[Detailed] Patrol Group
So it's come to my attention that CrossFire NA needs a specific group of people who just focuses on banning hackers on a daily basis. Here is a detailed presented document regarding on how a system like this will work.
Planning
The Patrol Group are trusted members of the game which moderate in-game and submit any reports of hackers through a webpage system. The main aim is to ban and reduce obvious hackers within the game such as speed hack.
The process of this project consists of:
Beta Phase One
Beta Phase One will consist of a minimum of 1-2 members in the Patrol Group. Those players will be members of the forum moderation team. This beta phase will last for three month exactly. The Patrol Group members are only allowed to submit a maximum of 10 hackers per day.
Beta Phase Two
Beta Phase Two will allow regular players to apply for a position within the group. Applications will be sent to the GM team and the success members will be hand picked by the GM team. In this phase, the Patrol Group will increase to 4-5 members. The number of reports which can be submitted per day increases to 50 and this phase will last for six months.
Appeal Process
There will be no appeal process.
The Patrol Group members no longer get strikes anymore.
Conclusion
A system like this can reduce and ban many hackers within the game. However, with such a system it takes time and care to perfect it so the community can get the best of it.
Colour Key:
Red = Changes.
Planning
The Patrol Group are trusted members of the game which moderate in-game and submit any reports of hackers through a webpage system. The main aim is to ban and reduce obvious hackers within the game such as speed hack.
The process of this project consists of:
- A member of the Patrol Group finds a hacker in-game.
- The member of the Patrol Group saves the replay of the game in which the hacker is in.
- Opens up a webpage on the Z8Games website which allows the member of the Patrol group to add in-game names, type of hack and replay. This page can't be accessed by anyone else other than official staff.
- Once these fields are entered, it will be submitted to the GM team.
- The GM team bans all the players which are submitted.
Beta Phase One
Beta Phase One will consist of a minimum of 1-2 members in the Patrol Group. Those players will be members of the forum moderation team. This beta phase will last for three month exactly. The Patrol Group members are only allowed to submit a maximum of 10 hackers per day.
Beta Phase Two
Beta Phase Two will allow regular players to apply for a position within the group. Applications will be sent to the GM team and the success members will be hand picked by the GM team. In this phase, the Patrol Group will increase to 4-5 members. The number of reports which can be submitted per day increases to 50 and this phase will last for six months.
Appeal Process
There will be no appeal process.
The Patrol Group members no longer get strikes anymore.
Conclusion
A system like this can reduce and ban many hackers within the game. However, with such a system it takes time and care to perfect it so the community can get the best of it.
Colour Key:
Red = Changes.
Comments
-
-
+2
Basically instant ban? Sure. Kind of a risky process but id be so down for it. However, if this was to ever work, we need to add restrictions like to super obvious hacks such as aimbot or speed, knife hack etc...
Yep, the main aim of this group is to report obvious hackers just like it is stated in the original thread. The system will first start off with MODs and if that is successful then applications for regular users will be open. -
Yep, the main aim of this group is to report obvious hackers just like it is stated in the original thread. The system will first start off with MODs and if that is successful then applications for regular users will be open.
Yeah i edited it like 3 minutes ago lol -
I'm in favor of a group like this, absolutely. People we can trust with better reports.
BUT.
I am not, and will not, ever be in favor of pressing the ban button without seeing evidence myself. There is just too many factors at play that can make that a recipe for disaster. I think I speak for all of the GM's when I say we need to see evidence before we ban someone.
I only speak for myself when I say I actually do not trust anyone to be 100% clean in reporting either, because we all have our moments of stupidity.
Overall +1 with some tweaks. -
[GM]Kanadian wrote: »I'm in favor of a group like this, absolutely. People we can trust with better reports.
BUT.
I am not, and will not, ever be in favor of pressing the ban button without seeing evidence myself. There is just too many factors at play that can make that a recipe for disaster. I think I speak for all of the GM's when I say we need to see evidence before we ban someone.
I only speak for myself when I say I actually do not trust anyone to be 100% clean in reporting either, because we all have our moments of stupidity.
Overall +1 with some tweaks.
What tweaks though? Like GM is present while reporting? -
Like a GM has to actually review the replay before anyone gets banned. The way this is written seems like the focus is 'heres a name, just trust me he was hacking, just ban him watch the replay later if he complains'. That opens a can of worms that nobody wants to handle.What tweaks though? Like GM is present while reporting? -
[GM]Kanadian wrote: »Like a GM has to actually review the replay before anyone gets banned. The way this is written seems like the focus is 'heres a name, just trust me he was hacking, just ban him watch the replay later if he complains'. That opens a can of worms that nobody wants to handle.
I didn't write that ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I see where you're coming from though. -
In theory it sounds like a good idea but there are a lot of things you need to flesh out.
This is what you need to work on.
1. If the IGN is typed wrong, we ban the wrong player. It happens, everyone is human, but now someone has been wrongfully banned and they have to go through an appeal process. This could cut into their event time, and ultimately could have been avoided if we just double checked.
2. Not all hacks are obvious, like aim hacks. This could easily be a more skilled player.
3. The strike system is a bit ineffective? You submit a false report, they get banned. This person who has been wrongfully banned tries to appeal. The only problem is, there are many other people appealing as well. (See below)
4. I believe with the appeal process, you will see an equal amount of reports to appeals. Why? Because everyone will claim they have been falsely banned. If they have a chance to get their account unbanned, they will try it. Then it goes back to the GMs looking through all the replays.
I like the idea of a patrol group but I think it would be better if the GMs were to play a larger role in this.
+1 -
i wish that Z8Games ban all the cheater that i have reported yesterday, at my pc i have 6 replays more from ranked match.. i was Silver 6 75 % now because of this unplayable situation i'am still silver 6 but 25%.. there is no fun and fair play anymore, i hope that the next season will be cheater free!! Other versions u get at silver 6 the perm nade, here at NA u get at golden 1... but golden 1 is at S&D not possible, i know a lot who say; It is possible... so easy etc... but this players use bots and farm ranked and earn all medals etc. Damn, im so dissapointed.
-
Answering both to Kanadian and Lasagnya: I believe you didn't get abel's point 100%.
First of all there are hacks that are 100% obvious and noone can disagree with that. Example: speed hacks can't be misunderstood be the Patrol team. A player running in whatever mode with an MG, round after round, killing all the opposite team with golden headshots can't be misunderstood as aimbot either. Any player going under the map and shooting others... and the list goes on and on.
Furthermore, my oppinion is that there should be this group of trusted players (patrol team) who will have more cooperation with the GM team, meaning that their reports will get on top of any other reports from other players. I can understand that it is hard to go through so many reports with many false among them and this system could be a better alternative of the existing saving many hours checking replays.
Lastly, I totaly disagree with the perspective of re-reviewing banned accounts as this could easily be avoided if the GM team watched the actual replay submited by the patrol team and double (maybe triple) checking that the IGN provided is the correct one. -
AliceInHell wrote: »Furthermore, my oppinion is that there should be this group of trusted players (patrol team) who will have more cooperation with the GM team
This is where you seem to misunderstand me. Let me be clear in saying that I love this job, this game, and I love each and every one of our players, as loud and angry as some of you may get. But I do not trust any player with the ability to point someone out for a ban. -
[GM]Kanadian wrote: »This is where you seem to misunderstand me. Let me be clear in saying that I love this job, this game, and I love each and every one of our players, as loud and angry as some of you may get. But I do not trust any player with the ability to point someone out for a ban.
Which is true, no one should be able to have control of bans that are not staff. You got to remember if a ban was done by mistake it would create alot of issues so less people with the power means less chance of an issue occuring. Althrough having more trusted people will the power to ban would increase the chance of cleaning up the game a bit more, it would just be wayyy too risky cause I highly doubt the issue would go into the hands of the person who banned the player but rather the GM's and they would have to gather up all the information they don't have. -
This reminds me a lot of back when if the church accuses you of being a witch you are burned at a stake. Then the public started accusing each other of being witches causing people to be burned alive illegitimately. This is a pretty similar scenario.
What has CF come to.
-
AliceInHell wrote: »Answering both to Kanadian and Lasagnya: I believe you didn't get abel's point 100%.
First of all there are hacks that are 100% obvious and noone can disagree with that. Example: speed hacks can't be misunderstood be the Patrol team. A player running in whatever mode with an MG, round after round, killing all the opposite team with golden headshots can't be misunderstood as aimbot either. Any player going under the map and shooting others... and the list goes on and on.
Furthermore, my oppinion is that there should be this group of trusted players (patrol team) who will have more cooperation with the GM team, meaning that their reports will get on top of any other reports from other players. I can understand that it is hard to go through so many reports with many false among them and this system could be a better alternative of the existing saving many hours checking replays.
Lastly, I totaly disagree with the perspective of re-reviewing banned accounts as this could easily be avoided if the GM team watched the actual replay submited by the patrol team and double (maybe triple) checking that the IGN provided is the correct one.
I feel like you didn't read my comment because I said I agreed with the patrol group.
Speed hacks CAN be misunderstood. Sometimes people misunderstand lag spikes as speed hacks.
EVERYONE likes an instant ban, until it's their account that is accidentally reported. I'm pretty sure there are many good players out there who have been accused of hacking.
I've said what I believe I needed to say, so I'll leave the discussion to you guys for now. I'm not saying I hate the system, I'm saying find a way to incorporate GMs more. -
It's nice and all, but trusting players? Ehhh.
I don't want to offend the staff, but I think the hacking reports are kinda ignored. It just takes too long to get a hacker banned. If a group of GMs checked reports EVERY SINGLE DAY, we wouldnt need to suggest these things.
Issa +1/-1 from me. -
+1 cuz that's enough every where u find a hacker.
But when you chose the people who will do that just be trusted so don't add a member who want to annoy someone else or ban someone didn't use hack without reason. Save and replay will be helpful. But if you will do this I suggest to add a teamspeak or something to contact.- IGN Ezio
-
[GM]Lasagnya wrote: »I feel like you didn't read my comment because I said I agreed with the patrol group.
Speed hacks CAN be misunderstood. Sometimes people misunderstand lag spikes as speed hacks.
EVERYONE likes an instant ban, until it's their account that is accidentally reported. I'm pretty sure there are many good players out there who have been accused of hacking.
I've said what I believe I needed to say, so I'll leave the discussion to you guys for now. I'm not saying I hate the system, I'm saying find a way to incorporate GMs more.
I say this in a friendly way, i don't want to be misunderstood. If someone playing Crossfire constantly for 8+ years, 4+++ hours a day can't tell the difference between lag spikes and speed hacks, obvious hackers walking under the maps shooting everyone with aimbots and legit players beeing on fire ( etc, etc ), then i can't understand what's so special about GMs that can realize that. Do you attend some special workshop from Smilegate and they teach you how to determine everything that's going on in game and when you should drop the ban hammer? (excuse my irony but sometimes with the answers you give i feel like you are playing with our mental capacity) -
You don't really have to trust someone to point out a hacker. I can't really see how having a group of players that can comunicate with you directly (through a new support page? ) giving you information and replays with real evidence gathered in-game about hackers can harm anyone. Its not like they have the power to ban someone or abuse any power at all. The power is still on you, you watch the replay --> if the reported info is valid you ban the player --> if not you just delete it. Wouldn't this make everyone happier? Cause if you want to speak the truth the current support ticket system is crappy. Too many false reports, huge ammounts of reports, few stuff members to review them all and after all, many players wasting so much time in reporting hackers trying to keep this game clean only to realize that their effort trying to help was in vein. Personaly, I have reported several "obvious" hackers and i mean really obvious yet to find them again hacking after 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. This made me not bother reporting anyone anymore cause i know the answer to my ticket already. An open ticket for years and years and the same answer given everytime we ask about those reports.[GM]Kanadian wrote: »This is where you seem to misunderstand me. Let me be clear in saying that I love this job, this game, and I love each and every one of our players, as loud and angry as some of you may get. But I do not trust any player with the ability to point someone out for a ban. -
I like the original idea, however since GMs will still need to review each report, it doesn't save any time from the regular reporting method.
The crux of this problem is getting replays reviewed by GMs more quickly. Any kind of solution which brings about a quicker ban for hackers will have to solve this problem.
The way I see it, there are currently only two solutions:
1) A shift in daily responsibilities to take into account a greater amount of time spent reviewing replays. This would involve the GMs creating a proposal to their higher ups, and in my opinion is not something likely to happen. The GMs (I think they would agree) have full work days, with further time invested in replay review resulting in a loss of productivity in other areas of work needed for smooth game operation.
2) A new GM needs to be brought on who's main purpose is reviewing replays. Immediate problem with this is that SGWest needs to offer some kind of work contract, at the same time not knowing how quickly this new position could affect the amount of hackers. If they offer a 1 year contract, and the person ends up dealing with 90% of hackers within the first 6 months, that leaves SG open to wasted time and money. From their perspective, the "slow and steady" game is better.
Unfortunately, the power to ban directly relates to Crossfires clientele. SG West needs someone they can oversee and manage so that no abuse can happen, which is why the people wielding this "ban power" must be de facto SG employees. -
-1
-1 from me. (Even though I'd suggested something like this myself in the past)
I'm totally with Canada and Pasta on this.
Let's first understand the suggestion. Their is a team of some trusted players who join games and note down hackers' IGNs. They also save replay as proof. But the whole point of having such group is to amplify the speed of bans, which currently take long time because the GM has to go through the full replay multiple times to assure that he's not being fooled into reporting an innocent. But the patrol teams' replay will not be viewed by the GM because they are the "trusted" people assigned by the GMs themselves. So any reports submitted by the patrol team will result in instant ban to the reported player. This whole idea is to supposedly boost the number and speed of banning.
But as pointed out by [GM]I'MSORRY and [GM]RAVIOLI, this idea is bound to fail. A "trusted" patroller may lose his wit for a moment and get a honest player banned. Replay files can be tempered with. Sooner or later all "full-time" hackers will learn about the appeal process and therefore they will submit hundreds of appeal applications daily to slow down the banning and cause GMs to waste their times going through a huge number of replays daily. This would bring back us to the same slow banning process, hence invalidating the need for having the patrol team in the first place. -
Though I suggested a similar suggestion about this earlier, I doubt this will ever be implemented.
I feel like you guys are looking at the situation in a wrong way tbh. You guys a looking into banning a hacker who can just make a new account in a jiffy.
I had suggested a method of increasing the process of registration by linking a new account to a phone number in contrast to an email id which can be replicated in a jiffy.
This has been implemented in other cf versions, I just don't get why it can't be implemented here.
Fix the root cause not the end product.
No GM or mod had replied to my suggestion tbh so I think that idea was not so well received. So anyways +1 to your suggestion of implementing a portal or forum where certain patrol people have 'communication' with Gm's in order to refine the hacks.
I would just alter three prospects in your post:
- The reports to be reported would be just speed hacks, fast knifes and flying hacks.
- no need to mention IGN's. Give a profile link.
- these players can just report and can't ban. But these reports should be given top priority in comparison to the other reports. Final decision is with Gm's.
Ps someone mentioned something about people altering files and sending. That is plain stupid if you ask me. If someone wanted to do that, they can do it the normal way through the support ticket. And if this was 'the' case , how can any replay submitted via support ticket hold any case. They all 'could' be altered. So I think that point is basically pointless, whoever made it.
An another person mentioned something about an instant ban. I don't think people read the post properly, there is no instant ban. GMs still review the replays. Just 'priority' is given to these reports.
Make a small scale group for this, maybe 10 people Cap would-be my suggestion and cap the amount of reports a single patroler can submit in a week (if GMs feel they will be flooded by reports)
~Void -
[GM]Kanadian wrote: »I'm in favor of a group like this, absolutely. People we can trust with better reports.
BUT.
I am not, and will not, ever be in favor of pressing the ban button without seeing evidence myself. There is just too many factors at play that can make that a recipe for disaster. I think I speak for all of the GM's when I say we need to see evidence before we ban someone.
I only speak for myself when I say I actually do not trust anyone to be 100% clean in reporting either, because we all have our moments of stupidity.
Overall +1 with some tweaks.
That's why are needed also players with experience in game.
for more accurate reports.
I agree with this idea, i suggested it a couple of times as well so i will +infinite it lol xD -
This has been suggested several times but never in a fully detailed proposal +1 from me, by far the best explained/detailed suggestion I've seen regarding this.
In addition as kanadian has said about not being able to trust a player with a ban (which is understandable due to favoritism/Bias) this could be implemented in a way they can only give out bans according to the GMs review time, example: (obvious hacker) [let's say it takes GMs 2 days to review the replay] "team" can give them auto 2 day ban & if it's concluded it wasn't ban worthy then the "team" that issued the ban will in turn receive a 2 day ban on their in game profile if this happens 3 times they'll get removed from the squad but if it's ban worthy the GM issues the "hacker" a permanent ban
![[GM]Kanadian](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/61/navatar_22385461.gif){kind=avatar}
![[GM]Lasagnya](https://z8games.akamaized.net/cfna/forum/customavatars/87/navatar_25372887.gif){kind=avatar}
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
- 38 CrossFire Off Topic