Add edgecase for TF2 invalidation

Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 the devs backed it all up for a revival some day and possible release but yes there probably should be some thought in general about future proofing as well as jippen points out, we can talk about what currently exists but we know its a certain probability that more of these situations will be created so is there criteria beyond just, does it exist or not exist. Krephix — 05/23/2021 Well if there is a possibility that a hacked server of some sort existed at that point and he does not say that he hacked himself directly--> game invalidation if he says he hacked somehow directly other rules are applied Xeinok — 05/23/2021 Thanks for the good discussions everyone btw ❤️ Krephix — 05/23/2021 So let's make the classic CS:S Gift Grab example: -You randomly joined the server and unlock the achievement unintentionally --> game invalidation (new rule applies) -You say yourself that you intentionally joined the server to unlock that achievement --> game invalidation (new rule applies, you did not do the file editing etc. yourself, you just joined the server) -You set up the server yourself and you modified the game code in a way that makes the achievement possible etc. so you performed the action of making it possible yourself; can basically only be proved if user admits to it --> other rules apply, profile invalidation for NA-3 or whatever other rules apply for other specific examples MisterXYZ — 05/23/2021 why is gift grab even being used as the example, you shouldn't be able to accidentally get it anyway you would still need to kill players and actually pick up gifts that drop, it's not like something that automatically pops when you join Jippen — 05/23/2021 Because its the recent rule judgement that caused the creation of this channel in the first place. MisterXYZ — 05/23/2021 I mean as an example of an achievement you could unlock unintentionally Jippen — 05/23/2021 90% of people who came to argue gift grab bans were "I was told it was okay by astats and didn't know it wasn't okay here". Thats effectively unintentional - as they were intending to unlock the cheevo in a way that was allowed. MisterXYZ — 05/23/2021 Yeah, in that respect I could see it as being something intentionally done while breaking rules they didn't know about unintentionally It was more using that and joining a hacked server in the same example, since it's not like you get one kill and the achievement pops, not knowing that it was a server that would unlock an unrelated achievement Jippen — 05/23/2021 -You set up the server yourself and you modified the game code in a way that makes the achievement possible etc. so you performed the action of making it possible yourself; can basically only be proved if user admits to it --> other rules apply, profile invalidation for NA-3 or whatever other rules apply for other specific examples

This does create incentives for banned users to set up as many hacked lobbies as they want - and then after years, if they want to... just file an appeal, relock the games they hosted, and move on. Or someone hosting these things "as a service" - send me a copy of the game, and I'll just host it for a month, do some events, then appeal it. Xeinok — 05/23/2021 I'm not sure if this kind of "unintentional" is what Krephix, bron, Gunner, Fabian, etc. were talking about above - I think they just meant like joining a random CSS server Because otherwise that's a huge can of worms and anyways ignorance of the law is never an excuse to freely break the law Jippen — 05/23/2021 No, but its an argument we've already seen, and something worth considering happening again in the future - and how that applies to the discussion and any changes Krephix — 05/23/2021 So what exactly prevents that right now with the current rules? Krephix — 05/23/2021 yeah, you can get that unintentionally. Let's say you just want to play CS:S for some reason and you don't even know about the achievement. You join a random online public server, which has this Gift Grab thing enabled.. you play the game normally, kill players, pick up things and suddenly you get the achievements and get fully banned. IGGYTRIX — 05/23/2021 what he meant is that it's not the same as TF 2 unlock all achievements server case in that context imo Krephix — 05/23/2021 As far as I know for TF2 you have to explicitly write something in the chat as well. Some sort of command IGGYTRIX — 05/23/2021 probably, don't have such experience and don't know anyone who did that so can't check with them ChasingEXP — 05/23/2021 This was a long long time ago, probably 2013-2014 but I was in one of those servers but I don't remember typing any commands I've since relocked but as far as I remember I was just playing normally (potentially on a custom map?) IGGYTRIX — 05/23/2021 can you please define: --joining a illegally modified server

• joining a hacked/cheated server not quiet sure what you mean by those IGGYTRIX — 05/23/2021 so they just unlock on enter? ChasingEXP — 05/23/2021 Maybe? It's been so long that I probably shouldn't have mentioned it as I can't get too specific Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 not all tf2 versions require typing in chat to trigger achievements, it can be triggered by the host and done automatically too Fabio's Favorite Speedo — 05/23/2021 ye some are typing in chat, some are auto, etc ^ Krephix — 05/23/2021 even more reason to treat it as a game invalidation only IGGYTRIX — 05/23/2021 wasn't it always treated as game invalidation? Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 what is it Krephix — 05/23/2021 yes IGGYTRIX — 05/23/2021 TF 2 auto server unlock Krephix — 05/23/2021 I am referencing the initial statement: In all actuality this should probably be a ban that is why I said that Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 tf2 was treated as a game invalidation as an edge case, css did not have an edge case so it was treated as na3, tf2 would have been na3 itself but we grandfathered in the edge case though it seems tf2 was missed in adding the grandfathering and we're still requiring an mr change which i think is why half this channel is about that Krephix — 05/23/2021 I don't think half the channel is about TF2 at all. This is why I proposed to add a new rule to cover all of the server cases for game invalidations initially instead of just adding edge cases for all games seemingly randomly like that. Because it seems really random / inconsistent if TF2 is randomly a game invalidation and then CS:S is randomly a profile ban. This is why it would be better to have a new rule for these server-things added that results in a game invalidation for those cases as I explained in more details above. Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 all the edge cases are inconsistent by design, its why we don't create edge cases, they're all inconsistencies grandfathered in to point out how inconsistent they are and have them written down its why we don't create new rules based on them honestly we probably would have avoided it, if we took the harshest stance and did a complete new wipe of all users and games to no edge cases when uahr was created, but we decided to compromise because the community wanted compromise so its the before x date / after x date bc vs ad Krephix — 05/23/2021 No I think that would be bad. I don't think TF2 should lead to a profile invalidation at all. Jippen — 05/23/2021 TBF, adding TF2 as an edge case would be an easy thing to add to cover gaps while this channel debates. Since its generally been moderated as an unwritten rule - and the whole point of the UAHR is to not have any of those. Krephix — 05/23/2021 I would say we don't need the edge-case and can rather put work into wording a possibly new rule That would cover the edge-case by default then Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 i can see tf2 being added as an edge case just because the edge cases are there for us to maintain a historical archive of everything pre-UAHR Jippen — 05/23/2021 Edge case can be done and voted in a week, working out a new rule is unlikely to be anywhere near that fast. These conversations often take months - and it'd be good to cover easy things in the mean time. And if this outdates that rule - cool. We can delete it them. But its publicly documented in the mean time Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 edge cases basically get added as, this was something from pre-uahr , or this is a clarification that said action does not break the rules. so we just need wording to draft for historical tf2 Jippen — 05/23/2021 Even if historic, it still should have a vote - not really cool to change the rules without that in any circumstance. Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 they aren't changed in a sense, but yes either way i have a list of edge cases that were pre-uahr that have to get added pinned in one of the channels ah its deep in rules discussion pins we did about half of them so far Jippen — 05/23/2021 Team Fortress 2

❌ Due to historic AStats rulings, achievement servers in this game which unlock achievements for you (automatically, by typing a chat command, pressing a button, etc) are not allowed - but they only count as a game invalidation, not as an NA-1/NA-3 profile ban.

Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 na1 and na3 depending on which but yes capital Astats I wonder if all edge cases that are historic or traditional, or should be just labled as pre-UAHR grandfathering of an Astats Rule Xeinok — 05/23/2021 styled as AStats* always afaik Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 ah even i get it wrong YouGotHitByGunner — 05/23/2021 I believe Spacewar is also missing from grandfathered edge cases Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 yup its pinned Jippen — 05/23/2021 NA-1 arguably fits better than NA-3 in this context. Cause its behaving like SAM Xeinok — 05/23/2021 illegal ("illegal" here just meant something that breaks the UAHR) modded server and hacked/cheated server are basically the same thing: an example would be like someone modifying the code for a CS:GO deathmatch server so that when you join all cheevos pop Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 i think the behavior might seem similar, but this opens it to, na 1 if you do it or join, but na 3 if you specifically are modifying your server, ,so i'd like to close both gaps @jippen Krephix — 05/23/2021 Can we pin relevant parts about the possible "new rule" that was discussed earlier? I feel like that might get lost Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 whichever you'd like to be pinned, give the message link Jippen — 05/23/2021 I think you have pin rights, Krephix Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 i assume its difficult on mobile Jippen — 05/23/2021 Just press + hold on the post, then choose 'pin' from the menu Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 oh nice Krephix pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages . — 05/23/2021 Krephix — 05/23/2021 oh okay did not know I have pinning rights Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 XD Krephix pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages . — 05/23/2021 Krephix — 05/23/2021 Feels like those 2 pins are helpful for people that want to catch up on what has been discussed, but they should also read the context around them. Hard to pinpoint the exact message that should be pinned xD Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 that is always the difficulty 50 pin max per channel Krephix — 05/23/2021 well okay I was not going to pin 50 messages XD Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 we've hit the limit a few times XD Jippen pinned a message to this channel. See all pinned messages . — 05/23/2021 Jippen — 05/23/2021 I think there's also a max pins per server limit? Hikikomori — 05/23/2021 i don't know if i ever hit that limit Jippen — 05/23/2021 I thought we hit it once in 100pals, and had to clear a buncha pins out of dead rooms. Devikra — 06/19/2021 Thanks for the pins here they clarified a fews things 🙂 Miraglyth — 10/07/2021 Reply to an ancient point since I've not kept up with things for like half a year, but skim-reading it does make a theme of people criticising pre-UAHR "case-by-case basis" matters that were grandfathered in out of necessity and sometimes even using them to challenge post-UAHR rule clarifications or confirmations. Doesn't really feel right that such necessity could be weaponised (perhaps in the future even by people who were involved in the original "case-by-case basis" decisions). So a neutral section renaming, or a clarification icon on grandfathered case-by-case basis rules, might help prevent that. Hikikomori — 12/24/2021 I think I agree with that 100% I think i'm just stuck in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, because we've been having to deal with, "Why did YOU make a rule that allows it for this game, but i'm not allowed to do it in my game etc etc." When we didn't really have a choice, it wasn't our rule, was before our/most active current users time, and the current user can't see that it was for the benefit overall to have it documented but not to continue the behavior. instead of document, continue the behavior and drop all rules that disallow the behavior @miraglyth so no matter what, we lose if we can't document the history of a rule, but if we document the history of the rule then its claimed as prejudicial and that document, but disallow in the future behavior seems to confuse new users cryptic — 12/24/2021 You poor mods Hikikomori — 12/24/2021 We spend quite a lot of time talking about how to better clarify and create a better experience for users Jippen — 12/24/2021 Maintaining a list of rules seems easy until you actually try to do it in practice.