Change Rules regarding Livestreaming

[Hoxo]

I totally agree to all points broud3r , LF and all the Streamer saying ! they shouldnt be punished for helping the community to gain more players and keep it alive!! i also started legion long time ago by seeing a stream of pyro, and i learned the game by getting tipps of him. without the interaction with the streamer i wouldnt be able to ask him question about the gameplay and so on. i also agree on broud3rs points that its not the fault of a streamer if someone of the enemy team takes advantage of watching his stream... why he cant just turn the stream off? thats **** to call it ghosting of the streamers side if some of the enemies ist that poor/bad that he has to take advantage by watching their stream... in my opinion thats maphacking on purpose ( because they have the choice to see stream or not) and deserves a ban for sure! So help keep the streams alive pls and dont take them the legion td away by some idiots who are ghosting... best regards

[Retku]

I am one of the players who started playing LTD ONLY due to the streamers, had never played map. Saw it on the twitch, it seemed great. Now past month and a half or so i have played alot and enjoy the game immensly. Also the real time communication is what has thought me enough of the game to become a stable player in the 1,2k bot. This effect of streaming has only positives on the game and community, but only IF something is done to the people who hinder it by cheating.

The decisions that the streamer is at fault if someone watches is such faulty logic. Is a maker of maphack responsible for people who use it to cheat? Is the manufacturer of a weapon responsible if its used to commit crimes? Everyone has a CHOICE weather to cheat or not. If the cheaters don't get punished it will eventually lead to streamers not playing LTD and how is that good for the community? Generally I find the ENT 1,2k bot LTD community awsome although with some bad apples, why ruin this by making bad rules is just totally baffling.

Considering this:

@creativeLP And Creative, let's not exaggerate streaming with regards to this community. The community is pretty small with "higher profile" streamers getting between 20 and 30 viewers at any given time (not the "highest profile", but more popular - I have a friend who is one of these streamers). Banning live-streaming during custom ENT games likely will have little to no effect on the actual community since this game is so old and frankly, dying - other games such as Super Smash Bros are a different story where it has clearly been a part of revitalizing it.

Is filled with both bad or dated information on the viewer numbers. And the last sentence totally refuting the claimers own point i think should be ignored totally. Why is Super Smash Bros different? It is as old game as WC3, if streaming saved it why cant streaming save WC3? No logic whatsoever. Wc3 is in fact currently on a definate popularity upswing with the WCA tournaments, golden cup, rus brain cup and alot of other streaming activity. This should and will also transform into to the growth of the custom games community unless it is thwarted by bad decisions by admins.

thanks for reading - Retku

[aRt)Y]

If you are playing with your friend next to each other and he can see your screen and you can see his screen, it's also ghosting. Whether you talk, chat or any other form of intel which the opponent is not supposed to see = ghosting.

While I haven't read the entire topic, it will either be a mandatory delay of 2-5 minutes or anyone who "sniped" the chat and whose actions ingame can not be explained will be banned based on suspicious behavior for a year.

[Lynx]

While I haven't read the entire topic, it will either be a mandatory delay of 2-5 minutes or anyone who "sniped" the chat and whose actions ingame can not be explained will be banned based on suspicious behavior for a year.

The rules should be directed at towards the perpetrator (the one stream-sniping). It's like the argument "Raped women that dress suggestive should suit themselves" of course they shouldn't and neither should the streamer.

[Rapporter]

A delay is mandatory imo. I guess this can be somewhat compared to marihuana. As it is mostly treated as an illegal drug in many countries, some still allow the medical treatment of it.

Streamer = Doctor/Pharmacist writing/filling in the prescription
Viewer, but not a player or ghosting to one = Patient in need of that medical treatment
Viewer who is either also a player or ghosting to one = Junky

If a junky is being caught with drugs he got from a doctor/pharmacist, the junky and the doctor/pharmacist will be held accountable for this crime.
So ENT's judgement to punish both = correct.

ENT has to weigh the gain in activity compared against the risk of cheating. With the given options, there is no solution to satisfy both sides of the argument. I dunno whether there is a way to see which IPs are watching your stream. If there is a way, then maybe ENT could create some accounts for their streamers and let their bots run it, giving the password of those accounts to the streamers, or so. That way a bot could compare IPs of watchers with IPs of gamers, thus detecting a cheat when IPs match.
Sure there are ways to work your way around that, for obvious reasons please refrain from stating them, but it would be some improvement which could maybe lead to the removal of the delay. I'm no tech-pro, just theoretically speaking.

[Lynx]

The streamer isn't actively participating in breaking the rules while the viewer is. Thus your "marihuana" example is not applicable since the doctor and the junky are both actively participating and aware of the crime in question, while the streamer on the other hand is unaware.

A delay will remove any viewer/streamer interaction which decreases the quality of an already (probably) bad stream.

[Rapporter]

The streamer is taking the risk of helping a cheater, without doing anything for prevention. It's like selling/giving our marihuana without doing a background-check. Of course a streamer has no chance of checking whether a viewer is involved in cheating. Thus my suggestion, if that's possible.

A live streamer is streaming info he shouldn't be streaming live. Even at wc3 esport, at least back then before 2010 when I watched it regularly, the streamers streamed with a delay.

[Lynx]

The streamer is taking the risk of helping a cheater, without doing anything for prevention. It's like selling/giving our marihuana without doing a background-check. Of course a streamer has no chance of checking whether a viewer is involved in cheating. Thus my suggestion, if that's possible.

eh? Your example is pretty flawed because as you pointed out yourself the streamer can't do any background check while the doctor can.

If you apply this logic "The streamer is taking the risk of helping a cheater, without doing anything for prevention" to my rape example it would be "The woman is taking a risk by dressing suggestive and thus isn't taking any preventative measures and therefore she should also be punished if she is raped". This really reveals the flaws in your argument if you live in a civilized society.

A live streamer is streaming info he shouldn't be streaming live. Even at wc3 esport, at least back then before 2010 when I watched it regularly, the streamers streamed with a delay.

The majority of DotA 2 twitch streams* does not have any delay.

*Not including tournaments games that are not played on LAN.

[Jabba41]

Both of your examples are strange xD

[Rapporter]

So because a background check cannot be done my argument is flawed? That doesn't make sense at all.

Streamer = doctor giving out something (drug/info) without any background-check. Because a streamer, unlike a doctor, cannot make a background check, a streamer should be more careful with the info he provides to the www. That is the conclusion you should have from my comparison not that my comparison is flawed.

The marihuana is the provided info that can be useful for the normal folks enjoying a stream or harmful in the hand of a criminal/cheater. My comparison isn't flawed at all. You call it flawed because you don't like the conclusion that a streamer should get out of this.

That's almost like discussing your military mission on a strategical discussion website (let's just say something like that exists) for the purpose of discussing strategies. Of course many people will enjoy your input and discuss that strategy, its ups and downs etc. But a spy/infiltrator of that website will make use of that info and ambush your fellow soldiers and wipe them off the ground. And then calling the person not guilty, who provided the info for a 'noble' reason, just putting the blame on the person, who spied/infiltrated on the site.

Look at the basic outlines of the examples.
Someone is providing volatile info without background check, when it is required. The fact that he cannot do a background check doesn't mean he is free to go. It means to either cease it or take forms of precaution.

[HazarDous]

erm, gotta agree examples are weird, try to keep on topic please.

[CreativeLP]

So because a background check cannot be done my argument is flawed? That doesn't make sense at all.

Streamer = doctor giving out something (drug/info) without any background-check. Because a streamer, unlike a doctor, cannot make a background check, a streamer should be more careful with the info he provides to the www. That is the conclusion you should have from my comparison not that my comparison is flawed.

The marihuana is the provided info that can be useful for the normal folks enjoying a stream or harmful in the hand of a criminal/cheater. My comparison isn't flawed at all. You call it flawed because you don't like the conclusion that a streamer should get out of this.

That's almost like discussing your military mission on a strategical discussion website (let's just say something like that exists) for the purpose of discussing strategies. Of course many people will enjoy your input and discuss that strategy, its ups and downs etc. But a spy/infiltrator of that website will make use of that info and ambush your fellow soldiers and wipe them off the ground. And then calling the person not guilty, who provided the info for a 'noble' reason, just putting the blame on the person, who spied/infiltrated on the site.

Look at the basic outlines of the examples.
Someone is providing volatile info without background check, when it is required. The fact that he cannot do a background check doesn't mean he is free to go. It means to either cease it or take forms of precaution.

Who is the streamer harming with his content? Mainly himself. That's why we should actually protect streamers.
Tell me something negative about streamers?
Then I will tell you some positve aspects:

-Advertisement for the game+ENT
-Source to get information or help
-Entertainment
-Companionship to play with
-Pastime

[Jabba41]

@CreativeLP He harms 3 of his teammates too if someone ghosts. And maybe people who like fair games in your enemy team.

[CreativeLP]

@CreativeLP He harms 3 of his teammates too if someone ghosts. And maybe people who like fair games in your enemy team.

I understand your concern but most of the people are aware of the people that stream and streamers often play as premade, so the number of unknowing people is actually acceptable.
But that's also one point. If we enforce the rules against those people that snipe (evidence needed obviously) then there is no harming anymore and everyone is happy, except for the "cheaters" which is what we all wanted.
It's just a win win situation if ent and streamers work together.

[SLSGuennter]

Streaming is fine imo, but need a heavy delay (2-5 mins definetly arent enough i would say).
To all the players saying: "Its your choice to open the stream and watch it, and not the failure of the streamer": It would also be peoples choice to !ignore all enemy in order to not get any ghost-informations. Yet, if somebody ghosts, only he and not all the people reading the chat are getting banned. Imo its same with streaming. You are leaking information about your team by free will, so you are responsible for it.