Bots/Hacks and cheating

[Derkan-2593]

@Dimlhugion-1109

let’s be real here: you’re both dead-set on winning pointless forum debates

Love that sentence in the context of the message it’s been written in.

You’ve been trying to pick up a fight by changing the meaning of a sentence to make your point and we’re the ones trying to win something ?

Did it cross your mind that “we’re still waiting for evidence” doesn’t exclude the fact that we can accept said evidence if it were to be provided ? If it was not the case I wouldn’t have mentionned the animation cheats (spoiler alert : the link you’ve provided is about animations)

But if you want to keep on defending players that say that their opponents obviously cheated when all that happened was a regular game then go for it, try to defend the complete absence of evidence or even of clue and call out the rational people for trying to be objective on the situation.

@Dimlhugion-1109

You can play at Sophistry via “technically it was a bug/exploit, not a bot/hack”

This isn’t Sophistry
Most players that talk about cheating accuse their opponents of manipulating the game to chose what cards they obtain and get “the perfect hand”.
This is not something you achieve by exploiting an interaction between some cards.
Loudly claiming “all accusations of cheats are real”, just because some bug exploits do exist, is absolutely irresponsible from anyone

@Dimlhugion-1109

you can play at Pedantry via “technically Toast never used this in Standard / Wild” and thus prove to the world you’re intentionally ignoring the implications that everyone who would willfully hack and/or cheat would absolutely abuse this exploit in the modes you’re talking about.

and you’re making a ridiculous point here, you don’t understand what words are being used in that very topic
If someone can demonstrate how to perform any kind of cheat or interaction in a mode that doesn’t require a specific mode-related condition, then it’s an evidence that it can be executed in any mode where the interaction can be performed
And that’s exactly what is never being provided

You’ve linked the jade idol one, great.
You could also have linked the shadow vision one, or similar turn-skip animation exploits.
You could have also linked the video of that player with a software that speeds up the animations of the game to play more cards than they should be able to.
Great, you would have provided footage of old and solved problems, or ongoing issues that are rarely seen and even more rarely reported.

Now what about all the modern cheat claims ? All those “my opponent had the perfect hand 10 games in a row, they must’ve cheated”. Are you claiming that, because some unrelated cheats exist, then that player must be true and faced 10 cheaters in a row, performing a hack or exploit never documented before ? Or will you be rational and rely on factual evidence and admit that, in the absence of clues, no one can attest the existence of said cheat ?

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@Derkan-2593

This isn’t Sophistry

Says the wall of text containing nothing but.

The topic title is “Bots/Hacks and cheating” and the opening post, literally says only this:

Bots/Hacks and cheating

Report all of these here Hacks@Blizzard.com.

MocnyElf then makes a ridiculous claim, which is obviously false:

Bots/Hacks and cheating

Thanks Plague of cheaters. People complain about bots but I haven’t encountered a single one but there are cheaters in almost every game.

And he gets deserved sass for it.

At this point, Cheezus makes the assertion that nobody has ever provided evidence of cheaters in standard or wild:

Bots/Hacks and cheating

why cant anyone ever provide evidence of cheaters in standard or wild?

Now, we have two disparate conversations happening. On the one hand, there was an idiotic statement of “I’m losing therefore my opponent cheated” but on the other hand, there’s the equally idiotic statement of “hacks have never been proven to exist in ranked or wild.”

They’re both bad takes, but it really doesn’t matter to me what you think.

[CheezusCrust-1567]

and yet here you are without any evidence

bugs and glitches are not evidence

just show me one, all i need is one

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@CheezusCrust-1567

bugs and glitches are not evidence

You know what. You’re correct. I concede and you’re right.

[CheezusCrust-1567]

good for you, now show me real cheating

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@CheezusCrust-1567

now show me real cheating

I can’t. It doesn’t exist. You’ve won the argument.

[CheezusCrust-1567]

@Dimlhugion-1109

I can’t. It doesn’t exist.

i doubt that, i know it exists, all games have cheaters

you just need to show it

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Dimlhugion-1109

You’ve won

It isn’t about winning, it’s about sending a message

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@CheezusCrust-1567

i doubt that, i know it exists, all games have cheaters

No they don’t. There is zero evidence that cheating exists in this game.

You can’t provide evidence either. So it doesn’t exist.

[Derkan-2593]

@Dimlhugion-1109

At this point, Cheezus makes the assertion that nobody has ever provided evidence of cheaters in standard or wild:

And to that you talked about the tavern brawl, a mode that has its own technical limitations. So you talked about something else to contradict them.
And when they pointed out that you replied off-topic, you came on your high horse

@Dimlhugion-1109

you personally are entirely unconcerned with hacks unless it interferes with your preferred modes

@Dimlhugion-1109

it really doesn’t matter to me what you think.

You’re replying a lot for one that doesn’t care

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@Derkan-2593

You’re replying a lot for one that doesn’t care

You win the argument too. There’s no cheaters. Because nobody can prove it.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Dimlhugion-1109

nobody can prove it.

I can.

I didn’t say I would.

[Derkan-2593]

The absence of proof is not the proof of the absence.
It’s basically presumption of innocence against presumption of guilt.
You’re trying to be smart but even there you miss the entire point of the debate.

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@Derkan-2593

The absence of proof is not the proof of the absence.
It’s basically presumption of innocence against presumption of guilt.

Except it’s not a court of law, it’s a video game forum. There’s no presumption of anything by due process.

You’re presuming there aren’t any bots, hacks, or cheats in standard or wild, simply because I’m not giving you proof they do exist.

And by your own words, lack of evidence is not proof of absence.

EDIT:

@Derkan-2593

You’re trying to be smart but even there you miss the entire point of the debate.

The entire debate is one guy made a ridiculous claim, and you made a technical falsehood.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Dimlhugion-1109

@Derkan-2593

The absence of proof is not the proof of the absence.
It’s basically presumption of innocence against presumption of guilt.

Except it’s not a court of law, it’s a video game forum. There’s no presumption of anything by due process.

There’s no such thing as an empirical proof of absence. There is no physical phenomenon I could record to prove to you that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

So, assuming that we’re talking about evidence and not something akin to a mathematical proof, you are incorrect. There is a due process and a presumption of non-existence. Because proof of the absence is impossible, the absence of evidence is considered sufficient.

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

So, assuming that we’re talking about evidence and not something akin to a mathematical proof, you are incorrect. There is a due process and a presumption of non-existence. Because proof of the absence is impossible, the absence of evidence is considered sufficient.

And I have zero evidence that standard and wild are full of NOTHING BUT legitimate players.

Therefore, standard and wild must have SOME cheaters?

[Derkan-2593]

@Dimlhugion-1109

Except it’s not a court of law, it’s a video game forum. There’s no presumption of anything by due process.

Not being in a court doesn’t prevent the usage of common sens. One manifesation of it being not burning witches based on undocumented claims.

@Dimlhugion-1109

You’re presuming there aren’t any bots, hacks, or cheats in standard or wild, simply because I’m not giving you proof they do exist.

Where have I writen that ? Please quote me because if I actually did then I must have lost my mind.

There are bots. that’s a fact, they are identifiable, there are recordings of their behaviors, there are black markets suprisingly easy to find, and the official statement coming from Blizzard is a big clue that they do exist since they publicly claim that they ban them regularly.
There are bug abuses, that’s a fact, there are footages of that, either the known issues or the bug fixes often mention the problem.
Cheats, in the sens of giving yourself an advantage with extenral tools, without directly manipulating the server data, do exist, there are footage of that that I’ve mentionned.
Hacks, in the sens of manipulating the server data, may or may not exist, we are still waiting for evidence.

@Dimlhugion-1109

The entire debate is one guy made a ridiculous claim, and you made a technical falsehood.

One did an exagerated claim, and you replied off-topic with bad faith on high horse

@Dimlhugion-1109

And I have zero evidence that standard and wild are full of NOTHING BUT legitimate players.

Therefore, standard and wild must have SOME cheaters?

It only means that you can’t make any assertion.
Admitting that you simply don’t know is an acceptable outcome when you think rationnaly.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Dimlhugion-1109

I have zero evidence that standard and wild are are full of NOTHING BUT legitimate players.

This is not an argument for a positive; it is an argument for a negative. When you say “full of nothing but X in Y,” what that logically translates to is “there are no non-X elements in Y,” which is a negative statement.

You’re using linguistic sophistry to (attempt to) disguise a negative as a positive.

[Dimlhugion-1109]

@Derkan-2593

It only means that you can’t make any assertion.
Admitting that you simply don’t know is an acceptable outcome when you think rationnaly.

No, you can definitely make an assertion. And you can also sealion the goalposts across the continent for all I care.

Again, I think I called this several posts above:

@Dimlhugion-1109

There are a few ways you and Derkan could proceed from here:

• You can play at Sophistry via “technically it was a bug/exploit, not a bot/hack” and thus prove to the world you’re only concerned with forum gatcha’s instead of the spirit of the discussion.
• Or, you can play at Pedantry via “technically Toast never used this in Standard / Wild” and thus prove to the world you’re intentionally ignoring the implications that everyone who would willfully hack and/or cheat would absolutely abuse this exploit in the modes you’re talking about.
• Or, you can just defer back to the first two options because let’s be real here: you’re both dead-set on winning pointless forum debates. Just like how most botters and hackers are dead-set on winning pointless HS matches.

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

You’re using linguistic sophistry to (attempt to) disguise a negative as a positive.

Really I’m just flabbergasted that I’m being demanded to sealion, and because I personally cannot, that must mean NOBODY can prove it therefore it’s “incorrect.”

Isn’t that like, several of the logical fallacies everyone armchair quotes from Wikipedia all in one?

But you know what? At the end of the day, I’m going to concede this one as stated earlier. It’s getting to be my bed time and this has been amusing (if a little frustrating) but it’s time for real life to take center stage once more.

EDIT: just so we’re all on the same page:

I’m admitting I don’t have proof that hacks, cheats, bots, etc. exist in standard or wild. Have a great night, folks.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Dimlhugion-1109

Really I’m just flabbergasted that I’m being demanded to sealion, and because I personally cannot, that must mean NOBODY can prove it therefore it’s “incorrect.”

Isn’t that like, several of the logical fallacies everyone armchair quotes from Wikipedia all in one?

I’m sorry if you got the impression that I’m strawmanning your argument. However, I would say that you are strawmanning your own argument.

Two replies ago, you had essentially said that the philosophy of science doesn’t carry with it some underlying assumptions that make the base of everything. And that’s just blatantly false. There are formalized assumptions and established rules of order.

One reply ago, you (ironically) tried to fit your argument into the same form as a part of the previous post. Your real argument isn’t in that form at all, you were just being petty and easily triggered.

The truth is that your argument is considerably more elaborate than a simple case of direct empirical evidence. Instead it’s more like a syllogism: I have seen evidence of people who will exploit any human system they see; I have seen that Battle.net is a human system; therefore someone must be exploiting Blizzard games currently. Even this is a bit of an oversimplification, but the point is that you don’t have direct evidence of a Hearthstone cheater yet you remain confident nevertheless, because you do have evidence of the ingredients that would make one.

But still, the best argument is evidence, and you can’t prove a negative with evidence.