<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_19_078220</id>
	<title>Valve's Battle Against Cheaters</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266567180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>wjousts writes <i>"IEEE Spectrum takes a look behind the scenes at <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gaming/steamed-valve-software-battles-videogame-cheaters">Valve's on-going efforts to battle cheaters</a> in online games: 'Cheating is a superserious threat,' says [Steam's lead engineer, John] Cook. 'Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.' The company combats this with its own Valve Anti-Cheat System, which a user consents to install in the Steam subscriber agreement. Cook says the software gets around anti-virus programs by handling all the operations that require administrator access to the user's machine. So, how important is preventing cheating? How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field? 'Valve also looks for changes within the player's computer processor's memory, which might indicate that cheat code is running.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>wjousts writes " IEEE Spectrum takes a look behind the scenes at Valve 's on-going efforts to battle cheaters in online games : 'Cheating is a superserious threat, ' says [ Steam 's lead engineer , John ] Cook .
'Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy .
' The company combats this with its own Valve Anti-Cheat System , which a user consents to install in the Steam subscriber agreement .
Cook says the software gets around anti-virus programs by handling all the operations that require administrator access to the user 's machine .
So , how important is preventing cheating ?
How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field ?
'Valve also looks for changes within the player 's computer processor 's memory , which might indicate that cheat code is running .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wjousts writes "IEEE Spectrum takes a look behind the scenes at Valve's on-going efforts to battle cheaters in online games: 'Cheating is a superserious threat,' says [Steam's lead engineer, John] Cook.
'Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.
' The company combats this with its own Valve Anti-Cheat System, which a user consents to install in the Steam subscriber agreement.
Cook says the software gets around anti-virus programs by handling all the operations that require administrator access to the user's machine.
So, how important is preventing cheating?
How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field?
'Valve also looks for changes within the player's computer processor's memory, which might indicate that cheat code is running.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203158</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1266570420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a few times. TF2 is best played on large gaming community servers like Doorman is God or No Heroes. I pay four bucks a month (No Heroes) and have some nice perks like not getting killed at the end of a round, immune to auto balance and swap teams as I see fit. We always are on the lookout for cheaters and so far I caught one who of course was just being a dick. His spray was gay pron as well as his steam icon and he was a sniper. So after spectating him for a bit it was obvious he was cheating and I type !callforhelp in chat and within a minute an admin was there and banned him.</p><p>Once me and my brother came across an interesting TF2 cheat program. A player was of course the sniper and getting one headshot after another. It was obvious he was cheating but when everyone tried to spectate him he suddenly wasn't getting all of those impossible head shots. So we determined his cheat alerted him when he was being watched or disabled itself. So I decided to leave my computer and go make a sandwich while I was spectating him. After about three minutes he wasn't hitting a damn thing so he quit and I wasn't hungry anymore. Never saw that hack again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a few times .
TF2 is best played on large gaming community servers like Doorman is God or No Heroes .
I pay four bucks a month ( No Heroes ) and have some nice perks like not getting killed at the end of a round , immune to auto balance and swap teams as I see fit .
We always are on the lookout for cheaters and so far I caught one who of course was just being a dick .
His spray was gay pron as well as his steam icon and he was a sniper .
So after spectating him for a bit it was obvious he was cheating and I type ! callforhelp in chat and within a minute an admin was there and banned him.Once me and my brother came across an interesting TF2 cheat program .
A player was of course the sniper and getting one headshot after another .
It was obvious he was cheating but when everyone tried to spectate him he suddenly was n't getting all of those impossible head shots .
So we determined his cheat alerted him when he was being watched or disabled itself .
So I decided to leave my computer and go make a sandwich while I was spectating him .
After about three minutes he was n't hitting a damn thing so he quit and I was n't hungry anymore .
Never saw that hack again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a few times.
TF2 is best played on large gaming community servers like Doorman is God or No Heroes.
I pay four bucks a month (No Heroes) and have some nice perks like not getting killed at the end of a round, immune to auto balance and swap teams as I see fit.
We always are on the lookout for cheaters and so far I caught one who of course was just being a dick.
His spray was gay pron as well as his steam icon and he was a sniper.
So after spectating him for a bit it was obvious he was cheating and I type !callforhelp in chat and within a minute an admin was there and banned him.Once me and my brother came across an interesting TF2 cheat program.
A player was of course the sniper and getting one headshot after another.
It was obvious he was cheating but when everyone tried to spectate him he suddenly wasn't getting all of those impossible head shots.
So we determined his cheat alerted him when he was being watched or disabled itself.
So I decided to leave my computer and go make a sandwich while I was spectating him.
After about three minutes he wasn't hitting a damn thing so he quit and I wasn't hungry anymore.
Never saw that hack again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200084</id>
	<title>oh wait. Valve time travels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266598920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In one breath Mr. Cook says: "Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.&rdquo; The problem first showed up on the company&rsquo;s radar in 2004, after it heard rumors that a cheater had devised a way to see through walls."<br>But later he says "In total, more than 20 000 cheaters have been blocked since 2002"<br>I'm impressed Mr. Cook that you claim Valve caught cheaters before you even state you knew about them, or even better before Valve even existed. So what is it 2004 or 2002?</p><p>If anyone looks PB has globally banned over 20,000 pay for cheat type cheater in just over a year and really made a dint so there are thousands of less scum still buying cheats. They are finding paying money doesn't protect them and better than public cheats and some cheat sellers have shut down. That has a lot bigger Wow factor than Valve's effort. I don't think Mr. Cook is getting much out of his 16 engineers. Quote: "Once code is suspected, it&rsquo;s turned into an incident report, which is analyzed by Cook&rsquo;s team of 16 engineers." Sorry but Phhfffft.</p><p>I've been doing anti cheat work since the mid 90's long before EvenBalance and Valve. I'm not impressed with Valve. But then what do I know, I'm just one guy and have only contributed my time and efforts longer than any of them. But I put my money 10:1 on PB not Valve. To me it is clear that they spend far more effort on PR than anti cheat work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In one breath Mr. Cook says : " Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.    The problem first showed up on the company    s radar in 2004 , after it heard rumors that a cheater had devised a way to see through walls .
" But later he says " In total , more than 20 000 cheaters have been blocked since 2002 " I 'm impressed Mr. Cook that you claim Valve caught cheaters before you even state you knew about them , or even better before Valve even existed .
So what is it 2004 or 2002 ? If anyone looks PB has globally banned over 20,000 pay for cheat type cheater in just over a year and really made a dint so there are thousands of less scum still buying cheats .
They are finding paying money does n't protect them and better than public cheats and some cheat sellers have shut down .
That has a lot bigger Wow factor than Valve 's effort .
I do n't think Mr. Cook is getting much out of his 16 engineers .
Quote : " Once code is suspected , it    s turned into an incident report , which is analyzed by Cook    s team of 16 engineers .
" Sorry but Phhfffft.I 've been doing anti cheat work since the mid 90 's long before EvenBalance and Valve .
I 'm not impressed with Valve .
But then what do I know , I 'm just one guy and have only contributed my time and efforts longer than any of them .
But I put my money 10 : 1 on PB not Valve .
To me it is clear that they spend far more effort on PR than anti cheat work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one breath Mr. Cook says: "Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.” The problem first showed up on the company’s radar in 2004, after it heard rumors that a cheater had devised a way to see through walls.
"But later he says "In total, more than 20 000 cheaters have been blocked since 2002"I'm impressed Mr. Cook that you claim Valve caught cheaters before you even state you knew about them, or even better before Valve even existed.
So what is it 2004 or 2002?If anyone looks PB has globally banned over 20,000 pay for cheat type cheater in just over a year and really made a dint so there are thousands of less scum still buying cheats.
They are finding paying money doesn't protect them and better than public cheats and some cheat sellers have shut down.
That has a lot bigger Wow factor than Valve's effort.
I don't think Mr. Cook is getting much out of his 16 engineers.
Quote: "Once code is suspected, it’s turned into an incident report, which is analyzed by Cook’s team of 16 engineers.
" Sorry but Phhfffft.I've been doing anti cheat work since the mid 90's long before EvenBalance and Valve.
I'm not impressed with Valve.
But then what do I know, I'm just one guy and have only contributed my time and efforts longer than any of them.
But I put my money 10:1 on PB not Valve.
To me it is clear that they spend far more effort on PR than anti cheat work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197896</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1266585480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I saw a cheater in TF2 once.</p><p>But largely my experience has been cheat-free.  Play on VAC servers and you should have a similar experience I would think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I saw a cheater in TF2 once.But largely my experience has been cheat-free .
Play on VAC servers and you should have a similar experience I would think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I saw a cheater in TF2 once.But largely my experience has been cheat-free.
Play on VAC servers and you should have a similar experience I would think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31208512</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1266698580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I met two cheaters. One guy was an engi running around pistolling everyone to death. His ally was a kritz medic. He kept killing snipers from across the map.</p><p>But I feel for cheating to be "rampant", you have to spot them <i>everywhere.</i></p><p>Left 4 Dead has/had rampant cheating. (the community has mostly died) I think I've lost perhaps 4 rounds in a year of play where the other side wasn't cheating. Cheaters are obvious though - they do stuff like locking on to unspawned boomers behind trucks, one-shotting a hunter that's pouncing from behind, then instantly shooting a zombie in front, etc.; another good clue is lag hax, where the player or infected warps around as soon as you shoot them, thus dodging you. Or when they noclip into the air and start gunning your tank down with an autoshotty that they pulled from nowhere, that's another good clue.</p><p>A few cheaters are more discreet, but most cheaters can be spotted with ease if you spec for a couple minutes. Either break out the ban hammer or mark it down as another loss (or sometimes win) to cheaters.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I met two cheaters .
One guy was an engi running around pistolling everyone to death .
His ally was a kritz medic .
He kept killing snipers from across the map.But I feel for cheating to be " rampant " , you have to spot them everywhere.Left 4 Dead has/had rampant cheating .
( the community has mostly died ) I think I 've lost perhaps 4 rounds in a year of play where the other side was n't cheating .
Cheaters are obvious though - they do stuff like locking on to unspawned boomers behind trucks , one-shotting a hunter that 's pouncing from behind , then instantly shooting a zombie in front , etc .
; another good clue is lag hax , where the player or infected warps around as soon as you shoot them , thus dodging you .
Or when they noclip into the air and start gunning your tank down with an autoshotty that they pulled from nowhere , that 's another good clue.A few cheaters are more discreet , but most cheaters can be spotted with ease if you spec for a couple minutes .
Either break out the ban hammer or mark it down as another loss ( or sometimes win ) to cheaters .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I met two cheaters.
One guy was an engi running around pistolling everyone to death.
His ally was a kritz medic.
He kept killing snipers from across the map.But I feel for cheating to be "rampant", you have to spot them everywhere.Left 4 Dead has/had rampant cheating.
(the community has mostly died) I think I've lost perhaps 4 rounds in a year of play where the other side wasn't cheating.
Cheaters are obvious though - they do stuff like locking on to unspawned boomers behind trucks, one-shotting a hunter that's pouncing from behind, then instantly shooting a zombie in front, etc.
; another good clue is lag hax, where the player or infected warps around as soon as you shoot them, thus dodging you.
Or when they noclip into the air and start gunning your tank down with an autoshotty that they pulled from nowhere, that's another good clue.A few cheaters are more discreet, but most cheaters can be spotted with ease if you spec for a couple minutes.
Either break out the ban hammer or mark it down as another loss (or sometimes win) to cheaters.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>ferrocene</author>
	<datestamp>1266577740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, as well, have been playing TF2 almost weekly since its release.  I have seen cheaters a few times.  It's pretty obvious, esp. when a sniper has 300 headshots in a row and is on top of the board.</p><p>Hell, one of the cheaters was even spamming the URL to a website where you can BUY the cheat, so he was demo'ing his warez, if you will.</p><p>The best part was when everyone dropped to spectator and spec'ed him while he was playing.  It was fascinating to watch the aimbot at work.  After 30 seconds of watching his screen from the scope perspective, anyone's doubts were quickly erased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , as well , have been playing TF2 almost weekly since its release .
I have seen cheaters a few times .
It 's pretty obvious , esp .
when a sniper has 300 headshots in a row and is on top of the board.Hell , one of the cheaters was even spamming the URL to a website where you can BUY the cheat , so he was demo'ing his warez , if you will.The best part was when everyone dropped to spectator and spec'ed him while he was playing .
It was fascinating to watch the aimbot at work .
After 30 seconds of watching his screen from the scope perspective , anyone 's doubts were quickly erased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, as well, have been playing TF2 almost weekly since its release.
I have seen cheaters a few times.
It's pretty obvious, esp.
when a sniper has 300 headshots in a row and is on top of the board.Hell, one of the cheaters was even spamming the URL to a website where you can BUY the cheat, so he was demo'ing his warez, if you will.The best part was when everyone dropped to spectator and spec'ed him while he was playing.
It was fascinating to watch the aimbot at work.
After 30 seconds of watching his screen from the scope perspective, anyone's doubts were quickly erased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197132</id>
	<title>Re:Threat to privacy?</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1266576900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VAC secured TF2 for Linux is platinum rated on Wine, depending on how buggy the most recent update of TF2 was (it varies <i>widely</i> from week to week)<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&amp;iId=9901" title="winehq.org">http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&amp;iId=9901</a> [winehq.org] <br>
&nbsp; <br>But for the most part it's very playable. Looks like today it's "just" silver. Heck I've gotten it to run briefly on my netbook using Ubuntu 9.10 netbook remix with the unsupported GMA 950 and an atom processor(!). Most of the bugs listed are bugs in the windows version too (like multicore support)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VAC secured TF2 for Linux is platinum rated on Wine , depending on how buggy the most recent update of TF2 was ( it varies widely from week to week )     http : //appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php ? sClass = version&amp;iId = 9901 [ winehq.org ]   But for the most part it 's very playable .
Looks like today it 's " just " silver .
Heck I 've gotten it to run briefly on my netbook using Ubuntu 9.10 netbook remix with the unsupported GMA 950 and an atom processor ( ! ) .
Most of the bugs listed are bugs in the windows version too ( like multicore support )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VAC secured TF2 for Linux is platinum rated on Wine, depending on how buggy the most recent update of TF2 was (it varies widely from week to week)
  
  http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&amp;iId=9901 [winehq.org] 
  But for the most part it's very playable.
Looks like today it's "just" silver.
Heck I've gotten it to run briefly on my netbook using Ubuntu 9.10 netbook remix with the unsupported GMA 950 and an atom processor(!).
Most of the bugs listed are bugs in the windows version too (like multicore support)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196970</id>
	<title>Re:Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>PatrickThomson</author>
	<datestamp>1266574980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody who works in the games industry has ever thought of your idea, tested it, and realised that it's an unfeasible proposal. Because valve don't read slashdot, they'll miss your comment and this groundbreaking new proposal to solve the problem of in-game cheating, which they took seriously enough to INVENT VAC. They certainly wouldn't already implement something very similar that simply neglects to transmit a player's location unless you have a line of sight. That's totally something they aren't already doing, and haven't been for several years, nay, almost a decade.</p><p>As for your second point, that's why VAC monitors the entire computer, and not just the game's binary. There are a family of aimbots that jiggle your cursor until it's over a "I'm a head" texture - so your circle of aim for an accurate headshot needs to just be within 100 pixels of any given face. These ones basically sit in memory, monitor the graphics drivers and tweak the mouse. Hence, such draconian methods to detect them *without false positives*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody who works in the games industry has ever thought of your idea , tested it , and realised that it 's an unfeasible proposal .
Because valve do n't read slashdot , they 'll miss your comment and this groundbreaking new proposal to solve the problem of in-game cheating , which they took seriously enough to INVENT VAC .
They certainly would n't already implement something very similar that simply neglects to transmit a player 's location unless you have a line of sight .
That 's totally something they are n't already doing , and have n't been for several years , nay , almost a decade.As for your second point , that 's why VAC monitors the entire computer , and not just the game 's binary .
There are a family of aimbots that jiggle your cursor until it 's over a " I 'm a head " texture - so your circle of aim for an accurate headshot needs to just be within 100 pixels of any given face .
These ones basically sit in memory , monitor the graphics drivers and tweak the mouse .
Hence , such draconian methods to detect them * without false positives * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody who works in the games industry has ever thought of your idea, tested it, and realised that it's an unfeasible proposal.
Because valve don't read slashdot, they'll miss your comment and this groundbreaking new proposal to solve the problem of in-game cheating, which they took seriously enough to INVENT VAC.
They certainly wouldn't already implement something very similar that simply neglects to transmit a player's location unless you have a line of sight.
That's totally something they aren't already doing, and haven't been for several years, nay, almost a decade.As for your second point, that's why VAC monitors the entire computer, and not just the game's binary.
There are a family of aimbots that jiggle your cursor until it's over a "I'm a head" texture - so your circle of aim for an accurate headshot needs to just be within 100 pixels of any given face.
These ones basically sit in memory, monitor the graphics drivers and tweak the mouse.
Hence, such draconian methods to detect them *without false positives*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197906</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1266585600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When their crosshair "locks on" to the closest enemy in view all the time with perfect accuracy... yeah.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When their crosshair " locks on " to the closest enemy in view all the time with perfect accuracy... yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When their crosshair "locks on" to the closest enemy in view all the time with perfect accuracy... yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201438</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266604920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course, most cheaters don't care about being caught by VAC a couple weeks down the road, because they usually lose access to whatever stolen account they are using at the moment long before VAC catches up to them.</p><p>Then, the hapless moron who got their account stolen gets stuck with a VAC ban forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , most cheaters do n't care about being caught by VAC a couple weeks down the road , because they usually lose access to whatever stolen account they are using at the moment long before VAC catches up to them.Then , the hapless moron who got their account stolen gets stuck with a VAC ban forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, most cheaters don't care about being caught by VAC a couple weeks down the road, because they usually lose access to whatever stolen account they are using at the moment long before VAC catches up to them.Then, the hapless moron who got their account stolen gets stuck with a VAC ban forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203020</id>
	<title>Don't ban the game box, ban the person</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1266613140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if, like credit cards or other 'real world' items, if players would put up with a system like:</p><p>1.  buy the game, enter your physically address, phone, name, etc..<br>2.  game company physically mails you a code to that address<br>3.  You can start playing right away, but the game will quit working if the physically mailed code isn't entered within 2 weeks (or longer/shorter depending on how long it takes for the mail to get to your house).<br>4.  If you are caught cheating, your physical address/name/phone is banned, not the game box identifier.</p><p>That way, even if you buy another game, you'd have to register it with a physical address.  And sure, you could probably use a friends, but eventually you are going to run out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if , like credit cards or other 'real world ' items , if players would put up with a system like : 1. buy the game , enter your physically address , phone , name , etc..2. game company physically mails you a code to that address3 .
You can start playing right away , but the game will quit working if the physically mailed code is n't entered within 2 weeks ( or longer/shorter depending on how long it takes for the mail to get to your house ) .4 .
If you are caught cheating , your physical address/name/phone is banned , not the game box identifier.That way , even if you buy another game , you 'd have to register it with a physical address .
And sure , you could probably use a friends , but eventually you are going to run out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if, like credit cards or other 'real world' items, if players would put up with a system like:1.  buy the game, enter your physically address, phone, name, etc..2.  game company physically mails you a code to that address3.
You can start playing right away, but the game will quit working if the physically mailed code isn't entered within 2 weeks (or longer/shorter depending on how long it takes for the mail to get to your house).4.
If you are caught cheating, your physical address/name/phone is banned, not the game box identifier.That way, even if you buy another game, you'd have to register it with a physical address.
And sure, you could probably use a friends, but eventually you are going to run out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197740</id>
	<title>Re:Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1266583740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is completely unworkable: it massively increases the amount of data that needs to be passed between client and server, and the amount of work the server must do, and makes movement far more pause-filled. If we were all on gigabit Ethernet on a local network, and all had top-of-the-line game machines, it might be workable. But not for reasonable hardware and modest network connections.</p><p>Also, certain triangles would be pretty recognizably face images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is completely unworkable : it massively increases the amount of data that needs to be passed between client and server , and the amount of work the server must do , and makes movement far more pause-filled .
If we were all on gigabit Ethernet on a local network , and all had top-of-the-line game machines , it might be workable .
But not for reasonable hardware and modest network connections.Also , certain triangles would be pretty recognizably face images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is completely unworkable: it massively increases the amount of data that needs to be passed between client and server, and the amount of work the server must do, and makes movement far more pause-filled.
If we were all on gigabit Ethernet on a local network, and all had top-of-the-line game machines, it might be workable.
But not for reasonable hardware and modest network connections.Also, certain triangles would be pretty recognizably face images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31235398</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking for the Counter-Strike community, VAC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266832080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in the civilized world, we like to play new games. I wish you the best of luck playing your old shit ware with your countrymen. P.S. The rest of the world has learned to shower, try it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the civilized world , we like to play new games .
I wish you the best of luck playing your old shit ware with your countrymen .
P.S. The rest of the world has learned to shower , try it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the civilized world, we like to play new games.
I wish you the best of luck playing your old shit ware with your countrymen.
P.S. The rest of the world has learned to shower, try it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196658</id>
	<title>Sacrificing privacy for games?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266571500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field?</p><p>None whatsoever! We are talking about effing games here!</p><p>And like someone else already mentioned: This "option" can be used by everybody, hence the playing field \_is\_ level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field ? None whatsoever !
We are talking about effing games here ! And like someone else already mentioned : This " option " can be used by everybody , hence the playing field \ _is \ _ level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice in the interests of a level playing field?None whatsoever!
We are talking about effing games here!And like someone else already mentioned: This "option" can be used by everybody, hence the playing field \_is\_ level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198036</id>
	<title>Cheating is enabled by the engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cheats such as Aimbots, Bunny-Hopping and Speed-hack are fairly obvious and easy to detect.  The results of such cheats are visible within the game.  Other cheats, such as Wall-hacks and Radar-hacks, are more difficult to discern and can only be detected by observing player actions over time.  Such cheats, however, are enabled by the game engine itself.  The engine provides the data of what is behind the wall, or what are all the player positions to each client.  In normal mode, the game does not present this information to the player.  The cheats utilize the available data and presents it to the player providing them an unfair advantage.  If the engine did not provide this information to the end-client PC, these cheats would not be able to work.  The engine needs to be designed so that this "extra" information is not made available to the end-player.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheats such as Aimbots , Bunny-Hopping and Speed-hack are fairly obvious and easy to detect .
The results of such cheats are visible within the game .
Other cheats , such as Wall-hacks and Radar-hacks , are more difficult to discern and can only be detected by observing player actions over time .
Such cheats , however , are enabled by the game engine itself .
The engine provides the data of what is behind the wall , or what are all the player positions to each client .
In normal mode , the game does not present this information to the player .
The cheats utilize the available data and presents it to the player providing them an unfair advantage .
If the engine did not provide this information to the end-client PC , these cheats would not be able to work .
The engine needs to be designed so that this " extra " information is not made available to the end-player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheats such as Aimbots, Bunny-Hopping and Speed-hack are fairly obvious and easy to detect.
The results of such cheats are visible within the game.
Other cheats, such as Wall-hacks and Radar-hacks, are more difficult to discern and can only be detected by observing player actions over time.
Such cheats, however, are enabled by the game engine itself.
The engine provides the data of what is behind the wall, or what are all the player positions to each client.
In normal mode, the game does not present this information to the player.
The cheats utilize the available data and presents it to the player providing them an unfair advantage.
If the engine did not provide this information to the end-client PC, these cheats would not be able to work.
The engine needs to be designed so that this "extra" information is not made available to the end-player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</id>
	<title>Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>Relic of the Future</author>
	<datestamp>1266574200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, here's my crazy (OR IS IT?) idea to fix this problem.  The reason things like aimbots work at all is because the server tells the client "this player's avatar is in such-and-such position"; for the good reason of, once your computer knows where someone is, it can draw them on the screen... but it's that same data that the aimbot uses to know precisely where to point.
<p>
So the crazy idea is this: don't tell the client systems where the avatars are located.  Maybe your system says "I'm here, looking this way", and all you get back is a bunch of data for drawing textured triangles.  Triangles might be part of another player's avatar, or a wall, or who knows what; but your system doesn't know of what it is either, so there's nothing for an aimbot to go on to do its thing.  It's more data, and more work for the server, but maybe it's not TOO MUCH more data or work for the server, and it'd be cheat-free.
</p><p>
(Unless you write some spiffy image recognition software, but hey, at least we get some advances in AI out of the deal that way...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , here 's my crazy ( OR IS IT ?
) idea to fix this problem .
The reason things like aimbots work at all is because the server tells the client " this player 's avatar is in such-and-such position " ; for the good reason of , once your computer knows where someone is , it can draw them on the screen... but it 's that same data that the aimbot uses to know precisely where to point .
So the crazy idea is this : do n't tell the client systems where the avatars are located .
Maybe your system says " I 'm here , looking this way " , and all you get back is a bunch of data for drawing textured triangles .
Triangles might be part of another player 's avatar , or a wall , or who knows what ; but your system does n't know of what it is either , so there 's nothing for an aimbot to go on to do its thing .
It 's more data , and more work for the server , but maybe it 's not TOO MUCH more data or work for the server , and it 'd be cheat-free .
( Unless you write some spiffy image recognition software , but hey , at least we get some advances in AI out of the deal that way... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, here's my crazy (OR IS IT?
) idea to fix this problem.
The reason things like aimbots work at all is because the server tells the client "this player's avatar is in such-and-such position"; for the good reason of, once your computer knows where someone is, it can draw them on the screen... but it's that same data that the aimbot uses to know precisely where to point.
So the crazy idea is this: don't tell the client systems where the avatars are located.
Maybe your system says "I'm here, looking this way", and all you get back is a bunch of data for drawing textured triangles.
Triangles might be part of another player's avatar, or a wall, or who knows what; but your system doesn't know of what it is either, so there's nothing for an aimbot to go on to do its thing.
It's more data, and more work for the server, but maybe it's not TOO MUCH more data or work for the server, and it'd be cheat-free.
(Unless you write some spiffy image recognition software, but hey, at least we get some advances in AI out of the deal that way...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201530</id>
	<title>a big advantage of dedicated servers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266605280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... is that the guys that admin the server can observe and ban the cheaters.</p><p>I have always ended up gravitating to the dedicated servers that are well-managed<br>by clans or admins and enforce rules and general good behavior, because those are<br>the servers that are enjoyable to play on.</p><p>I have spent long, thoroughly enjoyable nights playing COD4 on such servers.</p><p>I never spend more than 15 minutes playing COD:MW2 because I cannot select such a<br>server.  I invariably end up with a bunch of immature knuckleheads, and we frequently<br>observe cheaters that we can't do anything about.</p><p>The fact that you can customize your dedicated server to enhance the game<br>(realism mods, etc.) is another major perk.</p><p>So really -- the best anti-cheat is to play with mature people who have the<br>power to boot the jerks off the server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... is that the guys that admin the server can observe and ban the cheaters.I have always ended up gravitating to the dedicated servers that are well-managedby clans or admins and enforce rules and general good behavior , because those arethe servers that are enjoyable to play on.I have spent long , thoroughly enjoyable nights playing COD4 on such servers.I never spend more than 15 minutes playing COD : MW2 because I can not select such aserver .
I invariably end up with a bunch of immature knuckleheads , and we frequentlyobserve cheaters that we ca n't do anything about.The fact that you can customize your dedicated server to enhance the game ( realism mods , etc .
) is another major perk.So really -- the best anti-cheat is to play with mature people who have thepower to boot the jerks off the server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... is that the guys that admin the server can observe and ban the cheaters.I have always ended up gravitating to the dedicated servers that are well-managedby clans or admins and enforce rules and general good behavior, because those arethe servers that are enjoyable to play on.I have spent long, thoroughly enjoyable nights playing COD4 on such servers.I never spend more than 15 minutes playing COD:MW2 because I cannot select such aserver.
I invariably end up with a bunch of immature knuckleheads, and we frequentlyobserve cheaters that we can't do anything about.The fact that you can customize your dedicated server to enhance the game(realism mods, etc.
) is another major perk.So really -- the best anti-cheat is to play with mature people who have thepower to boot the jerks off the server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198634</id>
	<title>Re:The casualties of the battle are ...</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1266591960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got any evidence for your claims? because I've yet to hear of such a case from any of the people I regularly play with on any VAC-enabled game I own. Punkbuster, yeah, they kick you out for the stupidest reasons (I believe until recently it detected ATI's Control Center as a 'cheat', and still does for the Steam Overlay), but it's a) just a kick, not a ban, and b) not VAC and therefore not Valve's responsability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got any evidence for your claims ?
because I 've yet to hear of such a case from any of the people I regularly play with on any VAC-enabled game I own .
Punkbuster , yeah , they kick you out for the stupidest reasons ( I believe until recently it detected ATI 's Control Center as a 'cheat ' , and still does for the Steam Overlay ) , but it 's a ) just a kick , not a ban , and b ) not VAC and therefore not Valve 's responsability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got any evidence for your claims?
because I've yet to hear of such a case from any of the people I regularly play with on any VAC-enabled game I own.
Punkbuster, yeah, they kick you out for the stupidest reasons (I believe until recently it detected ATI's Control Center as a 'cheat', and still does for the Steam Overlay), but it's a) just a kick, not a ban, and b) not VAC and therefore not Valve's responsability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196648</id>
	<title>superserious</title>
	<author>thenextstevejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1266571380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't know that saying that something was a "serious" threat didn't carry enough weight anymore. And in regards to cheating in an online game? Yeah. Hellaserious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know that saying that something was a " serious " threat did n't carry enough weight anymore .
And in regards to cheating in an online game ?
Yeah. Hellaserious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know that saying that something was a "serious" threat didn't carry enough weight anymore.
And in regards to cheating in an online game?
Yeah. Hellaserious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200790</id>
	<title>Cheating?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Valve would get a lot of cheaters when they extend the definition of cheating to include abusing their random drop system that rewards people for time played, causing people to connect to servers and idle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Valve would get a lot of cheaters when they extend the definition of cheating to include abusing their random drop system that rewards people for time played , causing people to connect to servers and idle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Valve would get a lot of cheaters when they extend the definition of cheating to include abusing their random drop system that rewards people for time played, causing people to connect to servers and idle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198026</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or it was a BOT that was playing and advertising the cheat...Its very common in CS atleast..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it was a BOT that was playing and advertising the cheat...Its very common in CS atleast. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it was a BOT that was playing and advertising the cheat...Its very common in CS atleast..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197434</id>
	<title>Maybe a bit too zealous</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1266580200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A while back, my account was hacked. I've no idea how they got access to it, but it was shortly after i downloaded some indie game that was kinda like tron. Anyway, i contacted valve support, had them reset my password. But when i got back into my account, it was vac banned, meaning i couldnt play anything online. I asked valve to undo this, and they metaphorically flipped me off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A while back , my account was hacked .
I 've no idea how they got access to it , but it was shortly after i downloaded some indie game that was kinda like tron .
Anyway , i contacted valve support , had them reset my password .
But when i got back into my account , it was vac banned , meaning i couldnt play anything online .
I asked valve to undo this , and they metaphorically flipped me off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A while back, my account was hacked.
I've no idea how they got access to it, but it was shortly after i downloaded some indie game that was kinda like tron.
Anyway, i contacted valve support, had them reset my password.
But when i got back into my account, it was vac banned, meaning i couldnt play anything online.
I asked valve to undo this, and they metaphorically flipped me off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201830</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating is enabled by the engine</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1266606720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The engine needs to be designed so that this "extra" information is not made available to the end-player.</p></div><p>Latency requirements for this are such that it is infeasible for any kind of Internet connectivity. To put it very simple, consider a ping of 100ms (generally considered okay to play). Think about how far can the player move or turn in 100ms, and how much of the screen would need to be redrawn from world data not used before. That's how much "flicker" you'd get (since the client won't be able to redraw until it gets that information from the server).</p><p>Games have to interpolate things on the client to show a smooth picture, but that necessitates passing enough data that they can do so in the face of reasonable network latency.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The engine needs to be designed so that this " extra " information is not made available to the end-player.Latency requirements for this are such that it is infeasible for any kind of Internet connectivity .
To put it very simple , consider a ping of 100ms ( generally considered okay to play ) .
Think about how far can the player move or turn in 100ms , and how much of the screen would need to be redrawn from world data not used before .
That 's how much " flicker " you 'd get ( since the client wo n't be able to redraw until it gets that information from the server ) .Games have to interpolate things on the client to show a smooth picture , but that necessitates passing enough data that they can do so in the face of reasonable network latency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The engine needs to be designed so that this "extra" information is not made available to the end-player.Latency requirements for this are such that it is infeasible for any kind of Internet connectivity.
To put it very simple, consider a ping of 100ms (generally considered okay to play).
Think about how far can the player move or turn in 100ms, and how much of the screen would need to be redrawn from world data not used before.
That's how much "flicker" you'd get (since the client won't be able to redraw until it gets that information from the server).Games have to interpolate things on the client to show a smooth picture, but that necessitates passing enough data that they can do so in the face of reasonable network latency.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198002</id>
	<title>Re:The casualties of the battle are ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266586680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hardware failures and software bugs."</p><p>What hardware "failure" looks like a wire grid and wallhack on screenshots? And why should I as a server admin care if you unknowingly or willfully used this bug?</p><p>What software "bugs" will have a detection signature like the latest aimbot? Which software bug will produce a registry entry and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..\system32-fallout like a wallhack?</p><p>We know how likely an md5 hash collision is with hack X and legitimate program Y. Not very. With an increasing number of wallhacks and legitimate programs, we will see hash collisions sooner or later, but I'm not really convinced unless you have dozens of very very rare but innocent programs on your system that no one else has AND anyone else having them is also banned.</p><p>Think of the online arena like a dance club: you paid for entry and yet the bouncers can throw you out at the first hint of trouble. And all other guests are cheering and complimenting them for doing so. A few dimwits, idjits and griefers can just cause so much fallout in such a short time that even drastic and unwarranted measures are usually applauded by the audience.</p><p>Face it: bouncers and anti-cheat admins don't have the resources to assess every single case pondering over preponderance of evidence. It would twentyfold the cost of operating a dance club or game server and most customers are not willing not pay for a Constitution-class jury system.</p><p>If the choice is having "1 collateral damage for 50 cheaters banned" or "0 collateral damage for 25 cheaters banned" - or a huge increase in paralegal costs for the server admin, I will opt for the collateral damage. War is not fair anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hardware failures and software bugs .
" What hardware " failure " looks like a wire grid and wallhack on screenshots ?
And why should I as a server admin care if you unknowingly or willfully used this bug ? What software " bugs " will have a detection signature like the latest aimbot ?
Which software bug will produce a registry entry and .. \ system32-fallout like a wallhack ? We know how likely an md5 hash collision is with hack X and legitimate program Y. Not very .
With an increasing number of wallhacks and legitimate programs , we will see hash collisions sooner or later , but I 'm not really convinced unless you have dozens of very very rare but innocent programs on your system that no one else has AND anyone else having them is also banned.Think of the online arena like a dance club : you paid for entry and yet the bouncers can throw you out at the first hint of trouble .
And all other guests are cheering and complimenting them for doing so .
A few dimwits , idjits and griefers can just cause so much fallout in such a short time that even drastic and unwarranted measures are usually applauded by the audience.Face it : bouncers and anti-cheat admins do n't have the resources to assess every single case pondering over preponderance of evidence .
It would twentyfold the cost of operating a dance club or game server and most customers are not willing not pay for a Constitution-class jury system.If the choice is having " 1 collateral damage for 50 cheaters banned " or " 0 collateral damage for 25 cheaters banned " - or a huge increase in paralegal costs for the server admin , I will opt for the collateral damage .
War is not fair anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hardware failures and software bugs.
"What hardware "failure" looks like a wire grid and wallhack on screenshots?
And why should I as a server admin care if you unknowingly or willfully used this bug?What software "bugs" will have a detection signature like the latest aimbot?
Which software bug will produce a registry entry and ..\system32-fallout like a wallhack?We know how likely an md5 hash collision is with hack X and legitimate program Y. Not very.
With an increasing number of wallhacks and legitimate programs, we will see hash collisions sooner or later, but I'm not really convinced unless you have dozens of very very rare but innocent programs on your system that no one else has AND anyone else having them is also banned.Think of the online arena like a dance club: you paid for entry and yet the bouncers can throw you out at the first hint of trouble.
And all other guests are cheering and complimenting them for doing so.
A few dimwits, idjits and griefers can just cause so much fallout in such a short time that even drastic and unwarranted measures are usually applauded by the audience.Face it: bouncers and anti-cheat admins don't have the resources to assess every single case pondering over preponderance of evidence.
It would twentyfold the cost of operating a dance club or game server and most customers are not willing not pay for a Constitution-class jury system.If the choice is having "1 collateral damage for 50 cheaters banned" or "0 collateral damage for 25 cheaters banned" - or a huge increase in paralegal costs for the server admin, I will opt for the collateral damage.
War is not fair anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200116</id>
	<title>you guys missed this opportunity?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266599100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Cheaters? In mah TF2?!"</p><p>(is it more likely then I think?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cheaters ?
In mah TF2 ? !
" ( is it more likely then I think ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cheaters?
In mah TF2?!
"(is it more likely then I think?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31208786</id>
	<title>What about better karma systems?</title>
	<author>pandrijeczko</author>
	<datestamp>1266660900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a great fan of eBay but the positive/negative feedback thing they use does help weed out untrustworthy sellers on there.</p><p>So why not extend this as a karma system into gaming? If I have had a really enjoyable half-hour Unreal Tournament fragfest on an online server, I certainly wouldn't mind putting a tick against other players names, or a cross against someone who I thought was cheating...</p><p>Take it a stage further and have game servers with minimum karma limits before you can get on them...</p><p>I don't play WoW, friends of mine do, and they moan about being pestered by annoying players - so, again, introduce a karma system and make certain areas of the game, or game items, unobtainable until you have a certain karma level...</p><p>I have never, ever, ever, understood the point of cheating unless there is something to be gained (like money) - whether it's a board game or an online game, the sheer *FUN* of using your wits to use the game rules to your advantage is what it's about, and winning is just the icing on the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a great fan of eBay but the positive/negative feedback thing they use does help weed out untrustworthy sellers on there.So why not extend this as a karma system into gaming ?
If I have had a really enjoyable half-hour Unreal Tournament fragfest on an online server , I certainly would n't mind putting a tick against other players names , or a cross against someone who I thought was cheating...Take it a stage further and have game servers with minimum karma limits before you can get on them...I do n't play WoW , friends of mine do , and they moan about being pestered by annoying players - so , again , introduce a karma system and make certain areas of the game , or game items , unobtainable until you have a certain karma level...I have never , ever , ever , understood the point of cheating unless there is something to be gained ( like money ) - whether it 's a board game or an online game , the sheer * FUN * of using your wits to use the game rules to your advantage is what it 's about , and winning is just the icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a great fan of eBay but the positive/negative feedback thing they use does help weed out untrustworthy sellers on there.So why not extend this as a karma system into gaming?
If I have had a really enjoyable half-hour Unreal Tournament fragfest on an online server, I certainly wouldn't mind putting a tick against other players names, or a cross against someone who I thought was cheating...Take it a stage further and have game servers with minimum karma limits before you can get on them...I don't play WoW, friends of mine do, and they moan about being pestered by annoying players - so, again, introduce a karma system and make certain areas of the game, or game items, unobtainable until you have a certain karma level...I have never, ever, ever, understood the point of cheating unless there is something to be gained (like money) - whether it's a board game or an online game, the sheer *FUN* of using your wits to use the game rules to your advantage is what it's about, and winning is just the icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198078</id>
	<title>Re:Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1266587640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could do the entire graphics processing server-side with only a video stream transferred to the client. This is less bandwidth-intensive than outsourcing the things that travel the PCIe bus on a traditional gaming system.</p><p>The cloud-gaming start-ups are trying to do precisely that, BTW,</p><p>And you would still have the problem of client-side programs looking for patterns in the image, which would cause cheaters insane amounts of work to continue their deeds.</p><p>This will work wonders in realistic shooters where people usually are behind cover heads down or shot at in an instant even without other people cheating.</p><p>At realistic distances for rifle engagements, the "I'm a head" texture in these cases is only half a pixel wide, so pattern detection will have no chance of determining it. The rest of the avatar texture is only a few pixels wide and camouflaged - a pattern matching is going to be hard and if it succeeds straight to DARPA price money.</p><p>With avatars behind covers or inside buildings, there's nothing to draw at all, so the client will never know someone is there until they actually try to shoot through the wall.</p><p>With server-side processing, no avatar can turn around faster than a human could command, so no insta-turns when someone creeps up the cheater's sniping position.</p><p>A client-side pattern matching algorithm can still help, but not by a huge amount. Since the aimbot cannot aim faster than a human could with server-side processing, it would just mimic a very quick shooter and not help anything at all in enemy prediction and tactics. When your opponent has enough time to aim, you're doing it wrong anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could do the entire graphics processing server-side with only a video stream transferred to the client .
This is less bandwidth-intensive than outsourcing the things that travel the PCIe bus on a traditional gaming system.The cloud-gaming start-ups are trying to do precisely that , BTW,And you would still have the problem of client-side programs looking for patterns in the image , which would cause cheaters insane amounts of work to continue their deeds.This will work wonders in realistic shooters where people usually are behind cover heads down or shot at in an instant even without other people cheating.At realistic distances for rifle engagements , the " I 'm a head " texture in these cases is only half a pixel wide , so pattern detection will have no chance of determining it .
The rest of the avatar texture is only a few pixels wide and camouflaged - a pattern matching is going to be hard and if it succeeds straight to DARPA price money.With avatars behind covers or inside buildings , there 's nothing to draw at all , so the client will never know someone is there until they actually try to shoot through the wall.With server-side processing , no avatar can turn around faster than a human could command , so no insta-turns when someone creeps up the cheater 's sniping position.A client-side pattern matching algorithm can still help , but not by a huge amount .
Since the aimbot can not aim faster than a human could with server-side processing , it would just mimic a very quick shooter and not help anything at all in enemy prediction and tactics .
When your opponent has enough time to aim , you 're doing it wrong anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could do the entire graphics processing server-side with only a video stream transferred to the client.
This is less bandwidth-intensive than outsourcing the things that travel the PCIe bus on a traditional gaming system.The cloud-gaming start-ups are trying to do precisely that, BTW,And you would still have the problem of client-side programs looking for patterns in the image, which would cause cheaters insane amounts of work to continue their deeds.This will work wonders in realistic shooters where people usually are behind cover heads down or shot at in an instant even without other people cheating.At realistic distances for rifle engagements, the "I'm a head" texture in these cases is only half a pixel wide, so pattern detection will have no chance of determining it.
The rest of the avatar texture is only a few pixels wide and camouflaged - a pattern matching is going to be hard and if it succeeds straight to DARPA price money.With avatars behind covers or inside buildings, there's nothing to draw at all, so the client will never know someone is there until they actually try to shoot through the wall.With server-side processing, no avatar can turn around faster than a human could command, so no insta-turns when someone creeps up the cheater's sniping position.A client-side pattern matching algorithm can still help, but not by a huge amount.
Since the aimbot cannot aim faster than a human could with server-side processing, it would just mimic a very quick shooter and not help anything at all in enemy prediction and tactics.
When your opponent has enough time to aim, you're doing it wrong anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197214</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>Radtoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266577740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not the same. Whether you are too risk averse or not to deal with a "slightly badly rated" person or worse is a decision that only affects you on Amazon or eBay.
<br> <br>
However, gamers come in groups. Groups of friends, groups of people on a server etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... This is making things much more difficult. Besides that people will be extremely inconsistent in actually giving other people negative reputation (plays too bad, plays too well, has too high a voice, talks too much, doesn't seem focused enough...), they also may game the system as groups (giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation), have many identities, and more. And if one person gets banned, all of his friends and their friends may leave the game.
<br> <br>
I'm pretty sure if you go that way, its not going to be represented well in the financial bottom line.You pretty much need an unbiased technical supervisor to combat cheating...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not the same .
Whether you are too risk averse or not to deal with a " slightly badly rated " person or worse is a decision that only affects you on Amazon or eBay .
However , gamers come in groups .
Groups of friends , groups of people on a server etc .
... This is making things much more difficult .
Besides that people will be extremely inconsistent in actually giving other people negative reputation ( plays too bad , plays too well , has too high a voice , talks too much , does n't seem focused enough... ) , they also may game the system as groups ( giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation ) , have many identities , and more .
And if one person gets banned , all of his friends and their friends may leave the game .
I 'm pretty sure if you go that way , its not going to be represented well in the financial bottom line.You pretty much need an unbiased technical supervisor to combat cheating.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not the same.
Whether you are too risk averse or not to deal with a "slightly badly rated" person or worse is a decision that only affects you on Amazon or eBay.
However, gamers come in groups.
Groups of friends, groups of people on a server etc.
... This is making things much more difficult.
Besides that people will be extremely inconsistent in actually giving other people negative reputation (plays too bad, plays too well, has too high a voice, talks too much, doesn't seem focused enough...), they also may game the system as groups (giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation), have many identities, and more.
And if one person gets banned, all of his friends and their friends may leave the game.
I'm pretty sure if you go that way, its not going to be represented well in the financial bottom line.You pretty much need an unbiased technical supervisor to combat cheating...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199440</id>
	<title>Re:Total, utter gobshitery</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1266595920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that Valve <strong>already</strong> does Hitbox Detection on the server.  However, some of their games do lag adjustment based on your ping times (which is why in TF2 you ocassionally see headshots around corners).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that Valve already does Hitbox Detection on the server .
However , some of their games do lag adjustment based on your ping times ( which is why in TF2 you ocassionally see headshots around corners ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that Valve already does Hitbox Detection on the server.
However, some of their games do lag adjustment based on your ping times (which is why in TF2 you ocassionally see headshots around corners).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197144</id>
	<title>Total, utter gobshitery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266576960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're so <em>super-serial</em> about cheating, why oh why oh why do they keep developing games with vulnerabilities <em>designed in</em>?

</p><p>Whack-a-hack is always a losing prospect.  If you trust the client, then you're boned.  There are far more people with far more incentive trying to pop your cheat cherry than you've got available to protect your virtue.  Your best case scenario is that you make a profit before your game is totally owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're so super-serial about cheating , why oh why oh why do they keep developing games with vulnerabilities designed in ?
Whack-a-hack is always a losing prospect .
If you trust the client , then you 're boned .
There are far more people with far more incentive trying to pop your cheat cherry than you 've got available to protect your virtue .
Your best case scenario is that you make a profit before your game is totally owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're so super-serial about cheating, why oh why oh why do they keep developing games with vulnerabilities designed in?
Whack-a-hack is always a losing prospect.
If you trust the client, then you're boned.
There are far more people with far more incentive trying to pop your cheat cherry than you've got available to protect your virtue.
Your best case scenario is that you make a profit before your game is totally owned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199598</id>
	<title>Once again valve =fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266596700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again I find myself writing about this subject from an insider point of view.</p><p>Valves closed methods simply don't work against cheaters. Not only do they use the lie that they delay bans in order to catch more cheaters but there simply are no tools for server admins to control the environment of their servers that they pay good money for. Valve doesn't delay their kicks and bans because it is a strategy. They do it because they don't take cheat research and generating the detection seriously enough. Not being staff there I can't however comment on exactly how many staff are doing detection work but it's obviously not enough. There are public cheats around that have been openly used for months now and they still go undetected. Valve has never had the ability to even deal with the pay to cheat sites let alone what are considered private cheats. No one at valve can say they are on top of it as this is simply not true. PunkBuster by EvenBalance on the other hand, can claim significant success there.</p><p>Punkbuster is far better at cheat detection and their suite of tools gives admins control over the extended abilities to tailor who they keep off their server. They're violations come usually within a week and their global guid bans very often include so called private pay cheats, something Valve has never had ability to deal with. Just look at this site that reports EvenBalance hitting these pay cheats. http://BustedPunks.com I see tens of thousands getting whacked. Some pay sites have shut down. Valve has never been able to make this claim. For years I have tracked EvenBalance and Valve. Valve is certainly PB's poor amateur cousin by comparison.</p><p>Then to top it all off there is a solid game server admin community behind PB. Not as and advert but because I'm part of this community for many years and so I know it well. I will give you an example; The professionals at http://PunksBusted.com ( known commonly as PsB). This allows game server admins to join a united front to keep cheating PB  player guids off all member servers. Cheat on one server and the guid is banned on all member servers. PsB is using a complex system to generate a common Master Ban List (MBL) derived from PB violations, Screen Shots and MD5 checks etc. Thisl ist goes out automatically to all the game servers. Among the league and admin communities PsB is the gold standard for keeping their matches significantly more clean of cheats than any other methods out there. There are amateur run anti-cheat sites around, but PsB was the first and the largest one that has always set the standards these others simply follow. PsB's system is not just a ban list and goes far deeper along with automated correction system, appeal system, admin support, player searches etc., etc. Valve? What has Valve got. Valve has nothing compared to the level of organization the PB using game server community has available to it and yes things like PsB's MBL is very accurate as the admins using it will confirm. I haven't even scratched the surface on how extensive this is or the benefits it offers compared to Valve. There is one thing that every game admin that is familiar with PsB knows. You get a much cleaner game when playing on a PsB streaming server than any server using valve's half assed attempt.</p><p>For all the faults that cheat detection can be accused of. PB is far superior and successful by miles compared to Valve. Anyone above the casual player knows PB is miles ahead and a PB servers also using PsB's system jumps a step above that. Oh and PsB will soon be even better. Expect an unmatched jump in abilities from PsB very soon. They are in major rewrite closed beta of their systems at the time of this writing. It is so advanced and secure it will make all the amateur anti-cheat sites efforts obsolete. What has Valve done in all these years being a closed under supported effort? To me and many game server admins, that answer is easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again I find myself writing about this subject from an insider point of view.Valves closed methods simply do n't work against cheaters .
Not only do they use the lie that they delay bans in order to catch more cheaters but there simply are no tools for server admins to control the environment of their servers that they pay good money for .
Valve does n't delay their kicks and bans because it is a strategy .
They do it because they do n't take cheat research and generating the detection seriously enough .
Not being staff there I ca n't however comment on exactly how many staff are doing detection work but it 's obviously not enough .
There are public cheats around that have been openly used for months now and they still go undetected .
Valve has never had the ability to even deal with the pay to cheat sites let alone what are considered private cheats .
No one at valve can say they are on top of it as this is simply not true .
PunkBuster by EvenBalance on the other hand , can claim significant success there.Punkbuster is far better at cheat detection and their suite of tools gives admins control over the extended abilities to tailor who they keep off their server .
They 're violations come usually within a week and their global guid bans very often include so called private pay cheats , something Valve has never had ability to deal with .
Just look at this site that reports EvenBalance hitting these pay cheats .
http : //BustedPunks.com I see tens of thousands getting whacked .
Some pay sites have shut down .
Valve has never been able to make this claim .
For years I have tracked EvenBalance and Valve .
Valve is certainly PB 's poor amateur cousin by comparison.Then to top it all off there is a solid game server admin community behind PB .
Not as and advert but because I 'm part of this community for many years and so I know it well .
I will give you an example ; The professionals at http : //PunksBusted.com ( known commonly as PsB ) .
This allows game server admins to join a united front to keep cheating PB player guids off all member servers .
Cheat on one server and the guid is banned on all member servers .
PsB is using a complex system to generate a common Master Ban List ( MBL ) derived from PB violations , Screen Shots and MD5 checks etc .
Thisl ist goes out automatically to all the game servers .
Among the league and admin communities PsB is the gold standard for keeping their matches significantly more clean of cheats than any other methods out there .
There are amateur run anti-cheat sites around , but PsB was the first and the largest one that has always set the standards these others simply follow .
PsB 's system is not just a ban list and goes far deeper along with automated correction system , appeal system , admin support , player searches etc. , etc .
Valve ? What has Valve got .
Valve has nothing compared to the level of organization the PB using game server community has available to it and yes things like PsB 's MBL is very accurate as the admins using it will confirm .
I have n't even scratched the surface on how extensive this is or the benefits it offers compared to Valve .
There is one thing that every game admin that is familiar with PsB knows .
You get a much cleaner game when playing on a PsB streaming server than any server using valve 's half assed attempt.For all the faults that cheat detection can be accused of .
PB is far superior and successful by miles compared to Valve .
Anyone above the casual player knows PB is miles ahead and a PB servers also using PsB 's system jumps a step above that .
Oh and PsB will soon be even better .
Expect an unmatched jump in abilities from PsB very soon .
They are in major rewrite closed beta of their systems at the time of this writing .
It is so advanced and secure it will make all the amateur anti-cheat sites efforts obsolete .
What has Valve done in all these years being a closed under supported effort ?
To me and many game server admins , that answer is easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again I find myself writing about this subject from an insider point of view.Valves closed methods simply don't work against cheaters.
Not only do they use the lie that they delay bans in order to catch more cheaters but there simply are no tools for server admins to control the environment of their servers that they pay good money for.
Valve doesn't delay their kicks and bans because it is a strategy.
They do it because they don't take cheat research and generating the detection seriously enough.
Not being staff there I can't however comment on exactly how many staff are doing detection work but it's obviously not enough.
There are public cheats around that have been openly used for months now and they still go undetected.
Valve has never had the ability to even deal with the pay to cheat sites let alone what are considered private cheats.
No one at valve can say they are on top of it as this is simply not true.
PunkBuster by EvenBalance on the other hand, can claim significant success there.Punkbuster is far better at cheat detection and their suite of tools gives admins control over the extended abilities to tailor who they keep off their server.
They're violations come usually within a week and their global guid bans very often include so called private pay cheats, something Valve has never had ability to deal with.
Just look at this site that reports EvenBalance hitting these pay cheats.
http://BustedPunks.com I see tens of thousands getting whacked.
Some pay sites have shut down.
Valve has never been able to make this claim.
For years I have tracked EvenBalance and Valve.
Valve is certainly PB's poor amateur cousin by comparison.Then to top it all off there is a solid game server admin community behind PB.
Not as and advert but because I'm part of this community for many years and so I know it well.
I will give you an example; The professionals at http://PunksBusted.com ( known commonly as PsB).
This allows game server admins to join a united front to keep cheating PB  player guids off all member servers.
Cheat on one server and the guid is banned on all member servers.
PsB is using a complex system to generate a common Master Ban List (MBL) derived from PB violations, Screen Shots and MD5 checks etc.
Thisl ist goes out automatically to all the game servers.
Among the league and admin communities PsB is the gold standard for keeping their matches significantly more clean of cheats than any other methods out there.
There are amateur run anti-cheat sites around, but PsB was the first and the largest one that has always set the standards these others simply follow.
PsB's system is not just a ban list and goes far deeper along with automated correction system, appeal system, admin support, player searches etc., etc.
Valve? What has Valve got.
Valve has nothing compared to the level of organization the PB using game server community has available to it and yes things like PsB's MBL is very accurate as the admins using it will confirm.
I haven't even scratched the surface on how extensive this is or the benefits it offers compared to Valve.
There is one thing that every game admin that is familiar with PsB knows.
You get a much cleaner game when playing on a PsB streaming server than any server using valve's half assed attempt.For all the faults that cheat detection can be accused of.
PB is far superior and successful by miles compared to Valve.
Anyone above the casual player knows PB is miles ahead and a PB servers also using PsB's system jumps a step above that.
Oh and PsB will soon be even better.
Expect an unmatched jump in abilities from PsB very soon.
They are in major rewrite closed beta of their systems at the time of this writing.
It is so advanced and secure it will make all the amateur anti-cheat sites efforts obsolete.
What has Valve done in all these years being a closed under supported effort?
To me and many game server admins, that answer is easy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196820</id>
	<title>Re:superserious</title>
	<author>iSzabo</author>
	<datestamp>1266573240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he means with respect to the bottom line: if they want people to buy their games making them a better experience is certainly the direction to go. This is exactly what improving sales without BS (and ineffective) DRM looks like. Serious business. I'm thinking he's not being serious enough I'd have thought it to be megaserious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he means with respect to the bottom line : if they want people to buy their games making them a better experience is certainly the direction to go .
This is exactly what improving sales without BS ( and ineffective ) DRM looks like .
Serious business .
I 'm thinking he 's not being serious enough I 'd have thought it to be megaserious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he means with respect to the bottom line: if they want people to buy their games making them a better experience is certainly the direction to go.
This is exactly what improving sales without BS (and ineffective) DRM looks like.
Serious business.
I'm thinking he's not being serious enough I'd have thought it to be megaserious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31208236</id>
	<title>Blizzard</title>
	<author>Tyrion Moath</author>
	<datestamp>1266606780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard's anti-cheat software for WoW is just as deep-scanning as this, if not more so. What's new here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard 's anti-cheat software for WoW is just as deep-scanning as this , if not more so .
What 's new here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard's anti-cheat software for WoW is just as deep-scanning as this, if not more so.
What's new here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197372</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266579300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this is that it will penalize players who are legitimately really good. There are always whiny kids who will mark you down because you owned them. Indeed, I think that kind of player might actually out number the cowards that cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is that it will penalize players who are legitimately really good .
There are always whiny kids who will mark you down because you owned them .
Indeed , I think that kind of player might actually out number the cowards that cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is that it will penalize players who are legitimately really good.
There are always whiny kids who will mark you down because you owned them.
Indeed, I think that kind of player might actually out number the cowards that cheat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800</id>
	<title>The casualties of the battle are ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266573000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the innocent people who have been banned by VAC because of hardware failures or software bugs. Customer support staff ignore or abuse these people and won't even take the time to check their logs. They do not acknowledge the possibility of a false positive. I realize that they don't have time to investigate every complaint sent to them. But their customers deserve a better degree of service than what amounts to an instant and final termination without any evidence necessary, at the total discretion of Valve. Paying customers should not be at the mercy of those from whom they purchase goods.</p><p>It is the 'better a guilty man go free' issue played out on a stage where contracts of adhesion reign supreme. Valve can do whatever they want. I won't buy any products from Valve again. And any recognition for taking on the noble cause of preventing cheating in online games is undeserved. Our contempt is what they ought to be given.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the innocent people who have been banned by VAC because of hardware failures or software bugs .
Customer support staff ignore or abuse these people and wo n't even take the time to check their logs .
They do not acknowledge the possibility of a false positive .
I realize that they do n't have time to investigate every complaint sent to them .
But their customers deserve a better degree of service than what amounts to an instant and final termination without any evidence necessary , at the total discretion of Valve .
Paying customers should not be at the mercy of those from whom they purchase goods.It is the 'better a guilty man go free ' issue played out on a stage where contracts of adhesion reign supreme .
Valve can do whatever they want .
I wo n't buy any products from Valve again .
And any recognition for taking on the noble cause of preventing cheating in online games is undeserved .
Our contempt is what they ought to be given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the innocent people who have been banned by VAC because of hardware failures or software bugs.
Customer support staff ignore or abuse these people and won't even take the time to check their logs.
They do not acknowledge the possibility of a false positive.
I realize that they don't have time to investigate every complaint sent to them.
But their customers deserve a better degree of service than what amounts to an instant and final termination without any evidence necessary, at the total discretion of Valve.
Paying customers should not be at the mercy of those from whom they purchase goods.It is the 'better a guilty man go free' issue played out on a stage where contracts of adhesion reign supreme.
Valve can do whatever they want.
I won't buy any products from Valve again.
And any recognition for taking on the noble cause of preventing cheating in online games is undeserved.
Our contempt is what they ought to be given.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197934</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1266586020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One could argue for eBay that sniping is cheating, or at least close to it.  You can't snipe at a traditional auction AFAIK.... well you could but there would be more of an opportunity for someone else to bid..</htmltext>
<tokenext>One could argue for eBay that sniping is cheating , or at least close to it .
You ca n't snipe at a traditional auction AFAIK.... well you could but there would be more of an opportunity for someone else to bid. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One could argue for eBay that sniping is cheating, or at least close to it.
You can't snipe at a traditional auction AFAIK.... well you could but there would be more of an opportunity for someone else to bid..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197612</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266582180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rubbish. In real life, cheating gets you a punch in the face. That's a technical solution, and it works. Wallhacks in real life are prevented by God's awesome physics engine. That's another technical solution, and it works. Combine the two: smash cheaters faces through the nearest wall. Fridays is poker night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rubbish .
In real life , cheating gets you a punch in the face .
That 's a technical solution , and it works .
Wallhacks in real life are prevented by God 's awesome physics engine .
That 's another technical solution , and it works .
Combine the two : smash cheaters faces through the nearest wall .
Fridays is poker night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rubbish.
In real life, cheating gets you a punch in the face.
That's a technical solution, and it works.
Wallhacks in real life are prevented by God's awesome physics engine.
That's another technical solution, and it works.
Combine the two: smash cheaters faces through the nearest wall.
Fridays is poker night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197748</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1266584040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The police doesn't stop you from holding up a liquor store right now. The high-resolution 30fps CCTV system there won't stop you either. (A shotgun would, but that's a story for another thread.)</p><p>But with clear pictures of your face robbing a liquor store, you will have a police record. Do it a second time and you're on the wanted list. Do it a third time and they hunt you down IRL and no Pay-and-Spray will help you.</p><p>Security everywhere is hard to maintain, so it is sufficient to make sure that crime doesn't pay. Crimes that don't pay are not done.</p><p>In this sense, VAC could very well eradicate the cheaters altogether, if only with a lag of one month. Kids that download an aimbot that day will annoy the hell out of everyone else for a month and then they're gone permanently. People (=potential cheaters) will notice that and probably think thrice before downloading an aimbot themselves. People who still cheat then must be kiddies or junkies with no IQ, no idea of delayed gratification, no impulse control and not the faintest idea of self-discipline ("idjits") or actively gaining pleasure for hurting or impairing others ("griefers" = sadists). They can be banned all day long. Or slowly roasted on open pits, for all I care.</p><p>I could endure cheaters for a while if I knew they were never coming back, ever. If they have to buy a new copy of the game every time they get detected adds a good incentive for the game publisher to detect them with increasing accuracy and frequency. This means cheaters practically pay for their own detection and I like it that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The police does n't stop you from holding up a liquor store right now .
The high-resolution 30fps CCTV system there wo n't stop you either .
( A shotgun would , but that 's a story for another thread .
) But with clear pictures of your face robbing a liquor store , you will have a police record .
Do it a second time and you 're on the wanted list .
Do it a third time and they hunt you down IRL and no Pay-and-Spray will help you.Security everywhere is hard to maintain , so it is sufficient to make sure that crime does n't pay .
Crimes that do n't pay are not done.In this sense , VAC could very well eradicate the cheaters altogether , if only with a lag of one month .
Kids that download an aimbot that day will annoy the hell out of everyone else for a month and then they 're gone permanently .
People ( = potential cheaters ) will notice that and probably think thrice before downloading an aimbot themselves .
People who still cheat then must be kiddies or junkies with no IQ , no idea of delayed gratification , no impulse control and not the faintest idea of self-discipline ( " idjits " ) or actively gaining pleasure for hurting or impairing others ( " griefers " = sadists ) .
They can be banned all day long .
Or slowly roasted on open pits , for all I care.I could endure cheaters for a while if I knew they were never coming back , ever .
If they have to buy a new copy of the game every time they get detected adds a good incentive for the game publisher to detect them with increasing accuracy and frequency .
This means cheaters practically pay for their own detection and I like it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The police doesn't stop you from holding up a liquor store right now.
The high-resolution 30fps CCTV system there won't stop you either.
(A shotgun would, but that's a story for another thread.
)But with clear pictures of your face robbing a liquor store, you will have a police record.
Do it a second time and you're on the wanted list.
Do it a third time and they hunt you down IRL and no Pay-and-Spray will help you.Security everywhere is hard to maintain, so it is sufficient to make sure that crime doesn't pay.
Crimes that don't pay are not done.In this sense, VAC could very well eradicate the cheaters altogether, if only with a lag of one month.
Kids that download an aimbot that day will annoy the hell out of everyone else for a month and then they're gone permanently.
People (=potential cheaters) will notice that and probably think thrice before downloading an aimbot themselves.
People who still cheat then must be kiddies or junkies with no IQ, no idea of delayed gratification, no impulse control and not the faintest idea of self-discipline ("idjits") or actively gaining pleasure for hurting or impairing others ("griefers" = sadists).
They can be banned all day long.
Or slowly roasted on open pits, for all I care.I could endure cheaters for a while if I knew they were never coming back, ever.
If they have to buy a new copy of the game every time they get detected adds a good incentive for the game publisher to detect them with increasing accuracy and frequency.
This means cheaters practically pay for their own detection and I like it that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198816</id>
	<title>Re:2 Main Problems with VAC</title>
	<author>theotherbastard</author>
	<datestamp>1266592980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are other options that individual server admins can leverage.  I run a TF2 server that uses SourceMod with SourceBans to handle bans for our server.  If any of my admins see a cheater and can verify by spec'ing, we ban them from our server.  There's even options for non-admin players to initiate short term bans if enough people are complaining.<br> <br>We're also protected by VAC but this gives us our own layer of protection.  It's also handy because it allows us to rid ourselves of griefers who would never be caught by VAC but can empty out a full server just as quickly as a cheater.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other options that individual server admins can leverage .
I run a TF2 server that uses SourceMod with SourceBans to handle bans for our server .
If any of my admins see a cheater and can verify by spec'ing , we ban them from our server .
There 's even options for non-admin players to initiate short term bans if enough people are complaining .
We 're also protected by VAC but this gives us our own layer of protection .
It 's also handy because it allows us to rid ourselves of griefers who would never be caught by VAC but can empty out a full server just as quickly as a cheater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other options that individual server admins can leverage.
I run a TF2 server that uses SourceMod with SourceBans to handle bans for our server.
If any of my admins see a cheater and can verify by spec'ing, we ban them from our server.
There's even options for non-admin players to initiate short term bans if enough people are complaining.
We're also protected by VAC but this gives us our own layer of protection.
It's also handy because it allows us to rid ourselves of griefers who would never be caught by VAC but can empty out a full server just as quickly as a cheater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201182</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1266603660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think cheating is only a problem when there is actual competition going on. Public servers in any FPS-game are so random anyway, that only a blatant aimbotter can affect the game negatively. Luckily, these guys are easy to spot and ban by the server admins.</p></div></blockquote><p>Speaking as someone who used to cheat in Day of Defeat (pre Steam, pre-vac) I'd have to disagree. In Omaha Beach map when I was at the sniper position (there was only one if you were on the German side) I never saw anyone get past the beach front - and I wasn't even using an aimbot (I was just using a client side hack to paint all the enemy targets red). If no-one was cheating it was actually a relatively balanced map.</p><p>I've since grown up (I've only had the one steam account and every single one of my games is active - not banned), but yeah - cheating gives you massive advantages over the other side that I'm sure made it really painful.</p><p>Server admins? Half these servers are run by high school students who unknowingly left the lan party machine on from last week connected to the net, and I'd bet money most don't even know how to kick/ban someone.</p><p>And before steam - if someone did kick/ban me - I'd change the MAC address on the router and be back in the game - its a total joke.</p><p>What they need to do is segregate the servers. One group for corporate maintained machines and another for privately owned servers. Game-masters need to make sweeps through corporately owned servers and take action as necessary, and they need to act on complaints.</p><p>In a tournament match in counterstrike about a year ago - we presented a video where a guy got flash banged in his face, and still managed to do 3 head shots on enemy players (despite not being able to see) to valve, and they did nothing about it because their logs didn't say anything... I'm like - but its in the recorded demo! Everything this guy says if fluff - their own support people prove that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think cheating is only a problem when there is actual competition going on .
Public servers in any FPS-game are so random anyway , that only a blatant aimbotter can affect the game negatively .
Luckily , these guys are easy to spot and ban by the server admins.Speaking as someone who used to cheat in Day of Defeat ( pre Steam , pre-vac ) I 'd have to disagree .
In Omaha Beach map when I was at the sniper position ( there was only one if you were on the German side ) I never saw anyone get past the beach front - and I was n't even using an aimbot ( I was just using a client side hack to paint all the enemy targets red ) .
If no-one was cheating it was actually a relatively balanced map.I 've since grown up ( I 've only had the one steam account and every single one of my games is active - not banned ) , but yeah - cheating gives you massive advantages over the other side that I 'm sure made it really painful.Server admins ?
Half these servers are run by high school students who unknowingly left the lan party machine on from last week connected to the net , and I 'd bet money most do n't even know how to kick/ban someone.And before steam - if someone did kick/ban me - I 'd change the MAC address on the router and be back in the game - its a total joke.What they need to do is segregate the servers .
One group for corporate maintained machines and another for privately owned servers .
Game-masters need to make sweeps through corporately owned servers and take action as necessary , and they need to act on complaints.In a tournament match in counterstrike about a year ago - we presented a video where a guy got flash banged in his face , and still managed to do 3 head shots on enemy players ( despite not being able to see ) to valve , and they did nothing about it because their logs did n't say anything... I 'm like - but its in the recorded demo !
Everything this guy says if fluff - their own support people prove that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think cheating is only a problem when there is actual competition going on.
Public servers in any FPS-game are so random anyway, that only a blatant aimbotter can affect the game negatively.
Luckily, these guys are easy to spot and ban by the server admins.Speaking as someone who used to cheat in Day of Defeat (pre Steam, pre-vac) I'd have to disagree.
In Omaha Beach map when I was at the sniper position (there was only one if you were on the German side) I never saw anyone get past the beach front - and I wasn't even using an aimbot (I was just using a client side hack to paint all the enemy targets red).
If no-one was cheating it was actually a relatively balanced map.I've since grown up (I've only had the one steam account and every single one of my games is active - not banned), but yeah - cheating gives you massive advantages over the other side that I'm sure made it really painful.Server admins?
Half these servers are run by high school students who unknowingly left the lan party machine on from last week connected to the net, and I'd bet money most don't even know how to kick/ban someone.And before steam - if someone did kick/ban me - I'd change the MAC address on the router and be back in the game - its a total joke.What they need to do is segregate the servers.
One group for corporate maintained machines and another for privately owned servers.
Game-masters need to make sweeps through corporately owned servers and take action as necessary, and they need to act on complaints.In a tournament match in counterstrike about a year ago - we presented a video where a guy got flash banged in his face, and still managed to do 3 head shots on enemy players (despite not being able to see) to valve, and they did nothing about it because their logs didn't say anything... I'm like - but its in the recorded demo!
Everything this guy says if fluff - their own support people prove that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197310</id>
	<title>2 Main Problems with VAC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266578580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two big problems with VAC over PunkBuster</p><p>1)  All power resides specifically with VAC.  There are no tools for the server admin to make things like md5 or cvar checks, no screenshot facility to check players, or even the ability to kick a player.  As such, you HAVE to rely on VAC doing all the work, and you as a server admin have nothing to say about it.  If you see a cheater that VAC is failing to catch, your outta luck.</p><p>2)  VAC gives no information as to what it is doing.  You never see a player being kicked due to VAC detection, so you have no idea what VAC is actually doing.  Is it truly detecting anything, and if so, how would you know?  With PunkBuster, it gives you kick messages which if not displayed on the screen, are at least logged in the server and client logs.</p><p>No accountability is never a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two big problems with VAC over PunkBuster1 ) All power resides specifically with VAC .
There are no tools for the server admin to make things like md5 or cvar checks , no screenshot facility to check players , or even the ability to kick a player .
As such , you HAVE to rely on VAC doing all the work , and you as a server admin have nothing to say about it .
If you see a cheater that VAC is failing to catch , your outta luck.2 ) VAC gives no information as to what it is doing .
You never see a player being kicked due to VAC detection , so you have no idea what VAC is actually doing .
Is it truly detecting anything , and if so , how would you know ?
With PunkBuster , it gives you kick messages which if not displayed on the screen , are at least logged in the server and client logs.No accountability is never a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two big problems with VAC over PunkBuster1)  All power resides specifically with VAC.
There are no tools for the server admin to make things like md5 or cvar checks, no screenshot facility to check players, or even the ability to kick a player.
As such, you HAVE to rely on VAC doing all the work, and you as a server admin have nothing to say about it.
If you see a cheater that VAC is failing to catch, your outta luck.2)  VAC gives no information as to what it is doing.
You never see a player being kicked due to VAC detection, so you have no idea what VAC is actually doing.
Is it truly detecting anything, and if so, how would you know?
With PunkBuster, it gives you kick messages which if not displayed on the screen, are at least logged in the server and client logs.No accountability is never a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31204776</id>
	<title>Re:The casualties of the battle are ...</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1266576720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We know how likely an md5 hash collision is with hack X and legitimate program Y. Not very. With an increasing number of wallhacks and legitimate programs, we will see hash collisions sooner or later</p></div><p> The hash space is large enough that you will never see an accidental collision.  It's the on purpose collision you have to worry about.  What happens when someone creates a hack binary with an identical hash to the game.exe?  Company accidentally flags all users with the legitimate file?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We know how likely an md5 hash collision is with hack X and legitimate program Y. Not very .
With an increasing number of wallhacks and legitimate programs , we will see hash collisions sooner or later The hash space is large enough that you will never see an accidental collision .
It 's the on purpose collision you have to worry about .
What happens when someone creates a hack binary with an identical hash to the game.exe ?
Company accidentally flags all users with the legitimate file ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know how likely an md5 hash collision is with hack X and legitimate program Y. Not very.
With an increasing number of wallhacks and legitimate programs, we will see hash collisions sooner or later The hash space is large enough that you will never see an accidental collision.
It's the on purpose collision you have to worry about.
What happens when someone creates a hack binary with an identical hash to the game.exe?
Company accidentally flags all users with the legitimate file?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197428</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>ud plasmo</author>
	<datestamp>1266580140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A+++ Player. Highly recommended. Will play again!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A + + + Player .
Highly recommended .
Will play again !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A+++ Player.
Highly recommended.
Will play again!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200848</id>
	<title>VAC is worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266602160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with VAC / VAC2 is that it is entirely too easy to bypass, and does not use enough in-depth detection.<br>They do not detect even the simplest forms of cheating in ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory, allowing you to develop hacks that run outside the process and give all the features one could want without vac detection worries at all.<br>Worse yet, while they do CRC their own binaries, this is easily bypassed by a simple 2 nop process which allows you to completely disable vac scanning altogether.</p><p>They do no hardware based scanning, don't check opengl, and once you go kernel mode you can give it up as far as detection is concerned.</p><p>Punkbuster was / is a much more difficult anticheat to bypass and much more effective at cheat detection, but even their efforts are mostly futile.</p><p>Essentially, the only thing any anticheat can hope to achieve is the blocking/detection of the publicly available cheats and vac fails to even properly do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with VAC / VAC2 is that it is entirely too easy to bypass , and does not use enough in-depth detection.They do not detect even the simplest forms of cheating in ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory , allowing you to develop hacks that run outside the process and give all the features one could want without vac detection worries at all.Worse yet , while they do CRC their own binaries , this is easily bypassed by a simple 2 nop process which allows you to completely disable vac scanning altogether.They do no hardware based scanning , do n't check opengl , and once you go kernel mode you can give it up as far as detection is concerned.Punkbuster was / is a much more difficult anticheat to bypass and much more effective at cheat detection , but even their efforts are mostly futile.Essentially , the only thing any anticheat can hope to achieve is the blocking/detection of the publicly available cheats and vac fails to even properly do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with VAC / VAC2 is that it is entirely too easy to bypass, and does not use enough in-depth detection.They do not detect even the simplest forms of cheating in ReadProcessMemory and WriteProcessMemory, allowing you to develop hacks that run outside the process and give all the features one could want without vac detection worries at all.Worse yet, while they do CRC their own binaries, this is easily bypassed by a simple 2 nop process which allows you to completely disable vac scanning altogether.They do no hardware based scanning, don't check opengl, and once you go kernel mode you can give it up as far as detection is concerned.Punkbuster was / is a much more difficult anticheat to bypass and much more effective at cheat detection, but even their efforts are mostly futile.Essentially, the only thing any anticheat can hope to achieve is the blocking/detection of the publicly available cheats and vac fails to even properly do this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200648</id>
	<title>Draconic</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1266601260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VAC is great as far as deterrence goes, but it's a real bummer when your account gets hijacked and used for cheating. Valve never repeals VAC bans, even if they gave you your account back personally, so you have to buy all your online games again if you want to play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>VAC is great as far as deterrence goes , but it 's a real bummer when your account gets hijacked and used for cheating .
Valve never repeals VAC bans , even if they gave you your account back personally , so you have to buy all your online games again if you want to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VAC is great as far as deterrence goes, but it's a real bummer when your account gets hijacked and used for cheating.
Valve never repeals VAC bans, even if they gave you your account back personally, so you have to buy all your online games again if you want to play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197194</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1266577500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I think it will be very easy to implement the possibility of tagging a player as "cheater" after the game ends (when you have the list of players with their game scores).  Each "cheater" tag would increase your "cheater counter" and players could decide to play with other players whose "cheater counter" is below a certain level.</p><p>Of course if you are really *that good* you may get pissed when a lot of crybabies tag you as a cheater haha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I think it will be very easy to implement the possibility of tagging a player as " cheater " after the game ends ( when you have the list of players with their game scores ) .
Each " cheater " tag would increase your " cheater counter " and players could decide to play with other players whose " cheater counter " is below a certain level.Of course if you are really * that good * you may get pissed when a lot of crybabies tag you as a cheater haha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I think it will be very easy to implement the possibility of tagging a player as "cheater" after the game ends (when you have the list of players with their game scores).
Each "cheater" tag would increase your "cheater counter" and players could decide to play with other players whose "cheater counter" is below a certain level.Of course if you are really *that good* you may get pissed when a lot of crybabies tag you as a cheater haha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197390</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1266579480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem."</p><p>I always wondered why they didn't do a statistical analysis of human input by looking and comparing demos.  Maybe uploading demos to a central server for analysis would be a good thing, then you can ban the cheaters accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cheating is a social problem , not a technical problem .
" I always wondered why they did n't do a statistical analysis of human input by looking and comparing demos .
Maybe uploading demos to a central server for analysis would be a good thing , then you can ban the cheaters accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem.
"I always wondered why they didn't do a statistical analysis of human input by looking and comparing demos.
Maybe uploading demos to a central server for analysis would be a good thing, then you can ban the cheaters accounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31204678</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1266576360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need to use actual rankings, just use like/dislike relationships.  Online radio stations use it to predict if you will like new music.  You mark people you like and dislike.  The system finds other people with similar tastes and uses their result to create a list of other people you might like to play with.  Then, if the data shows that the other person likes to play with people like you, you get matched up.</p><p>This resolves "negative reviews" because there isn't any sort of negative karma.  You simply won't be matched up with people like the ones that gave you negative reviews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to use actual rankings , just use like/dislike relationships .
Online radio stations use it to predict if you will like new music .
You mark people you like and dislike .
The system finds other people with similar tastes and uses their result to create a list of other people you might like to play with .
Then , if the data shows that the other person likes to play with people like you , you get matched up.This resolves " negative reviews " because there is n't any sort of negative karma .
You simply wo n't be matched up with people like the ones that gave you negative reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to use actual rankings, just use like/dislike relationships.
Online radio stations use it to predict if you will like new music.
You mark people you like and dislike.
The system finds other people with similar tastes and uses their result to create a list of other people you might like to play with.
Then, if the data shows that the other person likes to play with people like you, you get matched up.This resolves "negative reviews" because there isn't any sort of negative karma.
You simply won't be matched up with people like the ones that gave you negative reviews.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197904</id>
	<title>Speaking for the Counter-Strike community, VAC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266585540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>I am an admin in one of the larger gaming communities in my country</b>, and have a history of competitive gaming. I was never a gamer before I saw the teamplay in CS 5on5 matches (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrSZUtpapz8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">example video</a> [youtube.com]). I still play the orginal game once a week or so. Just for the record, CS is a team-game where aiming and firing is only part of the skill. Knowing and practicing with your team is essential just like any other sport.</p><p> <b>If you didn't already know, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Counter-Strike</a> [wikipedia.org] (CS) is still one of the largest on-line games out there</b>, peaking <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/stats/" title="steampowered.com" rel="nofollow">75k</a> [steampowered.com] users yesterday. I'm talking about the version 1.6 and not the CSS (CS Source) version. There is still a larger userbase for other Steam-games, but we still regard the original CS to be the game played by the eSports community because of its smooth gameplay and predictable recoil patterns when firing guns. Many "elite"-players have tried moving on to newer games, but get disappointed and still comes back for the good old CS 1.6 where graphics may suck, but you get a predictable gameplay where the player is not that much affected by randomness.</p><p> <b>The story of cheating in CS</b> has been a long annoying trip. People have even been cheating at LAN-events where they used aim-key, and they even won price money and got away with it. The story is long, and websites profiting from selling cheats are very active today. Some of the cheats go very deep in kernel and hide itself just like a root-kit. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring\_(computer\_security)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ring 0</a> [wikipedia.org]-cheats are common.</p><p> <b>VAC</b> (Valve Anti Cheat) has been the attempts from Valve to stop the cheats, however VAC has always been ages behind any new cheat and has never taken all cheats available for free at the net. There has been attempts from the community at steampowered to scare users with passive detections and delayed bans so users could not be sure which cheat got them banned, but mainly VAC seem to me being a <b>low priority project at Valve</b>.  Valve is still, like any other company, prioritizing new projects and just leaving maybe one programmer doing some cheat-detection-code on his free-time. The situation is a win for cheaters and others. And also a <b>win for Valve</b>, since there are a lot of people trying cheats and thus they sometimes get banned, <b>ending up buying a new copy of the game</b> (the price for a new CS at Steam is currently available at 7,99&euro; which is annoyingly cheap). Valve still sells a lot of copies (in the years 1999-2008, Valve had sold 4,8 million copies!).</p><p> <b>Various anti-cheat communities has gathered during the years</b>, where one try syncing ban-lists and communities constantly have players monitoring other players trying to spot cheats by spectating. <b>As VAC is such a failure</b>, many still go undetected. Especially if one hides their cheats well. The community <a href="http://radar.gaming.no/" title="gaming.no" rel="nofollow">RADAR</a> [gaming.no] is one of these initiatives which accept new communities for sharing such ban-list.</p><p> <b>The latest addition; <a href="http://easyanticheat.net/" title="easyanticheat.net" rel="nofollow">Easy Anti Cheat</a> [easyanticheat.net] (EAC)</b> is a project created by a skilled programmer that is based upon deep-level detection accompanied with screenshots. This programmer may seem hard-core, and this is mainly because he used to be a cheat author(!). This is currently the best anti-cheat system available for CS, but it's still only used in Clan Wars/eSports. The public-area for normal players is still depending upon VAC, as the EAC requires a 3rd party client installed which is a tough barrier to overcome.</p><p> <b>The future now seem brighter,</b> as we have now left VAC and we are mainly no longer depending on it. I wish Valve software good luck in the future, but it seem to me that if VAC remains a low-priority project it will still annoy thousands of everyday players and leaving a few cheaters laughing, destroying the on-line experience.</p><p>Yours</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an admin in one of the larger gaming communities in my country , and have a history of competitive gaming .
I was never a gamer before I saw the teamplay in CS 5on5 matches ( example video [ youtube.com ] ) .
I still play the orginal game once a week or so .
Just for the record , CS is a team-game where aiming and firing is only part of the skill .
Knowing and practicing with your team is essential just like any other sport .
If you did n't already know , Counter-Strike [ wikipedia.org ] ( CS ) is still one of the largest on-line games out there , peaking 75k [ steampowered.com ] users yesterday .
I 'm talking about the version 1.6 and not the CSS ( CS Source ) version .
There is still a larger userbase for other Steam-games , but we still regard the original CS to be the game played by the eSports community because of its smooth gameplay and predictable recoil patterns when firing guns .
Many " elite " -players have tried moving on to newer games , but get disappointed and still comes back for the good old CS 1.6 where graphics may suck , but you get a predictable gameplay where the player is not that much affected by randomness .
The story of cheating in CS has been a long annoying trip .
People have even been cheating at LAN-events where they used aim-key , and they even won price money and got away with it .
The story is long , and websites profiting from selling cheats are very active today .
Some of the cheats go very deep in kernel and hide itself just like a root-kit .
Ring 0 [ wikipedia.org ] -cheats are common .
VAC ( Valve Anti Cheat ) has been the attempts from Valve to stop the cheats , however VAC has always been ages behind any new cheat and has never taken all cheats available for free at the net .
There has been attempts from the community at steampowered to scare users with passive detections and delayed bans so users could not be sure which cheat got them banned , but mainly VAC seem to me being a low priority project at Valve .
Valve is still , like any other company , prioritizing new projects and just leaving maybe one programmer doing some cheat-detection-code on his free-time .
The situation is a win for cheaters and others .
And also a win for Valve , since there are a lot of people trying cheats and thus they sometimes get banned , ending up buying a new copy of the game ( the price for a new CS at Steam is currently available at 7,99    which is annoyingly cheap ) .
Valve still sells a lot of copies ( in the years 1999-2008 , Valve had sold 4,8 million copies ! ) .
Various anti-cheat communities has gathered during the years , where one try syncing ban-lists and communities constantly have players monitoring other players trying to spot cheats by spectating .
As VAC is such a failure , many still go undetected .
Especially if one hides their cheats well .
The community RADAR [ gaming.no ] is one of these initiatives which accept new communities for sharing such ban-list .
The latest addition ; Easy Anti Cheat [ easyanticheat.net ] ( EAC ) is a project created by a skilled programmer that is based upon deep-level detection accompanied with screenshots .
This programmer may seem hard-core , and this is mainly because he used to be a cheat author ( ! ) .
This is currently the best anti-cheat system available for CS , but it 's still only used in Clan Wars/eSports .
The public-area for normal players is still depending upon VAC , as the EAC requires a 3rd party client installed which is a tough barrier to overcome .
The future now seem brighter , as we have now left VAC and we are mainly no longer depending on it .
I wish Valve software good luck in the future , but it seem to me that if VAC remains a low-priority project it will still annoy thousands of everyday players and leaving a few cheaters laughing , destroying the on-line experience.Yours</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I am an admin in one of the larger gaming communities in my country, and have a history of competitive gaming.
I was never a gamer before I saw the teamplay in CS 5on5 matches (example video [youtube.com]).
I still play the orginal game once a week or so.
Just for the record, CS is a team-game where aiming and firing is only part of the skill.
Knowing and practicing with your team is essential just like any other sport.
If you didn't already know, Counter-Strike [wikipedia.org] (CS) is still one of the largest on-line games out there, peaking 75k [steampowered.com] users yesterday.
I'm talking about the version 1.6 and not the CSS (CS Source) version.
There is still a larger userbase for other Steam-games, but we still regard the original CS to be the game played by the eSports community because of its smooth gameplay and predictable recoil patterns when firing guns.
Many "elite"-players have tried moving on to newer games, but get disappointed and still comes back for the good old CS 1.6 where graphics may suck, but you get a predictable gameplay where the player is not that much affected by randomness.
The story of cheating in CS has been a long annoying trip.
People have even been cheating at LAN-events where they used aim-key, and they even won price money and got away with it.
The story is long, and websites profiting from selling cheats are very active today.
Some of the cheats go very deep in kernel and hide itself just like a root-kit.
Ring 0 [wikipedia.org]-cheats are common.
VAC (Valve Anti Cheat) has been the attempts from Valve to stop the cheats, however VAC has always been ages behind any new cheat and has never taken all cheats available for free at the net.
There has been attempts from the community at steampowered to scare users with passive detections and delayed bans so users could not be sure which cheat got them banned, but mainly VAC seem to me being a low priority project at Valve.
Valve is still, like any other company, prioritizing new projects and just leaving maybe one programmer doing some cheat-detection-code on his free-time.
The situation is a win for cheaters and others.
And also a win for Valve, since there are a lot of people trying cheats and thus they sometimes get banned, ending up buying a new copy of the game (the price for a new CS at Steam is currently available at 7,99€ which is annoyingly cheap).
Valve still sells a lot of copies (in the years 1999-2008, Valve had sold 4,8 million copies!).
Various anti-cheat communities has gathered during the years, where one try syncing ban-lists and communities constantly have players monitoring other players trying to spot cheats by spectating.
As VAC is such a failure, many still go undetected.
Especially if one hides their cheats well.
The community RADAR [gaming.no] is one of these initiatives which accept new communities for sharing such ban-list.
The latest addition; Easy Anti Cheat [easyanticheat.net] (EAC) is a project created by a skilled programmer that is based upon deep-level detection accompanied with screenshots.
This programmer may seem hard-core, and this is mainly because he used to be a cheat author(!).
This is currently the best anti-cheat system available for CS, but it's still only used in Clan Wars/eSports.
The public-area for normal players is still depending upon VAC, as the EAC requires a 3rd party client installed which is a tough barrier to overcome.
The future now seem brighter, as we have now left VAC and we are mainly no longer depending on it.
I wish Valve software good luck in the future, but it seem to me that if VAC remains a low-priority project it will still annoy thousands of everyday players and leaving a few cheaters laughing, destroying the on-line experience.Yours</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31202794</id>
	<title>OnLive?</title>
	<author>Roceh</author>
	<datestamp>1266612060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anti-cheat efforts mirror DRM efforts in that in an open system that can run arbitrary code you cannot make it work. Its pointless. Theres only two ways you will get a reasonable working anti-cheat system and that is to raise the bar of access to run arbitrary code, i.e. a closed system such as a console.

OnLive's video delivery method may offer some hope with regards reducing cheating on the PC, but you still allow some pixel scanning cheats, but such cheats are very limited in what they can achieve.

I hope that OnLive realise that one of the major advantages that they have over traditional disc/download games is that they will be relatively cheat free, and they segregate their multiplayer servers from non OnLive players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-cheat efforts mirror DRM efforts in that in an open system that can run arbitrary code you can not make it work .
Its pointless .
Theres only two ways you will get a reasonable working anti-cheat system and that is to raise the bar of access to run arbitrary code , i.e .
a closed system such as a console .
OnLive 's video delivery method may offer some hope with regards reducing cheating on the PC , but you still allow some pixel scanning cheats , but such cheats are very limited in what they can achieve .
I hope that OnLive realise that one of the major advantages that they have over traditional disc/download games is that they will be relatively cheat free , and they segregate their multiplayer servers from non OnLive players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-cheat efforts mirror DRM efforts in that in an open system that can run arbitrary code you cannot make it work.
Its pointless.
Theres only two ways you will get a reasonable working anti-cheat system and that is to raise the bar of access to run arbitrary code, i.e.
a closed system such as a console.
OnLive's video delivery method may offer some hope with regards reducing cheating on the PC, but you still allow some pixel scanning cheats, but such cheats are very limited in what they can achieve.
I hope that OnLive realise that one of the major advantages that they have over traditional disc/download games is that they will be relatively cheat free, and they segregate their multiplayer servers from non OnLive players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196986</id>
	<title>Cheating runs amock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266575160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to see cheating run amock in an online game. Try playing Mabinogi or Maplestory in a PvP environment. Or hell, try playing it at all. The cheaters have skewed the game into requiring a high level of skill if you don't cheat in order to kick the asses of the cheaters. But Nexon itself doesn't seem to realize that this makes it extremely difficult for new players, thus continuing the cycle of people cheating.</p><p>There is no perfect system except one where the end user has ZERO access to the game binaries and network connection. Yeah... back to the arcade if we want a level playing field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to see cheating run amock in an online game .
Try playing Mabinogi or Maplestory in a PvP environment .
Or hell , try playing it at all .
The cheaters have skewed the game into requiring a high level of skill if you do n't cheat in order to kick the asses of the cheaters .
But Nexon itself does n't seem to realize that this makes it extremely difficult for new players , thus continuing the cycle of people cheating.There is no perfect system except one where the end user has ZERO access to the game binaries and network connection .
Yeah... back to the arcade if we want a level playing field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to see cheating run amock in an online game.
Try playing Mabinogi or Maplestory in a PvP environment.
Or hell, try playing it at all.
The cheaters have skewed the game into requiring a high level of skill if you don't cheat in order to kick the asses of the cheaters.
But Nexon itself doesn't seem to realize that this makes it extremely difficult for new players, thus continuing the cycle of people cheating.There is no perfect system except one where the end user has ZERO access to the game binaries and network connection.
Yeah... back to the arcade if we want a level playing field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201468</id>
	<title>I LOL'd</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1266605040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe in your long history of casual gaming you just didn't know when you did see it. Not only has it been rampant, but all the popular commercial cheat engines support it, so if your really curious you pay (or find a working free injector/proggy) try it on yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe in your long history of casual gaming you just did n't know when you did see it .
Not only has it been rampant , but all the popular commercial cheat engines support it , so if your really curious you pay ( or find a working free injector/proggy ) try it on yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe in your long history of casual gaming you just didn't know when you did see it.
Not only has it been rampant, but all the popular commercial cheat engines support it, so if your really curious you pay (or find a working free injector/proggy) try it on yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197544</id>
	<title>Re:Total, utter gobshitery</title>
	<author>aXis100</author>
	<datestamp>1266581520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because games run alot better when more work is doen client side.  Try doing hitbox detection on the server, and people complain about the lag.  Do it on the client and 99\% of people have a great time, and 1\% get an aimbot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because games run alot better when more work is doen client side .
Try doing hitbox detection on the server , and people complain about the lag .
Do it on the client and 99 \ % of people have a great time , and 1 \ % get an aimbot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because games run alot better when more work is doen client side.
Try doing hitbox detection on the server, and people complain about the lag.
Do it on the client and 99\% of people have a great time, and 1\% get an aimbot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31205338</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>duguk</author>
	<datestamp>1266579300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem. Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work. However, we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities, where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers. Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well, but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.</p></div><p>Doesn't this "rate your player and we'll favour playing against those"/"hate this guy and you'll never play him again" -- already exist on XBox Live?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheating is a social problem , not a technical problem .
Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work .
However , we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities , where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers .
Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well , but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.Does n't this " rate your player and we 'll favour playing against those " / " hate this guy and you 'll never play him again " -- already exist on XBox Live ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem.
Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work.
However, we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities, where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers.
Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well, but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.Doesn't this "rate your player and we'll favour playing against those"/"hate this guy and you'll never play him again" -- already exist on XBox Live?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200052</id>
	<title>Not infecting my system(s) with Steam.</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1266598740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No thank you.</p><p>I don't cheat.</p><p>But I also don't want programs running arbitrary deep-level scans on my system and phoning home either.<br>ESPECIALLY since I can't see the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No thank you.I do n't cheat.But I also do n't want programs running arbitrary deep-level scans on my system and phoning home either.ESPECIALLY since I ca n't see the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No thank you.I don't cheat.But I also don't want programs running arbitrary deep-level scans on my system and phoning home either.ESPECIALLY since I can't see the data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203880</id>
	<title>Re:Sacrificing privacy for games?</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1266572940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And like someone else already mentioned: This "option" can be used by everybody, hence the playing field \_is\_ level.</i></p><p>And like someone else said, the IRL "option" to murder can be used by everybody, hence there is no reason for murder to be illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And like someone else already mentioned : This " option " can be used by everybody , hence the playing field \ _is \ _ level.And like someone else said , the IRL " option " to murder can be used by everybody , hence there is no reason for murder to be illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And like someone else already mentioned: This "option" can be used by everybody, hence the playing field \_is\_ level.And like someone else said, the IRL "option" to murder can be used by everybody, hence there is no reason for murder to be illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200006</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266598560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One time, an opponent came running straight towards me and I shot him. He kept coming straight at me. I shot him 2 more times and dropped him.  He then began to rant that I was cheating.<br>I've seen a lot more false accusations of cheating than actual cheaters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One time , an opponent came running straight towards me and I shot him .
He kept coming straight at me .
I shot him 2 more times and dropped him .
He then began to rant that I was cheating.I 've seen a lot more false accusations of cheating than actual cheaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One time, an opponent came running straight towards me and I shot him.
He kept coming straight at me.
I shot him 2 more times and dropped him.
He then began to rant that I was cheating.I've seen a lot more false accusations of cheating than actual cheaters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31218534</id>
	<title>Your car is used for robbery = VAC life sentence</title>
	<author>gert cuykens</author>
	<datestamp>1266768780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am just glad our justice system is a little bit more complex then VAC. It is just a cheap solution that terrorizes people out of cheating. How their you put the responsibility of pc security in the hands of a 13 year old who must agree on the VAC terms to play the game, stating the person who is playing the game is responsible for every hack, virus, key logger, or any way a account could be compromised. Its is just sad to see the majority thinks this kind of abuse is ok. Even microsoft has a better policy considering licences key's of there operating system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am just glad our justice system is a little bit more complex then VAC .
It is just a cheap solution that terrorizes people out of cheating .
How their you put the responsibility of pc security in the hands of a 13 year old who must agree on the VAC terms to play the game , stating the person who is playing the game is responsible for every hack , virus , key logger , or any way a account could be compromised .
Its is just sad to see the majority thinks this kind of abuse is ok. Even microsoft has a better policy considering licences key 's of there operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am just glad our justice system is a little bit more complex then VAC.
It is just a cheap solution that terrorizes people out of cheating.
How their you put the responsibility of pc security in the hands of a 13 year old who must agree on the VAC terms to play the game, stating the person who is playing the game is responsible for every hack, virus, key logger, or any way a account could be compromised.
Its is just sad to see the majority thinks this kind of abuse is ok. Even microsoft has a better policy considering licences key's of there operating system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196872</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>tmkn</author>
	<datestamp>1266573900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think cheating is only a problem when there is actual competition going on. Public servers in any FPS-game are so random anyway, that only a blatant aimbotter can affect the game negatively. Luckily, these guys are easy to spot and ban by the server admins.</p><p>VAC does its job brilliantly. It's a system designed to ban players that can be confirmed to be running a cheating software. It's designed to give no false positives, and so far the Valve's record is clear on that.</p><p>I play Team Fortress 2 competitively, and we have <a href="http://etf2l.org/" title="etf2l.org" rel="nofollow">our</a> [etf2l.org] <a href="http://esl.eu/" title="esl.eu" rel="nofollow">own</a> [esl.eu] <a href="http://www.cevo.com/" title="cevo.com" rel="nofollow">leagues</a> [cevo.com] from which we can ban players according to their Steam IDs. Every league has its own Anti-Cheat admins, who examine the recorded replays of official matches. There is only one player caught cheating in TF2 that has played on the highest level. He also attended LANs where you can't play with your own computer without a noticeable change in his skill level. So you can't really say that he profited that much.</p><p>It's just so hard to cheat and stay on top of the competition and not get caught that most people just won't bother. I wouldn't say cheating is a major problem, at least in the TF2 scene.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think cheating is only a problem when there is actual competition going on .
Public servers in any FPS-game are so random anyway , that only a blatant aimbotter can affect the game negatively .
Luckily , these guys are easy to spot and ban by the server admins.VAC does its job brilliantly .
It 's a system designed to ban players that can be confirmed to be running a cheating software .
It 's designed to give no false positives , and so far the Valve 's record is clear on that.I play Team Fortress 2 competitively , and we have our [ etf2l.org ] own [ esl.eu ] leagues [ cevo.com ] from which we can ban players according to their Steam IDs .
Every league has its own Anti-Cheat admins , who examine the recorded replays of official matches .
There is only one player caught cheating in TF2 that has played on the highest level .
He also attended LANs where you ca n't play with your own computer without a noticeable change in his skill level .
So you ca n't really say that he profited that much.It 's just so hard to cheat and stay on top of the competition and not get caught that most people just wo n't bother .
I would n't say cheating is a major problem , at least in the TF2 scene .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think cheating is only a problem when there is actual competition going on.
Public servers in any FPS-game are so random anyway, that only a blatant aimbotter can affect the game negatively.
Luckily, these guys are easy to spot and ban by the server admins.VAC does its job brilliantly.
It's a system designed to ban players that can be confirmed to be running a cheating software.
It's designed to give no false positives, and so far the Valve's record is clear on that.I play Team Fortress 2 competitively, and we have our [etf2l.org] own [esl.eu] leagues [cevo.com] from which we can ban players according to their Steam IDs.
Every league has its own Anti-Cheat admins, who examine the recorded replays of official matches.
There is only one player caught cheating in TF2 that has played on the highest level.
He also attended LANs where you can't play with your own computer without a noticeable change in his skill level.
So you can't really say that he profited that much.It's just so hard to cheat and stay on top of the competition and not get caught that most people just won't bother.
I wouldn't say cheating is a major problem, at least in the TF2 scene.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201714</id>
	<title>I went over to the dark side...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266606180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After MANY years (10+) of playing various FPS'es and being the victim of rampant cheating, I decided to pay for a one month subscription to callofdutyhacks.com for COD4 WAW2.</p><p>Essentially I had a schadenfreude-esque experience tormenting others with my rampant aimbotting for about 5 days. It didnt take long for the novelty to wear off and I completely stopped playing the game at the end of the 5 days.</p><p>Being the victim of cheating removed any enjoyment of playing FPS style games I had. Victimizing others for a brief period while I was using a cheat framework ended up being just as empty an experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After MANY years ( 10 + ) of playing various FPS'es and being the victim of rampant cheating , I decided to pay for a one month subscription to callofdutyhacks.com for COD4 WAW2.Essentially I had a schadenfreude-esque experience tormenting others with my rampant aimbotting for about 5 days .
It didnt take long for the novelty to wear off and I completely stopped playing the game at the end of the 5 days.Being the victim of cheating removed any enjoyment of playing FPS style games I had .
Victimizing others for a brief period while I was using a cheat framework ended up being just as empty an experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After MANY years (10+) of playing various FPS'es and being the victim of rampant cheating, I decided to pay for a one month subscription to callofdutyhacks.com for COD4 WAW2.Essentially I had a schadenfreude-esque experience tormenting others with my rampant aimbotting for about 5 days.
It didnt take long for the novelty to wear off and I completely stopped playing the game at the end of the 5 days.Being the victim of cheating removed any enjoyment of playing FPS style games I had.
Victimizing others for a brief period while I was using a cheat framework ended up being just as empty an experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196686</id>
	<title>Threat to privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266571740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which part of this infers a threat to privacy?  You need to think of this too- The system is running Windows, which is a black box and they could be doing whatever they want and you wouldn't know about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which part of this infers a threat to privacy ?
You need to think of this too- The system is running Windows , which is a black box and they could be doing whatever they want and you would n't know about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which part of this infers a threat to privacy?
You need to think of this too- The system is running Windows, which is a black box and they could be doing whatever they want and you wouldn't know about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199874</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266597960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To add to it from a user perspective...</p><p>It is given that a small but significant amount of people in the things they do, including gaming.</p><p>This is why we often have friends with whom we interact. When I don't want to play with cheaters, I just play with trusted people only.</p><p>When I play on public servers, which is often, I am willing to accept that some people will cheat (that said, I'm not likely to add them to my friend list).</p><p>Cutting down on cheating can easily be enforced by users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To add to it from a user perspective...It is given that a small but significant amount of people in the things they do , including gaming.This is why we often have friends with whom we interact .
When I do n't want to play with cheaters , I just play with trusted people only.When I play on public servers , which is often , I am willing to accept that some people will cheat ( that said , I 'm not likely to add them to my friend list ) .Cutting down on cheating can easily be enforced by users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To add to it from a user perspective...It is given that a small but significant amount of people in the things they do, including gaming.This is why we often have friends with whom we interact.
When I don't want to play with cheaters, I just play with trusted people only.When I play on public servers, which is often, I am willing to accept that some people will cheat (that said, I'm not likely to add them to my friend list).Cutting down on cheating can easily be enforced by users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197506</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>YojimboJango</author>
	<datestamp>1266581160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got over 600 hours of time logged playing TF2.  I've seen two cheaters in that whole time.  Both times they didn't last more than a few minutes (server admin banned him).</p><p>The only place TF2 is overrun with cheaters is on the non-VAC secure servers.  Chances are if you're playing there then you've already been caught cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got over 600 hours of time logged playing TF2 .
I 've seen two cheaters in that whole time .
Both times they did n't last more than a few minutes ( server admin banned him ) .The only place TF2 is overrun with cheaters is on the non-VAC secure servers .
Chances are if you 're playing there then you 've already been caught cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got over 600 hours of time logged playing TF2.
I've seen two cheaters in that whole time.
Both times they didn't last more than a few minutes (server admin banned him).The only place TF2 is overrun with cheaters is on the non-VAC secure servers.
Chances are if you're playing there then you've already been caught cheating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200884</id>
	<title>Have not seen too many aim bots, mostly speed hack</title>
	<author>George\_Ou</author>
	<datestamp>1266602400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Biggest problem I've seen is the speed hacks where someone runs around 100 miles per hour.  I've also seen a sniper use some kind of spy-cheat where he can see spies.  There was no way for me to get past him as a spy because he'd shoot me every time even if I never bumped anything to disrupt my cloak.  I haven't seen any cheats lately though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Biggest problem I 've seen is the speed hacks where someone runs around 100 miles per hour .
I 've also seen a sniper use some kind of spy-cheat where he can see spies .
There was no way for me to get past him as a spy because he 'd shoot me every time even if I never bumped anything to disrupt my cloak .
I have n't seen any cheats lately though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biggest problem I've seen is the speed hacks where someone runs around 100 miles per hour.
I've also seen a sniper use some kind of spy-cheat where he can see spies.
There was no way for me to get past him as a spy because he'd shoot me every time even if I never bumped anything to disrupt my cloak.
I haven't seen any cheats lately though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31209202</id>
	<title>Re:Speaking for the Counter-Strike community, VAC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266669660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who saw this and thought "astroturfing"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who saw this and thought " astroturfing " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who saw this and thought "astroturfing"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197564</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>0232793</author>
	<datestamp>1266581640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cheat on TF2 but except playing with another cheater on my friends list, i can count on two hands the number of obvious cheaters i've seen. As for the ones that try and hide it, well idk.

Recently a lot of cheat sites got hit by valve, but some tf2 cheats remain undetected - enhancedaim.com for one. So you should be seeing less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I cheat on TF2 but except playing with another cheater on my friends list , i can count on two hands the number of obvious cheaters i 've seen .
As for the ones that try and hide it , well idk .
Recently a lot of cheat sites got hit by valve , but some tf2 cheats remain undetected - enhancedaim.com for one .
So you should be seeing less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cheat on TF2 but except playing with another cheater on my friends list, i can count on two hands the number of obvious cheaters i've seen.
As for the ones that try and hide it, well idk.
Recently a lot of cheat sites got hit by valve, but some tf2 cheats remain undetected - enhancedaim.com for one.
So you should be seeing less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197112</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266576720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I strongly suggest you find a decent couple of servers with active admins. A good admin will be able to spot and deal with cheaters quickly. VAC, by it's very nature (delayed bans), doesn't stop some idiot kid who just downloaded an aimbot that day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I strongly suggest you find a decent couple of servers with active admins .
A good admin will be able to spot and deal with cheaters quickly .
VAC , by it 's very nature ( delayed bans ) , does n't stop some idiot kid who just downloaded an aimbot that day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I strongly suggest you find a decent couple of servers with active admins.
A good admin will be able to spot and deal with cheaters quickly.
VAC, by it's very nature (delayed bans), doesn't stop some idiot kid who just downloaded an aimbot that day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196740</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266572280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Just like in a denial of service attack, it's all about ratios. People developing cheats =1,000, people developing anticheats =50. How can they ever win? Rather then create a proprietary anticheat that's constantly circumvented, they need to give useful tools to server administrators and community modders/developers.</p><p>I run several popular Valve-game based servers, and we've had much more success dealing with cheaters through various server plugins, administration techniques then from VAC. What Vavle is really trying to do with crying about cheaters is create another excuse (along with piracy) to completely abandon the PC platform altogether and just make console games, like everyone else is slowly doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Just like in a denial of service attack , it 's all about ratios .
People developing cheats = 1,000 , people developing anticheats = 50 .
How can they ever win ?
Rather then create a proprietary anticheat that 's constantly circumvented , they need to give useful tools to server administrators and community modders/developers.I run several popular Valve-game based servers , and we 've had much more success dealing with cheaters through various server plugins , administration techniques then from VAC .
What Vavle is really trying to do with crying about cheaters is create another excuse ( along with piracy ) to completely abandon the PC platform altogether and just make console games , like everyone else is slowly doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Just like in a denial of service attack, it's all about ratios.
People developing cheats =1,000, people developing anticheats =50.
How can they ever win?
Rather then create a proprietary anticheat that's constantly circumvented, they need to give useful tools to server administrators and community modders/developers.I run several popular Valve-game based servers, and we've had much more success dealing with cheaters through various server plugins, administration techniques then from VAC.
What Vavle is really trying to do with crying about cheaters is create another excuse (along with piracy) to completely abandon the PC platform altogether and just make console games, like everyone else is slowly doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</id>
	<title>Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>hweimer</author>
	<datestamp>1266574680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem. Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work. However, we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities, where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers. Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well, but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheating is a social problem , not a technical problem .
Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work .
However , we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities , where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers .
Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well , but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheating is a social problem, not a technical problem.
Technical solutions for social problems usually do not work.
However, we have fixed this problem already with various other online activities, where people even regularly spend real money to buy something from complete strangers.
Reputation systems like eBay and Amazon use seem to work quite well, but then of course you can no longer blame the cheaters for poor sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197066</id>
	<title>Re:Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266576240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't a bad idea, but there is a reason why no has done that - bandwidth. What you are suggesting would be sending the 3D view of each person to and from the server, with the server processing a HUGE amount of data. I've seen GRAW2 max out a 25/2 MBit connection with only 16 players, and thats doing it the standard way with positional data. You are also forgetting that it isn't JUST positions of people and which way they face. You also have data for every bullet, grenade, explosion radius, and with some games damage/demolition to the environment, and need this updated in real time, when connections can have response times of half a second. Perhaps not a problem on a lan, but with people in different countries? That's a completely different ball game.</p><p>I don't believe this would not be feasible with current technology. But with rising internet speeds and computing power, it could happen soon. Mind you, increasing computing power and moving all calculations to the server means your computer now has a lot of free processor time to run your imaging hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't a bad idea , but there is a reason why no has done that - bandwidth .
What you are suggesting would be sending the 3D view of each person to and from the server , with the server processing a HUGE amount of data .
I 've seen GRAW2 max out a 25/2 MBit connection with only 16 players , and thats doing it the standard way with positional data .
You are also forgetting that it is n't JUST positions of people and which way they face .
You also have data for every bullet , grenade , explosion radius , and with some games damage/demolition to the environment , and need this updated in real time , when connections can have response times of half a second .
Perhaps not a problem on a lan , but with people in different countries ?
That 's a completely different ball game.I do n't believe this would not be feasible with current technology .
But with rising internet speeds and computing power , it could happen soon .
Mind you , increasing computing power and moving all calculations to the server means your computer now has a lot of free processor time to run your imaging hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't a bad idea, but there is a reason why no has done that - bandwidth.
What you are suggesting would be sending the 3D view of each person to and from the server, with the server processing a HUGE amount of data.
I've seen GRAW2 max out a 25/2 MBit connection with only 16 players, and thats doing it the standard way with positional data.
You are also forgetting that it isn't JUST positions of people and which way they face.
You also have data for every bullet, grenade, explosion radius, and with some games damage/demolition to the environment, and need this updated in real time, when connections can have response times of half a second.
Perhaps not a problem on a lan, but with people in different countries?
That's a completely different ball game.I don't believe this would not be feasible with current technology.
But with rising internet speeds and computing power, it could happen soon.
Mind you, increasing computing power and moving all calculations to the server means your computer now has a lot of free processor time to run your imaging hack</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31202244</id>
	<title>Psychology of cheating</title>
	<author>Radical Moderate</author>
	<datestamp>1266609180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first time I played CS, my buddy installed a couple cheats for me and showed me how to use them.  It really sapped all the fun out of the game for me, haven't cheated since. <br> <br>
So why do people cheat?  Sure, in tournaments there may be money involved, but 99.99 percent of cheaters aren't getting any material reward.  So a bunch of anonymous strangers think you're leet?  Seriously?  Any good studies online that have looked into this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I played CS , my buddy installed a couple cheats for me and showed me how to use them .
It really sapped all the fun out of the game for me , have n't cheated since .
So why do people cheat ?
Sure , in tournaments there may be money involved , but 99.99 percent of cheaters are n't getting any material reward .
So a bunch of anonymous strangers think you 're leet ?
Seriously ? Any good studies online that have looked into this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I played CS, my buddy installed a couple cheats for me and showed me how to use them.
It really sapped all the fun out of the game for me, haven't cheated since.
So why do people cheat?
Sure, in tournaments there may be money involved, but 99.99 percent of cheaters aren't getting any material reward.
So a bunch of anonymous strangers think you're leet?
Seriously?  Any good studies online that have looked into this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197344</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>Eremotherium</author>
	<datestamp>1266578940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With ebay rep systems might work, but do a quick google on sims mafia you can see how these systems can have a major backlash if they're not thought through.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With ebay rep systems might work , but do a quick google on sims mafia you can see how these systems can have a major backlash if they 're not thought through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With ebay rep systems might work, but do a quick google on sims mafia you can see how these systems can have a major backlash if they're not thought through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197920</id>
	<title>Re:The casualties of the battle are ...</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1266585840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the flip side, how many of these "bugs" are due to cheaters trying to weasel their way back into VAC servers?</p><p>There's sadly no way to know for sure, really, except for maybe people you know IRL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the flip side , how many of these " bugs " are due to cheaters trying to weasel their way back into VAC servers ? There 's sadly no way to know for sure , really , except for maybe people you know IRL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the flip side, how many of these "bugs" are due to cheaters trying to weasel their way back into VAC servers?There's sadly no way to know for sure, really, except for maybe people you know IRL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196638</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266571260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.'</p><p>What are they going to start suing their clients now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy .
'What are they going to start suing their clients now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy.
'What are they going to start suing their clients now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198062</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266587520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because they are better than you does not mean they are cheating...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because they are better than you does not mean they are cheating.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because they are better than you does not mean they are cheating...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200600</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating is enabled by the engine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266601080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you "really" understand what is going on here?<br>Learn about the old school process of lighting a map and VIS'ing a map. Maps are processed into b-tree's/lists where everything that is potentially visible is precomputed for a particular spot in the map. This aids the rendering process so only the brushes/polygons have to be processed and z sorted for things not totally occluded. That is fine for rendering, but for SOUND the map is processed into a "potentially hearable set" or PHS.</p><p>If the server didn't tell you the player was behind the wall (and making foot step sounds, reloading sounds, FIRING sounds) then you would be totally surprised to see them when you entered the room and the game would not be very realistic at all.</p><p>The cheats are leveraging this, and not much you are gonna do to defeat the "wall hacks" as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you " really " understand what is going on here ? Learn about the old school process of lighting a map and VIS'ing a map .
Maps are processed into b-tree 's/lists where everything that is potentially visible is precomputed for a particular spot in the map .
This aids the rendering process so only the brushes/polygons have to be processed and z sorted for things not totally occluded .
That is fine for rendering , but for SOUND the map is processed into a " potentially hearable set " or PHS.If the server did n't tell you the player was behind the wall ( and making foot step sounds , reloading sounds , FIRING sounds ) then you would be totally surprised to see them when you entered the room and the game would not be very realistic at all.The cheats are leveraging this , and not much you are gon na do to defeat the " wall hacks " as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you "really" understand what is going on here?Learn about the old school process of lighting a map and VIS'ing a map.
Maps are processed into b-tree's/lists where everything that is potentially visible is precomputed for a particular spot in the map.
This aids the rendering process so only the brushes/polygons have to be processed and z sorted for things not totally occluded.
That is fine for rendering, but for SOUND the map is processed into a "potentially hearable set" or PHS.If the server didn't tell you the player was behind the wall (and making foot step sounds, reloading sounds, FIRING sounds) then you would be totally surprised to see them when you entered the room and the game would not be very realistic at all.The cheats are leveraging this, and not much you are gonna do to defeat the "wall hacks" as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200304</id>
	<title>"Trusted Computing Platform"?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266600000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
First, what happened to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted\_Computing\_Group" title="wikipedia.org">"Trusted Computing Platform"</a> [wikipedia.org] concept, or what Microsoft called "Palladium"?  That was a signing system that was supposed to allow an application to be sure that the layers below it were stock.  Any funny stuff happening during the boot process or at the lower levels would invalidate the signature. Allowing some game company low-level access to a general purpose machine is just wrong. Games shouldn't even need administrator privileges.
</p><p>
As for the cheating front generally, it should be feasible to build an aimbot which only needs the video as input.  Just get the cursor in about the right place, and the aimbot does the fine adjustment.  (That's how some real-world weapons work, of course.)  Also, a cheat program which runs on a separate computer, observing the data stream from the computer running the game, has potential.  Neither of those is detectable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , what happened to the " Trusted Computing Platform " [ wikipedia.org ] concept , or what Microsoft called " Palladium " ?
That was a signing system that was supposed to allow an application to be sure that the layers below it were stock .
Any funny stuff happening during the boot process or at the lower levels would invalidate the signature .
Allowing some game company low-level access to a general purpose machine is just wrong .
Games should n't even need administrator privileges .
As for the cheating front generally , it should be feasible to build an aimbot which only needs the video as input .
Just get the cursor in about the right place , and the aimbot does the fine adjustment .
( That 's how some real-world weapons work , of course .
) Also , a cheat program which runs on a separate computer , observing the data stream from the computer running the game , has potential .
Neither of those is detectable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First, what happened to the "Trusted Computing Platform" [wikipedia.org] concept, or what Microsoft called "Palladium"?
That was a signing system that was supposed to allow an application to be sure that the layers below it were stock.
Any funny stuff happening during the boot process or at the lower levels would invalidate the signature.
Allowing some game company low-level access to a general purpose machine is just wrong.
Games shouldn't even need administrator privileges.
As for the cheating front generally, it should be feasible to build an aimbot which only needs the video as input.
Just get the cursor in about the right place, and the aimbot does the fine adjustment.
(That's how some real-world weapons work, of course.
)  Also, a cheat program which runs on a separate computer, observing the data stream from the computer running the game, has potential.
Neither of those is detectable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198698</id>
	<title>On-live</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1266592320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I think On-Live is doomed to failure, one positive point it has going for it is that I think it'll be damn near impossible to cheat. Since the only thing being sent to your computer is pre-rendered video and all the in-game calculations are done on their servers you couldn't do a wall hack or similar. I guess the only part you might be able to cheat on is the input from the controller (maybe a hack to press buttons faster than is humanly possible), but I can't imagine that would give you that much advantage. I guess an aim-bot might still be doable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I think On-Live is doomed to failure , one positive point it has going for it is that I think it 'll be damn near impossible to cheat .
Since the only thing being sent to your computer is pre-rendered video and all the in-game calculations are done on their servers you could n't do a wall hack or similar .
I guess the only part you might be able to cheat on is the input from the controller ( maybe a hack to press buttons faster than is humanly possible ) , but I ca n't imagine that would give you that much advantage .
I guess an aim-bot might still be doable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I think On-Live is doomed to failure, one positive point it has going for it is that I think it'll be damn near impossible to cheat.
Since the only thing being sent to your computer is pre-rendered video and all the in-game calculations are done on their servers you couldn't do a wall hack or similar.
I guess the only part you might be able to cheat on is the input from the controller (maybe a hack to press buttons faster than is humanly possible), but I can't imagine that would give you that much advantage.
I guess an aim-bot might still be doable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</id>
	<title>VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Majik Sheff</author>
	<datestamp>1266570900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Team Fortress is overrun with cheaters and Valve seems completely unable to do anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Team Fortress is overrun with cheaters and Valve seems completely unable to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Team Fortress is overrun with cheaters and Valve seems completely unable to do anything about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197022</id>
	<title>Re:Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>lorenzo.boccaccia</author>
	<datestamp>1266575520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can just avoid sending the position of not visible players, but the problem is that \_as soon\_ as one is visible the aimbot will kill him all the same. also another problem is that in "somewhat geared toward realism" games as modern warfare (seriously kids, famas&amp;m16 are not 3 round burst only) you have to give position away to allow for bullet penetrations. and then you still have to send sound effects, which give away your position to a potential aimbot/wallhack.<br><br>the problem with hacking is akin to the spam problem: you can only contain it as there are too much resourceful assholes living on it: http://www.callofdutyhacks.com/<br><br>I hope that blatant operations like that will be eventually busted by the dmca anti circumvention provisioning - I hate that law, but as it isn't going away anytime soon we might as well use it for something useful instead of hitting people listening to their ipods on a car stereo.<br><br>the problem will remain there as long as pc will be allowed to run any program the user want. and no I'm not giving away that freedom to play an online game.<br>
&nbsp; - even if on the xbox the experience was truly frustrating, with everybody hidden somewhere in the level and random launching granates at footsteps.<br><br>but this is an even more complex, a religion war where everyone think he is the only messiah of "the one true way the game was intended to be played", and while I'm not generally using granate/rocket launchers I'm mad at those who scream "no gl! it's not the way to be played!"<br>
&nbsp;</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can just avoid sending the position of not visible players , but the problem is that \ _as soon \ _ as one is visible the aimbot will kill him all the same .
also another problem is that in " somewhat geared toward realism " games as modern warfare ( seriously kids , famas&amp;m16 are not 3 round burst only ) you have to give position away to allow for bullet penetrations .
and then you still have to send sound effects , which give away your position to a potential aimbot/wallhack.the problem with hacking is akin to the spam problem : you can only contain it as there are too much resourceful assholes living on it : http : //www.callofdutyhacks.com/I hope that blatant operations like that will be eventually busted by the dmca anti circumvention provisioning - I hate that law , but as it is n't going away anytime soon we might as well use it for something useful instead of hitting people listening to their ipods on a car stereo.the problem will remain there as long as pc will be allowed to run any program the user want .
and no I 'm not giving away that freedom to play an online game .
  - even if on the xbox the experience was truly frustrating , with everybody hidden somewhere in the level and random launching granates at footsteps.but this is an even more complex , a religion war where everyone think he is the only messiah of " the one true way the game was intended to be played " , and while I 'm not generally using granate/rocket launchers I 'm mad at those who scream " no gl !
it 's not the way to be played !
"  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can just avoid sending the position of not visible players, but the problem is that \_as soon\_ as one is visible the aimbot will kill him all the same.
also another problem is that in "somewhat geared toward realism" games as modern warfare (seriously kids, famas&amp;m16 are not 3 round burst only) you have to give position away to allow for bullet penetrations.
and then you still have to send sound effects, which give away your position to a potential aimbot/wallhack.the problem with hacking is akin to the spam problem: you can only contain it as there are too much resourceful assholes living on it: http://www.callofdutyhacks.com/I hope that blatant operations like that will be eventually busted by the dmca anti circumvention provisioning - I hate that law, but as it isn't going away anytime soon we might as well use it for something useful instead of hitting people listening to their ipods on a car stereo.the problem will remain there as long as pc will be allowed to run any program the user want.
and no I'm not giving away that freedom to play an online game.
  - even if on the xbox the experience was truly frustrating, with everybody hidden somewhere in the level and random launching granates at footsteps.but this is an even more complex, a religion war where everyone think he is the only messiah of "the one true way the game was intended to be played", and while I'm not generally using granate/rocket launchers I'm mad at those who scream "no gl!
it's not the way to be played!
"
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200498</id>
	<title>Steam, VAC, what's that?</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1266600660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in the day, Steam was fun. I remember coming home to my 56kbps connection happy to see that Steam1 screen greeting me to play. Now it's just a piece of dumbshit which has to be updated every 67th second. Fuck them. I've learned to deeply hate steam because of their constant updating, bringing slower and slower responsiveness.<br>
Heck, from what I can see, they have to fit the needs of the game developers. If that were a real company with <b>real ethics</b>, then they would force the fuckface developers (yes, they TOO are the root of this evil) to use what they can. Yes, it would be like vendor-lock-in. But at least other users wouldn't be dumped.<br> <br>I find it amazing that so many idiots use Steam, knowing that it can, all of a sudden, dump an existing platform (remember the Windows98 issue? BOOOHOO).<br> <br>Now, you pro-steam bastards, <b>mod me down</b>.<br> <br>
On the topic: VAC is crap; I remember when just changing one or two<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.text bytes did the trick to get undetectable hacks to go through the "Holly" VAC2. I don't know if it still works like this, but if Steam gets deep into your PC, then that's one more reason to give them the finger. Heel, even hacking Wine to get me some Wallhacks can be done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) Likewise, hacked drivers can do the same. It's just not entirely possible to prevent cheating -- the problem is that ignorant gamers think that it is easy to fix. Since I'm raging: Fuck Them Too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , Steam was fun .
I remember coming home to my 56kbps connection happy to see that Steam1 screen greeting me to play .
Now it 's just a piece of dumbshit which has to be updated every 67th second .
Fuck them .
I 've learned to deeply hate steam because of their constant updating , bringing slower and slower responsiveness .
Heck , from what I can see , they have to fit the needs of the game developers .
If that were a real company with real ethics , then they would force the fuckface developers ( yes , they TOO are the root of this evil ) to use what they can .
Yes , it would be like vendor-lock-in .
But at least other users would n't be dumped .
I find it amazing that so many idiots use Steam , knowing that it can , all of a sudden , dump an existing platform ( remember the Windows98 issue ?
BOOOHOO ) . Now , you pro-steam bastards , mod me down .
On the topic : VAC is crap ; I remember when just changing one or two .text bytes did the trick to get undetectable hacks to go through the " Holly " VAC2 .
I do n't know if it still works like this , but if Steam gets deep into your PC , then that 's one more reason to give them the finger .
Heel , even hacking Wine to get me some Wallhacks can be done ; ) Likewise , hacked drivers can do the same .
It 's just not entirely possible to prevent cheating -- the problem is that ignorant gamers think that it is easy to fix .
Since I 'm raging : Fuck Them Too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, Steam was fun.
I remember coming home to my 56kbps connection happy to see that Steam1 screen greeting me to play.
Now it's just a piece of dumbshit which has to be updated every 67th second.
Fuck them.
I've learned to deeply hate steam because of their constant updating, bringing slower and slower responsiveness.
Heck, from what I can see, they have to fit the needs of the game developers.
If that were a real company with real ethics, then they would force the fuckface developers (yes, they TOO are the root of this evil) to use what they can.
Yes, it would be like vendor-lock-in.
But at least other users wouldn't be dumped.
I find it amazing that so many idiots use Steam, knowing that it can, all of a sudden, dump an existing platform (remember the Windows98 issue?
BOOOHOO). Now, you pro-steam bastards, mod me down.
On the topic: VAC is crap; I remember when just changing one or two .text bytes did the trick to get undetectable hacks to go through the "Holly" VAC2.
I don't know if it still works like this, but if Steam gets deep into your PC, then that's one more reason to give them the finger.
Heel, even hacking Wine to get me some Wallhacks can be done ;) Likewise, hacked drivers can do the same.
It's just not entirely possible to prevent cheating -- the problem is that ignorant gamers think that it is easy to fix.
Since I'm raging: Fuck Them Too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660</id>
	<title>Re:VAC is a joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266571500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been playing TF2 almost every week since shortly after release; I've never run across someone using an autoaim or wallhack. What server are you seeing this problem on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been playing TF2 almost every week since shortly after release ; I 've never run across someone using an autoaim or wallhack .
What server are you seeing this problem on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been playing TF2 almost every week since shortly after release; I've never run across someone using an autoaim or wallhack.
What server are you seeing this problem on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199738</id>
	<title>Re:Reputation systems to the rescue</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1266597420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Partially, I guess.  A lot of cheating is a technical problem due to bugs or poor game design.  These can have technical solutions.  Cheaters themselves are just a certain class of people who either want to get ahead by any means possible, or who enjoy other people suffering.  They also are a class of people who suffer from the Internet asshole effect.  Their negative actions don't have any severe consequences.  Just like on Internet forums, if they did the stuff they did in public, they would get the living crap beaten out of them and learn not to do it.<br> <br>eBay and Amazon are completely different.  There are real world consequences (eventually) when your screw around there.  Reputation systems work there since there is money involved.  It works less well in games because there is no penalty for people to rate you down if they don't like you or if they are better than them.  Back in the day, I played a lot of CS.  I was banned from so many servers for "cheating".  I didn't cheat, I just played FPS competitively in college so I had a bit more skill than most.  I imagine I would have a horrible reputation despite being someone who would never cheat.<br> <br>And I don't really get where you are talking about people blaming cheaters on poor sales.  Valve sells games just fine.  They know their customers want to play a game as free of cheats as possible.  Nothing is wrong with that...in fact, it is great for the consumer that they are concerned with cheating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Partially , I guess .
A lot of cheating is a technical problem due to bugs or poor game design .
These can have technical solutions .
Cheaters themselves are just a certain class of people who either want to get ahead by any means possible , or who enjoy other people suffering .
They also are a class of people who suffer from the Internet asshole effect .
Their negative actions do n't have any severe consequences .
Just like on Internet forums , if they did the stuff they did in public , they would get the living crap beaten out of them and learn not to do it .
eBay and Amazon are completely different .
There are real world consequences ( eventually ) when your screw around there .
Reputation systems work there since there is money involved .
It works less well in games because there is no penalty for people to rate you down if they do n't like you or if they are better than them .
Back in the day , I played a lot of CS .
I was banned from so many servers for " cheating " .
I did n't cheat , I just played FPS competitively in college so I had a bit more skill than most .
I imagine I would have a horrible reputation despite being someone who would never cheat .
And I do n't really get where you are talking about people blaming cheaters on poor sales .
Valve sells games just fine .
They know their customers want to play a game as free of cheats as possible .
Nothing is wrong with that...in fact , it is great for the consumer that they are concerned with cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partially, I guess.
A lot of cheating is a technical problem due to bugs or poor game design.
These can have technical solutions.
Cheaters themselves are just a certain class of people who either want to get ahead by any means possible, or who enjoy other people suffering.
They also are a class of people who suffer from the Internet asshole effect.
Their negative actions don't have any severe consequences.
Just like on Internet forums, if they did the stuff they did in public, they would get the living crap beaten out of them and learn not to do it.
eBay and Amazon are completely different.
There are real world consequences (eventually) when your screw around there.
Reputation systems work there since there is money involved.
It works less well in games because there is no penalty for people to rate you down if they don't like you or if they are better than them.
Back in the day, I played a lot of CS.
I was banned from so many servers for "cheating".
I didn't cheat, I just played FPS competitively in college so I had a bit more skill than most.
I imagine I would have a horrible reputation despite being someone who would never cheat.
And I don't really get where you are talking about people blaming cheaters on poor sales.
Valve sells games just fine.
They know their customers want to play a game as free of cheats as possible.
Nothing is wrong with that...in fact, it is great for the consumer that they are concerned with cheating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201696</id>
	<title>nice to see a company get it</title>
	<author>lostros</author>
	<datestamp>1266606000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To see this on the same day i read of ubisofts incredibly draconian drm is beautiful to me.  stopping cheaters is what a company should be doing, instead of spending all their profits to make sure i don't buy the game on pc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To see this on the same day i read of ubisofts incredibly draconian drm is beautiful to me .
stopping cheaters is what a company should be doing , instead of spending all their profits to make sure i do n't buy the game on pc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To see this on the same day i read of ubisofts incredibly draconian drm is beautiful to me.
stopping cheaters is what a company should be doing, instead of spending all their profits to make sure i don't buy the game on pc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198752</id>
	<title>dbags...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266592620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people that cheat are douchebags that completely miss the point of competitive gaming.<br>they are the equivalent of a troll on a forum.</p><p>My clan won't play MW2 because there are no private servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people that cheat are douchebags that completely miss the point of competitive gaming.they are the equivalent of a troll on a forum.My clan wo n't play MW2 because there are no private servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people that cheat are douchebags that completely miss the point of competitive gaming.they are the equivalent of a troll on a forum.My clan won't play MW2 because there are no private servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199764</id>
	<title>Re:2 Main Problems with VAC</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1266597540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are no tools for the server admin to make things like md5 or cvar checks</p></div></blockquote><p>MD5 checks are built into the game.  This is controlled through the <a href="http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Pure\_Servers" title="valvesoftware.com">sv\_pure cvar</a> [valvesoftware.com] and the pure\_server\_whitelist.txt file (when sv\_pure 1 is set, this file is used to determine which files the client can use that don't match the files on the server).</p><p>As for cvars, some are already checked and disallowed (anything marked as a cheat in the game).</p><p>Also, the Sourcemod plugin "<a href="http://forums.alliedmods.net/showthread.php?t=72354" title="alliedmods.net">Kigen's Anti-Cheat</a> [alliedmods.net]" has more rigorous cvar checks.</p><blockquote><div><p>no screenshot facility to check players</p></div></blockquote><p>Spectate, left or right-click until you find the problem player, then hit F5 to take screenshots (at least in TF2).  Or even better, spectate and use the <a href="http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Demo\_Recording\_Tools" title="valvesoftware.com">client-side record</a> [valvesoftware.com] command to record a demo, which you can later play back.  I believe SourceTV can be used to record demos automatically, but I don't think it records one for each player.</p><blockquote><div><p>or even the ability to kick a player</p></div></blockquote><p>OK, now you're just being ignorant.  Source servers have built-in commands to kick and ban people through either the server console or through the game using the RCON commands (which require a password that you set in the main server configuration).</p><p>This is in addition to addons such as Sourcemod, which include kick and ban abilities for any users matching specific Steam IDs, and the optional Sourcebans module, which allows bans to be synchronized between servers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no tools for the server admin to make things like md5 or cvar checksMD5 checks are built into the game .
This is controlled through the sv \ _pure cvar [ valvesoftware.com ] and the pure \ _server \ _whitelist.txt file ( when sv \ _pure 1 is set , this file is used to determine which files the client can use that do n't match the files on the server ) .As for cvars , some are already checked and disallowed ( anything marked as a cheat in the game ) .Also , the Sourcemod plugin " Kigen 's Anti-Cheat [ alliedmods.net ] " has more rigorous cvar checks.no screenshot facility to check playersSpectate , left or right-click until you find the problem player , then hit F5 to take screenshots ( at least in TF2 ) .
Or even better , spectate and use the client-side record [ valvesoftware.com ] command to record a demo , which you can later play back .
I believe SourceTV can be used to record demos automatically , but I do n't think it records one for each player.or even the ability to kick a playerOK , now you 're just being ignorant .
Source servers have built-in commands to kick and ban people through either the server console or through the game using the RCON commands ( which require a password that you set in the main server configuration ) .This is in addition to addons such as Sourcemod , which include kick and ban abilities for any users matching specific Steam IDs , and the optional Sourcebans module , which allows bans to be synchronized between servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no tools for the server admin to make things like md5 or cvar checksMD5 checks are built into the game.
This is controlled through the sv\_pure cvar [valvesoftware.com] and the pure\_server\_whitelist.txt file (when sv\_pure 1 is set, this file is used to determine which files the client can use that don't match the files on the server).As for cvars, some are already checked and disallowed (anything marked as a cheat in the game).Also, the Sourcemod plugin "Kigen's Anti-Cheat [alliedmods.net]" has more rigorous cvar checks.no screenshot facility to check playersSpectate, left or right-click until you find the problem player, then hit F5 to take screenshots (at least in TF2).
Or even better, spectate and use the client-side record [valvesoftware.com] command to record a demo, which you can later play back.
I believe SourceTV can be used to record demos automatically, but I don't think it records one for each player.or even the ability to kick a playerOK, now you're just being ignorant.
Source servers have built-in commands to kick and ban people through either the server console or through the game using the RCON commands (which require a password that you set in the main server configuration).This is in addition to addons such as Sourcemod, which include kick and ban abilities for any users matching specific Steam IDs, and the optional Sourcebans module, which allows bans to be synchronized between servers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201234</id>
	<title>Re:Trust Nothing</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1266603900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is crazy and it won't fly. The amount of data in a single screenshot, at the resolutions that gamers are accustomed to (even original CS Source) is more than the info transfered to and from the server regularly, by at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.</p><p>If you are expecting 30 FPS (as most FPS gamers do) and a typical Screenshot being about 1 megabyte in size (or 8 Megabits) means you need 240 Megabit download speed.</p><p>My current ISP offers me up to 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is crazy and it wo n't fly .
The amount of data in a single screenshot , at the resolutions that gamers are accustomed to ( even original CS Source ) is more than the info transfered to and from the server regularly , by at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.If you are expecting 30 FPS ( as most FPS gamers do ) and a typical Screenshot being about 1 megabyte in size ( or 8 Megabits ) means you need 240 Megabit download speed.My current ISP offers me up to 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is crazy and it won't fly.
The amount of data in a single screenshot, at the resolutions that gamers are accustomed to (even original CS Source) is more than the info transfered to and from the server regularly, by at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude.If you are expecting 30 FPS (as most FPS gamers do) and a typical Screenshot being about 1 megabyte in size (or 8 Megabits) means you need 240 Megabit download speed.My current ISP offers me up to 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31235398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31204776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31209202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31208512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31205338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31204678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_19_078220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31209202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31235398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31204776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197226
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31208512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31201234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31208236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31203880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31202244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31204678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31205338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31199764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31198816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31196686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31197132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_19_078220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_19_078220.31200052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
