[QUOTE=Furnost;25651306]This wouldn't be be so bad for me if I hadn't inadvertently screwed around with Faphack in single player, went on one single server just to screw around with some helicopters on there, and the server was secure.
Now I'm gonna miss out on toybox. :smith:[/QUOTE]
Fap hack is fine.
[QUOTE=rampageturke;25654196]Fap hack is fine.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so.
[quote]Sorry! There's been a problem. This shouldn't happen.
If you want to help me fix this problem, please email me with this info:
• Your OS version (windows 98, windows 7?)
• Firewalls? Do you have one? Does it work with your firewall turned off?
• Does this happen every time, or just sometimes?
- Thanks (garrynewman@gmail.com)[/quote
If that has anything to do with something else besides VAC, it's not possible. Windows 7 is fine, Firewall is fine, and everything else is fine.
[editline]26th October 2010[/editline]
wow that was a big fuck-up of trying to quote
thats what you get for being a script kiddie
I have an answer. If you have addons that could be considered cheats by VAC (even if they're not - remember, valve uses Whitelists, not Blacklists), and you only play on Sandbox and similar non-objective based game modes, just don't play on VAC servers. My server is VAC disabled because I'm boycotting VAC on Garry's Mod (not because I like cheating, but because of the methods used to detect cheats).
[QUOTE=garry;25634917]You're right, banning people for cheating is against their human rights.[/QUOTE]
Yes, address the one moron making stupid points instead of the many others making rational ones
That analogy is stupid.
It would be understandable if the drivers in his analogy ran people down instead. There may have not been a law for it in America, but they know it will ruin lives for other people. Then there comes a law and the police arrest everyone they know who drove people down. So the prisoners cry and whine about it because they didn't know they'd get caught doing it, even though it ruined lives for other people.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25671025]Yes, address the one moron making stupid points instead of the many others making rational ones[/QUOTE]
I don't see any rational points here
[QUOTE=garry;25676027]I don't see any rational points here[/QUOTE]
Welcome to facepunch.
People are still bitching about this?
Thanks garry, I've always wanted to be vac banned from gmod!
[QUOTE=Furnost;25667333]I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
FapHack is pure Lua. VAC banning for Lua is a physical impossibility because of how easily exploitable that would be. Plus, pure Lua cheats are blocked by scriptenforcer. Bypassing scriptenforcer is becoming more and more likely to gain you a VAC ban.
[QUOTE=|FlapJack|;25682562]FapHack is pure Lua. VAC banning for Lua is a physical impossibility because of how easily exploitable that would be. Plus, pure Lua cheats are blocked by scriptenforcer. Bypassing scriptenforcer is becoming more and more likely to gain you a VAC ban.[/QUOTE]
Then why am I being barred from using Toybox, and cannot join any secure servers?
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
I've never even used any hacks or cheats before, and that server was just a sandbox one, and it was one that I regularly went to. It didn't have ScriptEnforcer.
[QUOTE=garry;25676027]I don't see any rational points here[/QUOTE]
Basically the crux of your pro-VAC argument is that the Steam Subscriber Agreement says cheating is not allowed, but subscriber agreements have rarely (if ever) been found legally binding in a court of law. There are also consumer protections in place to negate the legality of "fine print" in many jurisdictions as well as protections against bait-and-switch (silently enabling VAC without informing your users is an example of this). This normally wouldn't be a serious issue if VAC was a temporary ban, but a VAC ban permanently denies users a service that they paid for. After purchasing Garry's Mod, we are given a receipt that outlines the transaction and obligates the seller to provide the product or service. Even without this, there are protections in place that allow the buyer to take legal action against a seller who withholds products or services without the opportunity of a refund.
I'm not blaming you for this [i]at all[/i], it makes sense that you would want to use the anti-cheating protections that are already in place for the engine you are using. I'm just saying that VAC is a giant powder keg waiting to blow up in Valve's face should anyone ever challenge it and that'll likely be a massive headache for developers like yourself.
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
By "subscriber agreements" in the first sentence meant to put "Terms of Service" and other online "contracts".
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25692100]Basically the crux of your pro-VAC argument is that the Steam Subscriber Agreement says cheating is not allowed, but subscriber agreements have rarely (if ever) been found legally binding in a court of law. There are also consumer protections in place to negate the legality of "fine print" in many jurisdictions as well as protections against bait-and-switch (silently enabling VAC without informing your users is an example of this). This normally wouldn't be a serious issue if VAC was a temporary ban, but a VAC ban permanently denies users a service that they paid for. After purchasing Garry's Mod, we are given a receipt that outlines the transaction and obligates the seller to provide the product or service. Even without this, there are protections in place that allow the buyer to take legal action against a seller who withholds products or services without the opportunity of a refund.
I'm not blaming you for this [i]at all[/i], it makes sense that you would want to use the anti-cheating protections that are already in place for the engine you are using. I'm just saying that VAC is a giant powder keg waiting to blow up in Valve's face should anyone ever challenge it and that'll likely be a massive headache for developers like yourself.
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
By "subscriber agreements" in the first sentence meant to put "Terms of Service" and other online "contracts".[/QUOTE]
Hey protip: VAC has always been enabled, there was no "bait and switch" here. The only people saying VAC didn't work was players in the community, not Garry.
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
Also, Everyone on FP is an legal expert... :rolleye:
[QUOTE=40KEndgame;25668305]I have an answer. If you have addons that could be considered cheats by VAC (even if they're not - remember, valve uses Whitelists, not Blacklists), and you only play on Sandbox and similar non-objective based game modes, just don't play on VAC servers. My server is VAC disabled because I'm boycotting VAC on Garry's Mod (not because I like cheating, but because of the methods used to detect cheats).[/QUOTE]
VAC uses blacklists. Don't talk about things you don't know bro.
[QUOTE=Nexus435;25692362]VAC uses blacklists. Don't talk about things you don't know bro.[/QUOTE]
I'm ok with being corrected.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25692100]Basically the crux of your pro-VAC argument is that the Steam Subscriber Agreement says cheating is not allowed, but subscriber agreements have rarely (if ever) been found legally binding in a court of law. There are also consumer protections in place to negate the legality of "fine print" in many jurisdictions as well as protections against bait-and-switch (silently enabling VAC without informing your users is an example of this). This normally wouldn't be a serious issue if VAC was a temporary ban, but a VAC ban permanently denies users a service that they paid for. After purchasing Garry's Mod, we are given a receipt that outlines the transaction and obligates the seller to provide the product or service. Even without this, there are protections in place that allow the buyer to take legal action against a seller who withholds products or services without the opportunity of a refund.
I'm not blaming you for this [i]at all[/i], it makes sense that you would want to use the anti-cheating protections that are already in place for the engine you are using. I'm just saying that VAC is a giant powder keg waiting to blow up in Valve's face should anyone ever challenge it and that'll likely be a massive headache for developers like yourself.
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
By "subscriber agreements" in the first sentence meant to put "Terms of Service" and other online "contracts".[/QUOTE]
Apple got their butts kicked big time in the supreme court over this (not that they care). Nintendo has been unreliable service-wise lately (likely due to fear of a lawsuit).
[QUOTE=garry;25676027]I don't see any rational points here[/QUOTE]
Probably because it doesn't match your ideas.
[QUOTE=Chirno;25692294]Also, Everyone on FP is an legal expert... :rolleye:[/QUOTE]
Some people actually have experience in this area - not everyone on Facepunch is a 13 year old.
[QUOTE=DogGunn;25692901]Some people actually have experience in this area - not everyone on Facepunch is a 13 year old.[/QUOTE]
No, everyone is an expert.
[QUOTE=Chirno;25692925]No, everyone is an expert.[/QUOTE]
They would surprise me. I know a little about this subject, but I'm no expert.
[QUOTE=Chirno;25692925]No, everyone is an expert.[/QUOTE]
Sick logic.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25692100]This normally wouldn't be a serious issue if VAC was a temporary ban, but a VAC ban permanently denies users a service that they paid for. After purchasing Garry's Mod, we are given a receipt that outlines the transaction and obligates the seller to provide the product or service. Even without this, there are protections in place that allow the buyer to take legal action against a seller who withholds products or services without the opportunity of a refund. [/QUOTE]
So a VAC ban removes access to the service (Gmod in this case)?
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware Garry removed singleplayer from the game.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25692100]Basically the crux of your pro-VAC argument is that the Steam Subscriber Agreement says cheating is not allowed, but subscriber agreements have rarely (if ever) been found legally binding in a court of law. There are also consumer protections in place to negate the legality of "fine print" in many jurisdictions as well as protections against bait-and-switch (silently enabling VAC without informing your users is an example of this). This normally wouldn't be a serious issue if VAC was a temporary ban, but a VAC ban permanently denies users a service that they paid for. After purchasing Garry's Mod, we are given a receipt that outlines the transaction and obligates the seller to provide the product or service. Even without this, there are protections in place that allow the buyer to take legal action against a seller who withholds products or services without the opportunity of a refund.
I'm not blaming you for this [i]at all[/i], it makes sense that you would want to use the anti-cheating protections that are already in place for the engine you are using. I'm just saying that VAC is a giant powder keg waiting to blow up in Valve's face should anyone ever challenge it and that'll likely be a massive headache for developers like yourself.
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
By "subscriber agreements" in the first sentence meant to put "Terms of Service" and other online "contracts".[/QUOTE]
I've never mentioned the SSA.
My argument would be that the server owners decide whether they want people marked as VAC banned on their servers. They obviously don't, that's why they run in secure mode.
VAC doesn't stop you playing the game, it stops you playing on secure servers.
[QUOTE=garry;25697604]VAC doesn't stop you playing the game, it stops you playing on secure servers.[/QUOTE]
And from using toybox - I understand the secure server parts, but not toybox.
[QUOTE=Chirno;25692294]Hey protip: VAC has always been enabled, there was no "bait and switch" here. The only people saying VAC didn't work was players in the community, not Garry.
[editline]27th October 2010[/editline]
Also, Everyone on FP is an legal expert... :rolleye:[/QUOTE]
Except it hasn't "always been enabled" because it never showed up as enabled on the store page until recently.
[QUOTE=Dashiel;25614276]I can't believe there's even a debate going on about if this is unfair or not, are people really this stupid?[/QUOTE]
This is a forum of course people will debate.
the only hacks i've used was a findplayers lua script that would tell me the spots of anyone on the map
it was somewhat amusing to use on prophunt servers
Finally no more cheaters in the other gamemodes.
It makes me laugh that the VAC announcement was made the day after some fucker went rambo with BaconBot in my favorite TTT server.
Dumbass :v:
I got Vacbanned in 2004 when I was young and stupid (msn friend sent me an aimbot lol) Anyhow how come I can still join secured vac gmod servers now?
[QUOTE=Boeing787;25702942]I got Vacbanned in 2004 when I was young and stupid (msn friend sent me an aimbot lol) Anyhow how come I can still join secured vac gmod servers now?[/QUOTE]
If you're VAC banned from a different game, it wont affect GMod.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
