Does Blizzard have proof of people botting?

[DecessusFar]

Does Blizzard have proof of people botting? Does anyone know that? Has no one ever sued Blizzard for getting banned and demanded them to show the proof that justifies the ban?

Law in my country is friendly to the client and harsh on the companies, a contract with a clause that estipulates that Blizzard can ban me for no reason is abusive and therefore invalid/null.

So if they don't have proof, and they are banning me for suspicion, I think I might be able to claim my account back. But if they have proof, I obviously can't.

I was banned last year in december. Never gave much attention to it, but since I enjoy the legal aspect of it, I'd like to go against Blizzard in court, since I'm eligible to get free legal lawsuits. I'll have nothing to lose. It's not about the money, I could easily buy more accounts, it's about not agreeing with them banning me and not providing proof.

But if they have proof it is a sure loser and I won't waste my time.

So, does anyone actually knows if they hold proof that justifies the bans?

I can't believe they do, because I had 2 botting accounts that botted in the same PC, with the same IP and during the same hours and only one of them got banned. wtf.

Thanks for the attention and sorry for my poor english! If this has been created in the wrong section, I'm sorry Please move it to the correct section! Thanks again for the attention everyone!

 

[AngelsHalo]

Who knows. You will not win. For all we know, Blizzard has all of us on a list, and waiting for us to buy the expansion for all our bot accounts, then ban us 2 days later. This will make them tons of money.

 

[DecessusFar]

Who knows. You will not win. For all we know, Blizzard has all of us on a list, and waiting for us to buy the expansion for all our bot accounts, then ban us 2 days later. This will make them tons of money.

I strongly believe that if they can't provide proof, the judge will tell them to unban me.

 

[ad3ddd]

I strongly believe, that they have investigated the matter way harder than you possibly could. And also they've probably hired whole teams of lawyers with fancy degrees from Harvard and Yale to discuss these things and make the user agreements rock solid. I believe they've made sure they have the ability to prevent people who cheat from playing their game. The question truly is, do they have proof of it. I suppose they do have proof of it, because they've been doing that for 13 years.

 

[Elmo]

You can sue people for looking at you funny, that being said if you get free legal lawsuits.. why not try it and share with us the outcome?

Time is the most valuable thing we have, you could suggest they owe you for this time and it has caused mental depression.

 

[Nostran]

Don't waste your time, there's a 99.999% chance that they do have proof. It's a multi-million dollar company we're talking about here, they have a lot to lose and they wouldn't risk losing money with guesswork.

 

[Elmo]

Don't waste your time, there's a 99.999% chance that they do have proof. It's a multi-million dollar company we're talking about here, they have a lot to lose and they wouldn't risk losing money with guesswork.

The main point would be to learn this "proof".. It would help create a less detectable bot knowing these types of information.

 

[Eclipse]

Take your chance in court if they have proof it doesnt say they get it legal.

 

[MidnightRaver]

But what would the proof be anyway? Logs showing that you were in game for 99,8% of November? Some kind of behaviour logs showing a human couldn't possibly be as accurate/fast/tenacious? What if I have these bases covered by botting 8 hours a day at the most and the bot simulates humans perfectly. I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to snoop around in your computer's memory or hard-drive, so that's proof they can't use. So, what's left?

 

[DecessusFar]

I strongly believe, that they have investigated the matter way harder than you possibly could. And also they've probably hired whole teams of lawyers with fancy degrees from Harvard and Yale to discuss these things and make the user agreements rock solid. I believe they've made sure they have the ability to prevent people who cheat from playing their game. The question truly is, do they have proof of it. I suppose they do have proof of it, because they've been doing that for 13 years.

Consumer Law is very protective of the consumer in my country. They can't ban me for no reason, as the love to claim they can. They must show proof. I've already received an e-mail from someone supposed to be "big" in Blizzard after dozens of tickets of mine escalating that ended saying "we have proof and we will show it in court". They know they have to prove it, that's why he said it. I just think its stupid to want to go to court to give me proof, instead of just giving it. I think they might be bluffing.

You can sue people for looking at you funny, that being said if you get free legal lawsuits.. why not try it and share with us the outcome?

Time is the most valuable thing we have, you could suggest they owe you for this time and it has caused mental depression.

I could claim Personal Injury. That's not my pourpose though. I'm only interested in the amazing proof they claim to have.

The main point would be to learn this "proof".. It would help create a less detectable bot knowing these types of information.

Exactly. That's why I'm saying I don't care much about getting personal injuries money.

I just wouldn't go through with it in case someone already knew what the proof is, that's why I'm asking.

But what would the proof be anyway? Logs showing that you were in game for 99,8% of November? Some kind of behaviour logs showing a human couldn't possibly be as accurate/fast/tenacious? What if I have these bases covered by botting 8 hours a day at the most and the bot simulates humans perfectly. I'm pretty sure they aren't allowed to snoop around in your computer's memory or hard-drive, so that's proof they can't use. So, what's left?

Well, I ask you too what's left. Also, you don't need to cover any bases by botting 8 hours a day and tell them it was you playing. You can bot for 18 hours a day and claim it was you. There are actually many addicted people who do stuff like that.





I'm already building up some documentation. It will take some time. Before going to our legal system, I'll try to go to a side organ of our judiciary system which is a "foundation of protection to the consumer".

 

[ad3ddd]

Nope, i am pretty sure they are not bluffing. As i said already, they surely have the matter well investigated. They are just doing the smartest thing they can, they are not showing proof until they are required by law to do so. Keep in mind, that there are costs to suing people. It depends on many things, including country and local laws, but i believe that is their strategy. If you can't afford to sue them, or it isn't worth your time and money, you are most likely not going to do it.

 

[FluffyPulsar]

lol, the naivity of some of botters is quite funny. Of course, they have proof, and not just one (there are many easy ways to detect a bot). They are allowed to get this proof, just read their EULAs (you agreed that they can get it).

In either case, this discussion is academic. They don't have to prove anything. You can sue them, and then YOU have to prove that you weren't botting (= not breaking their EULAs). Imagine how that can go: you can't prove it, and they have all the evidence. Guess who's gonna win.

If you want an example how to detect a bot, here it is: It's no problem to detect any application that attaches itself to D3 client. D3 simply reads the application name, and sends the info to the server. There you go, a bulletproof evidence that you used a bot.

 

[DecessusFar]

lol, the naivity of some of botters is quite funny. Of course, they have proof, and not just one (there are many easy ways to detect a bot). They are allowed to get this proof, just read their EULAs (you agreed that they can get it).

They aren't allowed to do stuff that was in their EULAs just because I agreed, depending on what that stuff is. There are clauses that are abusive and therefore null. At least in my country that's how it works.

In either case, this discussion is academic. They don't have to prove anything. You can sue them, and then YOU have to prove that you weren't botting (= not breaking their EULAs). Imagine how that can go: you can't prove it, and they have all the evidence. Guess who's gonna win.

I don't have to prove that I wasn't botting. At least, as I already said, not in my country. I'm the "hyposuficient" (I don't think english has a word for it, I just translated it literally) part of our contract. They are the ones with the burden of proof. I'm considered the "weaker" part of the relationship and therefore I'm strongly protected by our legal system. Even in cases in which I would usually have the burden of proof, it is reversed in consumer relationships and the big company is the one who has it.

If you want an example how to detect a bot, here it is: It's no problem to detect any application that attaches itself to D3 client. D3 simply reads the application name, and sends the info to the server. There you go, a bulletproof evidence that you used a bot.

Why weren't all my accounts that botted always the exact same hours, at the exact same time, on the same computer, under the same IP, banned? Only a few were. The majority remained unbanned. The ones with most gold moved around didn't get banned.

That raises suspicion.

Also, as previously stated, it would be nice to know what the fuck the proof is.

 

[FluffyPulsar]

It's how they operate. They don't ban all bots for whatever reason: being cautious, they make them money, botters have to guess how they detected them (which you do right now). In any case, I'm a programmer and I can think of many ways to detect Demonbuddy.

What I don't understand is this: You were botting. You knew that Blizzard doesn't allow it. Now you are surprised that they banned you and want to use the legal system to help you (= abusing the legal system). This truely is mindboggling to me.

 

[DecessusFar]

It's how they operate. They don't ban all bots for whatever reason: being cautious, they make them money, botters have to guess how they detected them (which you do right now). In any case, I'm a programmer and I can think of many ways to detect Demonbuddy.

What I don't understand is this: You were botting. You knew that Blizzard doesn't allow it. Now you are surprised that they banned you and want to the legal system to help (= abusing the legal system). This truely is mindboggling to me.

I'm not a programmer and I can think of many ways to detect Demonbuddy. That's not the point of the discussion.

And I'm not surprised at all. I'm used to getting banned in many different games. But I'm also used to see proof. Also, I have recently started law school in the hopes of getting a secondary bachelor's degree and this stuff is interesting to me.

 

[FluffyPulsar]

I'm not a programmer and I can think of many ways to detect Demonbuddy. That's not the point of the discussion.

And I'm not surprised at all. I'm used to getting banned in many different games. But I'm also used to see proof. Also, I have recently started law school in the hopes of getting a secondary bachelor's degree and this stuff is interesting to me.

Hehe. Starting a law school while operating on the edge of the legal system. Let me know if you succeed in your first trial against Blizzard. +1

 

[MidnightRaver]

I don't know how exactly Demonbuddy does what it does, but how would you detect arbitrary code injected into a huge process such as Diablo 3? If it's just based on reading memory and injecting assembler code, I sure would have no idea how to discern between original and modified code. Same for reading memory and sending click/button events just like a human player would, what's the difference between these mouse events? Behaviour. Being too accurate, effective etc. But that's not nearly a foolproof method of catching botters.

 

[FluffyPulsar]

I don't know how exactly Demonbuddy does what it does, but how would you detect arbitrary code injected into a huge process such as Diablo 3? If it's just based on reading memory and injecting assembler code, I sure would have no idea how to discern between original and modified code. Same for reading memory and sending click/button events just like a human player would, what's the difference between these mouse events? Behaviour. Being too accurate, effective etc. But that's not nearly a foolproof method of catching botters.

You assume that D3 doesn't know the location and name of the process that injects the code/read memory (aka debugger). This assumption is false. WinAPI is very open when trying to detect such processes. You can even monitor this with 3rd party processes.

I have no idea why people still think that bots are hard to detect. Yes, bot creators have to tell you this so you buy it. Why not use common sense though?

 

[MidnightRaver]

I've always thought there are legal problems with reading users' whole memory? Shows I've never read the TOS.

 

[ad3ddd]

I completely agree with Fluffy's posts. It is not so hard to obtain reasonable proof that one is botting. Moreover, as i said before, the costs of suing such a big company will outweigh the possible gains.