[Suggestion] A new way to identify hackers!

"Research"

 

What if you are afk?

 

There are a lot more negatives in this then positives.

Also, earlier in the suggestion you said only people with a background of getting complaints of hacks would get banned. What if you were getting chased and didn't type it. You may not be hacking, but since you have a background of it, boom. Goodbye ecc pho yoo.

 

You could pretend ur afk or just ignore mods when they pm you "Hey" or something because I sure haven't seen a mod do that since falconaire. (No hate mods, I understand ur busy)

 

I see this suggestion as quite silly. It would become an annoyance, and honestly I do not see why people with hacked clients is such a big deal. There are more important things that could be focused on.

 

I think you just pulled that 3.6% number out of your ass..

You don't know how many hackers there are, that number is simply something you made up. There is absolutely no way of knowing how many people do or do not use a hacking client.

Also I don't think 50% of hackers will be stopped. I don't think it'll come even close to that number.
What I think will happen is that a very small amount of people will get banned, the technique will become known and people will simply find a client that doesn't use the "." and use that from then on. The only people who get caught are new people, builders, who play SG with hacking clients. But that is worthless anyway because people with kits will simply wipe them out in no time.

The way I see it this suggestion only causes trouble for users and staff alike, while barely affecting the people who use hacking clients.

 

Why did you quote me?

 

It was me. However that is the percentage of complaints categorized in hacking. It is indeed true you cannot truly know the percentage of hackers on ECC. and as kuke said, yeah people will learn not to use mods with "."

 

Or use &7. Also @Zecrux I think you said to remove &7 from ecc. I'm pretty sure it is all of minecraft but don't quote me on it I'm not sure

 

Why would we remove color codes?! thats essential for ECC such as shouts, color signs, extcreations, and more.

 

Good point that I didn't even notice. &7 is a colour code.

 

You stated the 2-7% if I'm not mistaken...

 

Well, this was a very interesting read.

Now first of all almost every reply that has been posted appears to be going near flame war territory. I hope that further posts recognize and read this because I will not tolerate anymore flaming, name calling, condescending responses, etc. I expect you all to behave professionally in this and any suggestion on the forum. There is no reason to behave as I have seen in the 7 pages of this thread.

Now onto the suggestion at hand. First of all, I feel that the concerns lodged are honest and serious as well as very hard to address.

1) AFK users would have a serious problem.

2) We wouldn't even have a guarantee it would catch any hackers at all. This suggestion is based off the assumption that all hacked client users are using the same client when there are many out there. To top it off, if this suggestion WAS accepted what is to stop every hacker on the server from going 'Oh look, that messes up my use of ____ hacked client. Okay, I'll switch to ____ hacked client instead.' Why? Because by accepting this suggestion we would be telling the server that we are doing a '.hacktest' and from then on there is no reason for users to continue using a client that will DEFINITELY get them banned.

3) There are plenty of ways to bypass it and there is no reason to disable long used regular command just incase we might catch a person or two. Especially considering #2.

4) If someone is AFK do they automatically have the 'this user has failed the test blah blah' thing show up? If it doesn't, then why would any user type the message at all? Are we going to check that everyone tried it? At that point we might as well make a check list.

5) I also feel that the statistics currently provided have not been researched at all. Statistics used to prove a point should be based in fact. If you can provide me with the facts surrounding the statistics provided then I would appreciate that. Further, I would appreciate if these facts were checkable by the staff.

Essentially what I'm saying is that I can honestly say I hope this does not get implemented as provided. It sounds like it creates more problems then it will solve and I'd prefer not to spend my ECC life handling appeals of 'I wasn't hacking, I was just afk' because at that point we are putting innocent people away. I'd rather innocent people don't get banned. Especially because at that point, it may just be the go to excuse for people who WERE hacking. Not 'I was hacking' but 'I was afk and you mistook it for hacking.'


Revanrose6

 

This sums up my ideas basically.