Is it an advantage though if everyone you are playing with is using it too? Surely then you all have the same advantage thus there's no actual advantage.
Shouldn't have been hacking in the first place.
:colbert:
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;25612041]Shouldn't have been hacking in the first place.
:colbert:[/QUOTE]
What? I wasn't, I was just saying, I haven't been VAC banned for cheating myself, only on MW2, and that was my brother.
[QUOTE=kill3r;25612049]What? I wasn't, I was just saying, I haven't been VAC banned for cheating myself, only on MW2, and that was my brother.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking to you.
I was making a general statement about the article.
Linking to the ssa and saying "it said here that cheating is not allowed" is just dumb.
I utilized menu_plugins to runstring a text file that forces convars with gm_cvar2 from which point I just run the scripts I want to, will that get me banned? I can't think of the last time I used it anyhow.
it doesnt matter who it was, it was still the STEAM account, there is no steam family agreement
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;25612069]I wasn't talking to you.
I was making a general statement about the article.[/QUOTE]
Oh, :derp:
People don't realise contracts normally have to be fair.
You can't all of a sudden just go and state, you will be punished retroactively, when it's never been the case until now.
It's not fair - and citing the SSA would never hold up legally.
Anyway, I couldn't care less about the issue, not banned, don't cheat, never will.
[QUOTE=Maurice;25612070]Linking to the ssa and saying "it said here that cheating is not allowed" is just dumb.[/QUOTE]
Because it's right?
Can't wait to hear what chunkymonkey and Chinro are going to argue about in this thread
[QUOTE=grovewinter;25612083]I utilized menu_plugins to runstring a text file that forces convars with gm_cvar2 from which point I just run the scripts I want to, will that get me banned? I can't think of the last time I used it anyhow.[/QUOTE]
gm_cvar2 is not a cheat and it's main uses are not to circumvent scriptenforcer. You're safe. For now.
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;25612183]Can't wait to hear what chunkymonkey and Chinro are going to argue about in this thread[/QUOTE]
Oh hello...
Then again, all the cheaters [b]knew[/b] it wasn't right in the first place, unlike the people driving on the "wrong" side of the road.
I don't have any problems with the VAC enabling, i just feel sorry for these guys that got banned with "good intentions"
I know, they were violating the SSA, but still its kind of nasty. Unfortunately, VAC is not a human, and it can't sort the real cheaters out of the others.
Even the "good intentions" guys should get a punishment thou. Like a Timeban for few weeks or one month.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25612147]People don't realise contracts normally have to be fair.
You can't all of a sudden just go and state, you will be punished retroactively, when it's never been the case until now.
It's not fair - and citing the SSA would never hold up legally.
Anyway, I couldn't care less about the issue, not banned, don't cheat, never will.[/QUOTE]
Life isn't fair, deal with it. Saying it isn't fair that you were banned because you couldn't be banned before, wouldn't hold up in court, because you signed a legal contract saying you wouldn't do it. Contracts don't have to be fair, but they have to be enforceable by law and lucky for you guys, the SSA [i]is[/i] enforceable.
[quote]
If you have already been VAC banned and [B]still think[/B] your ban is unfair, no worries. You have [URL="https://store.steampowered.com/join/?"]other options[/URL].[/quote]
:v:
This article is a waste of bandwith, Garry has his own reasons and has stated them as such end of story we don't need an article on it.
Anyway, cleaned and reinstalled Gmod just to be sure.
[QUOTE=Maurice;25612070]Linking to the ssa and saying "it said here that cheating is not allowed" is just dumb.[/QUOTE]
Then how about garry himself saying that VAC is enabled and you'll get banned for cheating, posted March 21st [b]2009[/b]?
[url]http://www.garry.tv/?p=841[/url]
:colbert:
[QUOTE=Maurice;25612070]Linking to the ssa and saying "it said here that cheating is not allowed" is just dumb.[/QUOTE]
Why, because you agreed not to cheat? That's like never learning about laws and going to kill somebody, then complain when somebody points out it's against the law.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25612147]
It's not fair - and citing the SSA would never hold up legally.
[/QUOTE]
Enlighten me, why wouldn't they?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25612147]People don't realise contracts normally have to be fair.
You can't all of a sudden just go and state, you will be punished retroactively, when it's never been the case until now.
It's not fair - and citing the SSA would never hold up legally.
Anyway, I couldn't care less about the issue, not banned, don't cheat, never will.[/QUOTE]
It's been the case since 2004, deal with it.
[QUOTE=Chirno;25612296]Life isn't fair, deal with it. Saying it isn't fair that you were banned because you couldn't be banned before, wouldn't hold up in court, because you signed a legal contract saying you wouldn't do it. Contracts don't have to be fair, but they have to be enforceable by law and lucky for you guys, the SSA [i]is[/i] enforceable.[/QUOTE]
Contracts do have to be fair to both parties. It's the basis behind the reasoning that coercion isn't allowed when signing contracts.
Things like the SSA are mostly fair, but there's nowhere in the SSA that talks about punishing retroactively, when it has not been the case previously.
It's why retroactive legislation is normally frowned upon - it's not always fair.
The other thing worth mentioning is that electronically signed agreements, such as EULA or the SSA are almost never held up legally in a court, so stop using that as an argument.
Once again, I don't have any interest in changing the outcome of this - it doesn't affect me.
[QUOTE=Legend286;25612788]It's been the case since 2004, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
I guess you missed the part where I have nothing to deal with?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25612849]
Things like the SSA are mostly fair, but there's nowhere in the SSA that talks about punishing retroactively, when it has not been the case previously.[/quote]
But it does mention you're not allowed to alter the software or use hacks/cheats. That's not punishing retro-actively, that's just rules you have to follow.
[quote]The other thing worth mentioning is that electronically signed agreements, such as EULA or the SSA are almost never held up legally in a court, so stop using that as an argument.[/quote]
How about you stop saying 'hurr stop using it as an argument' and tell us WHY it wouldn't hold up in court?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25612849]The other thing worth mentioning is that electronically signed agreements, such as EULA or the SSA are almost never held up legally in a court, so stop using that as an argument.[/QUOTE]
Except it would because when you do something against an EULA or the SSA you're undertaking a breach of contract, which is punishable by law.
[QUOTE=Legend286;25612921]Except it would because when you do something against an EULA or the SSA you're undertaking a breach of contract, which is punishable by law.[/QUOTE]
Sue me.
I'm not saying they would sue you, but they can. Blizzard are suing people for breaching their EULA (only hack creators though.)
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25612849]Contracts do have to be fair to both parties. It's the basis behind the reasoning that coercion isn't allowed when signing contracts.[/quote]
And by agreeing to the contract(SSA), you are basically agreeing it is fair.
[quote]Things like the SSA are mostly fair, but there's nowhere in the SSA that talks about punishing retroactively, when it has not been the case previously.[/quote]
Too bad it's the "Steam Subscriber Agreement" and not the "Garry's Mod VAC policy".
It's why retroactive legislation is normally frowned upon - it's not always fair.
[quote]The other thing worth mentioning is that electronically signed agreements, such as EULA or the SSA are almost never held up legally in a court, so stop using that as an argument.[/quote]
And if by "almost never hold up" you mean "a punishment is almost never pursued" then yes.[/QUOTE]
Wait. Does this mean you will get banned for using HLDJ too?
[editline]24th October 2010[/editline]
Silly Chirno
:v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
