Cheats in UT2004

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Kylesb wrote:

> As to a single user crying foul over a game that does not work due to
> suspected cheating by the end user, the answers are found in the
> license, which typically include terms wherein the license may be
> revoked at the drop of a hat by the licensor.

Alas, it's whether clauses like that are themselves legal that causes
lawyers to have work in the first place... In the UK, and probably most
western countries, any contract must be reasonable and fair. Just
because you agreed to it doesn't automatically make it so - that's why
our courts are never going to go out of business. Precedent decrees
whether something like this is legal, not just a tickbox.

It's like sending somebody an email and saying "By reading this, you're
agreeing to give me your firstborn". That's not a legally binding
contract. Or is it? The court must decide!

(IANAL, just married to one)

> As to my perspective on the authors of software hacks and/or cheats, a
> few simple clauses in a license can make online multiplayer cheating a
> very expensive proposition for such morally corrupt individuals.

But first, you must find them! Then convince a court that they are
guilty of breaking a law, whether civil or criminal. It's not *that*
easy to do, but you're a lawyer and it's not in your interests to make
things appear too difficult, I guess...

> Just my two cents worth, others may have different opinions.

I think only one thing is certain, this isn't a simple problem. Cheaters
aren't breaking any criminal laws, maybe not even civil laws in most
cases that I'm aware of.

--
Flash

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Flash" <NOSPAM@digdilem.org> wrote in message
newsr-dnZnqaohui1HcRVnytw@eclipse.net.uk...
| Kylesb wrote:
|
| > As to a single user crying foul over a game that does not work due
to
| > suspected cheating by the end user, the answers are found in the
| > license, which typically include terms wherein the license may be
| > revoked at the drop of a hat by the licensor.
|
| Alas, it's whether clauses like that are themselves legal that
causes
| lawyers to have work in the first place... In the UK, and probably
most
| western countries, any contract must be reasonable and fair. Just
| because you agreed to it doesn't automatically make it so - that's
why
| our courts are never going to go out of business. Precedent decrees
| whether something like this is legal, not just a tickbox.

Most times precedent requires that such clauses be "reasonable" in
scope and intent for the clause to be upheld by a Court of law. It is
entirely plausible that an anti-cheat clause would be found reasonable
if carefully worded.

|
| It's like sending somebody an email and saying "By reading this,
you're
| agreeing to give me your firstborn". That's not a legally binding
| contract. Or is it? The court must decide!
|
| (IANAL, just married to one)
|
| > As to my perspective on the authors of software hacks and/or
cheats, a
| > few simple clauses in a license can make online multiplayer
cheating a
| > very expensive proposition for such morally corrupt individuals.
|
| But first, you must find them! Then convince a court that they are
| guilty of breaking a law, whether civil or criminal. It's not *that*
| easy to do, but you're a lawyer and it's not in your interests to
make
| things appear too difficult, I guess...
|
| > Just my two cents worth, others may have different opinions.
|
| I think only one thing is certain, this isn't a simple problem.
Cheaters
| aren't breaking any criminal laws, maybe not even civil laws in most
| cases that I'm aware of.
|

It is my perspective that one can find multiple bases for asserting
civil legal harm or injury. The only limiting factor is the warchest
of funds driving a lawsuit . How's this for a start: injury to
reputation (reputation of the author), and copyright violations (any
cheat that requires altering a game file such as engine.u or menu.u
can be considered copyright infringement when the file is distributed
via the internet w/o permission of the author). Keep in mind, public
companies such as software houses and publishers must keep the
stockholders happy, and wasting large sums of money on anti-cheat
lawsuits may be seen as a waste of company funds, since it is quite
difficult to prove how cheat hacks have impacted sales.

A creative and talented criminal prosecutor will find a way to
"interpret" a criminal statute to include the offensive behavior
therewithin (hehe). The real difficulty (for the prosecutor) with
such a scenario is whether the taxpayer base will tolerate their tax
dollars being used to pursue computer gaming cheaters. In most
places, the local prosecutor is an elected official and he will shy
away from activity that might portray him as a public official who is
not a proper "keeper of the public trust".

--
Best regards,
Kyle

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

> Flash, if you are still around, how about your opinion on this? You've been
> involved in anti-cheating for a long time. What are your views? Do you think
> Epic has done enough or do they just tolerate the problem?

(Ii'm not actively involved in anticheat any more, btw)

I don't play 2k4 hardly at all, but one of the other problems about this
is just how, exactly, do you define cheating in a EULA so that it's
universally understood and unambiguous?

This has been one of the better discussions about cheating I've seen,
lots of input from different areas. The only missing mouth is the
cheaters themselves, but they tend to be a bit shy sometimes...

It is a suggestion that cheating is not Epic's problem, and as we've
seen, some people do take exception to a nanny software house that tries
to regulate how you play, when they see it as not being the job of a
software company. What next? Swear bans? No camping? No laming? How do
you define those? I've been told recently that it's lame to shoot
somebody with a sniper rifle. Rubbish, of course, but that was
somebody's opinion and they thought it reasonable that other players
should conform to their own views. That being killed by a goo-gun,
ripper or flak cannon is somehow less skilled an act than being killed
by minigun, and even Epic included "Flak-monkey" to highlight these views.

But forcing one set of opinions above another - isn't that what
anti-cheat is about? Isn't it arrogant to presume you should tell others
how to play?

--
Flash, Devil's Advocate.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"Flash" <NOSPAM@digdilem.org> wrote in message
news:a_ydnTU-WrQ-hFHcRVnysA@eclipse.net.uk...
> But forcing one set of opinions above another - isn't that what anti-cheat
> is about? Isn't it arrogant to presume you should tell others how to play?

That is a part of online gaming that very much surprises me. There's this
whole etiquette that goes along with playing and woe be those that stray too
far. In my opinion if it's in the game, then it's fair game. I never get
upset at much of anything except a spawn camper, but I still wouldn't raise
hell about it. I just move to another server. I've seen people get bent over
type-killing. Now how in the hell am I supposed to know that you are typing
just because you are facing a wall? On DM-Deck you are ALWAYS facing one
wall or another
I guess it just surprises me that so many codes of conduct exist for
basically a game without rules or limits. Now with that being said, I still
concede that if it's your server you can set it up how you damn well wish
and require whatever behavior you want. It's also my right as to whether I
will stay and play.

On a lighter note I'd like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and I
hope you guys get what you want from Santa! I asked him for a Cray-1 and a
spanking new GeForce 88,000superTitanium.

He said he'd get back with me......

 

[sid]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Kylesb wrote:

> The real difficulty (for the prosecutor) with
> such a scenario is whether the taxpayer base will tolerate their tax
> dollars being used to pursue computer gaming cheaters. In most
> places, the local prosecutor is an elected official and he will shy
> away from activity that might portray him as a public official who is
> not a proper "keeper of the public trust".
>

How fsked up is that?
How can it be decided wether a criminal prosecution should take place based
on the number of votes a particular desicion would win or loose?

--
sid
RLU 300284 Mdk 10.1 2.6.8.1
My barber's getting very hard of hearing,
I asked him to make me look like a *count*.....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

sid wrote:
>
> Kylesb wrote:
>
> > The real difficulty (for the prosecutor) with
> > such a scenario is whether the taxpayer base will tolerate their tax
> > dollars being used to pursue computer gaming cheaters. In most
> > places, the local prosecutor is an elected official and he will shy
> > away from activity that might portray him as a public official who is
> > not a proper "keeper of the public trust".
> >
>
> How fsked up is that?
> How can it be decided wether a criminal prosecution should take place based
> on the number of votes a particular desicion would win or loose?
>

Not nearly as bad as going to war for the same reason.

Lisa

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

"sid" <sidshouse@thecrap.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8tYyd.6466$Ar5.3952@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Kylesb wrote:
>
>> The real difficulty (for the prosecutor) with
>> such a scenario is whether the taxpayer base will tolerate their tax
>> dollars being used to pursue computer gaming cheaters. In most
>> places, the local prosecutor is an elected official and he will shy
>> away from activity that might portray him as a public official who is
>> not a proper "keeper of the public trust".
>>
>
> How fsked up is that?
> How can it be decided wether a criminal prosecution should take place
> based
> on the number of votes a particular desicion would win or loose?
>

Dude this is America. Most every important decision is made with that in
mind.

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Folk wrote:

> UT2004 EULA, Section 5:

Hehe, nice one Folk, one of the cooler EULA's around, although I'm not
100% sure both parts of that "key revocation" and "delete software" are
legally enforceable.

--
Flash

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

Kylesb wrote:

> Most times precedent requires that such clauses be "reasonable" in
> scope and intent for the clause to be upheld by a Court of law. It is
> entirely plausible that an anti-cheat clause would be found reasonable
> if carefully worded.

Possibly, be an interesting case f'sure. That definition is going to be
a hard one to prove though, I think. Hard to disprove too, of course.

> It is my perspective that one can find multiple bases for asserting
> civil legal harm or injury. The only limiting factor is the warchest
> of funds driving a lawsuit . How's this for a start: injury to

Yes... Not always a good thing, though...

> reputation (reputation of the author), and copyright violations (any

Reputation of a games player if found guilty by the software company of
cheating, when in fact he isn't. Those who ban keys have no need to
prove beyond reasonable doubt, so that shouldn't neccessarily be taken
as fact - something a banned player may take to the courts, if they're
annoyed/stupid enough.

> cheat that requires altering a game file such as engine.u or menu.u
> can be considered copyright infringement when the file is distributed
> via the internet w/o permission of the author). Keep in mind, public

True, and a good point. Many cheats operate independantly of the games
however - and what right does a software company have to dictate what
other programs you may or may not decide to run on your computer? (Even
Microsoft have fallen foul of trying this approach)

> companies such as software houses and publishers must keep the
> stockholders happy, and wasting large sums of money on anti-cheat
> lawsuits may be seen as a waste of company funds, since it is quite
> difficult to prove how cheat hacks have impacted sales.

Another excellent point, one I haven't considered at all.

> A creative and talented criminal prosecutor will find a way to
> "interpret" a criminal statute to include the offensive behavior
> therewithin (hehe). The real difficulty (for the prosecutor) with
> such a scenario is whether the taxpayer base will tolerate their tax
> dollars being used to pursue computer gaming cheaters. In most
> places, the local prosecutor is an elected official and he will shy
> away from activity that might portray him as a public official who is
> not a proper "keeper of the public trust".

I guess it's all down to that prosecutor to convince him and the wider
populace that spending lots of money to prosecute Jonny Wallhacker is in
the public interest.

I lean more to giving individual server admins effective information
about particular players, and effective ban controls on a per-server
basis. If Jonny has been found to cheat on one server, that's registered
in a unique and (hopefully) uncrackable way. Other admins may query that
database to check whether a player has a particular number of
cheat-reports, and make a per-server decision on how many such reports
before the player isn't allowed on.

Ie, "You've been kicked off 20 servers for cheating, no way are you
coming on here!"

Problems:
1. Civil Rights. Minor issue, not a big impact imo.
2. The accuracy of the cheat reports. As we've already covered in here,
one person's word is often magnificently flawed, whether through
ignorance, spite or honest mistake.

--
Flash

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

goPostal wrote:

>>How fsked up is that?
>>How can it be decided wether a criminal prosecution should take place
>>based
>>on the number of votes a particular desicion would win or loose?

> Dude this is America. Most every important decision is made with that in
> mind.

_This_ isn't america... It's an international newsgroup.

--
Flash, Not American.

 

[Flash]

Archived from groups: alt.games.unreal.tournament (More info?)

goPostal wrote:
>>But forcing one set of opinions above another - isn't that what anti-cheat
>>is about? Isn't it arrogant to presume you should tell others how to play?

> That is a part of online gaming that very much surprises me. There's this
> whole etiquette that goes along with playing and woe be those that stray too
> far. In my opinion if it's in the game, then it's fair game.

Yep, I agree pretty much with that.

> hell about it. I just move to another server. I've seen people get bent over
> type-killing. Now how in the hell am I supposed to know that you are typing
> just because you are facing a wall? On DM-Deck you are ALWAYS facing one
> wall or another

True, and if I start using a fast-paced FPS game as a talker, I expect
to get killed too.

> I guess it just surprises me that so many codes of conduct exist for
> basically a game without rules or limits. Now with that being said, I still
> concede that if it's your server you can set it up how you damn well wish
> and require whatever behavior you want. It's also my right as to whether I
> will stay and play.

Yep, agree with that too. Quite a few players think the world revolves
around them though

> On a lighter note I'd like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and I
> hope you guys get what you want from Santa!

And yourself!

--
Flash