DELETED

[RaikuFA]

So this is the equivilent of all those steroid scandals in the MLB a few years back?

 

[Duster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kimtDGXAsuQ

I think this is cute

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Vigormortis]

This dismissal of my point would be more understandable if VAC was an actually an opt-in feature rather than opt out.

VAC is enabled by default on all servers and requires the administrator to expressly disable it by adding the -insecure line to the launch options

As it stands, it isn't.

A single command line set to a certain value by default does not refute my point.

Besides, that default value applies only to certain standalone dedicated servers. Most others require it to be enabled.

I'm not willing to enforce 'fair play' with a destructive system. Despite your claims, VAC is demonstrated detrimental on several levels

And despite your claims, I've yet to see any demonstrable evidence that proves it's a detrimental system.

Please demonstrate that it is a dangerous system without resorting to ethical posturing.

so while you may be willing to overlook the trade off or to rhetorically put it: sacrifice what you will at the altar of fairness, I am not. Thus, I oppose it.

I've overlooked nothing. I am fully aware of how the VAC system works and I understand what it takes to receive a ban.

Likewise, I've sacrificed nothing. I don't cheat, therefore I have no reason to fear being VAC banned. Likewise, I know how the VAC system tracks, and ultimately bans, users activity. Anyone who isn't attempting to cheat (and this would include those wanting to "experiment", as you keep vaguely bringing up) has nothing to worry about.

Except that VAC is default on. So, they also need to explicitly disable it as a start flag which makes it far more likely that they will leave it on.

Which, again, does not apply to all dedicated servers. And besides, if the server host doesn't disable VAC, the server will be labeled as VAC secure. Anyone connecting to the server will be able to see, plain as day, that it has VAC enabled.

As such, if someone is genuinely concerned that their client-side hacks will elicit a VAC ban, they can simply choose a server that isn't VAC secured. Each server's VAC status is displayed in numerous places, including the server browsers.

Which of course means that the simple and well meaning logic of: "I would like to test game balance of a game, but I don't want to interfere with others enjoyment so I will spin up my own server." Still results in a ban unless precautionary steps are taken any time it is set up.

This is nonsense. If you are hosting your own server, and decide to connect to it using a host of mods enabled, you will NOT be VAC banned.

I run my own dedicated servers, and routinely use them to test out a host of things; including client-side mods. (I do this often with L4D2) This notion that I now must fear that I will be VAC banned because of this is patently absurd.

Which further illustrates my argument. It's bad, it makes the act of exploring inherently dangerous and at best discourages it which is fundamentally against what I value in gaming.

You're really saying that Valve, of all companies, wants to discourage modding and experimentation?

I do not find it reasonable to sacrifice the ability to explore games, to learn from them and internalize their design, to further the art itself for 'fairness'.

In the end, I do not find it justifiable to support or hold a system which is fundamentally ignorant of the nuance possible in reality up to be a reasonable measure.

[edit]

Look. I get your concerns. I really do. You probably think that I don't, but I do. I've had similar concerns now and again, so I know where you're coming from.

But what I'm trying to make you understand is that none of them apply in regards to VAC. In virtually every instance, VAC would do nothing to the user.

Honestly, I know the concern. I'm just trying to tell you that you don't need it.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1385172

 

[MJpoland]

snip

Okay, I need to say that I'm not good enough in English to respond properly to your post, especially if you want to attack specific words that I use. Then again I think I can understand your point but I'm afraid you failed to understand mine too and simply continued to criticize it on academic level. I agree that you can't ban instantly anyone who uses cheats/hacks for obvious reasons. However I believe that anyone who uses cheats/hacks on servers against people who didn't agree to that should be instantly banned.

 

[Irick]

I didn't actually say any of the above quotes, although I feel pretty much the same as MJPoland does. Until now, I don't think I've ever heard anybody make an arguement against the existence of VAC. Cheating is already the biggest downside to one of the best competitive video games ever made. Without VAC, I don't think CSGO would even be worth playing.

Sorry about that, the broken quote tag in MJPoland's post got replicated.

To address your point: the fact that you have never heard anyone make an argument against VAC should probably prompt you to consider the argument more thoroughly. It's obviously not a cut and dried issue and it is generally good to engage outside of an echo-chamber in order to more fully understand a given situation.

Now, here is where we are going to diverge: I don't consider cheating a problem that needs a nuclear solution. I acknowledge the need to keep things fair in a competitive environment, but as it stands every environment in VAC secured games are de-facto hostile to exploration. There are better solutions than VAC in a competition level environment, and frankly they should be taken if cheating is a legitimate concern on a professional level.

However, I do not find it reasonable to transform these play spaces into hostile zones for exploration in order to provide imaginary protections against cheating and yes, as a computer scientist I am comfortable calling the level of protection provided by VAC imaginary. Valve simply does not publish their numbers so there is no rational basis to claim any level of protection outside the simple margin of error. VAC is for all anyone can provably claim, a marketing blurb that Valve can use to sell their games. There is simply no provable difference between VAC's effectiveness and the effectiveness of server admins simply banning a problem user from a server.

Without these verifiable data, the claim that CS:GO wouldn't be worth playing without VAC is pure faith in Valve's way of doing things. Which is an unacceptable state of things for me. I demand data for this, and even if this data comes out I do not agree with an opt-out policy. This de-facto hostility to exploration is, as I have argued and demonstrated, detrimental to the progression of games as a whole. I do not in general agree with allowing VAC to access arbitrary kernel memory. I do not agree with allowing VAC to access my DNS cache. These are not agreeable compromises for the level of service it is providing me because I am disillusioned to a) the need for it and b) the efficacy of it in general.

VAC is effectively snake oil by any rational consideration.

 

[Little Gray]

I have always opposed the idea of any Zero Tolerance policy. Doubly so when the policies are enforced automatically and with no appeal process.

I see VAC and other automated systems with the power to permanently ostracize a player from a game's community as fundamentally detrimental to gaming. They inherently sacrifice the ability to iterate, explore, discover and learn game design at the altar of competitive play. This is so fundamentally wrong to me and I can only see it hurting the game community in the end for the sake of a 'better product'. As a professional sporting institution, the focus is naturally on fairness so it would make sense to have these sort of policies during tournaments (like a drug test) but to make this the de-facto interaction with the game? I fundamentally disagree.

Banning hackers is not detrimental to a games community. It is beneficial because if people start seeing that hackers are not banned they will stop playing. People do not like playing against hackers or losing to them. There is not much point in playing a game when you are 100% guaranteed to lose because a guy on the other team is hacking.


If you want to play with hacks then play in a private match.

 

[Irick]

A single command line set to a certain value by default does not refute my point.

I never claimed it did, I claimed it would have made it an understandable point if it had proven to be as you claimed. Your argument was valid, but the primace was false.

And despite your claims, I've yet to see any demonstrable evidence that proves it's a detrimental system.

Please demonstrate that it is a dangerous system without resorting to ethical posturing.

It is contributing positively to the entropic decay of the universe... except that assumes that the possibility of life is a good thing so it doesn't actually measure up to your lofty challenge.

There is no such thing as Dangerous outside of ethics. Dangerous is inherently contingent on what you personally value. As I personally value the creative potential of gaming, anything that works against it is dangerous. The very fact that VAC can get a false positive makes it dangerous to the experience of playing the game itself. VAC is dangerous: from a position of game enjoyment, from a position of of personal privacy and from a position of learning.

I've overlooked nothing. I am fully aware of how the VAC system works and I understand what it takes to receive a ban.

Unless you are the person at Valve who designed and implemented the system or have taken the time to reverse engineer VAC, you do not know anything about how VAC works. You choose to trust what has been told to you, and while that is perfectly fine, it still doesn't make it any less overlooked.

Likewise, I've sacrificed nothing. I don't cheat, therefore I have no reason to fear being VAC banned. Likewise, I know how the VAC system tracks, and ultimately bans, users activity. Anyone who isn't attempting to cheat (and this would include those wanting to "experiment", as you keep vaguely bringing up) has nothing to worry about.

This is some pretty simple rhetoric. It's effective, but it doesn't actually address the hard portions of my challenge. It is the equivalent of saying "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." when someone brings up privacy rights.

The response is exactly the same: the potential harm is high and I require proof it is even effective in the first place.

Which, again, does not apply to all dedicated servers. And besides, if the server host doesn't disable VAC, the server will be labeled as VAC secure. Anyone connecting to the server will be able to see, plain as day, that it has VAC enabled.

I have shown that there are situations in which VAC behaves exactly as I have described. You are moving the goalpost and making irrelevant arguments. Notification does not help resolve issues caused by the system's heavy handed implementation, it just adds insult to injury.

As such, if someone is genuinely concerned that their client-side hacks will elicit a VAC ban, they can simply choose a server that isn't VAC secured. Each server's VAC status is displayed in numerous places, including the server browsers.

As opposed to someone who is disingenuously concerned? I suppose there is a systematic way to determine the kinds of concern? Mistakes happen, any system that is based on the presupposition that they don't is deeply flawed.

This is nonsense. If you are hosting your own server, and decide to connect to it using a host of mods enabled, you will NOT be VAC banned.

The server has no way to telling you from any other random joe shmoe who connects to it. You fire it up and it obeys a set of instructions. It is a machine with no way of independent reasoning and because of this when you fire up a server (which is easily done without any sort of identifiable information being sent about the owner of the server) it will treat any client that connects the same. If you have something that triggers VAC, it doesn't matter if the server is yours, it's still going to flag and report you.

You're crafting a ridiculous scenario to backup your claim. Please stop this.

This is not a ridiculous scenario. It is an inconvenient scenario for your argument. The difference is subtle, but great. I find the implication that I am being disingenuous insulting.

You're really saying that Valve, of all companies, wants to discourage modding and experimentation?

No, I'm saying that VAC creates an environment that discourages exploration and experimentation. I can not pretend to know the intent of a company, I can only observe the effects of an action.

Look. I get your concerns. I really do. You probably think that I don't, but I do. I've had similar concerns now and again, so I know where you're coming from.

The proof is in the pudding. If you wish to say you understand my argument, then show understanding of my argument.

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Starbird]

I have always opposed the idea of any Zero Tolerance policy. Doubly so when the policies are enforced automatically and with no appeal process.

I see VAC and other automated systems with the power to permanently ostracize a player from a game's community as fundamentally detrimental to gaming. They inherently sacrifice the ability to iterate, explore, discover and learn game design at the altar of competitive play. This is so fundamentally wrong to me and I can only see it hurting the game community in the end for the sake of a 'better product'. As a professional sporting institution, the focus is naturally on fairness so it would make sense to have these sort of policies during tournaments (like a drug test) but to make this the de-facto interaction with the game? I fundamentally disagree.

Banning hackers is not detrimental to a games community. It is beneficial because if people start seeing that hackers are not banned they will stop playing. People do not like playing against hackers or losing to them. There is not much point in playing a game when you are 100% guaranteed to lose because a guy on the other team is hacking.


If you want to play with hacks then play in a private match.

Bingo. Also if you let hacks fly then you hit the Starcraft 2 Ladder syndrome where if you want to get anywhere and don't possess absolutely amazing natural talent then you also need to invest in one of the stupid, expensive undetectable hacks out there.

 

[Vigormortis]

I never claimed it did, I claimed it would have made it an understandable point if it had proven to be as you claimed. Your argument was valid, but the primace was false.

The premise was true. Under most circumstances, one has to enable VAC on their server.

It is contributing positively to the entropic decay of the universe... except that assumes that the possibility of life is a good thing so it doesn't actually measure up to your lofty challenge.

There is no such thing as Dangerous outside of ethics. Dangerous is inherently contingent on what you personally value. As I personally value the creative potential of gaming, anything that works against it is dangerous. The very fact that VAC can get a false positive makes it dangerous to the experience of playing the game itself. VAC is dangerous: from a position of game enjoyment, from a position of of personal privacy and from a position of learning.

So, in a nut shell, you're dodging the question.

Good to know.

Unless you are the person at Valve who designed and implemented the system or have taken the time to reverse engineer VAC, you do not know anything about how VAC works. You choose to trust what has been told to you, and while that is perfectly fine, it still doesn't make it any less overlooked.

You presume too much.

I do understand how VAC works. I have seen reverse-engineered samples of how VAC tracks down certain hacks and malicious software.

I haven't chosen to 'trust what I've been told'. I did the research myself.[footnote]I wish you'd do the same.[/footnote] That you are suggesting I think what I do because of some lazy naivete is incredibly insulting; not to mention condescending.

This is some pretty simple rhetoric. It's effective, but it doesn't actually address the hard portions of my challenge. It is the equivalent of saying "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." when someone brings up privacy rights.

The response is exactly the same: the potential harm is high and I require proof it is even effective in the first place.

False equivalency.

A more apt comparison would be: I wish to 'experiment' with mind-altering drugs. And, I wish to do so in the middle of a police station lobby, or perhaps in the police chiefs office. That I would be arrested for doing so is an infringement on my right for artistic or educational experimentation.

If you choose to use banned software on official, protected servers, than you must accept the risk of facing a ban. There are numerous other methods by which one could "experiment" with their software. Methods, I might add, that offer more options and freedom than being limited to a server that is out of your control.

I have shown that there are situations in which VAC behaves exactly as I have described. You are moving the goalpost and making irrelevant arguments. Notification does not help resolve issues caused by the system's heavy handed implementation, it just adds insult to injury.

I haven't moved the goal posts. I've been trying to keep you in sight of them.

You keep criticizing VAC (and those who support it) as being detached from reality. Yet, virtually every single one of your examples of the inherent danger of VAC stem from pure speculative posturings on morality. It's a bit hypocritical.

Further, your proposed situations are absurd. In every instance, VAC would not come into play. It would not be of any concern.

"Experimenting", in the fashion you keep alluding to, would not elicit a VAC ban. If anything, it would likely be encouraged as any findings you make, should they be, say, about some new hacking system, would prove invaluable to the anti-cheat system. It would help them stop legitimate hackers from ruining the play experience of other players.

As opposed to someone who is disingenuously concerned? I suppose there is a systematic way to determine the kinds of concern? Mistakes happen, any system that is based on the presupposition that they don't is deeply flawed.

Of course mistakes happen. However, though I'm sure you won't believe it, there are ways of working through mistaken VAC bans.

When they say a VAC ban is permanent and irrevocable, they are referring to legitimate bans. If one can prove a ban was unwarranted, the ban can be removed.

However, wrongful VAC bans are so rare, such situations barely come up.

The server has no way to telling you from any other random joe shmoe who connects to it. You fire it up and it obeys a set of instructions. It is a machine with no way of independent reasoning and because of this when you fire up a server (which is easily done without any sort of identifiable information being sent about the owner of the server) it will treat any client that connects the same. If you have something that triggers VAC, it doesn't matter if the server is yours, it's still going to flag and report you.

And again, if one is stupid enough to enable VAC on their own server, while knowingly using 'illegal' or banned software, then they likely are not smart enough or interested enough to be experimenting with any 'hacks' in the first place.

Besides, you don't have to have a server hosted online to test it. You can host it locally or over a VPN and VAC, even if enabled, will have no effect. And yet again, there are other, better ways of testing the kinds of software you're referring to.

This is not a ridiculous scenario. It is an inconvenient scenario for your argument. The difference is subtle, but great. I find the implication that I am being disingenuous insulting.

Any less insulting than your continued implications that I am being disingenuous? Or that I could only come to my point of view through ignorance of the VAC system and an inability to grasp your 'moral' posturings?

I only return offense when I am given offense.

And when I said a "ridiculous scenario", I was referring to your proposed outcome to such scenarios. Your implication that VAC would blanket ban users in those situations was what was ridiculous.

As I had said before, I experiment with my own Source servers all the time. I, and countless others, have done so for years. There is no concern that VAC would pass out bans for such experimentation. It just doesn't happen. It's not how the system operates.

No, I'm saying that VAC creates an environment that discourages exploration and experimentation.

No, it does not. It doesn't matter how many times you keep insisting that it does, it simply isn't true. Steam is an environment bred on experimentation. To imply that Valve would endanger that environment with some draconian anti-cheat system designed to stifle experimentation is absurd.

I can not pretend to know the intent of a company, I can only observe the effects of an action.

I don't buy that you have observed those effects. VAC has done far more good than ill over the course of it's existence. It has fostered a healthier gaming environment for those who wish to play fair and those who wish to, as you keep putting it, "experiment". It is only a detriment to those who wish to exploit the system, those who wish to stifle user creativity, and those who wish to ruin the play experience of other users.

The proof is in the pudding. If you wish to say you understand my argument, then show understanding of my argument.

I have. But you seem to be under the notion that I couldn't possibly hold the opinions that I hold if I did understand.

Truth is, I do understand your argument. I do understand your concerns. But I also understand what VAC is and how it works. As a result, I understand the actual dangers of VAC, as well as the 'non-dangers'.

And as it stands? Only those with ill intentions need worry about facing VAC's wrath.

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED

 

[Irick]

The premise was true. Under most circumstances, one has to enable VAC on their server.

I have provided proof to the contrary. If you wish to argue only on your own opinion that's fine, but it still is just your opinion.

It is contributing positively to the entropic decay of the universe... except that assumes that the possibility of life is a good thing so it doesn't actually measure up to your lofty challenge.

There is no such thing as Dangerous outside of ethics. Dangerous is inherently contingent on what you personally value. As I personally value the creative potential of gaming, anything that works against it is dangerous. The very fact that VAC can get a false positive makes it dangerous to the experience of playing the game itself. VAC is dangerous: from a position of game enjoyment, from a position of of personal privacy and from a position of learning.

So, in a nut shell, you're dodging the question.

Good to know.

No, in a nutshell you do not understand what Ethics is, or what Danger is, or even apparently what Detriment is. What is harm? How do we denote harm but with the unharmed? What is unharmed?

I'm sorry, but I can't spell this out any better. You may need to brush up on your studying.

You presume too much.

I do understand how VAC works. I have seen reverse-engineered samples of how VAC tracks down certain hacks and malicious software.

I haven't chosen to 'trust what I've been told'. I did the research myself. That you are suggesting I think what I do because of some lazy naivete is incredibly insulting; not to mention condescending.

You have shown no understanding of it on a technical level.
I would task you to start before I believe your claims, or at least reference the routines you seem to have imagined in action. Throw a source dump as me and we can crawl through it, it doesn't matter either way though as it changes literally none of my argument.

This is some pretty simple rhetoric. It's effective, but it doesn't actually address the hard portions of my challenge. It is the equivalent of saying "If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." when someone brings up privacy rights.

The response is exactly the same: the potential harm is high and I require proof it is even effective in the first place.

False equivalency.

This fallacy doesn't mean what you think it means. (I literally laughed out loud at this considering your decidedly rhetorical writing style)

I haven't moved the goal posts. I've been trying to keep you in sight of them.

You have.

You keep criticizing VAC (and those who support it) as being detached from reality. Yet, virtually every single one of your examples of the inherent danger of VAC stem from pure speculative posturings on morality. It's a bit hypocritical.

Your stunning inability to grasp my argument is breathtaking.

Further, your proposed situations are absurd. In every instance, VAC would not come into play. It would not be of any concern.

So you claim.

"Experimenting", in the fashion you keep alluding to, would not elicit a VAC ban. If anything, it would likely be encouraged as any findings you make, should they be, say, about some new hacking system, would prove invaluable to the anti-cheat system. It would help them stop legitimate hackers from ruining the play experience of other players.

The system still isn't magic. It can't differentiate between academic exploration and 'legitimate hackers' any more than I can read minds. (I cringe because you will never know the irony of your words, or even that sentence.)

Steam and the Software may include functionality designed to identify software or hardware processes or functionality that may give a player an unfair competitive advantage when playing multiplayer versions of any Software or modifications of Software (?Cheats?). You agree that you will not create Cheats or assist third parties in any way to create Cheats. You agree that you will not directly or indirectly disable, circumvent, or otherwise interfere with the operation of software designed to prevent or report the use of Cheats. You acknowledge and agree that either Valve or any online multiplayer host may refuse to allow you to participate in certain online multiplayer games if you use Cheats in connection with Steam or the Software. Further, you acknowledge and agree that an online multiplayer host may report your use of Cheats to Valve, and Valve may communicate your history of use of Cheats to other online multiplayer hosts. Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers. You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscriptions(s) and/or Account, but it may choose to do so.

The EULA disallows any sort of research into VAC's underworkings in its clause to 'not create Cheats or assist third parties in any way to create Cheats.'. I am against anything that disallows study.

When they say a VAC ban is permanent and irrevocable, they are referring to legitimate bans. If one can prove a ban was unwarranted, the ban can be removed.

You keep using this word, but it means nothing in this context. I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of VAC bans period. A system that I have to actively fight to explore a game is broken, dangerous, detrimental and wrong.

However, wrongful VAC bans are so rare, such situations barely come up.

I don't know where you are getting your data considering Valve doesn't publish any numbers. I'm betting it's an unscientific assumption.

The server has no way to telling you from any other random joe shmoe who connects to it. You fire it up and it obeys a set of instructions. It is a machine with no way of independent reasoning and because of this when you fire up a server (which is easily done without any sort of identifiable information being sent about the owner of the server) it will treat any client that connects the same. If you have something that triggers VAC, it doesn't matter if the server is yours, it's still going to flag and report you.
[/quote]

And again, if one is stupid enough to enable VAC on their own server, while knowingly using 'illegal' or banned software, then they likely are not smart enough or interested enough to be experimenting with any 'hacks' in the first place.

You've clearly never set foot into a university environment if you actually believe that statement. Regardless, it doesn't mater how smart or interested someone is, restricting their ability to experiment is wrong.

Besides, you don't have to have a server hosted online to test it. You can host it locally or over a VPN and VAC, even if enabled, will have no effect. And yet again, there are other, better ways of testing the kinds of software you're referring to.

You are just arguing situations at this point and making value judgments. It's funny that you can't see that. Here is a pretty simple and plausible scenario:

I have an interest in how the skill curve for CS:GO works.
So, I pop over to a one click game hosting service and buy a few months for the experiment and maybe to play with friends on the side.
As CS:GO servers default to VAC secured, it's VAC secured.
I get a bunch of my buddies to connect and play a few rounds, noting the general skill curves and how the economy affects it.
I install an aim-assist on random players from both teams with the intent to repeat the experiment while subtly tweaking the degree of aim assist.
VAC detects and bans the clients that joined with the software installed..

Any less insulting than your continued implications that I am being disingenuous? Or that I could only come to my point of view through ignorance of the VAC system and an inability to grasp your 'moral' posturings?

I don't think you are being disingenuous, I think you have no interest in actually attempting to critique my argument and instead would rather win. Again, despite your claims in knowing what I am arguing you have shown no such thing.

And when I said a "ridiculous scenario", I was referring to your proposed outcome to such scenarios. Your implication that VAC would blanket ban users in those situations was what was ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than what the EULA allows.

As I had said before, I experiment with my own Source servers all the time. I, and countless others, have done so for years. There is no concern that VAC would pass out bans for such experimentation. It just doesn't happen. It's not how the system operates.

On what authority do you have this? Valve is a company with company policy. We don't get to see this policy, we only get to see their EULA and their public stances. VAC is a privacy invading peice of software that exists only to exclude people from a gaming experience for the assumed good of the game. To me, this is not an acceptable state of affairs

Your claims of personal experience are not useful data.

No, I'm saying that VAC creates an environment that discourages exploration and experimentation.

No, it does not. It doesn't matter how many times you keep insisting that it does, it simply isn't true. Steam is an environment bred on experimentation. To imply that Valve would endanger that environment with some draconian anti-cheat system designed to stifle experimentation is absurd.

It does, no mater how many times you insist that it doesn't. VAC is a system that exists solely to detect and ban people using modifications to the game client damned unacceptable. To imply that this does not endanger the exploration of a game is absurd.

I don't buy that you have observed those effects.

Sounds like a personal problem. I've put all of my reasoing out on paper. Care to address it rather than quable about things that can't possibly be verified?

VAC has done far more good than ill over the course of it's existence.

Valve has never released data regarding VAC's effectiveness. This is pure supposition.

It has fostered a healthier gaming environment for those who wish to play fair and those who wish to, as you keep putting it, "experiment".

Heather is a value judgement, please explain your normative ethical theory in exhaustive detail and I will point out where I disagree.

It is only a detriment to those who wish to exploit the system, those who wish to stifle user creativity, and those who wish to ruin the play experience of other users.

Valve has never released data regarding VAC's effectiveness, this is pure supposition and rehtoric.

I have. But you seem to be under the notion that I couldn't possibly hold the opinions that I hold if I did understand.

Truth is, I do understand your argument. I do understand your concerns.

You still have gotten it wrong every time you've paraphrased it. Here, maybe this will help:

 

[Cronenberg1]

On a related note, I'm actually rather looking forward to the event itself, in spite of recent events. CSGO is by far my favorite video game to spectate on. Without Titan in the tournament, NIP are in an extremely comfortable position to dominate the competition.

As much as I would like to see that, I don't think they can beat Fnatic or LDLC. Depending on how the playoffs shape up, I can't see them higher then 3rd or 4th. I'm hoping they surprise me, and considering they won't get owned by Titan on Dust2 again they just might do that.

 

[Starbird]

Heather is a value judgement, please explain your normative ethical theory in exhaustive detail and I will point out where I disagree

There really needs to be a name for this fallacy. The 'you can't use a common usage term until you explain it in depth and allow me to nitpick it even though it's a tiny part of your argument' fallacy maybe.

Valve has never released data regarding VAC's effectiveness. This is pure supposition.

Or common sense. Are you also against Warden, or the Tribunal in League?

No more ridiculous than what the EULA allows.

Have you read the EULA/TOC/TOA for any games you installed recently. Almost all of them have some provision along the lines of 'we can ban you for any reason, at any time, with no compensation'.

You keep using this word, but it means nothing in this context. I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of VAC bans period. A system that I have to actively fight to explore a game is broken, dangerous, detrimental and wrong.

A lot of companies use a similar system (Blizzard's Warden is a good example). The reason they don't want you poking around in it is because 'exploring' often leads to better, undetectable hacks being developed.

 

[Irick]

Heather is a value judgement, please explain your normative ethical theory in exhaustive detail and I will point out where I disagree

There really needs to be a name for this fallacy. The 'you can't use a common usage term until you explain it in depth and allow me to nitpick it even though it's a tiny part of your argument' fallacy maybe.

It doesn't exist because it's not a fallacy A fallacy is a flaw in logic, there is no flaw in logic here. I'm pointing out that this is his opinion and not a verifiable fact. The quip about ethics is based on an earlier exchange (a joke).

Valve has never released data regarding VAC's effectiveness. This is pure supposition.

Or common sense. Are you also against Warden, or the Tribunal in League?

So, would you actually like to talk about fallacies? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance] (appealing to common sense is essentially appealing to the unproven because something is accepted on faith. It's not a good basis for a logical argument.)
My argumentation has been very formally sound, my position is quite simple: I dislike VAC because of how it works, I dislike Valve's zero tolerance policy because it doesn't allow for experimentation or learning experiences. It's Zero Tolerance. I have argued my points with the rigor appropriate of any academic.

I do not play League, I disagree with their payment model and I find the game inherently flawed to invest in due to its dependence on central servers, which I view as hurting the game in the long term due to the inability to maintain it. See Dawngate's situation for a case in point on this line of reasoning.

No more ridiculous than what the EULA allows.

Have you read the EULA/TOC/TOA for any games you installed recently. Almost all of them have some provision along the lines of 'we can ban you for any reason, at any time, with no compensation'.

I actually am one of those people who reads their EULAs, and I still disagree with these sub-clauses. I also disagree with the concept of a EULA in general and have made extensive arguments against their legality. You're at somewhat of a disadvantage here because I really don't think you know where I come from. This is normal and honestly you're not being a huge dick about it so...

Yeah, a lot of EULAs are like this. We shouldn't be allowing it, but we are. This upsets me.

You keep using this word, but it means nothing in this context. I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of VAC bans period. A system that I have to actively fight to explore a game is broken, dangerous, detrimental and wrong.

A lot of companies use a similar system (Blizzard's Warden is a good example). The reason they don't want you poking around in it is because 'exploring' often leads to better, undetectable hacks being developed.

I think you are assuming I am somehow okay with Blizzard or other similar systems, however I am explicitly not. This isn't just a problem with VAC, this is a problem with all invasive software and a problem with all Zero Tolerance policies.

You entered into a pretty heated argument and there is a lot of precedent to absorb here. I'm not making any argument against Valve. I am rather practiced at this sort of thing and I will generally go to lengths to only address specific ideas in my argumentation. The character of Valve or other companies is not what I am attacking, I am specifically criticizing: Zero Tolerance enforced automatically, the deeply invasive nature of VAC, the threat that VAC poses to exploring aspects of VAC secured games.

Unfortunately I really, really, really try hard not to pull out the fallacy card all the damn time because it's pretty childish and people tend to not really understand how to employ them. A Fallacy isn't a one-stop-shop to refute a point (unless it's a formal fallacy, but even then it just shows a poorly constructed argument). It is only when Fallacies are used to an extreme point that they make it nearly impossible to continue forward.

 

[Vigormortis]

Spoiler: Spoiler'd for space considerations.

I have provided proof to the contrary. If you wish to argue only on your own opinion that's fine, but it still is just your opinion.

You provided only a portion of the info regarding hosting a Source server. You conveniently skipped the rest.

And as I've said, several times now, I run my own Source servers. So I can tell you from experience that VAC needs to be enabled in many cases, not the other way around.

But please, continue to be condescending. It's quite entertaining.

No, in a nutshell you do not understand what Ethics is, or what Danger is, or even apparently what Detriment is. What is harm? How do we denote harm but with the unharmed? What is unharmed?

I'm sorry, but I can't spell this out any better. You may need to brush up on your studying.

WOW. My gods you are without a doubt one of the most condescendingly insulting posters I've met on this forum. Hands down.

You went off on a wild, existential tangent that had little to nothing to do with the question at hand, and when I point this out you come back with, "You're too stupid to get it."

Very nice. And further proof you've no intention on actually answering my question.

You have shown no understanding of it on a technical level.
I would task you to start before I believe your claims, or at least reference the routines you seem to have imagined in action. Throw a source dump as me and we can crawl through it, it doesn't matter either way though as it changes literally none of my argument.

So you're free to proclaim whatever you want about VAC and it's operation, but I have to provide, quite literally, the source code to the program to back up my proclamations?

Good to see you have double standards to go with the condescension.

This fallacy doesn't mean what you think it means. (I literally laughed out loud at this considering your decidedly rhetorical writing style)

It does. You were equating one absurd scenario with another to backup your assertions. Two scenarios that were not equivalent.

But I'll placate and instead say that you were using a false analogy fallacy.

I'll be sure to correctly point out which fallacy you're using next time. I promise.

You have.

I haven't. Shall we keep this up?

Your stunning inability to grasp my argument is breathtaking.

The only thing that's breathtaking about our conversation is how you haven't managed to get yourself banned from this forum, if this is how you speak to people.

So you claim.

So I've experienced.

Besides, what more validity does your claim to the contrary hold, considering the lack of demonstrable evidence?

None.

The system still isn't magic. It can't differentiate between academic exploration and 'legitimate hackers' any more than I can read minds. (I cringe because you will never know the irony of your words, or even that sentence.)

So, once again, resorting to calling me stupid, hmm?

Glad to see that all you have to offer in an argument is tangential existentialism and insults.

And I never once said the system was magic. But since you keep ignoring my explanations on...well, everything....I'm not going to waste my time going over, once again, why your argument is absurd.

The EULA disallows any sort of research into VAC's underworkings in its clause to 'not create Cheats or assist third parties in any way to create Cheats.'. I am against anything that disallows study.

Provided you are not directly altering or negatively interacting with the Valve VAC servers, you are not breaching the EULA.

And besides, the "create Cheats or assist third parties" clause is in reference to running those programs on official, VAC secured, servers. The clause, and the EULA as a whole, has no say on what one does with their own servers and the software therein.

You keep using this word, but it means nothing in this context. I don't acknowledge the legitimacy of VAC bans period. A system that I have to actively fight to explore a game is broken, dangerous, detrimental and wrong.

And you keep stating this, but it's no less absurd than the first time you said it.

You keep acting as though VAC is some draconian system that has complete control over every users system. This is not the case. It has never been the case. And no matter how many times you keep asserting this point, it won't be true.

I don't know where you are getting your data considering Valve doesn't publish any numbers. I'm betting it's an unscientific assumption.

As opposed to your rhetorical, philosophical assumptions?

You've clearly never set foot into a university environment if you actually believe that statement. Regardless, it doesn't mater how smart or interested someone is, restricting their ability to experiment is wrong.

You've insulted me in just about every section of your post, with this being the latest to insult my intelligence.

At least you're consistent.

And you've yet to demonstrate how VAC restricts experimentation. You keep asserting that it does, and then going off on long-winded tirades about how 'wrong' it is for doing so, but you've yet to show any actual evidence that it does.

How ironic of you to say I'm the one behaving non-academically.

You are just arguing situations at this point

Ha! That's all you've done from the start! Your entire argument is based on presumed situations and scenarios.

I have an interest in how the skill curve for CS:GO works.
So, I pop over to a one click game hosting service and buy a few months for the experiment and maybe to play with friends on the side.
As CS:GO servers default to VAC secured, it's VAC secured.
I get a bunch of my buddies to connect and play a few rounds, noting the general skill curves and how the economy affects it.
I install an aim-assist on random players from both teams with the intent to repeat the experiment while subtly tweaking the degree of aim assist.
VAC detects and bans the clients that joined with the software installed..

Good for you. You should go do that. I'd be interested in seeing the results of your experiments.

Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you consider going into your server's CVAR settings and disabling VAC. Might make things easier for you in the long run.

I mean, unless you decide not to. Then we'll see a completely different set of results to analyze when all's said and done.

Of course, you'd have to actively choose not to change it, since experimenting with the game and server in the manner you're intending would require you to fiddle with the CVAR settings at least once.

But hey! If you chose not to it would prove your point, right?

I don't think you are being disingenuous, I think you have no interest in actually attempting to critique my argument and instead would rather win. Again, despite your claims in knowing what I am arguing you have shown no such thing.

I've argued against and refuted each and every point you've brought up. You've simply dismissed my points and retorted with insults and a rehash of the same, unsubstantiated claims.

No more ridiculous than what the EULA allows.

Well since you don't seem to know what the EULA actually says....

On what authority do you have this? Valve is a company with company policy. We don't get to see this policy, we only get to see their EULA and their public stances. VAC is a privacy invading peice of software that exists only to exclude people from a gaming experience for the assumed good of the game. To me, this is not an acceptable state of affairs

Your claims of personal experience are not useful data.

Nor are your flat assertions as to the intention, effectiveness, or 'dangers' of VAC and it's operation. You keep accusing me of basing my counter-argument on opinion, yet this is all you've offered from the beginning. Opinions. Opinions occasionally supplemented by philosophical posturings on ethics and morality.

It does, no mater how many times you insist that it doesn't. VAC is a system that exists solely to detect and ban people using modifications to the game client damned unacceptable. To imply that this does not endanger the exploration of a game is absurd.

It doesn't "endanger the exploration of a game". At most, it changes the venue in which that exploration can be done.

Unless you want to argue that experimentation should come at the cost of others and at the endangerment of Steam and the community as a whole.

Sounds like a personal problem. I've put all of my reasoing out on paper. Care to address it rather than quable about things that can't possibly be verified?

I'm not quite sure what 'reasoing' and 'quable' are, but I'll just ask this:

Care to verify even one of your assertions of VAC's 'dangers'?

And maybe don't resort to philosophical posturings this time.

Valve has never released data regarding VAC's effectiveness. This is pure supposition.

As is every claim you've made.

Also: They don't have to. The data can be gleaned by viewing public account info.

http://vacbanned.com/view/statistics

Heather is a value judgement, please explain your normative ethical theory in exhaustive detail and I will point out where I disagree.

The double standard strikes again.

You keep making value judgements of your own, yet the moment I offer one, you insist I explain it in minute detail.

Sorry. I'll do no such thing.

Valve has never released data regarding VAC's effectiveness, this is pure supposition and rehtoric.

It's 'rhetoric', and I'll post my example again -

http://vacbanned.com/view/statistics

You still have gotten it wrong every time you've paraphrased it. Here, maybe this will help:

End on an insult, eh? Classy.

Welp, I'm done with this. It's abundantly clear this conversation is going nowhere, and I've no interest in being insulted nor debating with someone who listens with fingers in his ears.

So I bid you good day.

And just so you don't end up wasting your time, I'd like to let you know I'll be making use of this sites 'block' feature.

You are, of course, free to assume that this is just me running away from the discussion. That's fine. I'd expect no less from you. But really, I just don't like pointless debates wherein one side refuses to even listen to the other. And moreover, where one side keeps resorting to insults to "prove" it's point.

 

[MHR]

What a crock -- "limiting academics." VAC is only detrimental to hackers and idiots that don't take precautions, especially when trying to run dodgy programs. If someone got banned knowing the risks, and balked at the result, I'd consider them a sorry academic indeed. As for damage to the competitive medium, I'd say far more damage would be done if VAC wasn't around as a decisive resolution. The rampant cheating, even at the pub level, would make the gaming scene in general a bad joke. People don't like being cheated, and people don't play games they don't like. Those with this common sentiment might even outnumber The so very numerous throngs of "academic" urchins spinning circular prose on the immutable virtues of programming freedom, despite however conveniently vague the method and intention.

How convenient to wholly ignore the benefits and successes of VAC for the existence of a few well-reasoned non-transparencies. There are many thousands with VAC bans, and VAC has virtually no false positives. There need be no more proof, and there can scarcely ever be a better record.

I've never in my life read something so articulately deaf.

 

[Vigormortis]

What a crock -- "limiting academics." VAC is only detrimental to hackers and idiots that don't take precautions, especially when trying to run dodgy programs. If someone got banned knowing the risks, and balked at the result, I'd consider them a sorry academic indeed. As for damage to the competitive medium, I'd say far more damage would be done if VAC wasn't around as a decisive resolution. The rampant cheating, even at the pub level, would make the gaming scene in general a bad joke. People don't like being cheated, and people don't play games they don't like. Those with this common sentiment might even outnumber The so very numerous throngs of "academic" urchins spinning circular prose on the immutable virtues of programming freedom, despite however conveniently vague the method and intention.

How convenient to wholly ignore the benefits and successes of VAC for the existence of a few well-reasoned non-transparencies. There are many thousands with VAC bans, and VAC has virtually no false positives. There need be no more proof, and there can scarcely ever be a better record.

I've never in my life read something so articulately deaf.

Thank you. Glad to see someone else who appreciates how absurd that argument was.

It's the equivalent of saying one wants to experiment with illegal, mind-altering drugs, but wishes to do so in the middle of a police station. And then, when the police inevitably arrest him, saying the notion of a police force is inherently immoral because it infringes on the experimenters rights.

Experimentation is a marvelous, and necessary, endeavor. However, it should be done at the proper time and within the proper venue. As well, it should never be done to the detriment of others.

It's the height of hypocrisy to argue that VAC is an inherently unethical system while simultaneously arguing for unethical experimentation.

 

[Irick]

What a crock -- "limiting academics." VAC is only detrimental to hackers and idiots that don't take precautions, especially when trying to run dodgy programs. If someone got banned knowing the risks, and balked at the result, I'd consider them a sorry academic indeed.

I do have to ask: how exactly does this invalidate someone specifically criticizing the policies that introduce this risk? When you have a feature that 'fails deadly' and has an explicit out that says "we don't have to do shit' and someone comes along and points out that it fails deadly and that you explicitly have reserved the right to not do shit it's not exactly balking. It's specifically criticizing an obvious asymmetry.

Do not mistake your own opinion for the only rational take.

As for damage to the competitive medium, I'd say far more damage would be done if VAC wasn't around as a decisive resolution. The rampant cheating, even at the pub level, would make the gaming scene in general a bad joke.

Why exactly do you believe this? There exists no proverbial man with a gun in any other gaming scene and no one considers chess a bad joke. No one considers poker a bad joke. They consider those who cheat at chess and poker bad players.

People don't like being cheated, and people don't play games they don't like.

You are conflating a game and the players, so the claim isn't logically consistent. I understand the sentiment, but once again I can just point to competitive games that do not have VAC, or any of these other invasive anti-cheat mechanisms. Quake Live[footnote]Quake Live does support Punkbuster, but it is not (to my knowledge) installed either in the client or server by default. I haven't messed with QL since it stopped supporting my platform (linux)[/footnote] and OpenArena are both fast paced highly skill intensive games without any sort of invasive anti-cheat and they both have thriving competitive scenes.

Those with this common sentiment might even outnumber The so very numerous throngs of "academic" urchins spinning circular prose on the immutable virtues of programming freedom, despite however conveniently vague the method and intention.

People might disagree with me, but it doesn't say anything about my argument. It just says people disagree. I don't like VAC because it hasn't been proven to do much of anything and it violates that 'immutable virtues'. It is a point which I hold to be important to the progression of the medium and I am much begrudged to give it up for no verifiable change in the quality of the game experience.

As far as I can tell, anti cheat is nearly entirely a security blanket. It doesn't really do anything but a lot of people want it.

How convenient to wholly ignore the benefits and successes of VAC for the existence of a few well-reasoned non-transparencies. There are many thousands with VAC bans, and VAC has virtually no false positives. There need be no more proof, and there can scarcely ever be a better record.

Yes, there does need to be more proof.
You are taking on faith that there have been 'virtually no false positives' but these numbers simply do not exist. People can trawl the public profiles of steam users and get an idea of how many people have been banned, but there is no useful data to determine how many people have actually been banned for doing anything. The process isn't transparrent. Valve doesn't take the steps necessary to provide this kind of data. This isn't a value judgment, this is simply the case of fact.

I am not ignoring the benefits, I'm saying they don't outweigh what is being given up. Again, to me, these are functionally security blankets.

I've never in my life read something so articulately deaf.

You may need to read more then.