Comment by ktallett
1 year ago
Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn't quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
1 year ago
Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn't quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
This is by design. Anti-cheat solutions are intended to be opaque. This also applies to bans from many online platforms.
This needs to change, because their systems are not 100% accurate. They need to be able to prove that you cheated or broke ToS before they can ban you and effectively steal any money you've paid them.
I completely agree with you. These anti cheat systems, whether it is related to video games or university work or anything in life, need to be fully open and transparent otherwise as you say without understanding and proof of what you did wrong, there shouldn't be any ban or punishment. If they find you in breach of a contract, they should be required by law to prove how you broke the contract.
The amount of people in this thread who think online video games can be equated to imprisonment or being kicked out of university or other actually-important things is rather shocking.
1 reply →
I was wondering if the cheating incident could be investigated by an NDA'd neutral 3rd party?
To me, the fact that they didn't state those things makes it trivial to draw the conclusion: b00lin is in the right, and Activision is in the wrong. Any time one party tells their side of the story, and the other doesn't despite being given the chance to, I always side with the party that did.
>Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
Conclusions about what? Whether he actually cheated or not? If there isn't enough evidence to tell someone is guilty or not, your conclusion should be "not guilty", not "it is impossible to make conclusions".
Without that it is impossible to make conclusions on whether anyone cheated.
I think we actually agree, although I would use not guilty in the court of law standard, whereby it means not enough evidence to convict, not in the not guilty == innocent way some use it.
That's kind of the whole point. Activision wouldn't even explain to a judge in court why they ban people or how (if) they review bans. Therefore there's no way to prove yourself innocent.