you earlier, which is related only to cs, any other list is not limited to cs or competitive gaming, for example:

https://vaclist.net/

http://www.vacbanned.com/listing/last

https://steamrep.com/

It's not hard to find info at all, you can search them by any name they used (past and present), by steam id, check your friends and other people's friends.

Edit:

A friend just passed me this link from Black Desert official website: https://www.sea.playblackdesert.com/News/Notice/Detail?boardNo=276&boardType=1

This is the most recent: https://www.sea.playblackdesert.com/News/Notice/Detail?boardNo=4407&countryType=en-US

That should be enough, I guess.

@Anarchy-Marine said in RMT spambots seem to have a new workflow now?:

@Gamers-are-so-oppressed It's literally in the privacy policy/statement of every ToS online. What you do or don't agree with isn't what matters here. I already said why, and gave a decent enough response, that covered your questions both directions in regards to the legal definition of harassment, and who would be at fault, depending upon context.

Not trying to sound rude, but you can literally go and look all of this stuff up yourself, and see what a company can, and legally can't do. It's actually good to know what is, or isn't legal, because people wound up in legal battles in the past, because of not knowing different laws

I asked for a source and debunked a couple lines and now it is an argument? I'm not trying to argue, just discussing the issue?

It is mostly in Sega's ball court with how they want to handle these types of things. They could definitely work with Valve if they wanted to, and have VAC bans be a thing. This would only work for those playing through Steam of course so it isn't full proof. The original point of

"No, that would look bad for a professional company, as that's petty as hell. It would also go outside their reach of power, as it would cause harassment. Harassment that would rightfully lead to a lawsuit."

Is just not true. We've seen sources that say otherwise. The harassment would ultimately be on the harasser, not the company. Wouldn't stop a lawsuit but they aren't going to win anything.

How VAC works

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6899-IOSK-9514&l=english

@Gamers-are-so-oppressed I've just been given the public ban lists published by Pearl Abyss, links above.

It's not so bad for a "professional company", I guess.

@condor said in RMT spambots seem to have a new workflow now?:

@Gamers-are-so-oppressed I've just been given the public ban lists published by Pearl Abyss, links above.

It's not so bad for a "professional company", I guess.

Oh yeah, I had also listed where Uplay (Ubisoft) does it with Rainbow 6

https://www.reddit.com/r/Rainbow6/comments/9bz0cu/boosted_by_cheater_ban_wave_september_1th_enemy/?ref=share&ref_source=link

Straight up shows their Uplay account name and reason for ban.

They can show ban lists, mind you, that doesn't stop people from pursuing lawsuits if they can prove the publication of their online name was linked to some kind of direct harassment that was proven to affect their lives negatively. This would be extremely rare and most people wouldn't bother but a case is still a case.

@condor BDO family names, are not names that are typically associated with usernames outside of the game. You can have the name be whatever you want. The only argument you have for this, that's potentially solid, is the VAC thing. And that has to do with how Steam worded their ToS in regards to usage of the service. If the ToS is upgraded by a dev/publisher, and you re-sign, then yeah, it would remove responsibility, and liability from the company. At that point, I'd say people should just stop linking all their accounts. At no point should RMT, result in a players personal information, being used to allow for players to harass other players. Two wrongs don't make a right.

At the end of the day, anyone agreeing that it shouldn't fall on the company, in regards to liability, is ok with negligence, and a lack of accountability. Anyone agreeing that it should be ok, to harass other players, based on actions in game, is both childish, and quite frankly screwd in the head. Players aren't always going to separate a game, from someone's personal life. Even if said someone is being the most scummy in regards to how they carry themselves in regards to cheating/RMT,(edit) they shouldn't be harassed. And it should be a companies goal to maintain the anonymity of even banned players. They can track cheaters, and issue bans as needed, but it should never go further than that.

@Gamers-are-so-oppressed This can also be used in response to apart of your comments. The Uplay thing however, I'll answer directly. It is mid game, and a Uplay account still could have a different username than a Steam account. It's also ignorant of them to post it regardless. Reddit has a lot of bad actors on it. There are rare occurrences of good threads, but for the most part, Reddit is half of the fallout from the mass exodus from Tumblr.

@Anarchy-Marine said in RMT spambots seem to have a new workflow now?:

At the end of the day, anyone agreeing that it shouldn't fall on the company, in regards to liability, is ok with negligence, and a lack of accountability. Anyone agreeing that it should be ok, to harass other players, based on actions in game, is both childish, and quite frankly screwd in the head. Players aren't always going to separate a game, from someone's personal life. Even if said someone is being the most scummy in regards to how they carry themselves in regards to cheating/RMT,(edit) they shouldn't be harassed. And it should be a companies goal to maintain the anonymity of even banned players. They can track cheaters, and issue bans as needed, but it should never go further than that.

Question, Is there a line that would make you feel comfortable with bringing names (Account names, special character names, etc.) into it? Money? Competition? Never?

The person doing the cheating knew exactly what they were doing is wrong. Soon as they signed up, they were made quite aware of how the rules worked.

To borrow a page from the many censorship posts here, "First we protect the identity of cheaters and hackers, then what?!? What a slippery slope!"

Thanks for the conversation by the way, we disagree on this subject to a certain degree but the thread is still open and no name calling has been done.

@Gamers-are-so-oppressed I already stated, that public tournaments are reasonable, as they deal in players competing to earn real world rewards, that and they are fully aware of the fact they put their own name out there. Private players, that never publicly signed up for anything, should never have their names revealed, for the harassment issue, and because in the past, players had false positives, as software is only as good as the person that coded it, so it's imperfect, and when someone is falsely banned, their names will end up on that list as well. It also removes the ability of an appeal, to allow for someone falsely banned, or even accused of cheating, or some other exploit, the ability to get back into the game, or service, when their name has already been dragged through the mud.

There was literally a forum thread on here a couple of days ago about someone being harassed, and they weren't doing anything wrong. The fault lies with the offending players in this case. But should companies, on a larger scale begin sharing usernames, like some toxic in game alliance leader, with a chip on their shoulder had, you will see a much larger issue than the scale we have now, as that's internet wide. It wouldn't be just quarantined to the game. (Edit) The slippery slope isn't keeping peoples rights to privacy sacred, the slippery slope, is allowing through lack of accountability, lynch mobs to form over a game.

That player supposedly didn't do anything wrong and they shouldn't be harassed correct.

A person that cheats, and knows fully well they are doing something wrong? They should be held accountable. If their name is dragged through the mud (If a company exposed their account name and said something along the lines of "Banned for RMT") it should end there.

Any players deciding to go play vigilante at this point, that is on the player. The company just reported a cheater, the player took it upon themselves to chase after them (Which shouldn't be possible unless the cheater left information behind to chase after them). Besides, would the PSO2 community really do that? As you told me before, we should give people the benefit of the doubt right?