(iReaper) Benihime STEAM_0:0:50856523 10-02-13

[Nemesis]

If anyone remembers the Ike situation, that was similar to this, but the difference was he admitted it while he was on the server, and was using them at the time of playing. Therefore there was proof of him using hacks on the server. This, on the other hand, lacks context, and while we all know Cyber is an upstanding member of the community and has never shown any indications of abuse, it's unfortunately not good enough.

We don't care if players hack in other games or other servers, we care about what they do here. We also require demos of them hacking in our server, and while a demo of them hacking somewhere else is great added evidence, it's not enough to warrant a permanent ban on it's own.

A steam chat is also not enough to go off of as there are too many unknown variables. Could I not change my steam name to "thecat|ibis.a" open a chat with another admin and admit to hacking and beastiality? Now I know Cyber wouldn't do something like this, but what happens when someone with less credibility makes a similar post? One where we may not know the intentions of the individual as well as we do here. As was said before, I believe this sets a bad president and as Cyber referenced previous cases, so could this be referenced next time.

Cyber, is there any way to get the demo of the actions in question? because then it would save a lot of muddy water in the process.

[acolyte_to_jippity]

We don't care if players hack in other games or other servers, we care about what they do here. We also require demos of them hacking in our server, and while a demo of them hacking somewhere else is great added evidence, it's not enough to warrant a permanent ban on it's own.

not true. there was the guy in WCS a while ago, related to NYS or Dual i think, who hacked in some previous game, and thus they got him banned.

[Nemesis]

not true. there was the guy in WCS a while ago, related to NYS or Dual i think, who hacked in some previous game, and thus they got him banned.

That's because they were clan members and abused their power. If you or me tried to do that we'd be told to find proof of it on our server.

[What]

Well Cyber did say he has more of the conversation, but if Benhime did give the name and time of the hacker he tested with his hacks, then there should be a demo somewhere.

[brett friggin favre]

Where is the proof this was in our servers? You also say he was being used to help detect hacks...

There is also a lot of missing information here...

Lastly the bans for people admitting to hacks has been in cases where said users were encouraging the use of hacks on the servers and trying to spread / distribute them.

In context I see references to hacks being used to make claims against an alleged actual hacker on the server.

We need some more information here.

in the conversation that begins in the screenshot of the steam convo, he's referring to an incident wherein he turned his wallhacks on while in our wcs server to see if another player was hacking. that's why cyber goes on to tell him that people get banned for turning them on. from that we get this:

1. he admits to having hacks
2. he admits to being able to toggle them on and off very simply
3. he admits to turning them on in our server

i'm going to quote the rules again here, and explain my interpretation below:

I. Hacking
2) The use of a program or textures or settings to see though walls
A) wall hacks, prefire, esp


the rule simply states that using a program to allow a user to see through walls is considered hacking. no mention is made of the circumstances in which the hacks are used, nothing states that the user must use them in order to kill another player, nothing states that he has to use it while not in spectate, nothing states that he has to have malicious intent towards the server or other players. the rule solely states that using such a program at all is hacking. also, in the precedent case linked by cyber, i made a ban on milky solely off the fact that he admitted to turning on wallhacks in ibis servers. to quote ITB: "yeah it doesn't matter if he just "tested" it out. Hacks are hacks and unacceptable here in IBIS." if we can perma ban a guy for just testing his hacks in our servers, surely we can perma ban him for checking someone with them.

1. benihime says his aimbot is virtually undetectable and he knows this for a fact
2. he can toggle them on and off at any time, same with his walls
3. he admits to having done it on at least one occasion

you have to keep in mind that the only reason it's gotten to this point is that cyber has been watching this guy for wallhacks since day 1. to quote spasm, a good waller will never be caught. this guy's good. he knows what he's doing. he toggles to create inconsistency, which makes the "kinda wally" moments look more like luck. i personally had several demos which included such moments but lost them when my computer crashed. the reason a ban was never made before now is because he is very good at hiding it. when he comes out and admits that he had no problem turning them on in the blink of an eye, didn't show any hesitation, tells me it's certainly not the first time he's done it, and it wouldn't be the last in all likelihood. it confirms our suspicions, it's not just a random comment out of nowhere. if you're watching someone for walls for a year, thinking dammit i know he walls but i can't make it stick...then he admits to using them...it's a no brainer in my book.

i also note some inconsistencies from beni that imply guilt. this line "ßSNìHí?S: You'd know if I used them" conflicts with part of another conversation he had with cyber (and also in a conversation with me personally) wherein he states that it can be tweaked to be undetectable, saying "trust me, i would know...". he says that it would be obvious one second, the other he says that it would be undetectable. that deceit implies guilt. this line too "6:41 AM - ßSNìHí?S: honestly if i can prove this kids hacking i really dont care if i get banned not that im trying to but if that was something i should be perma'd for dont you think its bad for a ula to hide that?" as noted in cyber's original post. again says he used them in our servers, and that it would be bad for a ula to hide it for that reason.

[Nemesis]

in the conversation that begins in the screenshot of the steam convo, he's referring to an incident wherein he turned his wallhacks on while in our wcs server to see if another player was hacking. that's why cyber goes on to tell him that people get banned for turning them on. from that we get this:

1. he admits to having hacks
2. he admits to being able to toggle them on and off very simply
3. he admits to turning them on in our server

i'm going to quote the rules again here, and explain my interpretation below:

I. Hacking
2) The use of a program or textures or settings to see though walls
A) wall hacks, prefire, esp


the rule simply states that using a program to allow a user to see through walls is considered hacking. no mention is made of the circumstances in which the hacks are used, nothing states that the user must use them in order to kill another player, nothing states that he has to use it while not in spectate, nothing states that he has to have malicious intent towards the server or other players. the rule solely states that using such a program at all is hacking. also, in the precedent case linked by cyber, i made a ban on milky solely off the fact that he admitted to turning on wallhacks in ibis servers. to quote ITB: "yeah it doesn't matter if he just "tested" it out. Hacks are hacks and unacceptable here in IBIS." if we can perma ban a guy for just testing his hacks in our servers, surely we can perma ban him for checking someone with them.

1. benihime says his aimbot is virtually undetectable and he knows this for a fact
2. he can toggle them on and off at any time, same with his walls
3. he admits to having done it on at least one occasion

you have to keep in mind that the only reason it's gotten to this point is that cyber has been watching this guy for wallhacks since day 1. to quote spasm, a good waller will never be caught. this guy's good. he knows what he's doing. he toggles to create inconsistency, which makes the "kinda wally" moments look more like luck. i personally had several demos which included such moments but lost them when my computer crashed. the reason a ban was never made before now is because he is very good at hiding it. when he comes out and admits that he had no problem turning them on in the blink of an eye, didn't show any hesitation, tells me it's certainly not the first time he's done it, and it wouldn't be the last in all likelihood. it confirms our suspicions, it's not just a random comment out of nowhere. if you're watching someone for walls for a year, thinking dammit i know he walls but i can't make it stick...then he admits to using them...it's a no brainer in my book.

Excellent description of the rule, and I agree with you 100% on all that. And you're right; a good hacker won't be caught, until he makes a mistake. Same thing with criminals, you don't catch the really good ones, that's why jails are filled with black people.

You know he's hacking, Cyber knows he's hacking and I know it, yet we still need proof. We taut an infallible rule system here that is referenced on a daily basis, yet now something that doesn't fit quite right and we're throwing the whole thing out? That's wrong and at that point might as well delete the rules and just let people who are "trustworthy" make the decisions as they see fit, without guidelines. see how that works out.

You don't alter the system to fit your conditions, you alter your conditions to fit the system. Want to ban the guy? Get the demo. Demo was deleted when your computer crashed? Better luck next time.

[brett friggin favre]

Excellent description of the rule, and I agree with you 100% on all that. And you're right; a good hacker won't be caught, until he makes a mistake. Same thing with criminals, you don't catch the really good ones, that's why jails are filled with black people.

You know he's hacking, Cyber knows he's hacking and I know it, yet we still need proof. We taut an infallible rule system here that is referenced on a daily basis, yet now something that doesn't fit quite right and we're throwing the whole thing out? That's wrong and at that point might as well delete the rules and just let people who are "trustworthy" make the decisions as they see fit, without guidelines. see how that works out.

You don't alter the system to fit your conditions, you alter your conditions to fit the system. Want to ban the guy? Get the demo. Demo was deleted when your computer crashed? Better luck next time.

cyber and i aren't altering any rules. we're operating off of precedent. ITB's perma ban on milky set this precedent, that admission of guilt is enough for a perma ban. no rule states that demos must be posted, it's traditional but some cases have extenuating circumstances and those need to be considered. also from zero's post on the links to demos page, "These demos are acceptable as evidence for reporting admin abuse and hackers." the demos are acceptable, not mandatory. there is no rule being changed, no rule being ignored, no rule being created by any of this.

there's also this thread ( http://www.ibisgaming.com/forums/sho...light=tehfudge ) in which it seems to me the ban was made not after watching a demo (as no ULA posted) but from the admittance that he was bhop scripting. and that's not even walls, just a bhop script. fudge admitted to it, and maynard (another clan member) banned him. if the demo i provided was watched and that's why the user was banned, then this particular case can be ignored but it appears to me that maynard banned solely off the admittance of bhop scripting.

[Nemesis]

cyber and i aren't altering any rules. we're operating off of precedent. ITB's perma ban on milky set this precedent, that admission of guilt is enough for a perma ban. no rule states that demos must be posted, it's traditional but some cases have extenuating circumstances and those need to be considered. also from zero's post on the links to demos page, "These demos are acceptable as evidence for reporting admin abuse and hackers." the demos are acceptable, not mandatory. there is no rule being changed, no rule being ignored, no rule being created by any of this.

there's also this thread ( http://www.ibisgaming.com/forums/sho...light=tehfudge ) in which it seems to me the ban was made not after watching a demo (as no ULA posted) but from the admittance that he was bhop scripting. and that's not even walls, just a bhop script. fudge admitted to it, and maynard (another clan member) banned him. if the demo i provided was watched and that's why the user was banned, then this particular case can be ignored but it appears to me that maynard banned solely off the admittance of bhop scripting.

"YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO." Zero's exact words from the "how to post a ban" in the Admin perma-ban request section. And if this is the case I can post a steam chat message that says anything from anyone, and they will immediately be banned without question, as the rules apply to everyone equally, or do they not?

[brett friggin favre]

"YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO." Zero's exact words from the "how to post a ban" in the Admin perma-ban request section. And if this is the case I can post a steam chat message that says anything from anyone, and they will immediately be banned without question, as the rules apply to everyone equally, or do they not?

if you finish the sentence, "YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO. Not link to the ftp it must be attached." i take that to mean he's just reinforcing the fact that you can't link to the ftp for your demo. i take that to mean the assumption is that demos will be attached in all cases, and that those must be attached, and not just linked to, but as i said before some cases are different. regardless, there is precedent that admittance of hacking is enough for a perma ban.

and in regards to your comment about posting steam conversations, no. context must be considred, credibility must be established, and screenshot evidence is also a must.

[Nemesis]

if you finish the sentence, "YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO. Not link to the ftp it must be attached." i take that to mean he's just reinforcing the fact that you can't link to the ftp for your demo. i take that to mean the assumption is that demos will be attached in all cases, and that those must be attached, and not just linked to, but as i said before some cases are different. regardless, there is precedent that admittance of hacking is enough for a perma ban.

and in regards to your comment about posting steam conversations, no. context must be considred, credibility must be established, and screenshot evidence is also a must.

if you finish the sentence, "YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO. Not link to the ftp it must be attached." i take that to mean he's just reinforcing the fact that you can't link to the ftp for your demo. i take that to mean the assumption is that demos will be attached in all cases, and that those must be attached, and not just linked to, but as i said before some cases are different. regardless, there is precedent that admittance of hacking is enough for a perma ban.

and in regards to your comment about posting steam conversations, no. context must be considred, credibility must be established, and screenshot evidence is also a must.

The main problem I have with everything you just said is that each comment started with "I take that to mean..." which means that's not what it says, not rather what you think it says. The meaning can therefore change from person to person, according to you. If that's the care I can just as easily interpret Hacking as having to use it with malice and against another person, which is totally the opposite of what you said before, and since apparently the rules mean nothing now, I'm right. The whole point of having rules is that they are infallible and are worded and understood as to prevent any kind of misinterpretation.

Could you please give me the links to the past threads where this has happened? I'd like to take a look. As I said before, when I banned another admin for this I was told I had to have proof of him hacking in server.

Also there will be a screenshot tomorrow(or at some point) that reads the following:

Brett Favre|ibis.a: Hello everyone, I currently play on IBIS servers while using hacking programs for my own benefit. I also enjoy Carrottop's comedy.
Nemesis|ibis.a: That is a sad fact but thank you for telling us, we'll be in touch.

I could then post a thread here and provide the exact evidence that is given here, it will carry the exact same weight and fall under the exact same rule definition, by all accounts you should receive a ban within a day.

Do you see what I'm getting at? There has to be a standard. There has to be the same standards for all admins. You and Cyber should have to provide the exact same evidence as thecat to get a ban. Are you telling me that if tomorrow that little cunt comes in here with a screenshot or some random shit you're going to support a ban without any form of confirmation? I hope not.