Honest players demand proof of how a cheating report is handled | Forums

[knighted__TTV]

That's not exactly what I would call it. Undercover/investigation journalism is not a guy doing everything on his own. It's usually a journalist coming up with an idea, discussing it with the higher ups, getting the green light(meaning financial, logistical and legal support), then, and only then, starting the investigation. Otherwise, the risk are just too high for the journalist(prison or worst) and the newspaper(lawsuit) for which he's working for.

No, what he did is more akin to a black hat and I agree with coop on this one, that doesn't mean that what will follow will not be interesting or good, but that the means used to get to that point are questionable. The damage to Ubisoft's reputation has already been done, there's no going back. If it turns out to be simply an exception or worst, a made up story, a lot could go wrong.

That doesn't mean I'm not interested to see where this will go now that the cat is out of the bag so to speak.

Definitely not a blackhat. You probably meant whitehat. Calling him a blackhat is a tremendous leap. It's definitely investigative reporting for which you dont need a whole lot of resources in this particular case or he was willing to take a legal risk if there was any to begin with.

The optics certainly arent good for Ubisoft, but a person has to be incredibly naive to take this one example as the whole truth. I would ask him to repeat his test 19 more times and then post his results.

[Morfanos]

Definitely not a blackhat. You probably meant whitehat. Calling him a blackhat is a tremendous leap. It's definitely investigative reporting for which you dont need a whole lot of resources in this particular case or he was willing to take a legal risk if there was any to begin with.
...

Actually, you're right, I knew something was wrong with black hat but I couldn't remember what was the term I was looking for, thanks for pointing it out.

That said, I definitely didn't mean white hat. What I was looking for and didn't remember at the time was grey hat. A white hat or an independent investigating journalist would have either contacted the company in a direct and professional way, not like he did, or would have went to a newspaper(more than one actually) with his story. The thing not to do and which is exactly what he did was to directly put this on his on youtube channel, which, may I remind you, is monetized.

Now, to be clear, the "hat" analogy is just that, an analogy, nothing more. In no way do I believe him to be a "real" hacker, as opposed to what people tend to call hackers when speaking gaming.

I keep repeating myself but I'm very curious to know where this will lead to but it doesn't mean I agree with how it was made(and I'm not talking about his video style or editing style if anyone thinks that's what I mean).

[Mike_the_Brave]

I cannot and will not agree with the whole "He shouldn't have done that" idea that is being thrown around here nor do i like the curved balls some people throw around to divert attention from what this really is: "Entity A makes claims about a paid service quality. Entity B tests those claims (mind you, at base level) and they fail" - nothing more, nothing less. Pretty much all defensive stances i've seen so far can be written off and brushed aside by a simple double standard hypocrisy test and i could write you down multiple examples in which each and every one of you with agree with it, but not this one because we love the game (or, other reasons).

A good example, that encapsulates the whole story here is this one: Volvo uses a 3rd party manufacturer for the alarm system it equips on its cars, called "Raptor" to which it pays a lot of money, is branded by a hologram on all windows of Volvo vehicles and the association with this big automotive brand is used in all its advertising. In some mornings you notice dead stinking mice, rats and birds in your car making that day's whole driving experience a bad one even though you keep throwing them out. You have to constantly drive slower with all your windows down in order to vent out the stench all while enviously looking at other drivers enjoying their driving experience. Then you notice other Volvo drivers complaining on the internet about the same thing and some say the damn Raptor alarm isn't working and there's a bunch of kids playing pranks in the neighborhood by leaving trash in people's cars. You think "Neah, this is BS, it's a state of the art alarm system and Volvo wouldn't risk its reputation equipping its cars with crappy alarm systems!" but it keeps happening, rising in both number/week and stench intensity so one day you just leave the bloody key in the house and start pulling on the door handles : Poof! driver door opens without the alarm triggering....can't be, you go around the passenger side and take a closer look at both the door bolt locked down and the alarm led indicator on the dash blinking happily at you. You pull the door handle and the door opens! WTF? you go around opening all doors, boot, trunk,, you close them, you re-open them - NADA! But Hey, this is a volumetric alarm system so you hop in car, that must surely trigger it heck, you've seen the commercial, "you can leave the windows down and lock the car, the moment a thief tries to put his hand inside to grab something it unleashes hell's fury!" but again - NADA! Nay Nay, it even comes along with elevation alarm in case someone tries to steal your wheels or tow your car! So you go at the back, open the trunk of your "locked and alarm safeguarded car", pull out the service elevator, install it and start lifting the bloody car.....and again NADA! You go back in the house, check the PCC (personal car communicator - the remote basically) and after a brief status check it shows the car as locked and alarm safeguarded! You look out the window at your Volvo, all doors opened and lifted up at its back wheel. You contact Raptor several times but no response. You then contact Volvo and after quite a while, you finally get a response and they solve your problem.

I can go on and on and each time the process and conclusion is the same: If you buy a product you are entitled to test (or have it tested) its promoted efficiency/safety/quality if you have suspicions regarding any of those. And NO, you don't need no permission from the manufacturer to do that at all, let alone when you're testing within the scenarios that said manufacturer said it will work within. If you buy a pair of electricity insulating working gloves that can withstand 3k volts, start working on an outlet that has only 220 volts but get spiked each time, do you say "Silly me, these shouldn't protect me from electricity! ha ha"? Quick test: what mobile phone do you own? I bet you were all horrified and had the same reactions you show now towards the guys that tested their camera quality, advertised specs performance, gorrila glass efficiency and IP ratings....ahum, bet you all went "He shouldn't have done that !". Ever heard Samsung saying "Goddamit! they should have contacted us each time before charging the Note7!"

That's that - why are we gently brushing aside the fact that this youtubber:
- used multiple macros and scripts which should be detectable according to BattlEye claims
- used mega region swaps - detectable according to BattlEye claims
- was reported multiple times in-game (actually, i think we can all agree this one doesn't surprise anybody)
- he used 9 different versions of cheats running simultaneously followed by other downright vicious cheating utilities (AB, WH)
- all of the above can be found being used in multiple other videos

At the end of the day, to me, it's clear as daylight that it was in fact Ubisoft R6 Siege Team who put an and to it via his Customer Support ticket. Sure, it took quite a while, but the method that ended him is supposed to be the exception, not the rule. To be honest, i appreciate more the Ubisoft representative response than these "yeah, but no, let me try and discredit this" charades. You are all entitled to your opinions mind you but there's a line where logic and common sense ends and passing it will fall on deaf ears on my side.

But let me clear this one out - Ubi_Zoro (or any other Rep), do you find this guy guilty of anything? Do you see something wrong with what he did? Should he have asked for any type of permission from Ubisoft or BattleEye? It's ok, if you just write a "Can't comment on that" i won't hold it against you nor consider it any kind of confirmation/denial of anything since i perfectly understand where you're coming from.

*Volvo uses no crappy 3rd party alarm systems and i never had any problems with the alarm systems that come with the S60, V40 or XC60 that i owned/own

[RunnerRunner22]

I agree, OP. Apart from UBI disclosing their procedure, the handling of individual reports (cheating and toxicity) needs to change. It is simply not acceptable that you don’t get any information at all about whether or not they took action. And that is after you waited a week for them to even acknowledge your report. In comparison: if you report someone to Sony via the PS4 Dashboard you get a reply within 30 minutes or so stating that the other person has been warned, banned etc.

[MagazineSwapper]

Best cheating game in market right now!

11/10 would never recommend!

[knighted__TTV]

I agree, OP. Apart from UBI disclosing their procedure, the handling of individual reports (cheating and toxicity) needs to change. It is simply not acceptable that you don’t get any information at all about whether or not they took action. And that is after you waited a week for them to even acknowledge your report. In comparison: if you report someone to Sony via the PS4 Dashboard you get a reply within 30 minutes or so stating that the other person has been warned, banned etc.

No they don't.