Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
Acest topic a fost închis 
Reguli și ghiduri pentru discuții
Raportează această postare
Good bye (not leaving the post, just blocking him/her).
EDIT: Blocks don't work for the forums :/
hahaha millions /sarcasm
You don't have to prove anything, just GTFO if you don't want to read me.
PS: I don't know if it is very noticeable that I am in total disadvantage on argumenting in english. Luckily IDC to make an ass of oneself.
Firstly if you even read the SSA (which you claim you did but now it appears you did not) you will see that the binding arbitration clause only applies in America. Ergo claiming the clause is 'illegal in teh EU' shows that you didn't even read the clause at all.
Note YOU said 'go search and you'll see there are issues'. Again Why do "I" Have to prove 'YOUR" point. I can just as equally say "Go search online there are no problems" presto! YOU are making the extraordinary claim. YOU have to come up with the evidence for it. Not for ME to go slumming around the Internet trying to figure out what you're talking about. And again you assert this 'discussion' is only happening on cheating forums. Which again calls into question the validity of the claim at it's surface. ANother special pleading for not presenting proof of the extraordinary claim.
Call me when tehre's a thread about it on a LEGITIMATE website
If that was your goal, you're failing miserably. All you've done is defer criticism and insist other do your 'research' for the claims you make. You do not address the criticism and the empirical fact that users use the -insecure function right now with no issue. Yet 'your 5 friends' are supposed to represent a SYSTEMIC issue?
http://www.mediavida.com/foro/counterstrike/reportando-a-chetos-510124/4
Go complain to the maker of the aimbot as to why you're VAC banned. Because Im pretty sure they already know why.
You'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to get un banned.
The SSA - the binding agreement on any subscriber - pretty much states that if Valve feels they need to, they can do whatever they want to your account (which is true in any case as you don't even own it to begin with.)
4. ONLINE CONDUCT, CHEATING AND ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR
Valve may terminate your Account or a particular Subscription for any conduct or activity that Valve believes is illegal, constitutes a Cheat, or otherwise negatively affects the enjoyment of Steam by other Subscribers. You acknowledge that Valve is not required to provide you notice before terminating your Subscriptions(s) and/or Account, but it may choose to do so.
This right here blatantly says that cheating is whatever VALVE decides it is, and that your personal "definitions" don't matter.
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=7849-RADZ-6869
The VAC system reliably detects cheats using their cheat signatures. Any third-party modification to a game designed to give one player an advantage over another is classified as a cheat or hack and will trigger a VAC ban. This includes modifications to a game's core executable files and dynamic link libraries.
As far as Valve is concerned, a cheat and a hack are the same thing. You and whoever it was saying this nonsense the other day are both proven wrong by this one line. Sorry but "It's not a cheat because I said so!" doesn't fly on Steam.
Furthermore:
C. Termination by Valve
Valve may cancel your Account or any particular Subscription(s) at any time in the event that (a) Valve ceases providing such Subscriptions to similarly situated Subscribers generally, or (b) you breach any terms of this Agreement (including any Subscription Terms or Rules of Use). In the event that your Account or a particular Subscription is terminated or cancelled by Valve for a violation of this Agreement or improper or illegal activity, no refund, including of any Subscription fees or of any unused funds in your Steam Wallet, will be granted.
They can not only VAC ban you, but also terminate your account or any subscription (game/software license) entirely at any time if they feel your activity is "improper or illegal." Go ahead and take that to court, it ought to be an amusing (but very brief) argument.
Valve has already branded you a cheater, and as illustrated above, clearly it is Valve that decides what constitutes cheating. Therefore you *are* a cheater as far as Steam is concerned. You can protest the label for all eternity if you like, but it's not going to change reality.
Did you reformat? Valve states that you should probably reformat if you've ever used cheats, as there can indeed be enough left over to get you banned.
You're not "exposing a malpractice", you're simply trying to play lawyer and interpret the rules the way you want to to your own advantage.
Don't listen to these guys acting like they're attorneys citing the Terms of Service lol, no one cares about that crap and it's irrelevant to what's going on here. If it held relevance it would have held it in the other games as well which it never did so just ignore them...
Something is screwy with this game and VAC, even local bot servers you create on your computer still connect to VAC for god only knows what reason, this is something that never took place before.
The fact of the matter is if you start the game in -insecure mode it should not connect to VAC under any circumstance, or at least it's not supposed to as it never did before. If people are getting banned when the game is set to an insecure state that would warrant some type of action as it does not state anywhere that you will be VAC banned for this.
Valve reserves the right to terminate a subscription or the account itself as expressed in the SSA however it states absolutely nothing about VAC banning users who are not connecting to VAC secured servers.
So here is the gist of it, if accounts or the subscription to the game are being terminated that is one thing, that is covered in the SSA. However VAC banning people when the game is in an insecure state is not, that it not covered by their ToS and that is a rather large oversight.
If your game is in insecure state it will not connect to VAC secured servers, it even states that in CS:GO as previously shown by the OP.
http://i.gyazo.com/cf46db89bd3115c6d24162067a2f385b.png
What is being asserted in this thread is that even though it states this; VAC is still active regardless of where you play. You could be cheating in your own private server with VAC not connected and still get a VAC ban.
What the OP is getting at is VAC is always running in this game and it is not mentioned anywhere that it's active regardless of being in the insecure state or not. From the things I have seen and read regarding it I believe it to be true.
If that is the case this is not covered in their ToS as you have to connect to a VAC secured server to get a VAC ban. Valve can terminate the account or the game subscription but they don't have the legal right to VAC ban the account if the user is not connecting to VAC secured servers.
Most cheats these days do not hook the .exe of the game, they are not modifying the excutable or the .dll's, they are intercepting code in the memory and altering it there. This does not violate the ToS regarding VAC and as such cannot trigger a ban as the .exe and .dll's are untouched.
If people are getting VAC banned when the game is set to -insecure, they are being illegally banned from the game as no .exe's or dll's are being modified and they are not connecting to VAC secured servers. No terms of service clause would protect them from this as it does not exist in their ToS, Valve would be screwed.
If this is actually taking place this is either an extremely large oversight in their ToS or an illegal form of deception to erroneously ban people who have not actually violated any section or clause of the terms of service regarding VAC.
No.
VAC FAQ:
I don't care the image I'm giving since I know I am not lying in any point, and if I am lucky I will be able to prove it (not if I have proof, I have all that I can have given that I did not record our "hack trying game session", I just need they to care and check), you will not care if that happens but that don't stop you right now for opening your mouth.
I am not negotiating at all the truthfulness of my words. Do you want to help? you don't? GTFO of this thread or avoid posting on it.
I understand most of your point and have considered almost all of it before starting. What do you think I should do, "play lawyer" and interpret the rules the way VALVE wants? Sorry, but Valve is not God, and that they have commited a mistake or malpractice is a fact. In the very least, being my ban really legitimate, it would mean that they have changed the VAC behavior without warning the users (which is covered in their SSA, but is still a malpractice, and anyhow Law>SSA), and without changing their public words about it in the KB.
Just because of that sentence in the knowledgebase, and the fact that what we did have always been possible to be done, we have a chance in a court (and more when their support have only shown unwillingness to help).
"You *are* a cheater ****as far as Steam is concerned****" You perfectly got my point. I was argumenting why I am not a cheater, not asking for Valve magically deciding that I am not a cheater. What they could have checked from the start instead of answering nonsense templates (and this is not that "I don't like" their answers, is that they don't make sense at all, and they are templates since the 2 of us that opened ticket got exactly the same answers, even repeated in the same ticket when we insisted and explained further) both in english and spanish.
Nice question. No, neither of us did but:
1) 3 of us already have a new CS:GO account (but using the same Windows installation and files) all of us have now >30hrs. I promise I will come and tell you if it get banned (if it is not obvious, we will not do what we did again).
2) We did not remove the "-insecure" flag and re-executed the game for playing normally without deleting ALL the hack files and restarting the system (and in my case at least, I also cleaned the registry, DNS cache and temporary files with CCleaner, even supposedly being pointless) . The hack was "external", so unless it was programmed to change something in purpose to cause a ban, what is extremely unlikely (it is a widely used public hack from one of the biggest *cheating* forums, IDK the point of its existence now, but since it obviously is fastly and easily detected, I though it was the best one to do what we did, given the supposedly safe environment we were going to use for testing it).
3) One of our mates didn't even had the chance to play back on a VAC server after trying the hacks that day and before being banned.
You're right, and as anyone who can do this, resumedly, "they reserve their right for doing whatever they want with whoever customer/user they want", and even being this a bit different from (for example) them just deciding by no reason to delete the account of somebody, this still contradicts what they state in their KB and how things have always worked, which AFAIK have some weight in a court (and because of that, I hoped that it would have some weight for the support, but as I see things now, I doubt they even did read the tickets), anyhow nobody is going to stop me from trying, more given that, even most of you not believing that things really happened as I stated, they did, however things happened internally for the detection.
THe SSA doesn't require you to modify the exe or the dlls to trigger a VAC ban.
It would not be a violation of the SSA. If we make the gigantic assumption teh -insecure flag doesn't work(and that's a GIGANTIC if) then purely from the SSA's perspective you connected to VAC and are banned. While this constitutes a PR nightmare, legally you violated the SSA, though yes it does violate what most would consider the spirit of the law. But if you consider the situation of Dead Island 'single player', again the perception of what the user is doing may not be relevant anyway. VAC itself determines what constitutes cheating or not, not the end user. Also since VAC is basically he only way valve can detect cheats, it makes little sense to say that people are being VAC banned without connecting to VAC servers. At worst you can say the insecure flag no longer functions.
This is all semantics for exactly what I stated.
If the insecure flag is no longer functioning as you put it and Valve is VAC banning people with the expressed in game warning that you cannot connect to VAC secured servers with that flag in place then something 'illegal' is taking place that does not protect them under their own SSA or VAC ToS.
incorrectly set will definitely have no effect... and allow you to enter VAC secure servers.
There is nothing for me to show you because a protection clause for this does not exist...
The point of the discussion is that even with the insecure flag put in place that VAC is monitoring and scanning the game regardless of where you play the game. So for example even if you had -insecure added you could become VAC banned for cheating even if you're in a "non-secure" server.
What the OP is saying and several different websites seem to assert is that VAC is always active in CS:GO regardless of the server being designated as VAC secured or not. If that is happening and people are getting VAC banned for cheating in non-secure servers Valve would indeed be liable as there is nothing to protect them in their ToS for this.
That is what is being conveyed here, I'm not saying it's true but if it were that would put Valve in a very tight spot.