If you read the WoW forums you will find quite a few posts from people who claim they were banned and have no clue why.
But, more realistically, the average Joe will get banned and not say anything publicly. It seems mostly only the real addicts speak up.
Even still, all who speak up get shot down by fan-boy-forum-trolls who believe all who were banned were done so for cheating.
All the Linux users who posted on the WoW forums received just that - a ton of nasty responses from people who believe all banned were guilty.
It's a nasty place to be. You get banned, people assume you were a cheater. Anyone who's seen people proclaim innocence before would know it's moot. The majority of forum-goers will ignore your plea for help, and the rest will troll your plea with rants about how all those banned are the scourge of the earth.
It's a position I would be horrified to be in. It'd be like being put in jail - the only law you know is that it's against the law to break the law - being told you have a right to appeal but cannot be present or speak your defense in your appeal - and that you only get one appeal.
Interesting.
Would you still love it if you got banned the third time it detected the cheat/bot?
You'd be a whole lot of either account stealing, or game purchasing.
However, I would beg to differ that just saying you "never grind, so there is no point to botting" would prove your innocence.
Let's say you dual account - and you have a priest that's a bot that simply follows your main around and healbots him.
What I am getting at, is even though you know and can prove to your friends your innocence - it's really too far from a normal persons grasp to be able to prove their innocence.
Furthermore, someone with the knowledge able to prove they are innocent is also likely capable of creating fictitious data to do so - thus the end result is the only real way to prove you were innocent would be a forensic analysis of your hard drive. Obviously not a reasonable burden to place on either Blizzard nor the customer.
I do, however, have a question I would love if you could answer - in another post a fellow/. user points out the WoW Launcher (the screen that pops up and basically gives a summary of what's on worldofwarcraft.com) is supposed to warn you if cheats are detected.... I would love, love, love, to hear if any Linux users saw ANY warning on the WoW Launcher that it detected a cheat program.
Sadly, that screen is like the EULA - people just click and go. I'm ecstatic to hear they actually do this - but I would wager less than 1% of WoW players actually know this exists - let alone where to look on that screen for information.
That sucker should pop up it's own window for something so important, one would think. Something to really get the users attention and make sure they understand what is going on.
Additionally, a popup should occur while the player is in game. From what you quoted above - it would seem the two detection systems are different - thus it's possible the WoW Launcher might not identify something that Blizzard's other software would identify. (That's easily confirmed by the fact they state the WoW Launcher's scan does not send any information to Blizzard, whereas we know the in-game detection, Warden, does.)
That's a very interesting bit of information, and seems like Blizzard is already partially there.
HOWEVER, I would definitely like to point out that an awful lot of Linux users got banned -- did any of them receive such a warning on their WoW Launcher? Maybe they did, and just didn't notice it -- or even worse - maybe no such warning was given at all - and the function of the WoW Launcher is completely moot.
What if the program is an IM window, or something else that may not run until after the WoW Launcher has already been passed.
Seems there are a great many instances where the WoW Launcher might not catch something but the in-game detection might.
It would also seem a solid proven fact that the detection the WoW Launcher provides to warn the user is not only not the same as what is used in game but is overall not adequate.
That's very useful information, though. Now that I've had a bit to think about it I do remember the patch notes from when the Launcher was implemented - but I didn't know it was to protect against cheats - I thought it was just protection against known keyloggers and the such.
"Contrary to the essence of World of Warcraft" is a cut quote phrase Blizzard uses quite frequently, and this was the quote I recalled when thinking of this incident.
If you are correct, and I'm not, that's peachy. However, it's not blatently misleading - I clearly stated "as it was put, I believe" - indicating I think but am not sure.
It seems to me you are just a hurtful, vindictive person.
You further inquire my opinion on a few things, which I will respond to accordingly:
1) Do I object to in-game marriages? No. In game marriages are something that is performed privately among friends. I don't care if they are gay/lesbian marriages or anything else. Advertising for the marriage, though, I would object to. Whether it was a m/f marriage or a m/m-f/f or any other combination thereof.
2) Do I object to the use of terms such as gay or fag when used in a defamatory manner? Yes, I wholeheartedly object to and report such behavior. My friends and I maintain a private guild because of issues just like this.
It seems you think that because I agree with Blizzard that sexual-orientation should not be part of a game this somehow makes me anti-gay?
Your comment, although possibly correct in pointing out my inaccuracies describing the events (which I thought it was very clear I was sure of nothing - only offering vague memories), is merely the ramblings of a very vindictive person - out to be mad at someone for whatever reason they can find.
How would a bot author be able to use this when the program merely identifies a running process as being detected as a cheat?
Sure, if it gave it specific details as to why it was detected as a cheat -- the bot author could then use that information and attempt to adapt the program. However, without that specific information there is no way the author could do this.
Let's say even with the information - hypothetically speaking - the cheat author would only get a couple of chances to attempt adapting his/her program before his/her account was banned. Then he/she would then have to acquire another copy of the game, setup another account, and be out another months fee -- not to mention the time and inconvenience associated with such tasks -- before he/she would be able to attempt to adapt the program again. Adding the greatly to the cost and time required to develop such a program.
Without the specific details, as I would imagine those would only be available to Blizzard, I see no way this could benefit the bot creators aside from simply knowing if it is or is not detected. They could, true, use that information to benefit from but would still be at such a great financial cost to develop such a program that it would no longer be practical.
In the event they did actually create an undetected bot, it would be at nearly no expense at all for Blizzard to update Warden to identify the new program and the bot creator would then be back at square 1 - knowing it's bot is caught but left with the long, extremely expensive task of trying to evade Blizzard's anti-cheat detection, Warden.
Would you really expect the average Joe to be able to do that?
After all, the majority of WoW's customers are just Joe's - with the basic computer knowledge needed to play a game and send email -- and that's about it.
Should you really need a degree to have the right to play a game without being falsely banned?
Billing support can not help you with an account ban.
You have to contact Account Administration. They are two separate departments. If you contact Billing they will tell you this. In fact, there is actually an automated message when you first call in that tells you this - if I recall.
The initial message is complemented by a multitude of other messages repeating the same information throughout your time on hold - essentially letting you know that if you are calling because your account was closed or "actioned" you need to contact wow-accountadmin@worldofwarcaft.com and that Billing can not assist you with issues related to closed accounts.
You can also confirm this by visiting the customer service forum on World of Warcraft's website -- wherein I believe one of the stickies regarding closed accounts details this specifically - and also notes and explains their reasoning for not allowing verbal communication with the Account Administration department.
Ahh, this is great portion of the problem. You see, you actually can not provide ANY information to prove you did not cheat.
What you can do is email wow-accountadmin@worldofwarcraft.com with your account name.
That's it. Precisely.
When you do this, Blizzard claims to *re-investigate* the ban. Which essentially means they are going to review the data they have that was originally used to diagnose your account as having cheated.
Therein lies a great portion of the problem - you truly have no means by which to defend yourself.
This is exactly why I say the Linux users would, without question, still be banned if it were not for the overwhelming support, demand, and publicity that the Linux community provided.
Blizzard DID re-investigate those people, and DID respond to their pleas of innocence - informing them they DID re-review their case and DID find they cheated. That is the process ALL banned accounts go through. The ONLY reason the Linux people got their bans lifted was the publicity and volume of complaints. A mere one guy with some weird program that somehow made them think he was cheating is flat out SCREWED.
Therein lies one of the biggest problems with how Blizzard handles this.
Giving people the opportunity to prove their innocence isn't really going to work well. Most people have problems with their own email, let alone proving they didn't cheat. I mean, I know a lot about IT - been working in the field for a decade - I wouldn't even know where to start. I could make up fictitious data all day to try and prove I was innocent but how could Blizzard possibly verify this short of physically having my computer?
Obviously no one wants Blizzard to lax up on cheaters, so the only solution I see is for Blizzard to at least give some warning - and give people a chance to correct/ remove the problem application before they ban them.
Granted, no one should get unlimited warnings - and you'll still likely end up with some level of false positives from the *impossible* users who somehow manage to contract every virus known to man just by visiting eBay, but it would drastically reduce both false positives and the use of cheats overall.
But at least they would have some semblance of a chance.
This would also provide Blizzard with a wealth of information - when people themselves are actually able to somewhat identify other possible instances when a false positive is identified.
I'm not saying I know the right way, or the best way to handle how WoW deals with cheats and cheaters - but I am definitely saying the way it is handled now is wrong and unfair.
That aside, the botters still bot. The reason? Because Blizzard doesn't ban them when they are caught - they wait months and months then do a mass ban. What is the point of even BOTHERING to ban these accounts when Blizzard allows them to continue cheating for MONTHS before banning them. Then the cheaters come RIGHT back - and in a week have a level 60 created by a bot - then get to use that level 60 for several months before it's banned. Rinse, repeat -- so to speak.
My idea of a better solution would be that users get a couple of warnings - with specific information listed so they can contact technical support and try to remove the offending program or provides Blizzard a chance to identify legitimate software giving false positives. To complement that - they need to ban repeat offenders WHEN they are identified as such - not wait several months.
I know that is a lot to absorb, but if you play WoW it will make sense. Essentially, what I am getting at is the true cheaters get to cheat anyway - they are merely inconvenienced by the bans - whereas legitimate players lose an account they dedicated actual time to.
To complement this all, they need to start banning credit cards also. After say a couple of account bans it's time to just say this credit card can no longer create another account.
Anyway, the point is there is a lot Blizzard could do to clear out
I would imagine there would be a limit to the number of warnings a player should get, certainly.
Do you seriously think the actual cheaters care? Heck no they don't. Log into WoW on Wildhammer US and I'll show you a dozen bots that have been leveling back up since the ban.
The point is, good honest folk deserve a fair chance.
Another point I was making was that without the great support of the Linux community - these bans would have stayed. Wrongfully so, I might add.
How would that be fair?
It's so easy for people to say a few false positives are okay, until they themselves are victims of a false positive.
People do deserve a chance. Blizzard offers the guise of that chance, but it's not real. This has been proven by all the Linux users who received *confirmation* they were cheating and only with mass support from the Linux community was the truth revealed.
People need to stop looking at this from a perspective of "how do I feel as someone who was not wrongfully banned" and see it more as "what if that was me that lost an account I had spent two years on, banned for something I did not do -- with no way to get my account back".
People also need to stop thinking that Blizzard gives each case the thorough check it deserves. They do not. If they did, why were so many Linux users told their case was *re-investigated* and confirmed they used 3rd party programs?
If you are wrongfully banned, you will STAY wrongfully banned. These people had their bans lifted for one reason, and one reason only; overwhelming support and demand from the Linux community.
I had an account banned four months ago - FOUR MONTHS. Reason: Innaccurate or incomplete billing information. WTH? What was I supposed to do to remedy the sitiuation? Fill out a form with a copy of my ID, have it notarized by a notary public, and mail it in. I did. And I received a response that they copy of my photo ID was not legible, and I would have to go through the ENTIRE process again.
I did. It's been almost two months and I've heard nothing back - there is NO PHONE NUMBER TO CALL - no way to check my case status other than email. My emails go in, I receive an auto response, and then nothing.
Not even banned for cheating and I still can't get my account back.
Again, it's nice and easy to sit on the other side of the fence and say all is well.
I read your rational for taking "the latter", however - that's an easy stance to take until you are one of the latter.
Don't be fooled, just because Blizzard reinstated those accounts using Linux doesn't mean it reinstated all accounts that were wrongfully banned. This is an extreme rarity, and I sincerely doubt anything would have been admitted by Blizzard were it not for the overwhelming support from the Linux community.
I mean, really - if you were wrongfully banned and Blizzard *re-investigated* your case and confirmed you were a cheater - even though you know you were not - and the ban stayed, do you think you would feel the same way about taking the latter? Not if it were someone else, if it were YOU?
Odd, as I recall several people for recruiting as an openly gay guild. As I recall, their reasoning was that sexual orientation was not something that should be a part of WoW, or rather - as it was put, I believe; "Contrary to the essence of World of Warcraft."
And I believe it was a forum ban, not an account ban. They were *warned* in game, banned on forums.
Personally, I agreed with Blizzard on that one - sexual orientation should not be part of the game - and certainly not advertised in chat channels and on forums - youngsters play this game and can be influenced by that type of IRL stuff.
Besides, what would a guild full of nothing but Paladins be able to do anyway?
Yeah, a little credit for doing the right thing - but look at what it took for Blizzard to admit it was wrong. How many other people are wrongfully banned and Blizzard won't fess to it?
I've seen a multitude of people post on the forums saying they were banned as a Linux user and then posted the confirmation from Blizzard that they *re-investigated* it and confirmed they were using a 3rd party bot program.
If it were not for the overwhelming support of the Linux community I have no doubt there would be no admission and all of those people would be banned.
I hate bots in WoW as much as anyone, but Blizzard needs to WARN people that a 3rd party program is running on their system. WARN them. Every time it's detected.
Imagine when someone makes a virus/spyware/malware/whatever that runs as a process with the sole intent of appearing to be a bot to WoW. It most certainly would not be the first time someone did something for the sole purpose of being malicious and causing innocent web users/gamers harm.
Blizzard needs to do something to make it's customers feel safe - I sure as heck don't. Every time I get in game I do my best to close out ALL my running processes - IM's, VoIP, AV, et al - for fear one of them might do something to cause Blizzard to flag me as a cheater.
Why would a company treat it's customers like that?
If you send a bomb back in time 10 seconds to blow yourself up - what will happen?
Now, if time is linear - as you describe - this would be impossible - as once the bomb would arrive you would no longer be able to send the bomb back. (Also, I can't imagine how ANY theory on time travel could be ruled out or dis proven)
I don't understand how the third reference relates to time travel, though?
I'm just going by the bird here, as this isn't an area I've thought or studied much about... ever.
However, something I just thought about is stopping time - now - if you could stop time for everything but yourself, what would the temperature be? Wouldn't you instantly freeze solid, die, and leave time stopped eternally? Man, that would suck, though I guess we'd never know.
I also read someone mention a theory where altering the past would not alter the present, if this is true and you sent a bomb back to yourself - killed yourself - how the heck would you send yourself the bomb to begin with?
Ahh, I guess that's where the all things exist at once could come in - given you could kill yourself in what we perceive as being the past and it wouldn't matter - it's not all things exist at once but an easier to explain way to describe that might be that all time exists at once -- past, present, and future all exist (not exist *now*, simply exist as time is not relevant but a perception -- perhaps a perception of dimensional travel) - perhaps merge that with the multi-dimensional theory and say all times exist as different dimensions.
You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them.
However, in all states that I am aware of, if you setup a trap you are not only liable but criminally liable.
Hell, if your alarm going off scares them and they fall and break a leg - BOOM see you in court.
But if you just up and blow the intruder away, hey, no problem.
I can't say I'd like to see automated less-than-lethal security systems - by any means - hell you can't get any electronic device that doesn't have an error rate, I just find the way we view things in the US somewhat ironic.
Though, I must admit, I certainly would not want to lose my right to defend my home and family.
Dehumanizing killing is wrong, in any case.
I used to work at a firearms manufacturer - and I can say with certainty every time I heard of an incident where one of our arms was used to take life... Well, it wasn't the job for me -- and I just worked in the IT department.
There is a chain of responsibility that goes into every firearm - when one is created, sold, and used - each person in that chain has to live with a little of that responsibility. The more of that chain we take away the easier it becomes to devalue human life.
I've delt with cybercrime more than once. Doing the legwork and tracking the perpetrator down wasn't difficult for me - but had I not done it myself it would have never been done.
Until law enforcement steps up to the plate and carries over on their job, people are going to continue to feel this way. Even once I had tracked the perpetrator down I had to personally go into the local prosecuting attorney's office to re-explain the case because they didn't get it either.
People have a reason to feel like they are unprotected on the internet.
It's because for a greater portion of incidents, they are.
Then there is the FBI's fraud division they setup online - which seems to be there for the sole purpose of reducing phone calls they have to take, while yet ignoring the reports unless they are very large cases - something I have seen discussed here on slashdot more than once.
I'm sure there are people with victorious memories over online criminals, but those are surely trumped by the sheer volume of cases where the victim reports the crime and the responsible law enforcement authorities do absolutely nothing if for no other reason than they simply do not know how.
True, perhaps. However, the defense request and court order were for a copy, not a forensic analysis of the drive.
Now, were the orders for a forensic analysis of the drive to be ordered - that would be different. The order is vague, and simply refers to the defendants request. In the defendants request they ask merely for a copy of the files.
Really what this was about was posturing. The defense was betting it could find something it could use as leverage about the plantiff. Not determine authenticity of the plantiff's claims - but rather find some way to incriminate the plantiff or otherwise cause them harm. Such a broad order should have never been granted.
A judge worth his salt would have ordered copies of the original emails, in full source form, to be produced by the plantiff. The defense didn't just ask to fish in a pond here, they planned on going deep sea fishing. Actions not typically sanctioned by the courts.
Imagine someone sends you a death threat by throwing a brick through your window with a letter in an envelope - then the defense requests a right to search your home. It doesn't make sense.
Interesting, I had no idea that viewing a message body and parsed headers on hotmail would actually store the entire unaltered message, headers included, in my browser cache.
That, of course, is ignoring the fact my browser cache is cleared each time I close the browser.
The trend I have noticed among vendors who do offer Linux, is that Linux costs more than Windows. Not always, I'm sure - but again the 'trend' *I* noticed, is manufacturers charging inflated prices on Linux offerings - one like me would presume as an attempt to coerce users into buying a Windows PC and debunk the 'myth' (lol) that free Linux is cheaper. (Free != cheaper than windows in a MS world - is the point I believe they are trying to make.)
Personally, I think it should be law that all computer hardware is to be priced without software - and the user is given a choice to purchase whatever software he or she wishes.
Even now, if you go to www.dell.com - good luck finding a system they offer linux on. Sure, you can google and find their linux desktops - but unless you know what to look for - you won't just browse by a linux product for sale on Dell's website.
Now, when you DO find Dell's Linux offerings - you should compare them to similar Windows offerings. In some cases you will find those desktops offered with "FreeDOS" (See: No OS at all really - and no choice for a Linux distro) the machine is the same price. In the vast majority of cases - you will find the machine with a non-Windows offering to be substantially more expensive.
In many cases you find a Linux offering on Dell's website you will find a large advertisement directly above the OS selection - promoting Windows, stating Windows offers "Access to twice as many PCs", the ability to "Connect to the widest variety of networks", "Guard your files and protect customer data", and a "Learn More" link that pops open a new window with a slew of propaganda explaining why Windows is a better choice.
It's not just Microsoft that doesn't want to see Linux succeed. It's hardware vendors too.
If you take a step back, and think about it - one of the best things about Linux is that it will run fantastic on your old Pentium III machine with 128MB of memory.
Then you look at the upcoming Vista and think, hey -- my one year old PC will barely even meet the recommended system hardware specs on Vista -- or more likely won't even come close.
With every effort MS makes to force user/corporate upgrades of software, they do the same for hardware. Manufacturers are not going to ignore that.
The Microsoft tax is no longer imposed on hardware vendors by Microsoft - but rather imposed on the customer by hardware vendors.
Yes, I misspoke, or miss-wrote... Whatever-have-you.
What I meant was that DX10 wouldn't be backward compatible. I have read Vista will be backwards compatible but read it was some sort of software emulation.
What I was getting at was that according to the articles I have read DX10 will simply not work on a card not designed for it - and DX10 itself was not going to be backward compatible. Basically, if you don't have a card built for it you simply can't use it at all.
When DX9 came out - my 6800GT didn't support all of it's features but I could still use DX9 - when DX10 comes out, as I understand it, my (now very old, I know) 6800GT simply will not be compatible at all with DX10. And thus not really be able to take advantage of the pretty things in Vista.
To me this is all great, as a gamer. Because I really don't use Windows for anything but playing games anyway. It just seems like Vista and DX10 are really more catering to the enthusiast/hobby crowd than to their core customer base. And my reference noted/quoted (which I spoke incorrectly and apologize) was to focus on whether or not the card would even be able to be used 'at all' with DX10, not just missing a few features, but rather not at all.
I guess that question is answered above as this is evidently the first DX10 compatible card.
I'm no hardware techie, but I do so enjoy playing a good game --- "when I have time" (yeah...).
Everytime Microsoft releases a new version of DirectX it has some new sweet feature that everyone wants but none of the current cards on the market support it.
Microsoft has also said DirectX 10 and Vista will not be backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX. (Or has this changed, as I recall Vista wouldn't support applications built for previous OS's too - seems they changed their tune on that one. Then again they've really yanked everything from the OS that was originally going to set it aside as a truly new OS, but I digress...)
So, basically, what I'm getting at is why? Why would I want this (obviously hawt) card, when chances are in 4-6 months (If they don't kick back the release data again, har) DirectX 10 will be out and have some new fancy feature this card won't support?
Of course, I could be missing something and maybe the card does support DX10 - feel free to tell me I'm a toad for even asking.
18 months isn't very old for a guild, even in WoW. Immortalis, for one, was around since beta. Another thing I found interesting was that, to me, 70 hours/played doesn't seem like much at all. I know people who have hundreds of hours logged.
When I quit, about 8 months ago I suppose, I easily had over 150 hours logged.
I wholeheartedly aggree with TFA, though, that game is a life sucking piece of software written by the devil himself with the sole purpose of sucking your soul away.
Something TFA didn't mention is that people die IRL playing this game. Hell, there was a family in an Asian country (Forget which, China -- I think) who allowed their baby to die of starvation (IIRC) because they were off playing WoW. As I understand it, there have been quite a few people who died in their chairs playing WoW at internet Cafes in Asian countries.
I'm not trying to dilute TFA's message, not by any means. I think it is worth noting, though, that the author of TFA is dead on right about this game - and saw that much - and yet most people I know wouldn't think he played much at all. As he states in TFA - there are people who play 10 hours a day - I know dozens (if not more) people who play every concious hour of their lives. For a time, I was one of them.
The author of TFA compares WoW to drugs. A rightful comparison in my opinion. The effects it has on your life, your body are not too dissimilar from those of drugs.
I, personally, wish I had never played it. And despite the fact that I love freedom - nothing would please me more than to see that fucking game sent back to the hell it came from.
My brother, whom still plays, once started using a bot. And still does, for a long time now. Disappointed, I asked; 'Why would you do that, bro? You're gonna get banned.' -- his reply was simple; 'God, I hope I do.' A feeling echoed by thousands of WoW players on a regular basis, I'd imagine. Most people I know wish they could quit, but can't seem to find it within themselves to do so. If there was a 'perma-ban me' button in your WoW account management - I think WoW's subscriber base would drop by 1/3rd or more in just weeks - all people who want to quit but simply lack the selfcontrol to do it. (Hello drug addict)
I can't imagine Blizzard could claim ignorance to the effects WoW is having on peoples lives, and by design - as TFA makes takes good notice of. As such, the question arrises; What, if any, liability should Blizzard take. To me, I see them simply as a legal drug dealer, ruining lives for profit. Making wonderful and involving games is one thing - it seems to me what WoW is, is a totally seperate creature.
As I mentioned earlier - aside from pure selfcontrol - there simply is no way to quit. Video game addiction is very real - and as much as I personally hate to admit a lack of self-control -- I certainly wish there was a way to quit aside from the self-control I lacked, with regards to WoW. In fact, I didn't quit - it wasn't until I ganked some lowbie Alliance player for almost four hours straight that my account was permanently closed for behaviour contrary to the essence of WoW.
Had that not happened - I'm sure my life would be worse, still, and I would be playing that game right now instead of typing this message. After which I will go have a nice lunch, again -- something I would not do if I played WoW. I would order in - so as to not lose precious play time.
Telephones, household chemicals, new soaps... diapers, creams, etc.. There are a lot of new techologies whose use has increased steadily since the 80's.
Aside from use increasing with autism diagnosis, I failed to find a valid link in the paper (though admittedly I skimmed most of it).
Hell, maybe in the last 20 years our ability to identify autism has just gotten better.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the WoW forums you will find quite a few posts from people who claim they were banned and have no clue why.
But, more realistically, the average Joe will get banned and not say anything publicly. It seems mostly only the real addicts speak up.
Even still, all who speak up get shot down by fan-boy-forum-trolls who believe all who were banned were done so for cheating.
All the Linux users who posted on the WoW forums received just that - a ton of nasty responses from people who believe all banned were guilty.
It's a nasty place to be. You get banned, people assume you were a cheater. Anyone who's seen people proclaim innocence before would know it's moot. The majority of forum-goers will ignore your plea for help, and the rest will troll your plea with rants about how all those banned are the scourge of the earth.
It's a position I would be horrified to be in. It'd be like being put in jail - the only law you know is that it's against the law to break the law - being told you have a right to appeal but cannot be present or speak your defense in your appeal - and that you only get one appeal.
Interesting. Would you still love it if you got banned the third time it detected the cheat/bot? You'd be a whole lot of either account stealing, or game purchasing.
Glad you got your account back. :)
/. user points out the WoW Launcher (the screen that pops up and basically gives a summary of what's on worldofwarcraft.com) is supposed to warn you if cheats are detected.... I would love, love, love, to hear if any Linux users saw ANY warning on the WoW Launcher that it detected a cheat program.
However, I would beg to differ that just saying you "never grind, so there is no point to botting" would prove your innocence.
Let's say you dual account - and you have a priest that's a bot that simply follows your main around and healbots him.
What I am getting at, is even though you know and can prove to your friends your innocence - it's really too far from a normal persons grasp to be able to prove their innocence.
Furthermore, someone with the knowledge able to prove they are innocent is also likely capable of creating fictitious data to do so - thus the end result is the only real way to prove you were innocent would be a forensic analysis of your hard drive. Obviously not a reasonable burden to place on either Blizzard nor the customer.
I do, however, have a question I would love if you could answer - in another post a fellow
This is very interesting.
I had no idea.
Sadly, that screen is like the EULA - people just click and go. I'm ecstatic to hear they actually do this - but I would wager less than 1% of WoW players actually know this exists - let alone where to look on that screen for information.
That sucker should pop up it's own window for something so important, one would think. Something to really get the users attention and make sure they understand what is going on.
Additionally, a popup should occur while the player is in game. From what you quoted above - it would seem the two detection systems are different - thus it's possible the WoW Launcher might not identify something that Blizzard's other software would identify. (That's easily confirmed by the fact they state the WoW Launcher's scan does not send any information to Blizzard, whereas we know the in-game detection, Warden, does.)
That's a very interesting bit of information, and seems like Blizzard is already partially there.
HOWEVER, I would definitely like to point out that an awful lot of Linux users got banned -- did any of them receive such a warning on their WoW Launcher? Maybe they did, and just didn't notice it -- or even worse - maybe no such warning was given at all - and the function of the WoW Launcher is completely moot.
What if the program is an IM window, or something else that may not run until after the WoW Launcher has already been passed.
Seems there are a great many instances where the WoW Launcher might not catch something but the in-game detection might.
It would also seem a solid proven fact that the detection the WoW Launcher provides to warn the user is not only not the same as what is used in game but is overall not adequate.
That's very useful information, though. Now that I've had a bit to think about it I do remember the patch notes from when the Launcher was implemented - but I didn't know it was to protect against cheats - I thought it was just protection against known keyloggers and the such.
"Contrary to the essence of World of Warcraft" is a cut quote phrase Blizzard uses quite frequently, and this was the quote I recalled when thinking of this incident.
If you are correct, and I'm not, that's peachy. However, it's not blatently misleading - I clearly stated "as it was put, I believe" - indicating I think but am not sure.
It seems to me you are just a hurtful, vindictive person.
You further inquire my opinion on a few things, which I will respond to accordingly:
1) Do I object to in-game marriages?
No. In game marriages are something that is performed privately among friends. I don't care if they are gay/lesbian marriages or anything else. Advertising for the marriage, though, I would object to. Whether it was a m/f marriage or a m/m-f/f or any other combination thereof.
2) Do I object to the use of terms such as gay or fag when used in a defamatory manner?
Yes, I wholeheartedly object to and report such behavior. My friends and I maintain a private guild because of issues just like this.
It seems you think that because I agree with Blizzard that sexual-orientation should not be part of a game this somehow makes me anti-gay?
Your comment, although possibly correct in pointing out my inaccuracies describing the events (which I thought it was very clear I was sure of nothing - only offering vague memories), is merely the ramblings of a very vindictive person - out to be mad at someone for whatever reason they can find.
How would a bot author be able to use this when the program merely identifies a running process as being detected as a cheat?
Sure, if it gave it specific details as to why it was detected as a cheat -- the bot author could then use that information and attempt to adapt the program. However, without that specific information there is no way the author could do this.
Let's say even with the information - hypothetically speaking - the cheat author would only get a couple of chances to attempt adapting his/her program before his/her account was banned. Then he/she would then have to acquire another copy of the game, setup another account, and be out another months fee -- not to mention the time and inconvenience associated with such tasks -- before he/she would be able to attempt to adapt the program again. Adding the greatly to the cost and time required to develop such a program.
Without the specific details, as I would imagine those would only be available to Blizzard, I see no way this could benefit the bot creators aside from simply knowing if it is or is not detected. They could, true, use that information to benefit from but would still be at such a great financial cost to develop such a program that it would no longer be practical.
In the event they did actually create an undetected bot, it would be at nearly no expense at all for Blizzard to update Warden to identify the new program and the bot creator would then be back at square 1 - knowing it's bot is caught but left with the long, extremely expensive task of trying to evade Blizzard's anti-cheat detection, Warden.
Would you really expect the average Joe to be able to do that?
After all, the majority of WoW's customers are just Joe's - with the basic computer knowledge needed to play a game and send email -- and that's about it.
Should you really need a degree to have the right to play a game without being falsely banned?
Billing support can not help you with an account ban.
You have to contact Account Administration. They are two separate departments. If you contact Billing they will tell you this. In fact, there is actually an automated message when you first call in that tells you this - if I recall.
The initial message is complemented by a multitude of other messages repeating the same information throughout your time on hold - essentially letting you know that if you are calling because your account was closed or "actioned" you need to contact wow-accountadmin@worldofwarcaft.com and that Billing can not assist you with issues related to closed accounts.
You can also confirm this by visiting the customer service forum on World of Warcraft's website -- wherein I believe one of the stickies regarding closed accounts details this specifically - and also notes and explains their reasoning for not allowing verbal communication with the Account Administration department.
Ahh, this is great portion of the problem. You see, you actually can not provide ANY information to prove you did not cheat.
What you can do is email wow-accountadmin@worldofwarcraft.com with your account name.
That's it. Precisely.
When you do this, Blizzard claims to *re-investigate* the ban. Which essentially means they are going to review the data they have that was originally used to diagnose your account as having cheated.
Therein lies a great portion of the problem - you truly have no means by which to defend yourself.
This is exactly why I say the Linux users would, without question, still be banned if it were not for the overwhelming support, demand, and publicity that the Linux community provided.
Blizzard DID re-investigate those people, and DID respond to their pleas of innocence - informing them they DID re-review their case and DID find they cheated. That is the process ALL banned accounts go through. The ONLY reason the Linux people got their bans lifted was the publicity and volume of complaints. A mere one guy with some weird program that somehow made them think he was cheating is flat out SCREWED.
Therein lies one of the biggest problems with how Blizzard handles this.
Giving people the opportunity to prove their innocence isn't really going to work well. Most people have problems with their own email, let alone proving they didn't cheat. I mean, I know a lot about IT - been working in the field for a decade - I wouldn't even know where to start. I could make up fictitious data all day to try and prove I was innocent but how could Blizzard possibly verify this short of physically having my computer?
Obviously no one wants Blizzard to lax up on cheaters, so the only solution I see is for Blizzard to at least give some warning - and give people a chance to correct/ remove the problem application before they ban them.
Granted, no one should get unlimited warnings - and you'll still likely end up with some level of false positives from the *impossible* users who somehow manage to contract every virus known to man just by visiting eBay, but it would drastically reduce both false positives and the use of cheats overall.
But at least they would have some semblance of a chance.
This would also provide Blizzard with a wealth of information - when people themselves are actually able to somewhat identify other possible instances when a false positive is identified.
I'm not saying I know the right way, or the best way to handle how WoW deals with cheats and cheaters - but I am definitely saying the way it is handled now is wrong and unfair.
That aside, the botters still bot. The reason? Because Blizzard doesn't ban them when they are caught - they wait months and months then do a mass ban. What is the point of even BOTHERING to ban these accounts when Blizzard allows them to continue cheating for MONTHS before banning them. Then the cheaters come RIGHT back - and in a week have a level 60 created by a bot - then get to use that level 60 for several months before it's banned. Rinse, repeat -- so to speak.
My idea of a better solution would be that users get a couple of warnings - with specific information listed so they can contact technical support and try to remove the offending program or provides Blizzard a chance to identify legitimate software giving false positives. To complement that - they need to ban repeat offenders WHEN they are identified as such - not wait several months.
I know that is a lot to absorb, but if you play WoW it will make sense. Essentially, what I am getting at is the true cheaters get to cheat anyway - they are merely inconvenienced by the bans - whereas legitimate players lose an account they dedicated actual time to.
To complement this all, they need to start banning credit cards also. After say a couple of account bans it's time to just say this credit card can no longer create another account.
Anyway, the point is there is a lot Blizzard could do to clear out
I would imagine there would be a limit to the number of warnings a player should get, certainly.
Do you seriously think the actual cheaters care? Heck no they don't. Log into WoW on Wildhammer US and I'll show you a dozen bots that have been leveling back up since the ban.
The point is, good honest folk deserve a fair chance.
Another point I was making was that without the great support of the Linux community - these bans would have stayed. Wrongfully so, I might add.
How would that be fair?
It's so easy for people to say a few false positives are okay, until they themselves are victims of a false positive.
People do deserve a chance. Blizzard offers the guise of that chance, but it's not real. This has been proven by all the Linux users who received *confirmation* they were cheating and only with mass support from the Linux community was the truth revealed.
People need to stop looking at this from a perspective of "how do I feel as someone who was not wrongfully banned" and see it more as "what if that was me that lost an account I had spent two years on, banned for something I did not do -- with no way to get my account back".
People also need to stop thinking that Blizzard gives each case the thorough check it deserves. They do not. If they did, why were so many Linux users told their case was *re-investigated* and confirmed they used 3rd party programs?
If you are wrongfully banned, you will STAY wrongfully banned. These people had their bans lifted for one reason, and one reason only; overwhelming support and demand from the Linux community.
I had an account banned four months ago - FOUR MONTHS. Reason: Innaccurate or incomplete billing information. WTH? What was I supposed to do to remedy the sitiuation? Fill out a form with a copy of my ID, have it notarized by a notary public, and mail it in. I did. And I received a response that they copy of my photo ID was not legible, and I would have to go through the ENTIRE process again.
I did. It's been almost two months and I've heard nothing back - there is NO PHONE NUMBER TO CALL - no way to check my case status other than email. My emails go in, I receive an auto response, and then nothing.
Not even banned for cheating and I still can't get my account back.
Again, it's nice and easy to sit on the other side of the fence and say all is well.
I read your rational for taking "the latter", however - that's an easy stance to take until you are one of the latter.
Don't be fooled, just because Blizzard reinstated those accounts using Linux doesn't mean it reinstated all accounts that were wrongfully banned. This is an extreme rarity, and I sincerely doubt anything would have been admitted by Blizzard were it not for the overwhelming support from the Linux community.
I mean, really - if you were wrongfully banned and Blizzard *re-investigated* your case and confirmed you were a cheater - even though you know you were not - and the ban stayed, do you think you would feel the same way about taking the latter? Not if it were someone else, if it were YOU?
Odd, as I recall several people for recruiting as an openly gay guild. As I recall, their reasoning was that sexual orientation was not something that should be a part of WoW, or rather - as it was put, I believe; "Contrary to the essence of World of Warcraft."
And I believe it was a forum ban, not an account ban. They were *warned* in game, banned on forums.
Personally, I agreed with Blizzard on that one - sexual orientation should not be part of the game - and certainly not advertised in chat channels and on forums - youngsters play this game and can be influenced by that type of IRL stuff.
Besides, what would a guild full of nothing but Paladins be able to do anyway?
Yeah, a little credit for doing the right thing - but look at what it took for Blizzard to admit it was wrong. How many other people are wrongfully banned and Blizzard won't fess to it?
I've seen a multitude of people post on the forums saying they were banned as a Linux user and then posted the confirmation from Blizzard that they *re-investigated* it and confirmed they were using a 3rd party bot program.
If it were not for the overwhelming support of the Linux community I have no doubt there would be no admission and all of those people would be banned.
I hate bots in WoW as much as anyone, but Blizzard needs to WARN people that a 3rd party program is running on their system. WARN them. Every time it's detected.
Imagine when someone makes a virus/spyware/malware/whatever that runs as a process with the sole intent of appearing to be a bot to WoW. It most certainly would not be the first time someone did something for the sole purpose of being malicious and causing innocent web users/gamers harm.
Blizzard needs to do something to make it's customers feel safe - I sure as heck don't. Every time I get in game I do my best to close out ALL my running processes - IM's, VoIP, AV, et al - for fear one of them might do something to cause Blizzard to flag me as a cheater.
Why would a company treat it's customers like that?
I got one for ya...
If you send a bomb back in time 10 seconds to blow yourself up - what will happen?
Now, if time is linear - as you describe - this would be impossible - as once the bomb would arrive you would no longer be able to send the bomb back. (Also, I can't imagine how ANY theory on time travel could be ruled out or dis proven)
I don't understand how the third reference relates to time travel, though?
I'm just going by the bird here, as this isn't an area I've thought or studied much about... ever.
However, something I just thought about is stopping time - now - if you could stop time for everything but yourself, what would the temperature be? Wouldn't you instantly freeze solid, die, and leave time stopped eternally? Man, that would suck, though I guess we'd never know.
I also read someone mention a theory where altering the past would not alter the present, if this is true and you sent a bomb back to yourself - killed yourself - how the heck would you send yourself the bomb to begin with?
Ahh, I guess that's where the all things exist at once could come in - given you could kill yourself in what we perceive as being the past and it wouldn't matter - it's not all things exist at once but an easier to explain way to describe that might be that all time exists at once -- past, present, and future all exist (not exist *now*, simply exist as time is not relevant but a perception -- perhaps a perception of dimensional travel) - perhaps merge that with the multi-dimensional theory and say all times exist as different dimensions.
Weird subject.
You point out something I have always found amusing. Let's say someone breaks into your home, in most states you are within your legal rights to kill them.
However, in all states that I am aware of, if you setup a trap you are not only liable but criminally liable.
Hell, if your alarm going off scares them and they fall and break a leg - BOOM see you in court.
But if you just up and blow the intruder away, hey, no problem.
I can't say I'd like to see automated less-than-lethal security systems - by any means - hell you can't get any electronic device that doesn't have an error rate, I just find the way we view things in the US somewhat ironic.
Though, I must admit, I certainly would not want to lose my right to defend my home and family.
Dehumanizing killing is wrong, in any case.
I used to work at a firearms manufacturer - and I can say with certainty every time I heard of an incident where one of our arms was used to take life... Well, it wasn't the job for me -- and I just worked in the IT department.
There is a chain of responsibility that goes into every firearm - when one is created, sold, and used - each person in that chain has to live with a little of that responsibility. The more of that chain we take away the easier it becomes to devalue human life.
I've delt with cybercrime more than once. Doing the legwork and tracking the perpetrator down wasn't difficult for me - but had I not done it myself it would have never been done.
Until law enforcement steps up to the plate and carries over on their job, people are going to continue to feel this way. Even once I had tracked the perpetrator down I had to personally go into the local prosecuting attorney's office to re-explain the case because they didn't get it either.
People have a reason to feel like they are unprotected on the internet.
It's because for a greater portion of incidents, they are.
Then there is the FBI's fraud division they setup online - which seems to be there for the sole purpose of reducing phone calls they have to take, while yet ignoring the reports unless they are very large cases - something I have seen discussed here on slashdot more than once.
I'm sure there are people with victorious memories over online criminals, but those are surely trumped by the sheer volume of cases where the victim reports the crime and the responsible law enforcement authorities do absolutely nothing if for no other reason than they simply do not know how.
True, perhaps. However, the defense request and court order were for a copy, not a forensic analysis of the drive.
Now, were the orders for a forensic analysis of the drive to be ordered - that would be different. The order is vague, and simply refers to the defendants request. In the defendants request they ask merely for a copy of the files.
Really what this was about was posturing. The defense was betting it could find something it could use as leverage about the plantiff. Not determine authenticity of the plantiff's claims - but rather find some way to incriminate the plantiff or otherwise cause them harm. Such a broad order should have never been granted.
A judge worth his salt would have ordered copies of the original emails, in full source form, to be produced by the plantiff. The defense didn't just ask to fish in a pond here, they planned on going deep sea fishing. Actions not typically sanctioned by the courts.
Imagine someone sends you a death threat by throwing a brick through your window with a letter in an envelope - then the defense requests a right to search your home. It doesn't make sense.
But, as TFA notes, who cares; the sky is green.
Interesting, I had no idea that viewing a message body and parsed headers on hotmail would actually store the entire unaltered message, headers included, in my browser cache.
/sarcasm
That, of course, is ignoring the fact my browser cache is cleared each time I close the browser.
I guess I learn something new each day.
The trend I have noticed among vendors who do offer Linux, is that Linux costs more than Windows. Not always, I'm sure - but again the 'trend' *I* noticed, is manufacturers charging inflated prices on Linux offerings - one like me would presume as an attempt to coerce users into buying a Windows PC and debunk the 'myth' (lol) that free Linux is cheaper. (Free != cheaper than windows in a MS world - is the point I believe they are trying to make.)
Personally, I think it should be law that all computer hardware is to be priced without software - and the user is given a choice to purchase whatever software he or she wishes.
Even now, if you go to www.dell.com - good luck finding a system they offer linux on. Sure, you can google and find their linux desktops - but unless you know what to look for - you won't just browse by a linux product for sale on Dell's website.
Now, when you DO find Dell's Linux offerings - you should compare them to similar Windows offerings. In some cases you will find those desktops offered with "FreeDOS" (See: No OS at all really - and no choice for a Linux distro) the machine is the same price. In the vast majority of cases - you will find the machine with a non-Windows offering to be substantially more expensive.
In many cases you find a Linux offering on Dell's website you will find a large advertisement directly above the OS selection - promoting Windows, stating Windows offers "Access to twice as many PCs", the ability to "Connect to the widest variety of networks", "Guard your files and protect customer data", and a "Learn More" link that pops open a new window with a slew of propaganda explaining why Windows is a better choice.
It's not just Microsoft that doesn't want to see Linux succeed. It's hardware vendors too.
If you take a step back, and think about it - one of the best things about Linux is that it will run fantastic on your old Pentium III machine with 128MB of memory.
Then you look at the upcoming Vista and think, hey -- my one year old PC will barely even meet the recommended system hardware specs on Vista -- or more likely won't even come close.
With every effort MS makes to force user/corporate upgrades of software, they do the same for hardware. Manufacturers are not going to ignore that.
The Microsoft tax is no longer imposed on hardware vendors by Microsoft - but rather imposed on the customer by hardware vendors.
That's just the way I see it, anyway.
Yes, I misspoke, or miss-wrote... Whatever-have-you.
What I meant was that DX10 wouldn't be backward compatible. I have read Vista will be backwards compatible but read it was some sort of software emulation.
What I was getting at was that according to the articles I have read DX10 will simply not work on a card not designed for it - and DX10 itself was not going to be backward compatible. Basically, if you don't have a card built for it you simply can't use it at all.
When DX9 came out - my 6800GT didn't support all of it's features but I could still use DX9 - when DX10 comes out, as I understand it, my (now very old, I know) 6800GT simply will not be compatible at all with DX10. And thus not really be able to take advantage of the pretty things in Vista.
To me this is all great, as a gamer. Because I really don't use Windows for anything but playing games anyway. It just seems like Vista and DX10 are really more catering to the enthusiast/hobby crowd than to their core customer base. And my reference noted/quoted (which I spoke incorrectly and apologize) was to focus on whether or not the card would even be able to be used 'at all' with DX10, not just missing a few features, but rather not at all.
I guess that question is answered above as this is evidently the first DX10 compatible card.
Cheers!
I'm no hardware techie, but I do so enjoy playing a good game --- "when I have time" (yeah...).
Everytime Microsoft releases a new version of DirectX it has some new sweet feature that everyone wants but none of the current cards on the market support it.
Microsoft has also said DirectX 10 and Vista will not be backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX. (Or has this changed, as I recall Vista wouldn't support applications built for previous OS's too - seems they changed their tune on that one. Then again they've really yanked everything from the OS that was originally going to set it aside as a truly new OS, but I digress...)
So, basically, what I'm getting at is why? Why would I want this (obviously hawt) card, when chances are in 4-6 months (If they don't kick back the release data again, har) DirectX 10 will be out and have some new fancy feature this card won't support?
Of course, I could be missing something and maybe the card does support DX10 - feel free to tell me I'm a toad for even asking.
From all the datacenters relocating outside the US? That seems to be the trend in my locale.
Rawr, hours = days - in terms of /played.
18 months isn't very old for a guild, even in WoW. Immortalis, for one, was around since beta. Another thing I found interesting was that, to me, 70 hours /played doesn't seem like much at all. I know people who have hundreds of hours logged.
When I quit, about 8 months ago I suppose, I easily had over 150 hours logged.
I wholeheartedly aggree with TFA, though, that game is a life sucking piece of software written by the devil himself with the sole purpose of sucking your soul away.
Something TFA didn't mention is that people die IRL playing this game. Hell, there was a family in an Asian country (Forget which, China -- I think) who allowed their baby to die of starvation (IIRC) because they were off playing WoW. As I understand it, there have been quite a few people who died in their chairs playing WoW at internet Cafes in Asian countries.
I'm not trying to dilute TFA's message, not by any means. I think it is worth noting, though, that the author of TFA is dead on right about this game - and saw that much - and yet most people I know wouldn't think he played much at all. As he states in TFA - there are people who play 10 hours a day - I know dozens (if not more) people who play every concious hour of their lives. For a time, I was one of them.
The author of TFA compares WoW to drugs. A rightful comparison in my opinion. The effects it has on your life, your body are not too dissimilar from those of drugs.
I, personally, wish I had never played it. And despite the fact that I love freedom - nothing would please me more than to see that fucking game sent back to the hell it came from.
My brother, whom still plays, once started using a bot. And still does, for a long time now. Disappointed, I asked; 'Why would you do that, bro? You're gonna get banned.' -- his reply was simple; 'God, I hope I do.' A feeling echoed by thousands of WoW players on a regular basis, I'd imagine. Most people I know wish they could quit, but can't seem to find it within themselves to do so. If there was a 'perma-ban me' button in your WoW account management - I think WoW's subscriber base would drop by 1/3rd or more in just weeks - all people who want to quit but simply lack the selfcontrol to do it. (Hello drug addict)
I can't imagine Blizzard could claim ignorance to the effects WoW is having on peoples lives, and by design - as TFA makes takes good notice of. As such, the question arrises; What, if any, liability should Blizzard take. To me, I see them simply as a legal drug dealer, ruining lives for profit. Making wonderful and involving games is one thing - it seems to me what WoW is, is a totally seperate creature.
As I mentioned earlier - aside from pure selfcontrol - there simply is no way to quit. Video game addiction is very real - and as much as I personally hate to admit a lack of self-control -- I certainly wish there was a way to quit aside from the self-control I lacked, with regards to WoW. In fact, I didn't quit - it wasn't until I ganked some lowbie Alliance player for almost four hours straight that my account was permanently closed for behaviour contrary to the essence of WoW.
Had that not happened - I'm sure my life would be worse, still, and I would be playing that game right now instead of typing this message. After which I will go have a nice lunch, again -- something I would not do if I played WoW. I would order in - so as to not lose precious play time.
Telephones, household chemicals, new soaps... diapers, creams, etc.. There are a lot of new techologies whose use has increased steadily since the 80's.
Aside from use increasing with autism diagnosis, I failed to find a valid link in the paper (though admittedly I skimmed most of it).
Hell, maybe in the last 20 years our ability to identify autism has just gotten better.