When will there be a better solution?

Everything is detectable, mainly because GC's leave a string in the Java that can be easily searched up. Also, staff who have permission to screenshare must have a reason too. By this I mean, record for why you suspect of hacking, and make sure with other staff members it is enough to initiate a screenshare.

 

Assuming you actually find the client. Anyone who is using a ghost client for long enough without getting caught is not going to be dumb enough to let someone find their Vape client (or whatever else) by changing a few hotkeys in their Minecraft and then searching for various packets in their files

Addressed above.

For some people, no. Others, yes it is. You don't know everyone's situation.

Yes, they will. Example: me

As Tom has already pointed out, most people don't even know what screen shares are. And for the people who do, they might not play on the server because screen shares are an invasion of privacy and they don't like that.

Personally, I'd never heard of screenshares (and did not know what that meant) until I was like, 16 when I screen shared with my brother.

It would be Brawl's fault (or not) depending on what's going on.

How is that supposed to prevent possible abuse?

 

We need a screenshare protocol.

 

screensharing wont work

 

Not going into outlining each point here because munson seems to be handling that fine by himself and I'm working on something else right now, but I wanted to make a point here. Screensharing is supposed to make staff's job easier, but the roundabouts you're creating in order to be able to validate using screensharing as a viable method of checking for hacks is actually going to make staff's job harder, considering you'll be setting up specific perms, having to talk to other people excessively, record each session, and check in with a higher up.

 

sir munson knows wassup

 

No you aren't making anything harder. You're just cutting down half the time you would need to catch a ghost clienter. Clearly this privilege wouldn't be available to any mod that wants it, its for mods who feel like they would feel right about spending their time into ScreenSharing. This topic is very contraversial in the sense that many people want it, but at the same time, the same amount of people that want it, don't. There are various and easy ways to detect hacks during a screenshare, some obvious ones like KeyStrokes Mod reach, TimeChanger Mod reach, forge ghost client. You can easily tell by the size of the file, other easy ways to detect are searching through strings in Java like I mentioned above. Autoclickers are the most blatant to catch. Also most of the clients people use on Brawl are cracked clients. Those could easily be found, since they are outdated. Overall it's not really much of a burden, it's actually an advantage. But you would clearly need dedicated people to try and be able to conduct these ScreenShares. Currently we still catch them, but you're cutting down about 5-10 hours of work a staff member puts into catching ghost clienters.

 

Still no from me to screensharing. Even putting privacy aside, as a player I do not want to waste my time with bureaucratic processes if I am not hacking. Either they are, or they aren't.

Also, having illegal mods installed in my .minecraft or similar does NOT mean that I am hacking. There are players who have cheats or clients installed to test them or use them on other servers (not brawl). Hell, I had cheats installed right now (after checking my .minecraft) but I do not use them on brawl or even any other public server for that matter. Should I be banned for those?

Overall, I would take a couple people using GCs over implementing a screensharing protocol. Blatant and non-blatant hackers all get banned eventually, and players really shouldn't have to prove themselves innocent if they aren't hacking.

 

My opinion on screen shares: They are somewhat invasive, but if you have nothing to hide, then no worries right? And yes this can be somewhat thwarted by the self destruct feature hacked clients have. (Except for cheap ones) it's obvious that people here have mixed feelings about screen shares. While I feel they would help to some degree, and it would probably lower the hacker count by some arbitrary number. I feel as though the current method is fine, and really does not need a screen share addition. True, it does take a long time, but it takes so long because people are trying to make sure they get solid proof. (Or at least that's why I hope it takes so long) I believe the current method is the best way to be sure that no one gets false banned, while there are benefits and drawbacks to both sides, this is just my opinion on the issue.

 

I'd like to see proof of these 60 hour clips

Also in the staff team there are some people who would be willing to do this but I doubt many would.

 

It's not that much of a waste of a time a screenshare literally takes 20 minutes at most if ur decent at it, not that I care that much since people are decent at hiding it now a days anyway

 

0racle was an S-MOD (one of the best Brawl ever had, as numerous people have said) and Myortyre (Brittain) was an administrator. Both had positions of considerable power and trust. 0racle resigned and scammed a kid out of $40 and then proceeded to lie about his brother and flame everyone on the forums. Brittain abused and was demoted/banned.

Point being there is absolutely no guarantee that you can trust someone just because they are granted extra perms by putty. Assuming a screenshare protocol was put in place, every session should be recorded because 1) screenshots can be faked (also the reason why screenshots aren't sufficient for chat-reports), 2) a full recording shows all the evidence collected, and 3) if, at any time, a staff member did start poking around in files that had nothing to do with a ghost client the video would show it.

 

Never said that. I brought up 0racle and Myortyre to make a point that you cannot completely trust staff members regardless of how much power they have. Point being that yes, someone could (theorhetically) abuse in a screenshare and there would be no evidence of it if the session was not recorded.

Screenshots are not sufficient for chatreports. Why would they be sufficient for a 40 minute+ screenshare?

 

So screenshares take 40 minutes? that's something new..

 

You do realize this subject has been up for discussion every now and then for the past years? The possibility that ScreenSharing is added now in 2017 is very low. Sorry to be realistic.