• If you are not the person that was banned/muted, you are only allowed to post evidence. Trash talk is unnecessary.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lord Killington

Legendary Skial King
  • No other person was banned or blocked from the attacked IP for hours.

I'd like to just pick up on this point. I can't really see why you'd think he did it just because he was banned. That's like if a pub had a fire and immediately arrested the last guy to be kicked out. I would understand it if this was only a supporting point, but as it seems to be the main basis of this accusation, it seems a bit unfair. But even if he didn't do it, the way he's acting in this thread seems reason enough to ban him.
 

[TC]CreepingDeath

Legendary Skial King
Contributor
I'd like to just pick up on this point. I can't really see why you'd think he did it just because he was banned. That's like if a pub had a fire and immediately arrested the last guy to be kicked out. I would understand it if this was only a supporting point, but as it seems to be the main basis of this accusation, it seems a bit unfair. But even if he didn't do it, the way he's acting in this thread seems reason enough to ban him.
As the guy that originally banned him... I kinda have to agree. Yeah, the guy was being a complete douchebag on the server, but I haven't seen anything that proves (or, for that matter, disproves) that he DDOS'd us. Is there undoubtable proof in either direction?
 

BadGuy

Server-Clearing Cynic
well I must have ddos'd it I had the name DDOS

a_bloo_bloo_bloo_by_ryclaude-d3ff9ad.jpg
 

Bottiger

Administrator
As the guy that originally banned him... I kinda have to agree. Yeah, the guy was being a complete douchebag on the server, but I haven't seen anything that proves (or, for that matter, disproves) that he DDOS'd us. Is there undoubtable proof in either direction?

You will never get undoubtable proof from a DDoS attackers unless the attacker admits it or you are losing millions. No hosting company has ever given me the contact information of an attacker even when they found out I wasn't making things up and they terminated the hacker's account. Scripts kiddies also know this.

The number one reason for DDoS attacks on game servers is when someone gets banned and that is what IC3 did. No one else was banned or blocked from US21 for many hours. His acquaintances with myg0t and lulzsec show that he is much more likely to have a motivation, resources, and knowledge to successfully DDoS our 1000 mbit server, and not just try it from his home connection. Not only that, but he behaves suspiciously by listing ic3.gov as his website, hiding his profile after I list the evidence, and lying about having the name DDOS recently when it happened moments after US21 was DDoSed.

Is there a chance that he didn't do it? Of course. There is also a chance that every aimbotter we banned "didn't do it", and that his roommate did it on his computer and account while he wasn't watching. If people want him unbanned anyway, then I don't mind.

And no, we cannot really do more to protect ourselves from DDOS attacks. We already have 1000 mbit servers and multiple IPs.

knIZy.png
 

iC3

Mildly Menacing Medic
You will never get undoubtable proof from a DDoS attackers unless the attacker admits it or you are losing millions. No hosting company has ever given me the contact information of an attacker even when they found out I wasn't making things up and they terminated the hacker's account. Scripts kiddies also know this.

The number one reason for DDoS attacks on game servers is when someone gets banned and that is what IC3 did. No one else was banned or blocked from US21 for many hours. His acquaintances with myg0t and lulzsec show that he is much more likely to have a motivation, resources, and knowledge to successfully DDoS our 1000 mbit server, and not just try it from his home connection. Not only that, but he behaves suspiciously by listing ic3.gov as his website, hiding his profile after I list the evidence, and lying about having the name DDOS recently when it happened moments after US21 was DDoSed.

Is there a chance that he didn't do it? Of course. There is also a chance that every aimbotter we banned "didn't do it", and that his roommate did it on his computer and account while he wasn't watching. If people want him unbanned anyway, then I don't mind.

And no, we cannot really do more to protect ourselves from DDOS attacks. We already have 1000 mbit servers and multiple IPs.

knIZy.png
I can't say much anymore but its up to you to unban me
 

CiNiC

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
Is there a chance that he didn't do it? Of course. There is also a chance that every aimbotter we banned "didn't do it", and that his roommate did it on his computer and account while he wasn't watching. If people want him unbanned anyway, then I don't mind.
That's completely different. With an aimbotter, it's either automatically and reliably detected, seen, or proved. Only circumstantial exists in this situation.
 

Steak

Server-Clearing Cynic
Contributor
this thread is still going on Jesus its obvious its not going to happen just let it go. go find another server to do things with your friend(s).
 

Antamania

Australian Skial God
Contributor
Dunno if it were up to me simply because we're going off circumstantial evidence, I'd give him a second chance despite his behavior. Bottinger's server however so the final call is up to him, just putting in my two cents.
 

Sharkey

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
Dunno if it were up to me simply because we're going off circumstantial evidence, I'd give him a second chance despite his behavior. Bottinger's server however so the final call is up to him, just putting in my two cents.
As he's already said, all you're ever likely to get with something like this is circumstantial evidence. He feels strongly enough that the circumstantial evidence that's been gathered is strong enough for him to be comfortable with the ban.
 

Bottiger

Administrator
That's completely different. With an aimbotter, it's either automatically and reliably detected, seen, or proved. Only circumstantial exists in this situation.

It is exactly the same.

We can never prove an actual person was aimbotting and not his roommate. People with high packet loss will also trigger SMAC aimbot detection. We are using circumstantial evidence that aimbotters tend to have high KDs and jerky movement to permanently ban them.

In this same manner, we know people pretending or actually associated with myg0t and lulzsec tend to DDoS servers especially when they are banned. On top of this, he chooses a name and a website ic3.gov that only someone familiar with DDoS attacks would know. Not to mention that he lied about changing his game name to DDOS shortly after our server began to get attacked, and then made his profile private when I pointed out all the evidence.

At some point there are too many coincidences and I believe this is one of them.
 

CiNiC

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
It is exactly the same.

We can never prove an actual person was aimbotting and not his roommate. People with high packet loss will also trigger SMAC aimbot detection. We are using circumstantial evidence that aimbotters tend to have high KDs and jerky movement to permanently ban them.

In this same manner, we know people pretending or actually associated with myg0t and lulzsec tend to DDoS servers especially when they are banned. On top of this, he chooses a name and a website ic3.gov that only someone familiar with DDoS attacks would know. Not to mention that he lied about changing his game name to DDOS shortly after our server began to get attacked, and then made his profile private when I pointed out all the evidence.

At some point there are too many coincidences and I believe this is one of them.
It doesn't matter. You are seeing THAT account doing it with aimbot. You didn't see a single account or IP doing it, as far as I'm aware.

My opinion, of course, but I still say it's too circumstantial. I'm not sure why we give so much lee-way for trolls, and axe everyone on trial immediately for other offenses, even if there's no concrete proof they did it.
 

Bottiger

Administrator
It doesn't matter. You are seeing THAT account doing it with aimbot. You didn't see a single account or IP doing it, as far as I'm aware.

My opinion, of course, but I still say it's too circumstantial. I'm not sure why we give so much lee-way for trolls, and axe everyone on trial immediately for other offenses, even if there's no concrete proof they did it.

Even if you suspect someone aimbotting you can never prove that they did without looking at their computer while they were playing. Crosshairs snapping could be packet loss, and the person could just be phenomenally good. If you are banning them for snapping and having a high KD, this is also circumstantial evidence.

DDOSing a server is more serious offense than trolling.
 

CiNiC

Gaben's Own Aimbot
Contributor
Even if you suspect someone aimbotting you can never prove that they did without looking at their computer while they were playing. Crosshairs snapping could be packet loss, and the person could just be phenomenally good. If you are banning them for snapping and having a high KD, this is also circumstantial evidence.

DDOSing a server is more serious offense than trolling.
At least you see the aimbotter doing what they're presumed of doing. We didn't see this guy doing it, and we have no valid proof that he did.
 

Bottiger

Administrator
I find it a little too convenient that a few minutes after someone affiliated with myg0t and lulzsec was banned, that particular server started being attacked.

The chances of this happening are lower than SMAC having a false positive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.