Rule Change needed for Competitive Tournaments
Comments
-
Im2Good4This wrote: »Not trying to start anything here, but I'm fairly certain warrants are only needed if it is a forced entry. If we were to force him into using teamviewer we would need a warrant. But we didnt. On the thread that was deleted (HelloFY vs Envy) he stated "you can come on my teamviewer i dont care" after i posted the pictures of the taskbar having a unknown program running. He gave us permission. in that case we wouldnt need a warrant.
Again... not trying to start anything just stating my opinion.
Yeah, I agreed with that when Michael said it...but trying to enforce it as a rule was what I was talking about...especially since it is being brought in after people signed up...
Either way, if any of you had any IT/Security background/knowledge/qualifications, you wouldn't have even thought of doing that...just an observation and a helpful hint that you need to be careful doing/suggesting things like that...it's a very dodgy area. It can easily open you up for a lot of hassle (yes, by teamviewing in, you open all sorts of fun ports and tunnels, not to mention basic stuff such as giving you IP address...) and just a helpful hint that you should be aware of... -
If permission is granted that means the person is comfortable with you to check their computer. When a user accepts this they know what to expect and as soon as they feel like their privacy is being invaded they can cancel. This leads to the part where if they did cancel it would cause suspicion just like it would in a real life situation if an officer was allowed in without a warrant. When the team-view was initiated processes were checked and spots the ACP generally checks but was done manually then permission was granted to allow further access to things that may be considered private in order to fully clear them of mere suspicion of cheating as a dispute was in place from a player. When Michael made the announcement 10 minutes approximately from when the 1st round is supposed to start it notified all users that the anti-cheat would be used in a different manner Bandicam and Moss were the two options defined. He also notified users that if they choose the path of using Bandicam or were disputed under the suspicion of cheating as Moss was deemed not creditable as a stand-alone anti-cheat he would Team-view. At this point the signed up teams had a chance to agree to move on or drop out with no harsh punishment. So to clear it up yes the users were aware of the new anti-cheat for that temporary timeline and the user that was team-viewed agreed to authorize users of the league that were not admins that was an optional choice. The users were brought in to help scout other possible traces of cheats in case the user is hiding it and were allowed to do so. I don't see the issue here except for the lack of professionalism and now can we all move on? I don't agree with cancelling the league if their main anti-cheat is down because it gives the users an option to continue with allowing another and the ones who aren't willing to trust it to drop out. I wouldn't be too happy if it was cancelled this week but I was glad we had other options available.
For the security part file transfer and other options are available to be put on to allow from granted permission. -
eX_Makaveli wrote: »If permission is granted that means the person is comfortable with you to check their computer. When a user accepts this they know what to expect and as soon as they feel like their privacy is being invaded they can cancel. This leads to the part where if they did cancel it would cause suspicion just like it would in a real life situation if an officer was allowed in without a warrant. When the team-view was initiated processes were checked and spots the ACP generally checks but was done manually then permission was granted to allow further access to things that may be considered private in order to fully clear them of mere suspicion of cheating as a dispute was in place from a player. When Michael made the announcement 10 minutes approximately from when the 1st round is supposed to start it notified all users that the anti-cheat would be used in a different manner Bandicam and Moss were the two options defined. He also notified users that if they choose the path of using Bandicam or were disputed under the suspicion of cheating as Moss was deemed not creditable as a stand-alone anti-cheat he would Team-view. At this point the signed up teams had a chance to agree to move on or drop out with no harsh punishment. So to clear it up yes the users were aware of the new anti-cheat for that temporary timeline and the user that was team-viewed agreed to authorize users of the league that were not admins that was an optional choice. The users were brought in to help scout other possible traces of cheats in case the user is hiding it and were allowed to do so. I don't see the issue here except for the lack of professionalism and now can we all move on? I don't agree with cancelling the league if their main anti-cheat is down because it gives the users an option to continue with allowing another and the ones who aren't willing to trust it to drop out. I wouldn't be too happy if it was cancelled this week but I was glad we had other options available.
For the security part file transfer and other options are available to be put on to allow from granted permission.
You seem to have completely missed the point...you're saying teams have to suffer because they don't want some random kid rooting through their PC? I have stuff on my PC I don't want people to see, does that mean I hack? Not at all. But would I refuse to let someone on that I didn't know or trust? Hell yeah I would.
Yes, he agreed, what other choice did he have at that point?
It's a pure catch 22:
-The player denies because its their PERSONAL PROPERTY - and get's branded a cheater.
-They comply because they want's to clear themself, and gets some random kid rooting through their PC?
Forgive me for not condoning that at all. From an IT background, that is shocking, and proves how little you regard privacy and security, and once again, I bring up my point that if ANY of you had ANY sort of IT/Security background/qualifications, you wouldn't have even thought about suggesting that. -
Like I said in my post all users had an option to drop out of the tournament as soon as ACP issues were announced and the anti-cheat was replaced for the time being. The notification was given of possible outcomes if you're disputed for suspicion of cheating. They were aware Team-viewer would be used and the capabilities of it should be known before allowing it. They continued to play and were disputed.
Like I said it was either the tournament cancelled or use these methods. Players like me didn't have a problem with that and would rather play then show up and have it cancelled due to a faulty anti-cheat. I didn't say teams have to suffer in my post at all I pointed out that the announcement for the new anti-cheat was indeed made after the sign-ups but what was deemed appropriate by Michael was done under those circumstances. He announced the new options for that day and the possible outcomes. That's why I don't see anything wrong with this. How are you going to keep saying they were forced when the options were told beforehand? This is why Michael isn't bothering to go into details because it has no affect. In real life situations officers are allowed to search you without a warrant if you grant permission and have to stop as soon as you tell them to. However they would be left with suspicion and this would of been with the case if he cancelled after we got into team-view. However he allowed access because he gave his choice and he knew what he had to do due to the fact of continuing after agreeing to the new terms of the temporary anti-cheat methods. Michael gave an opportunity for the suspect to clear himself with an explanation of why he clears his cache right after a game. The suspect had nothing to say and nothing was said until after his friends started to explain for him that it's to help tune his computer.
My point is if we didn't use these only options under the given circumstances there would of been no tournament that day regardless. Players who felt comfortable with the new options were allowed to continue to play and that didn't upset me I would of been if there was none at all. -
But I disagree, if your AC fails, you should **POSTPONE** until it works. Absolutely. There should be no discussion/using other methods...No need to cancel, but surely everyone would rather wait until it works, than use another substandard measure. And yes, substandard, because if it was consider a "real" alternative, why would you not be using it already.
And it's funny that you're likening a police stop and search, for which they must have reasonable doubt, and have been TRAINED to do...to a random kid rooting through your PC to fulfil his own ego? What does that kid know about computers? About security procedures? Because trust me, the police have a LOT of safeguards for EVERY stop and search (at least in the UK). Not to mention that actually most are done with a warrant of some sort. Or they are done because the suspect is under arrest and you search them for officer safety reasons.
But you're not going to listen to reason. I was looking forward to having a proper adult discussion about it, but all I'm getting is "but he agreed, so that makes it ok", even though I've addressed that point already. -
-
eX_Makaveli wrote: »If permission is granted that means the person is comfortable with you to check their computer. When a user accepts this they know what to expect and as soon as they feel like their privacy is being invaded they can cancel. This leads to the part where if they did cancel it would cause suspicion just like it would in a real life situation if an officer was allowed in without a warrant. When the team-view was initiated processes were checked and spots the ACP generally checks but was done manually then permission was granted to allow further access to things that may be considered private in order to fully clear them of mere suspicion of cheating as a dispute was in place from a player. When Michael made the announcement 10 minutes approximately from when the 1st round is supposed to start it notified all users that the anti-cheat would be used in a different manner Bandicam and Moss were the two options defined. He also notified users that if they choose the path of using Bandicam or were disputed under the suspicion of cheating as Moss was deemed not creditable as a stand-alone anti-cheat he would Team-view. At this point the signed up teams had a chance to agree to move on or drop out with no harsh punishment. So to clear it up yes the users were aware of the new anti-cheat for that temporary timeline and the user that was team-viewed agreed to authorize users of the league that were not admins that was an optional choice. The users were brought in to help scout other possible traces of cheats in case the user is hiding it and were allowed to do so. I don't see the issue here except for the lack of professionalism and now can we all move on? I don't agree with cancelling the league if their main anti-cheat is down because it gives the users an option to continue with allowing another and the ones who aren't willing to trust it to drop out. I wouldn't be too happy if it was cancelled this week but I was glad we had other options available.
For the security part file transfer and other options are available to be put on to allow from granted permission.
Strange, here are a couple of details you did not include.
1. If the individual had denied access through teamviewer, they would have confirmed suspicions of hack and immediately banned him from the tournament. If the individual cut the person off short before he looked through personal information such as IP, personal documents, work related information and so forth, he would most definitely be under suspicion of hiding hack. Apparently having a clean recent download history or cache also means you're hiding hack.
So it's either, you let some random people online go through your personal files or you get permanently banned for "hacking" due to suspicion.
2, The person that was being teamviewed during that NA EGL tournament had no idea his computer was being viewed by random individuals other than Michael. The other 2 that were not Michael teamviewed him with users/names that suggested they were CF Mods. On top of that, the teamviewer password was not directly obtained from the individual, rather a person who had asked the individual and that person gave it to Michael and then it shared amongst members of the opposing team.
Especially problematic if English is not your first language and you have a bunch of people talking on teamspeak at once discussing who and how many people are going to probe your computer. Not sure how 1 password that you would assume would go to the EGL admins ends up being shared by players of the opposite team who are accusing you of hack, even if they have "experience with this kind of stuff" lol.
It was never stated, written or said that the individuals computer would be viewed by people other than Michael which suddenly changed when they decided to distribute the teamviewer password between members of the opposing team after the match had ended.
Your tournament, you handle the situation, don't bring other players into it unless you're going to blatantly show a bias.
Honestly, if ACP wasn't working that day, it should have been post-poned. The match itself was cut short and the EU team was given the automatic win because one team was DQed and the other team did not show up.My point was this shouldn't be a rule. There are systems you can put in place or tweaks to be made that wouldn't need this rule to be in place. The problem is with a rule like this in place you do 2 things that as a league you should not ever do.
1 - Admit your system in general has many issues that make it unreliable and easily by-passable (Basically generating mistrust of your AC, as OCG similarly did in 2012 by manually checking PC, solidifying that their AC couldn't do much for CF)
2 - You break the privacy wall, that shouldn't have to be broken. No quality league ever should ask for remote access to your pc, nor should a league ask for it out of respect for player privacy. Once again making the league look less professional, and less reliable.
If the problem is people are cheating. Work on improving the systems in place in ways that maintain professionalism within the esport. Just my two cents if you don't want to be considered in the same light OCG was.
Honestly, why would anyone have to be coerced into letting others dig at their pc?
Either that or ban?
TLDR: Either you show whatever personal files you have on your computer to random strangers or you're permanently banned from participating.
Rules said Michael would be teamviewing, turns out your teamviewer password gets shared amongst the opposing team who are accusing you of hack/fail to mention other people would be viewing your computer right up until the moment they actually do it and if you say no, it confirms their hack suspicions.
Need an analogy too?
Lets say John needs to enter a high security facility. He is told by Sam that Sam is in charge of the facility and Sam will be the one there to check his bag before he enters. John arrives at the facility with his friend Tim and it turns out Sam and 3 others will check his bag and some of them are even "bag checking specialists".John can't say no because he needs to enter the facility and Tim encourages John to give the bag to Sam for inspection so he could enter the facility. John hands his bag to Tim and Tim gives John's bag to Sam. All 4 of them dig through his bag and look through John's driver's license, passport, credit card, receipt from lunch, find out what movies he's interested in, checks his cellphone and reads through his texts with his family/friends. All the while they're only meant to check for hazardous or dangerous items. He's clean and they suspect John must have thrown away the bomb to blow up the facility before getting there. They accuse John of having something dangerous because they think John looks like a dangerous person. They find aspirin on John and accuse John of being a heroine addict and thinks John should be barred from entry. -
[MOD]NattNatt wrote: »You seem to have completely missed the point...you're saying teams have to suffer because they don't want some random kid rooting through their PC? I have stuff on my PC I don't want people to see, does that mean I hack? Not at all. But would I refuse to let someone on that I didn't know or trust? Hell yeah I would.
Yes, he agreed, what other choice did he have at that point?
It's a pure catch 22:
-The player denies because its their PERSONAL PROPERTY - and get's branded a cheater.
-They comply because they want's to clear themself, and gets some random kid rooting through their PC?
Forgive me for not condoning that at all. From an IT background, that is shocking, and proves how little you regard privacy and security, and once again, I bring up my point that if ANY of you had ANY sort of IT/Security background/qualifications, you wouldn't have even thought about suggesting that.
Precisely the point. -
Im2Good4This wrote: »Not trying to start anything here, but I'm fairly certain warrants are only needed if it is a forced entry. If we were to force him into using teamviewer we would need a warrant. But we didnt. On the thread that was deleted (HelloFY vs Envy) he stated "you can come on my teamviewer i dont care" after i posted the pictures of the taskbar having a unknown program running. He gave us permission. in that case we wouldnt need a warrant.
Again... not trying to start anything just stating my opinion.
He said let Michael check his teamviewer, NOT you. Did he ever say, "Hey Anonymous, you're accusing me of hack, I'll let you dig through my pc and look at my personal files while you're at it."
But nonetheless, you think "Michael" meant Michael, some other guy and you with your so called "hack knowledge"
Clearly, you guys gave him no other option than to let you guys on or be labeled a cheater.
As mentioned before, it was stated that Michael would be the one doing the teamviewing, no one else. Right before the teamviewing inspection, that rule changed immediately to include you in the inspection? How come no one else on the EGL forums saw this "new rule".
What kind of "competitive tournament" you guys running here?
Let us dig through your pc or be banned? -
As a side note I asked him in TV chat if we could add anon and he confirmed just a side note. Before the TV happened we asked if makaveli and I could TV him and then during we asked if anon could as well but something I don't understand after this all resolved and stuff why are we still stuck on this? It's been resolved both sides are fine with the decision sooo
Edit: Like I've said before and will continue to state from this experience now we know if ACP isn't working we will not hold EGL that week until ACP is functional again. -
Uhhh what did I miss?
For anyone saying that the rule idea is nonsense, it was suggested by a friend of mine that works for a software security company that gets hired to try to break into high profile systems such as government mainframes, etc. I didn't really understand most of what was explained but there are ways to look at what was deleted. Even when you think you deleted information from you PC, the information is still there but not seen like most view-able information but it gets too complex for it to be really implemented.
And once again, this rule would only be enforced when you're using an unreliable AC. Then again, no AC is 100% hack resistant.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.5K CrossFire
- 709 CrossFire Announcements
- 712 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 319 Community
- 12 Modes
- 392 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 73 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 16 Looking for a Team?
- 523 CrossFire Support
- 7 Suggestion
- 15 CrossFire Guides
- 35 CrossFire Off Topic