Account suspension discussion [merged]

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

>

> Any one posting wasn't banned, have you even been reading this thread?

> Banned accounts can not post.

 

We have. In fact, this was mentioned that some slipped through the cracks, and the moderators here are slowly taking care of this issue. Source:

 

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said [in this post](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/485588/#Comment_485588)

> > This may or may not be a bug. Let me explain our policies, which relate to game accounts that truly are suspended (as opposed to those that are not, but for which forum access is blocked, as in the case the OP describes.)

> >

> > Our intention is that anyone whose game account is suspended should also temporarily lose forum privileges. Certainly that was the case with the old forums, but I've recently learned of at least a few cases where game-suspended people continued to have forum privileges.

> >

> > Now, if someone loses forum privileges, their game account is not impacted. IOW, it's a one way street:

> > * Game Account Suspension = Forum Account Suspension

> > * Forum Account Suspension /= Game Account Suspension.

> > * (If something on the forums inspires a review of game activity, that still does not mean there's a direct 1:1 correlation, and I think those cases are very rare.)

> >

> > The reason that we remove forum privileges during a suspension is that we do not intend the forums to become a place to go to air one's grievances, or to be viewed as a "second court of appeal" for every time-out that someone may receive, or every support-related suspension with which someone might disagree. "I was suspended for say 'poo'" and I want you forum people to get my account reinstated" isn't making a valuable contribution to any member here, and having to filter through appeals of game actions amidst a lot of lively and valuable conversations is an utter waste of time for forum members (and forum staff, incidentally ;) ).

> >

> > Lastly, posting on behalf of a suspended or banned member is expressly prohibited by the [Forum Code of Conduct](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/the-forums-code-of-conduct/ "Forum Code of Conduct"). Why? See the paragraph immediately above, for the same reasoning applies.

> >

> > I hope this explains our intentions and I encourage the OP to work with Customer Support on the game suspension, as the forum suspension will end with the game suspension ends. There may be mitigating circumstances in your friend's case that we do not wish to discuss on the forums. Remember that forum-related questions can be addressed to Forums@Arena.Net. Thanks.

 

To the point, more than a few posters, who admitted they were banned, "unjustly" to use their words, voiced their displeasure when this thread first started and continued to voice it for some time afterwards. They have since disappeared. So, yes, those posters could still post in some cases . . . until the moderators here cracked down on them.

 

As far as your 'argument', as I said before, "Been there, done that, and it didn't make any difference." Sorry, but until ANet changes its stance, this merry-go-round has no destination. And I'm going to guess also given their silence on this issue and the lack of banned players returning to voice their validated innocence . . . ANet's decision is final . . . especially since they said so already publicly.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> >

> > Any one posting wasn't banned, have you even been reading this thread?

> > Banned accounts can not post.

>

> We have. In fact, this was mentioned that some slipped through the cracks, and the moderators here are slowly taking care of this issue. Source:

>

> > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said [in this post](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/485588/#Comment_485588)

> > > This may or may not be a bug. Let me explain our policies, which relate to game accounts that truly are suspended (as opposed to those that are not, but for which forum access is blocked, as in the case the OP describes.)

> > >

> > > Our intention is that anyone whose game account is suspended should also temporarily lose forum privileges. Certainly that was the case with the old forums, but I've recently learned of at least a few cases where game-suspended people continued to have forum privileges.

> > >

> > > Now, if someone loses forum privileges, their game account is not impacted. IOW, it's a one way street:

> > > * Game Account Suspension = Forum Account Suspension

> > > * Forum Account Suspension /= Game Account Suspension.

> > > * (If something on the forums inspires a review of game activity, that still does not mean there's a direct 1:1 correlation, and I think those cases are very rare.)

> > >

> > > The reason that we remove forum privileges during a suspension is that we do not intend the forums to become a place to go to air one's grievances, or to be viewed as a "second court of appeal" for every time-out that someone may receive, or every support-related suspension with which someone might disagree. "I was suspended for say 'poo'" and I want you forum people to get my account reinstated" isn't making a valuable contribution to any member here, and having to filter through appeals of game actions amidst a lot of lively and valuable conversations is an utter waste of time for forum members (and forum staff, incidentally ;) ).

> > >

> > > Lastly, posting on behalf of a suspended or banned member is expressly prohibited by the [Forum Code of Conduct](https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/the-forums-code-of-conduct/ "Forum Code of Conduct"). Why? See the paragraph immediately above, for the same reasoning applies.

> > >

> > > I hope this explains our intentions and I encourage the OP to work with Customer Support on the game suspension, as the forum suspension will end with the game suspension ends. There may be mitigating circumstances in your friend's case that we do not wish to discuss on the forums. Remember that forum-related questions can be addressed to Forums@Arena.Net. Thanks.

>

> To the point, more than a few posters, who admitted they were banned, "unjustly" to use their words, voices their displeasure when this thread first started and continued to voice it for some time afterwards. They have since disappeared. So, yes, those posters could still post in some cases . . . until the moderators here cracked down on them.

>

> As far as your 'argument', as I said before, "Been there, done that, and it didn't make any difference." Sorry, but until ANet changes its stance, this merry-go-round has no destination. And I'm going to guess also given their silence on this issue and the lack of banned players returning to voice their validated innocence . . . ANet's decision is final . . . especially since they said so already publicly.

 

Just to be clear, I don't care about the people that were banned, that is not my issue. I feel bad about the people that may have been banned by mistake, I'm not losing any sleep over that.

 

I care about a company that's going cold and indifferent, acting like the NSA, that I have spent over a $1,000 in their cash shop.

 

This whole experience just tells me to spend the bare minimum because ANet can just do what ever they want to you regardless because of the user agreement; that does not inspire any consumer confidence in me what so ever. Putting Spyware on my machine with out telling me, even if it's for my own good supposedly, does not foster trust in any rational minded person unless you've become desensitized to people doing what ever they want to you.

 

I made my ticket, if they want to get paid again they know what to do.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > >

> > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > >

> > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> >

> > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> >

> > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

>

> Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

 

Gaile said otherwise.

[TexZero.7910]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > > >

> > > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > > >

> > > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> > >

> > > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> > >

> > > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

> >

> > Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

>

> Gaile said otherwise.

 

She may have but there was definitely a user in here whom was banned in game that posted their support ticket reply showcasing that the bans were not innocuous or false positives. The support staff even told them exactly what tool they were using that triggered their suspension.

 

Now then i haven't seen them post in a while so they may be currently banned as they've fixed a bug but that wasnt the case for the first week and a half of this.

Edit and Update : found the post https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/479878#Comment_479878 and the user is indeed currently banned on forums now.

[Ashen.2907]

> @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > > > >

> > > > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > > > >

> > > > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> > > >

> > > > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> > > >

> > > > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

> > >

> > > Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

> >

> > Gaile said otherwise.

>

> She may have but there was definitely a user in here whom was banned in game that posted their support ticket reply showcasing that the bans were not innocuous or false positives. The support staff even told them exactly what tool they were using that triggered their suspension.

>

> Now then i haven't seen them post in a while so they may be currently banned as they've fixed a bug but that wasnt the case for the first week and a half of this.

> Edit and Update : found the post https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/479878#Comment_479878 and the user is indeed currently banned on forums now.

 

Yes, there were a number of banned individuals who continued to post after the ban. I wonder if the forum bans are processed manually by mods provided lists of banned accounts rather than by an automated process. It might explain the delay enacting the forum bans.

[Deihnyx.6318]

I'm just going to drop that here:

 

"VAC stands for Valve Anti-Cheat, an automated system designed to detect cheats installed on users' computers. If a user connects to a VAC-Secured server from a computer with identifiable cheats installed, the VAC system will ban the user from playing that game on VAC-Secured servers in the future."

For all the complainers, now you can uninstall Steam as well :)

 

... Or just realize how ridiculous this witch hunt is.

[Jinks.2057]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

>

>

 

Anet has already officially stated and confirmed this. It is not speculation at this point

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > > > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> > > In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Anet themselves said that they had banned players for only having a process running at the same time as the game, not because cheating actually occurred.

> To be more specific, they said they banned people that had a high corellation of running a certain "cheat" process alongside GW2 across a longer time. That's a much lower probability of accidentally occuring than just having gw2 and a process running concurrently once or twice for a short while.

>

> So yeah, it is possible that someone might have accidentally been caught in the net. Probably not as likely as you might think, but i admit, it _could_ happen (even though i'd say that someone would have to be extremely unlucky for it to happen accidentally). That's not what you said however. You said you _know for a fact_ someone innocent has been banned. Not "might have been" but "had". That's a much more specific statement. And one we _don't_ actually know if it's true.

 

One of the players banned was told by Anet, through a support ticket response, that they had been banned for running a cheat program along side the game for 90 minutes. That's not a very long time. It's short enough to easily be a single session, or even a portion of a single session of playing the game. It's certainly not a "significant number of hours during a multi-week period", as Anet said in their official statement.

 

In that particular case it wasn't CheatEngine that Anet had detected, but a GW2 specific cheat program called UNF. (I don't recall seeing anyone state a specific length of time regarding bans for CE, so I'm using this instance.) Being a cheat specifically for GW2 instead of a multi-use tool, we would generally assume that the likely hood of actual cheating is quite high. However, in this case as well as at least a few others I've heard of, the accused players say they were falsely accused of using UNF. Some having mentioned they had not even heard of the cheat. One said that his mother, who I believe he described as not being able to install the game without assistance, was accused of using UNF. In fact, every player I've seen claiming to be falsely banned for something other than CE, was accused of using UNF.

 

I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one. I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF. We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

 

Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > > > > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> > > > In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

> I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one. I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF. We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

>

> Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

 

I find it hard to believe that something else would be matching the exact same hash as UNF. It's very, very, very unlikely to happen. It's not because MD5 is a "weak" hash that it's not reliable for most cases. I would bet that the reason it was used was for fast processing time.

And if that's the case, what is this other program then? What program would a user that can't install programs be using that would cause of ban to only 1500ish people?

 

If there is a legit program which hash ends up being exactly the same than UNF, then it's quite easy. You know they've ran md5 without hash. Hash all your running processes again, and prove to them that program X is getting the same hashed value. Hard proof that they can't deny.

 

It's like... apparently people have no problem believing Anet did something fishy and reporting it to the whole internet, but they're willing to believe of a different program matching a md5 hash......

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > > > > > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> > > > > In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

> > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one. I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF. We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> >

> > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

>

> I find it hard to believe that something else would be matching the exact same hash as UNF. It's very, very, very unlikely to happen. It's not because MD5 is a "weak" hash that it's not reliable for most cases. I would bet that the reason it was used was for fast processing time.

> And if that's the case, what is this other program then? What program would a user that can't install programs be using that would cause of ban to only 1500ish people?

>

> If there is a legit program which hash ends up being exactly the same than UNF, then it's quite easy. You know they've ran md5 without hash. Hash all your running processes again, and prove to them that program X is getting the same hashed value. Hard proof that they can't deny.

>

> It's like... apparently people have no problem believing Anet did something fishy and reporting it to the whole internet, but they're willing to believe of a different program matching a md5 hash......

 

It's not quite that simple to find what a potential false positive could have been from. You would need the signatures the exact version UNF and whatever was mistakenly identified as UNF at the time of detection, which was sometime in March. One redditor mentioned trying to do this, but ran into a roadblock when they couldn't get the version of UNF that Anet would have been looking for. It had been updated, and apparently links to the older version were gone.

 

And even if you did prove there was another program on your computer that matched UNF, Anet is not accepting appeals for these cases. That also doesn't prove that you were running the mis-ID'd program instead of UNF itself.

 

What Anet should be doing is going back through game logs for these 1500 players and determining which of them actually show evidence of using cheats ingame.

 

As for what program someone that is inept at using a computer might have, my first guess would be something related to drivers for some uncommon hardware. That actually happened with Blizz's Warden anti-cheat and a specific version of an Asus Xonar audio driver.

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

> @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> > > > >

> > > > > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> > > > >

> > > > > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

> > > >

> > > > Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

> > >

> > > Gaile said otherwise.

> >

> > She may have but there was definitely a user in here whom was banned in game that posted their support ticket reply showcasing that the bans were not innocuous or false positives. The support staff even told them exactly what tool they were using that triggered their suspension.

> >

> > Now then i haven't seen them post in a while so they may be currently banned as they've fixed a bug but that wasnt the case for the first week and a half of this.

> > Edit and Update : found the post https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/479878#Comment_479878 and the user is indeed currently banned on forums now.

>

> Yes, there were a number of banned individuals who continued to post after the ban. I wonder if the forum bans are processed manually by mods provided lists of banned accounts rather than by an automated process. It might explain the delay enacting the forum bans.

 

Exactly. Obtena wasn't speaking out of turn, you know. We saw otherwise in this thread.

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

> > > > >

> > > > > Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

> > > >

> > > > Gaile said otherwise.

> > >

> > > She may have but there was definitely a user in here whom was banned in game that posted their support ticket reply showcasing that the bans were not innocuous or false positives. The support staff even told them exactly what tool they were using that triggered their suspension.

> > >

> > > Now then i haven't seen them post in a while so they may be currently banned as they've fixed a bug but that wasnt the case for the first week and a half of this.

> > > Edit and Update : found the post https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/479878#Comment_479878 and the user is indeed currently banned on forums now.

> >

> > Yes, there were a number of banned individuals who continued to post after the ban. I wonder if the forum bans are processed manually by mods provided lists of banned accounts rather than by an automated process. It might explain the delay enacting the forum bans.

>

> Exactly. Obtena wasn't speaking out of turn, you know. We saw otherwise in this thread.

 

If Gaile said the a game ban also results in a forum ban, I would assume that is true.

 

The manual submit from a list sent to mods makes sense, given what we've seen. If it were automated, I would expect that the time between syncing game and forum bans would be no more than a day. That person was posting for a week after the bans were announced.

[Oldirtbeard.9834]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

> > > > >

> > > > > Gaile said otherwise.

> > > >

> > > > She may have but there was definitely a user in here whom was banned in game that posted their support ticket reply showcasing that the bans were not innocuous or false positives. The support staff even told them exactly what tool they were using that triggered their suspension.

> > > >

> > > > Now then i haven't seen them post in a while so they may be currently banned as they've fixed a bug but that wasnt the case for the first week and a half of this.

> > > > Edit and Update : found the post https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/479878#Comment_479878 and the user is indeed currently banned on forums now.

> > >

> > > Yes, there were a number of banned individuals who continued to post after the ban. I wonder if the forum bans are processed manually by mods provided lists of banned accounts rather than by an automated process. It might explain the delay enacting the forum bans.

> >

> > Exactly. Obtena wasn't speaking out of turn, you know. We saw otherwise in this thread.

>

> If Gaile said the a game ban also results in a forum ban, I would assume that is true.

>

> The manual submit from a list sent to mods makes sense, given what we've seen. If it were automated, I would expect that the time between syncing game and forum bans would be no more than a day. That person was posting for a week after the bans were announced.

 

You mean me? I haven't been banned at all.

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > @"TexZero.7910" said:

> > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said:

> > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Oldirtbeard.9834" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:

> > > > > > > > > So . . . we're back to the, "Oh my God. The way ANet went about this is worst than the cheating!" part, are we?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Once more, you can voice your displeasure by quitting. For those of you that missed it, rehashing this argument hasn't made ANet change its mind. And, as far as I can tell, no one has had their ban reversed due to the argument recycled above. At least, they haven't returned to these forums to voice their absolution.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > All I've seen from those users is how evil ANet is . . . on other forums.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any one commenting still has an active account, I'm talking privacy violations and ethical behavior by ANet.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Any one commenting obviously wasn't banned, that doesn't take a NASA Rocket Engineer to figure that out.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Um, no ... there is a guy here posting that was banned. The forum active status is not linked to the account active status AFAIK.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Gaile said otherwise.

> > > > >

> > > > > She may have but there was definitely a user in here whom was banned in game that posted their support ticket reply showcasing that the bans were not innocuous or false positives. The support staff even told them exactly what tool they were using that triggered their suspension.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now then i haven't seen them post in a while so they may be currently banned as they've fixed a bug but that wasnt the case for the first week and a half of this.

> > > > > Edit and Update : found the post https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/479878#Comment_479878 and the user is indeed currently banned on forums now.

> > > >

> > > > Yes, there were a number of banned individuals who continued to post after the ban. I wonder if the forum bans are processed manually by mods provided lists of banned accounts rather than by an automated process. It might explain the delay enacting the forum bans.

> > >

> > > Exactly. Obtena wasn't speaking out of turn, you know. We saw otherwise in this thread.

> >

> > If Gaile said the a game ban also results in a forum ban, I would assume that is true.

> >

> > The manual submit from a list sent to mods makes sense, given what we've seen. If it were automated, I would expect that the time between syncing game and forum bans would be no more than a day. That person was posting for a week after the bans were announced.

>

> You mean me? I haven't been banned at all.

 

No, it was some others that were posting in this thread earlier. Your name just got caught up in the chain of quotes being mentioned.

[Voltekka.2375]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

>

>

 

"Maybe its Maybelline"

Ha!!! Good one!

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > > > > > > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> > > > > > In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

> > > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one. I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF. We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> > >

> > > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

> >

> > I find it hard to believe that something else would be matching the exact same hash as UNF. It's very, very, very unlikely to happen. It's not because MD5 is a "weak" hash that it's not reliable for most cases. I would bet that the reason it was used was for fast processing time.

> > And if that's the case, what is this other program then? What program would a user that can't install programs be using that would cause of ban to only 1500ish people?

> >

> > If there is a legit program which hash ends up being exactly the same than UNF, then it's quite easy. You know they've ran md5 without hash. Hash all your running processes again, and prove to them that program X is getting the same hashed value. Hard proof that they can't deny.

> >

> > It's like... apparently people have no problem believing Anet did something fishy and reporting it to the whole internet, but they're willing to believe of a different program matching a md5 hash......

>

> It's not quite that simple to find what a potential false positive could have been from. You would need the signatures the exact version UNF and whatever was mistakenly identified as UNF at the time of detection, which was sometime in March. One redditor mentioned trying to do this, but ran into a roadblock when they couldn't get the version of UNF that Anet would have been looking for. It had been updated, and apparently links to the older version were gone.

>

> And even if you did prove there was another program on your computer that matched UNF, Anet is not accepting appeals for these cases. That also doesn't prove that you were running the mis-ID'd program instead of UNF itself.

>

> What Anet should be doing is going back through game logs for these 1500 players and determining which of them actually show evidence of using cheats ingame.

>

> As for what program someone that is inept at using a computer might have, my first guess would be something related to drivers for some uncommon hardware. That actually happened with Blizz's Warden anti-cheat and a specific version of an Asus Xonar audio driver.

 

I see, it seems strange that an older version of a program can't be found on the internet anymore, but since these programs are shady, it makes sense.

 

I am not really informed about what this UNF does (obviously), but I took a quick look at a website, and it seems that it's doing speed hacking.

Then yeah, Anet could have checked evidence of cheating on a case by case basis to be 100% sure.

However, what they did (regarding UNF, not talking about CE here) is still reasonable, knowing this is a program 100% made for cheating in GW2, and if it's running, there's reasons to believe it's being used.

It's also reasonable to expect that a MD5 would render a different hash for every process running. From what I gather (quickly, I could be wrong but it's a very high number) you have 1 chance out of 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 to get the same result.

So... if you got banned for THAT, it basically means you should have won to lotto.

 

Hence why the "shady" behavior sounds so much more plausible to me.

Again, not saying that false positives are not possible. But I wouldn't automatically blame Anet in this case, and try to work with them instead. Yes, the appeal should be possible though. Let's agree on that.

[Laila Lightness.8742]

Can people just stop no one will convice anyone

First if anet warned before using it would be pointless to do it in first place every hacker would closed program until anet stopped using it and all would be back at route 1

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > @"Deihnyx.6318" said:

> > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > > > > > > > This is proven because we know for a FACT that people were banned wrongfully.

> > > > > > > In this case? No, we actually don't. I have seen too many of "wrongfully banned" people that were protesting their innocence even when presented with clear proofs that they were plain lying to just believe anyone's claims that Anet made a mistake. Maybe they did, or maybe it's Maybelline.

> > > > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one. I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF. We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

> > >

> > > I find it hard to believe that something else would be matching the exact same hash as UNF. It's very, very, very unlikely to happen. It's not because MD5 is a "weak" hash that it's not reliable for most cases. I would bet that the reason it was used was for fast processing time.

> > > And if that's the case, what is this other program then? What program would a user that can't install programs be using that would cause of ban to only 1500ish people?

> > >

> > > If there is a legit program which hash ends up being exactly the same than UNF, then it's quite easy. You know they've ran md5 without hash. Hash all your running processes again, and prove to them that program X is getting the same hashed value. Hard proof that they can't deny.

> > >

> > > It's like... apparently people have no problem believing Anet did something fishy and reporting it to the whole internet, but they're willing to believe of a different program matching a md5 hash......

> >

> > It's not quite that simple to find what a potential false positive could have been from. You would need the signatures the exact version UNF and whatever was mistakenly identified as UNF at the time of detection, which was sometime in March. One redditor mentioned trying to do this, but ran into a roadblock when they couldn't get the version of UNF that Anet would have been looking for. It had been updated, and apparently links to the older version were gone.

> >

> > And even if you did prove there was another program on your computer that matched UNF, Anet is not accepting appeals for these cases. That also doesn't prove that you were running the mis-ID'd program instead of UNF itself.

> >

> > What Anet should be doing is going back through game logs for these 1500 players and determining which of them actually show evidence of using cheats ingame.

> >

> > As for what program someone that is inept at using a computer might have, my first guess would be something related to drivers for some uncommon hardware. That actually happened with Blizz's Warden anti-cheat and a specific version of an Asus Xonar audio driver.

>

> I see, it seems strange that an older version of a program can't be found on the internet anymore, but since these programs are shady, it makes sense.

>

> I am not really informed about what this UNF does (obviously), but I took a quick look at a website, and it seems that it's doing speed hacking.

> Then yeah, Anet could have checked evidence of cheating on a case by case basis to be 100% sure.

> However, what they did (regarding UNF, not talking about CE here) is still reasonable, knowing this is a program 100% made for cheating in GW2, and if it's running, there's reasons to believe it's being used.

> It's also reasonable to expect that a MD5 would render a different hash for every process running. From what I gather (quickly, I could be wrong but it's a very high number) you have 1 chance out of 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 to get the same result.

> So... if you got banned for THAT, it basically means you should have won to lotto.

>

> Hence why the "shady" behavior sounds so much more plausible to me.

> Again, not saying that false positives are not possible. But I wouldn't automatically blame Anet in this case, and try to work with them instead. Yes, the appeal should be possible though. Let's agree on that.

 

I mostly agree about UNF detections, or anything else that is a GW2-specific cheat. I think investigating for actual cheating after process detection is ideal, but I don't see it as a necessity if appeals (and subsequent further investigation) are allowed. It's annoying to be banned for something you didn't do, but I wouldn't go throwing a fit over it if there was a process to have it checked and corrected.

 

As I've mentioned before, I've not been banned for anything in GW2. But I did get caught up in a ban wave in GW1, along with a bunch of other innocent players. It seemed that their bot detector was somewhat sensitive to rapid use of the "pick up loot" button, which was left unchanged during a special event that dropped tons of loot onto the ground in a packed town. I got a bunch of loot, then found my account banned the next day, but support was helpful for getting my ban (and those for a bunch of guildmates) overturned. There was a little forum stir up, but the whole thing was resolved so quickly that it never blew up into any sort of huge PR mess.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> One of the players banned was told by Anet, through a support ticket response, that they had been banned for running a cheat program along side the game for 90 minutes. That's not a very long time. It's short enough to easily be a single session, or even a portion of a single session of playing the game. It's certainly not a "significant number of hours during a multi-week period", as Anet said in their official statement.

>

> In that particular case it wasn't CheatEngine that Anet had detected, but a GW2 specific cheat program called UNF. (I don't recall seeing anyone state a specific length of time regarding bans for CE, so I'm using this instance.) Being a cheat specifically for GW2 instead of a multi-use tool, we would generally assume that the likely hood of actual cheating is quite high.

That's likely why such a short time was enough. It's (from what i understand from fast checking - i didn't hear about this program before) a gw2-specific speed hack used mostly for cheating by pvp players. I guess if someone was running that program and engaging in some pvp playing, there was no point to check anything more.

 

 

> However, in this case as well as at least a few others I've heard of, the accused players say they were falsely accused of using UNF. Some having mentioned they had not even heard of the cheat. One said that his mother, who I believe he described as not being able to install the game without assistance, was accused of using UNF. In fact, every player I've seen claiming to be falsely banned for something other than CE, was accused of using UNF.

>

> I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one.

Yep. I guess the most likely explanation is that they _weren't_ wrongly accused, and they _really_ used that gw2-specific cheat. From what i understand it's quite popular in pvp scene, so it's not surprising there were a lot of people using it that got caught.

 

> I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF.

To me that raises a possibility that those people are simply not being quite truthful in their explanations.

 

> We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

It's _theoretically_ capable of creating false positives. The chance of that actually happening in practice is so abysmally low it can be safely ignored.

 

> Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

Fun fact: people not using any cheat programs had nothing to worry about.

 

 

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

> @"mrstealth.6701" said:

>

> If Gaile said the a game ban also results in a forum ban, I would assume that is true.

>

You can also presume when someone said he was banned from the game, in this thread, and then was later banned from the forum, that Gaile's statement was not all inclusive as far as in action nor immediate.

 

Don't know why we need to argue this point since the proof is literally in this thread:

 

> @"Rankomonaut.4708" said:

> Hello players, did anyone get the suspension for no reason aswell?

>

> My wife and me just finished our wvw dailies and suddenly got the suspension at the same time.

>

> "Your Guild Wars 2 account has been suspended for modifying or tampering with the game, which is a breach of the User Agreement and Rules of Conduct. Access will be restored in 4320 hour."

>

> Question is... what did I do? I only use TacO for trib SAB (although after last week I'm done, so I quit it.) I also use the arcdps buildtemplate thing - for the build template only.

>

> Strange is that my wife does not use any of these. Help?

 

Hello? The original poster is one of those people. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

[mrstealth.6701]

 

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> It's _theoretically_ capable of creating false positives. The chance of that actually happening in practice is so abysmally low it can be safely ignored.

>

> > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

>

While the possibility is statistically low, it is worth pointing out that Blizzard has had this problem at least twice with their Warden anti-cheat. From what I've read, Warden uses (or used at that time, at least) a process detection system comparable to Anet's. In the most prominent incident I saw, Blizzard acknowledged what had happened, apologized, and offered free game time in addition to overturning the bans.

 

I would be inclined to agree that the very low chance is fairly safe to ignore, if Anet was accepting appeals. Instead, they are refusing to consider appeals and remaining totally silent on the matter publicly.

[Nightlark.4029]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > One of the players banned was told by Anet, through a support ticket response, that they had been banned for running a cheat program along side the game for 90 minutes. That's not a very long time. It's short enough to easily be a single session, or even a portion of a single session of playing the game. It's certainly not a "significant number of hours during a multi-week period", as Anet said in their official statement.

> >

> > In that particular case it wasn't CheatEngine that Anet had detected, but a GW2 specific cheat program called UNF. (I don't recall seeing anyone state a specific length of time regarding bans for CE, so I'm using this instance.) Being a cheat specifically for GW2 instead of a multi-use tool, we would generally assume that the likely hood of actual cheating is quite high.

> That's likely why such a short time was enough. It's (from what i understand from fast checking - i didn't hear about this program before) a gw2-specific speed hack used mostly for cheating by pvp players. I guess if someone was running that program and engaging in some pvp playing, there was no point to check anything more.

>

>

> > However, in this case as well as at least a few others I've heard of, the accused players say they were falsely accused of using UNF. Some having mentioned they had not even heard of the cheat. One said that his mother, who I believe he described as not being able to install the game without assistance, was accused of using UNF. In fact, every player I've seen claiming to be falsely banned for something other than CE, was accused of using UNF.

> >

> > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one.

> Yep. I guess the most likely explanation is that they _weren't_ wrongly accused, and they _really_ used that gw2-specific cheat. From what i understand it's quite popular in pvp scene, so it's not surprising there were a lot of people using it that got caught.

>

> > I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF.

> To me that raises a possibility that those people are simply not being quite truthful in their explanations.

>

> > We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> It's _theoretically_ capable of creating false positives. The chance of that actually happening in practice is so abysmally low it can be safely ignored.

>

> > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

> Fun fact: people not using any cheat programs had nothing to worry about.

>

>

It would be interesting if the author of one of the cheats added some extra data to their program that caused the md5 hash to collide with a semi-well known program.

[mrstealth.6701]

> @"Nightlark.4029" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > One of the players banned was told by Anet, through a support ticket response, that they had been banned for running a cheat program along side the game for 90 minutes. That's not a very long time. It's short enough to easily be a single session, or even a portion of a single session of playing the game. It's certainly not a "significant number of hours during a multi-week period", as Anet said in their official statement.

> > >

> > > In that particular case it wasn't CheatEngine that Anet had detected, but a GW2 specific cheat program called UNF. (I don't recall seeing anyone state a specific length of time regarding bans for CE, so I'm using this instance.) Being a cheat specifically for GW2 instead of a multi-use tool, we would generally assume that the likely hood of actual cheating is quite high.

> > That's likely why such a short time was enough. It's (from what i understand from fast checking - i didn't hear about this program before) a gw2-specific speed hack used mostly for cheating by pvp players. I guess if someone was running that program and engaging in some pvp playing, there was no point to check anything more.

> >

> >

> > > However, in this case as well as at least a few others I've heard of, the accused players say they were falsely accused of using UNF. Some having mentioned they had not even heard of the cheat. One said that his mother, who I believe he described as not being able to install the game without assistance, was accused of using UNF. In fact, every player I've seen claiming to be falsely banned for something other than CE, was accused of using UNF.

> > >

> > > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one.

> > Yep. I guess the most likely explanation is that they _weren't_ wrongly accused, and they _really_ used that gw2-specific cheat. From what i understand it's quite popular in pvp scene, so it's not surprising there were a lot of people using it that got caught.

> >

> > > I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF.

> > To me that raises a possibility that those people are simply not being quite truthful in their explanations.

> >

> > > We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> > It's _theoretically_ capable of creating false positives. The chance of that actually happening in practice is so abysmally low it can be safely ignored.

> >

> > > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

> > Fun fact: people not using any cheat programs had nothing to worry about.

> >

> >

> It would be interesting if the author of one of the cheats added some extra data to their program that caused the md5 hash to collide with a semi-well known program.

 

I was just discussing whether that could be done on reddit. The answer was that it's practically impossible with a file that actually has a use/fuction. You'd have a better chance of just building the program as you normally would, and having a random/unintended collision with some other program.

 

[This is an explanation that was linked on reddit:](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/116095/is-possible-to-force-a-file-to-generate-an-specific-md5-signature)

 

I'm not going to link the reddit topic itself because there was some discussion in other parts of it that touch on things not allowed here.

[Jinks.2057]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > One of the players banned was told by Anet, through a support ticket response, that they had been banned for running a cheat program along side the game for 90 minutes. That's not a very long time. It's short enough to easily be a single session, or even a portion of a single session of playing the game. It's certainly not a "significant number of hours during a multi-week period", as Anet said in their official statement.

> >

> > In that particular case it wasn't CheatEngine that Anet had detected, but a GW2 specific cheat program called UNF. (I don't recall seeing anyone state a specific length of time regarding bans for CE, so I'm using this instance.) Being a cheat specifically for GW2 instead of a multi-use tool, we would generally assume that the likely hood of actual cheating is quite high.

> That's likely why such a short time was enough. It's (from what i understand from fast checking - i didn't hear about this program before) a gw2-specific speed hack used mostly for cheating by pvp players. I guess if someone was running that program and engaging in some pvp playing, there was no point to check anything more.

>

>

> > However, in this case as well as at least a few others I've heard of, the accused players say they were falsely accused of using UNF. Some having mentioned they had not even heard of the cheat. One said that his mother, who I believe he described as not being able to install the game without assistance, was accused of using UNF. In fact, every player I've seen claiming to be falsely banned for something other than CE, was accused of using UNF.

> >

> > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one.

> Yep. I guess the most likely explanation is that they _weren't_ wrongly accused, and they _really_ used that gw2-specific cheat. From what i understand it's quite popular in pvp scene, so it's not surprising there were a lot of people using it that got caught.

>

> > I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF.

> To me that raises a possibility that those people are simply not being quite truthful in their explanations.

>

> > We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> It's _theoretically_ capable of creating false positives. The chance of that actually happening in practice is so abysmally low it can be safely ignored.

>

> > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

> Fun fact: people not using any cheat programs had nothing to worry about.

>

>

 

Fun fact: people who weren't cheating got wrongfully banned

 

People really don't understand the gravity of the breach of trust this is. Outside of this site basically everyone has been appalled by the actions of Anet.

[Deihnyx.6318]

> @"Jinks.2057" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"mrstealth.6701" said:

> > > One of the players banned was told by Anet, through a support ticket response, that they had been banned for running a cheat program along side the game for 90 minutes. That's not a very long time. It's short enough to easily be a single session, or even a portion of a single session of playing the game. It's certainly not a "significant number of hours during a multi-week period", as Anet said in their official statement.

> > >

> > > In that particular case it wasn't CheatEngine that Anet had detected, but a GW2 specific cheat program called UNF. (I don't recall seeing anyone state a specific length of time regarding bans for CE, so I'm using this instance.) Being a cheat specifically for GW2 instead of a multi-use tool, we would generally assume that the likely hood of actual cheating is quite high.

> > That's likely why such a short time was enough. It's (from what i understand from fast checking - i didn't hear about this program before) a gw2-specific speed hack used mostly for cheating by pvp players. I guess if someone was running that program and engaging in some pvp playing, there was no point to check anything more.

> >

> >

> > > However, in this case as well as at least a few others I've heard of, the accused players say they were falsely accused of using UNF. Some having mentioned they had not even heard of the cheat. One said that his mother, who I believe he described as not being able to install the game without assistance, was accused of using UNF. In fact, every player I've seen claiming to be falsely banned for something other than CE, was accused of using UNF.

> > >

> > > I know it's circumstantial, but it's interesting that all of these players claiming to be wrongly banned for a GW2-specific cheat, were all accused of using the same one.

> > Yep. I guess the most likely explanation is that they _weren't_ wrongly accused, and they _really_ used that gw2-specific cheat. From what i understand it's quite popular in pvp scene, so it's not surprising there were a lot of people using it that got caught.

> >

> > > I would expect to see cases of players declaring innocence over accusations of using the other cheats Anet was after. To me, that raises a question over the possibility that something else entirely was being incorrectly detected as UNF.

> > To me that raises a possibility that those people are simply not being quite truthful in their explanations.

> >

> > > We do know that the method Anet used to detect cheats, matching MD5 hashes, is capable of creating false positives. I find it disturbing that Anet thought it was reasonable to base their banning decisions solely on such flawed methodology.

> > It's _theoretically_ capable of creating false positives. The chance of that actually happening in practice is so abysmally low it can be safely ignored.

> >

> > > Unfortunately, we have no of knowing which (if any) of these people are being honest in their claims. No way of knowing which of them are actually innocent. What we do know, is that Anet clearly said it was their intent in to ban players for having programs open, rather than actually cheating. When you go in casting such a broad net with a low burden of proof, that includes a tool as common CheatEngine, it is almost inevitable that innocent players will be caught.

> > Fun fact: people not using any cheat programs had nothing to worry about.

> >

> >

>

> Fun fact: people who weren't cheating got wrongfully banned

>

> People really don't understand the gravity of the breach of trust this is. Outside of this site basically everyone has been appalled by the actions of Anet.

 

Outside of this site, pretty much all the news websites are fed outdated information.

Also they keep reporting what each other says without digging into the matter.

 

Again, read what V.A.C. does. Think accordingly.

 

False positive happens, life goes on.