Ok, There has been alot of debating whether Anti-hacks should be allowed. I have put up a poll for voting. PLEASE don't delete this, for I have a feeling it will be right away, due to peoples' lack of open mindedness. Just please take your time and vote.
PRO: Anti-hacks are a great way to protect yourself from those annoying drops, Blizz could use Anti-hacks to patch up bad hacks.
CON: Anti-hack or hack, it's still a hack no matter what.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 5 2010, 12:43 am by StarBlue.

You missed the obvious con. It's not because "anti-hacks are still hacks and therefore bad", because somehow hacks are intrinsically bad. Anti-hacks are bad because they can be used *as hacks*, eg you can use them for both good and evil. And that is why they aren't on this site.

Your poll is not going to change anyone's opinion because the fact that anti-hacks can be used as hacks is incontrovertible.

*facepalm* Anti-hacks CAN NOT be used for bad, sure some Anti-hacks could have hacks in them, but we could have a system where we check for unwanted hack, filter them out, then display the Anti-hack part only. and put undecided, dont allow, or notify blizz, just vote please.

When there is an anti-hack, there will always be a hack that surpasses it. You're better off not using it. I used anti-hack once and still got dropped.

Key idea: Use hacks to counter hacks, and become the hacker yourself.

Even if there is only a small time of peace and harmony where no hack surpasses it, SC could still use the peace of mind, not worrying of getting dropped. And becoming a hacker myself? Get real Lotus. And even if an anti-hack doesn't work, SEN could just delete it, and if it doesn't work it can do no harm. Think, Lotus.

OK, as a rebuttal -_-, Zynastor frequently monitors the status of his hack. If an anti-hack to be made, he would simply counter it. Small peace? No one has the dedication to CONTINUALLY make an anti hack against Zynastor. Fight fire with fire. Drop before they drop. Otherwise, continually making anti-hacks is redundant, for the creator and the users.

I have a better solution, go play on Iccup, no worries of hacks there.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 5 2010, 12:10 am by LoTu)S.

Zynastor can only make hacks, he very rarely makes a hack that counters an anti. And when he does, it always sucks balls.

IMO using antihax is like using fire to fight fire. Centuries ago, we had no clue what the benefits were, and today only uneducated people would think it's a bad idea. Personally I believe Blizz should take a hint from the people making and using anti hacks and use the principles and stuff in their games rather than condemning all third party programs as 'bad'.

Of course, it's not like they're going to listen to .

SEN already hosts hacks, so it doesn't really matter?

Lol.

First of all, even if you were to get antihacks, who would make them? The only one making anti-hacks is Zynastor, and it comes with his hacks! Zynastor has been asked to make a "lite" version before that has only anti-hacks, but he has declined (or so I am told). The fact is, hacking will always beat protection, because there will always be holes. I do not hack/anti-hack.
De(pâté)ing? Why would anyone want to get rid of fine meats?
Woah, I mean you are a nice girl, but I don't like you like that. Joke.
1. Doesn't blizzard already use a sort of generalized "anti-hack"? Well, used*. I remember when blizzard would patch hacks...
2. I don't really see any con to an anti-hacks. Although SEN isn't against hacks, SEN is for the TOS (more or less) that blizzard provides.

When the topic of hacks come up, everyone says "Zynastor this" and "Zynastor that". Who the fuck cares about Zynastor. He's not the only hack maker, and there are plenty of (strictly) anti-hack makers. TiKels, I'm tired of seeing you pretending to know what you're talking about.

Hacks exploit flaws in a system. "Anti-hacks" fix those flaws. By that logic, the perfect anti-hack beats the perfect hack, despite being incompatible with the standard Starcraft client.

I just get the hacks from the source and typically they come with a sort of protection from other hackers, Oblivion for example. I see no reason not to allow anti-hacks on SeN, as long as all they are are antihacks, and no "extras".

Why would SEN need to host anti-hacks?

Devlin, are you joking?! People are constantly being drophacked and rally hacked and, all forbid, the tormenting... marine spam hack e_o anyways, if we host anti-hacks, we could become more popular, AND we will be doing the SC community a BIG favor.

He means "is it legal to upload an anti-hack into your personal space and share it with everyone else".

I haven't been the victim of any of these problems more than once every few months. The only time I dropped people was by exploiting a glitch in sc using an scv and a dropship. If you get drophacked, the game was ruined anyway, since the hacker can just leave the game to generate the same effect (game's over, nobody wants to play anymore).

Alot more people hack these days, ESPECIALLY on UMS maps. I've been drophacked, rally hacked, multi commanded, lobby crashed, and the dreaded marine spam hack... although i think that might have been patched. Trust me, we NEED Antis.

Just would like to point out that SEN policy isn't affected or otherwise dependant on public polls. You're better off PMing IP.

I've never once encountered a hacker in a SC match. I guess that's rare. On top of that, we're trying to become popular in the SC2 community more-so than SC1 at this point. I suppose none of this matters anyway considering a few months after SC2's release, a very slim minority of our members will still be playing SC1 regularly.

The reason why I asked is because (like the infamous beta crack incident) if SEN doesn't host anti-hacks, people are still going to find them somewhere else. I said I was against it in the poll because I'm for not hosting either hacks or anti-hacks. Perhaps I'm just looking at SEN as a map-making community, though.

Un-necessary for us to host them. Go to somewhere like gamethreat for hacks, not to a mapping site.