Premium Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,285 Excellent

About B1rvine

  • Rank
    Premium Member
  • Birthday 01/22/81

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Pennsylvania, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

3,525 profile views
  1. I posted this a few posts ago, but the biggest offender is actually "Boosting" in the unflaggable means, by that last sentence, dead to rights. The two you mentioned would partially fall under that category as well. Boosting - Playing online via coordinating with other players in a way to speed up progress in obtaining a trophy through normal means via in-game exploits, glitches, coordination, private lobbies, and or other doable means within the in-game environment. Hacked lobbies, hacking, or exploits performed via external means (outside of the game as created) are flaggable. So a computer and special software falls under the "external" means. Also, again, I'm not only referring to this custom server issue, but rules changing in general due to inconsistent or incomplete descriptions. The rules just got updated on how cross saves are allowed too, which directly had influence to the recent Sound Shapes dispute. If that hadn't occurred, the guy fell under unflaggable means at the time the dispute started. (I don't agree he should be unflagged, but I'd be pissed in general if a rule was updated after the dispute started and it affected an outcome I was invested in.) You asked me how PSNP was inconsistent with Sony Terms of Service, and I answered. After that, I made a post regarding gray area ethical dilemmas as a whole, and possible inconsistencies based on outcomes made by them evident here in my first two paragraphs. I did pose some ethical dilemmas to the guy who created this, in an attempt to illustrate my point which is --- what if so many "what ifs" occur that result in a rule being retracted, due to another decision by ethical concerns rather than logical rules already in place, and what happens to previous trophy earners "now in the wrong" again (so no, this is not a "gish gallop"). The lot of you continually giving your opinion on the single server example wasn't addressing my point, and didn't help matters. New stuff can't be predicted fully, you are correct. But some problems can be envisioned, and have been brought up. So we could start there. I haven't addressed new wording yet, because we haven't established the old rules have been broken yet by this new one, which I think is important before we can continue and "restart" or add to them. Honestly, I doubt anything we discuss is gonna make much of a difference either. It rarely does, as BamBam pointed out with his whitelist thing. I did get Mango to update something regarding cross saves, so I'll call that a win for the week.
  2. Alright -- I lied, I'm back. can't sleep... My issue with the server rule isn't the rule itself but how to deal with inconsistencies. It is my opinion that any newly created rules should not break any previously established ones already in place, and feelings shouldn't have any play in changing those rules. People already flagged -- or not -- may benefit or suffer because of this. This is evident because people are flagged from things 8 years ago, before trophy rules existed. So if we suddenly change a rule previously flaggable to unflaggable, what happens when another issue forces us to change it again. Are all of you people , especially against the flag system, really so confident there won't be any change later where a mod will keep someone flagged based on whatever the mood is, because of an oversight now? I'm surprised you all are so against me... I'm actually trying to help you all avoid getting flagged, or at least keep the dispute process consistent... I hope I've worded this crystal clear, and I've avoided using scenarios in forms of questions this time that aren't relevant to what I'm -really- talking about. This is why we should prepare for the future, and not just hope for the best.
  3. One last post from me then I'm done for awhile. I shifted the conversation away from liking/dislking the suggestion to problems with the PSNP rules and how to make them (imo) better a little while ago. For the record, I also mentioned several posts back that I actually don't have a problem with custom servers, if the rules defining cheating are written in a more concrete manner that closes gray areas, not necessarily limited to this issue, but really any issue. The problems are not hypothetical, we already have scenarios where MMDE's current decisions differ from Grimy's past decisions for the exact same issue, and a few cases where mods go back and forth with the flag, based on their interpretation of the rules, publicly. So my ultimate point is, where these gray areas exist: should we base ANY decision on the existing rules from a logical or ethical standard? My last few posts were attempting to convey this, and point out I think logical are better, and you can read my last few posts if you care about why, but I that was lost on the people I was talking with. Sure, that one comment you mention was distasteful, I admit it, but honest. If PSNP does pride itself on following Sony's standards, then they're in the wrong here. If its by some other standard, then its all good. Either way, I think highlighting potential loopholes because of gray areas, where its okay to completely reverse an existing standard is worth talking about.
  4. Well, you're wrong then about my intent. Plain and simple. My initial posts in this thread at least, stated my reasons for not supporting this. People are free to disagree with me. And I have no problem with that... And if the rules are going to be changed to support something I don't like... fine, so be it, I can't change that. I do think there are definite problems I pointed out in my last "big" post, and it was about when the rules are "simple" it opens up many, many, many gray areas. The questions I posed were to give examples of how a "simple" rule would then create new gray areas, and if new situations arose because of those, there would be even more... I don't like the idea of a "tree" of gray areas growing. I'd rather have as much concrete absolutes as possible, to eliminate the "same" dispute ending with two different outcomes, etc, or creating a situation where new rules aren't compatible with the old rules. I am sorry if that wasn't clear. Edit: this should be evident by my first sentence: "TLDR Version: We need solid rules, based on logic" Edit 2: I then go on to say the "main issue" I have is about ethical dilemmas, and use the entirety of the rest of my post, including posing questions, to highlight that thesis. Obviously, people are going to disagree on those exact questions, which illustrates the need for what I'm pointing out, more solid rules.
  5. Don't put words in my mouth. I was posing rhetorical questions I wasn't expecting answers to, to highlight the issues with ethical dilemmas based on ill defined gray areas, or how changing a rule 180 degrees that is in black and white isn't fair. He didn't address any of the problems of ethical dilemmas I was actually focusing on, or how to avoid them. Rather he answered all the questions I made to "highlight" why those problems exist, which a response isn't relevant.
  6. Thanks for the response again. I did add in some edits, but I'll reiterate here. So, I don't actually care too much about your opinion on my questions themselves. I wanted to give you a myriad of "new" situations I bet tons of people will disagree on, highlight problems regarding gray areas in general, and how a new "situation" poses a problem of innocent people getting flagged even if they're following the rules as written, or guilty people getting a free pass suddenly if something changes in their favor. I'm not limiting this problem to the custom server situation, but really any gray area that arises. But if we do use the custom server example, if the new rules get created in the next few days simply state "Custom servers for defunct online games are allowed," and someone made a private server, and then the whole community shunned that, followed by the rules then being changed after the fact to "only public servers are allowed" because of that situation, that would be completely unfair to the person who made the private server, and they would be flagged. Focusing on the other way around, it was currently written in black and white, custom servers are NOT allowed until a few hours ago, but yet nobody will be flagged for this method because of public support. So if the rules can completely change 180 degrees once, what's preventing them from swaying another direction later? Eventually somethings gonna clash.
  7. TLDR Version: We need solid rules, based on logic, that aren't prone to the cheater team's interpretation when gray areas arise, or have the ability to be swayed in a 180 degree direction from the current rules, just because a new situation arises and the big cheese made a ruling completely contradicting previous rules, as this situation did. Lets be real here, how many of you would love that @MMDE wouldn't be able to "pick" what's legit or not on gray issues if this occurred. (sorry mmde, had to pick on you) @NeM2k2 I guess my ultimate issue with this whole thing is -- I'd like to have clearer, solid, black and white regulations, and the reasoning behind it -- and then create logical rules based on those accordingly that leave no room for a gray area or exceptions. Currently we have the rules, but allow potential cherry picking if a gray area arises. There have been contradictions to outcomes of disputes of the same nature based on which mod handles it and their version of ethics already. That's unacceptable in my opinion. So lets eliminate the gray area, and the choice to make an ethical decision -- completely. Instead, lets make a completely new system based on logic that leaves no room for interpretation, uniform flagged dispute outcomes, and hopefully addresses unforeseen issues like this one. There's no reason this suggestion shouldn't have unanimous support. ( @BlindMango this is where you step up - see my full response for why) Followup on your answers: 1) The fact you wouldn't condone a private server raises a huge red flag and directly relates to my previous paragraph. Hypothetical scenario for you... Someone gets flagged for getting trophies after servers shut down on an online game. They prove they earned the trophies on an exact replica private server, and compare their private server to yours. If there was only a generic rule simply allowing custom servers, PSNP would then have to un-flag them, since on a "technical" level, they're doing the exact same thing as you. If the site did keep this person flagged, they'd be cherry picking servers based on ethics (the gray area), and then it becomes an argument of who's ethics are more popular or whatever. The ethical dilemma could occur on hundreds of different issues (not necessarily even only the custom server thing, but any slightly different scenario thats possibly flaggable.) But to use the server example, I'll throw this to you: What if this "private" server had MORE people than your public server, would it be an issue then? Suddenly its not so easy. 2) No, its not guilty until innocent. Really though, what I'm talking about, again, is an ethical dilemma. Why do you get to determine public custom servers are legit and private aren't? Your biggest supporter, @ProfBambam55 already disagrees and said private servers should be allowed. Also, what exactly is a "known public server?" How should someone who heavily advertises on Gamefaqs.com about reviving a server, on a super unpopular game and nobody notices in the trophy community until a flag is raised. They could make a great argument that it was "public" for a time. Essentially, too much gray area and ethical issues here that need SUPER clear definitions and reasoning. 3) Official glitches on servers everyone's on the same footing, so that's fair game. Sly basically said "Do this at your own risk." AKA Maybe. That's not a good "official" rule. What happens if someone finds an legitimate error in your code 6 months from now and its discovered trophies are easier (I know nothing of Bulletstorm, and I'm sure your code is good... but for arguments sake). Does maybe mean "oh well, everyone gets flagged?" I mean, lets be honest, the first person who ever had their PS3 YLOD on them in 2008 may have earned trophies out of order impossibly. And that was LONG before the rules existed here prohibiting saves. Why should they be retroactively affected? Which brings me to the ethical dilemma again, why should a sudden rule change going 180 from before just because of some new "gray scenario" have the ability to affect tons of gamers legitimacy? What's the next "big debate" going to be, and will it affect any previous rules? Enough on this. 4) That's good to know. I was pretty sure it was cross platform but it was worded in a way that made me hesitate. 5) See 1 - 4 Edit: I would be in support of custom servers, if the rules were updated in the manner listed. But I'm not in support of it now, only because we basically did a 180 from the previous rule, and there's nothing to say we won't go 180 again. Edit 2: I'm basing my "180 degree turnaround" based on PSNP stating their rules are based on what PSN allows, and this change doesn't reflect that. Also logically, as its written to the exact word, using a custom server violates 3 listed rules: CFW, Hacked servers, and Boosting (via external means) albeit to lesser degrees than the listed example if severity is accounted for. Edit 3 : The specific rules that need huge updates are : Custom servers: Needs HUGE clarification. Anything involved in the "white-list" issue: different disputes have had different results for this same issue. Minor wording changes in a lot of descriptions. "ie auto-unlock, since not all saves etc will necessarily do that, but its the action of using that method, not the auto-unlock thats the offense. I'm sure everyone knows this, but doesn't hurt to make it stupid-proof.
  8. Ummm, I mentioned the TOS one single time, and provided a list of things because @DaivRules called me out and asked me how... @SnowxSakura brought another great point in too I had forgotten about. Disconnecting matches would be against Sony's rules too, but its not something this site would be able to identify. A custom server is able to be identified, and thus, it should be fringed upon. Glitches etc are about the firmware, not individual games. I do appreciate the response, thank you. We can agree to disagree. This is sort of a misconception / false info that agitators or people that disapprove of disputes use. It's not guilty before proven innocent. I'd really rather not go into a lengthy response though. Ultimately, my stance in this case is "I don't care if they're earned "legit" on a custom server. That's still cheating."
  9. First off, generally speaking, I applaud you for your dedication to keep a game's content in tact as best as possible. There's plenty of games with dead online components I would like to play for fun again, and these sorts of projects breathe life into those games. I also believe you have honest intentions with this project and Gonespy, so for that, I commend you. I do have to condemn this though as legitimate for purposes of earning trophies multiple reasons. For one, it's against Playstation Network's ToS. I'll post the relevant links at the end. I don't know how much of the thread you've read, or if you saw some of my earlier comments, so I'll ask you directly. 1) If someone used your source to make a completely private server for a very limited number of people (themselves and friends) got some trophies nobody else could get, how would you feel about that? On a technical level, it would be the same thing, right? But on an ethical level, thats a whole different ball game. Where should the line be drawn? 2) I realize hackers won't go to the trouble of "earning" these legit on a server when they can just hack them. But an issue lies in identifying these people. Say your Bulletstorm server was removed by you after some time, and an extra limited number of people earned these trophies afterwards, claiming they had used their own server etc. How would anyone be able to tell if it was hacked or not? Doesn't this open the door of anyone being able to say "I built a server?" 3) You partially answered this but, you can't know other servers will be honest. No end user could ever really be sure without examining the source. Where does the line get drawn to whether its "legit" or not. Obviously autopopping isn't, but lets say the code secretly made a requirement from 10k kills to 5k, etc. Legit? Okay, how about 9.5k kills etc etc etc. Basically, if we can't really ever know, why make any 3rd party legit? Why open the doors to potential abuse. 4) How do you feel about people people that aren't running Windows and still won't have access to this "workaround?" 5) Finally, and most importantly, this project IS against the official terms as mentioned above. How do you honestly justify that it's legit for earning trophies based on this? Now, for the legal mumbo jumbo. @BlindMango ---------------- Under Community Guidelines: You must also adhere to the following rules of conduct when using PSN Services or your Account: You may not use, make, or distribute unauthorized software or hardware, including Non-Licensed Peripherals and cheat code software or devices that circumvent any security features or limitations included on any software or devices, in conjunction with PSN Services, or take or use any data from PSN Services to design, develop or update unauthorized software or hardware. (basically, you admit yourself in Gonespy's FAQ it's a security risk based on how it operates, using PSN's services to achieve such...) You may not modify or attempt to modify the online client, disc, save file, server, client-server communication, or other parts of any game title, or content. (basically, this is really referring to PSN firmware, but the clause "game title" extends its meaning...) You may not attempt to hack or reverse engineer any code or equipment used in connection with PSN Services. (Authorized 3rd party services Gamespy are referred to multiple times as part of the "property" or an overall part of the PSN service network. You may not cause disruption to or modify or damage any Account, system, hardware, software, or network connected to or provided by PSN Services for any reason, including for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in a game. (depending on who you ask, your code may violate this rule, and this is EA we're talking about... They've sued for less.) You may not cheat, exploit or use any bugs, glitches, vulnerabilities or unintentional game mechanics in PSN Services or any of its products or services to obtain an unfair advantage. (again, ethically speaking, your code possibly does this. But it definitely breaks security vulnerabilties less-honest people would employ) Under licensing: PSN Services and content or services provided through PSN Services may contain security or technical features that will prevent use of content or services in violation of this agreement, and you will not circumvent these features without a legal right to do so. Somewhere in there, I lost it now, it refers to all official services like Gamespy as part of the "Property" and that their IP's must not be infringed upon either. I could go on, but won't.
  10. @ProfBambam55 We should look at what if’s because if we dont, then we may be in a situation later where a new situation would cause the new rule and the current rule to be contradictory to each other. @DaivRules How is it ignorant to go against Sony’s ToS?
  11. Going against the PSN ToS is the wrong move in my opinion, but I guess I’ll have to live with it.
  12. Why shoudn’t we care about the what-ifs? Isn’t it a good idea to figure out the potential problems before letting this case decide the fate of every revived server in the future? The rules of this site *clearly* define this sort of thing as cheating. If you are arguing for an exception, so be it, but then you need to argue where the exception ends, and basically you saying “who cares” opens too many worms. I’ll leave you with two questions: Would someone earning trophies on a 3rd party server be okay with you if the official one was still operational? If we are changing a rule that is defined, why shouldn’t specific examples be set for the what could occur down the line. Isn’t it shortsighted to make a single exception without redefining the rules?
  13. Depending on the size and scope of their project, absolutely yes. I didn’t quote you on the whole post, but you also summed up my short posts amazingly.
  14. My original comment was an answer to a specific comment BamBam made, about the detectability of CFW users who put in “legit” timestamps and how they are detectable by means I won’t go into but the flag team knows. That really has no bearing on my opinion on whether custom server’s should be legitimate or not. What does matter to me is that not everyone will be on equal footing, and I explained why in previous posts. I’ve never said “x” is bad or “y” is good. PSNP already defines that. Not me. But based on their “current” rules, this custom server option would absolutely fall under the “cheating realm.” If you’d like to discuss making an exception to the rules and allowing this fine, but I disagree an exception should be made (again, I’ve outlined why earlier)
  15. Here’s a concept for everyone to think about too: Would a custom server be legit if someone did this with a game that had a currently active server still online? @Sergen Cant find your post since I’m on my phone now, but I built a server for a now defunct PC game (Myth, by Bungie, when they actually made good stuff) when I was in high school. It’s not as hard as you think. So... what? Just because not everyone is caught means we shouldn’t attempt to keep things as legit as possible? Should all cheaters get to stay on the leaderboard just because we can’t get them all? I’d also disagree that it’s delegitimized, simply because we can’t get everybody. It would be though if the site didn’t do everything it could to prevent such people from being on the leaderboard.