Hacking Nintendo Switch Banning Hub & Warning

[Blythe93]

Honest question, how long did this take for you to make?

Probably 10-15 minutes in MS Word or PowerPoint.

 

[impeeza]

Honest question, how long did this take for you to make?

3 minutes on MS Visio! as I have to do similar diagrams all days I am quickly on it

 

[RednaxelaNnamtra]

Probably makes more sense to move it here.

10 reports is a laughable sample size if you want to extend those results to the entire Switch hacking community which could easily be in the thousands. Furthermore, there is no shortage of actions that you can perform on a hacked console that there is no feasible way you can cover all of them on a mere 10 consoles. Couple that with how the scene has progressed over time, multiple CFW that users may have tried at one point, and games even having their own "rules" with regards to bans and I'm sorry but 10 is way too small of a number to even entertain that notion. I'm usually more of a quality over quantity kind of guy but this time, quantity wins out. And you just admitted that you made a nothing point that most users don't use AIO packages. Actually you made it even worse for yourself because now the opposite is true; since most people are now not using AIOs, they are doing the proper research because they are not being hand fed the info and tools to pirate. This you may disagree with me but majority of the reports came in before cheats were implemented. Only about 20 or so people reported anything once cheats were added. So cheats wouldn't have had a major effect on most of the data because it had already been reported by that point. None of those reports gleaned new information that we didn't already know; it reinforced info that had already been available. Also I hope you understand that just because your sample size reports different results, it doesn't automatically rule out other data sets. All it ultimately means is you have different data to report. Realistically, you would combine both data sets together to analyze any overlaps or gaps. If you don't believe CFW leads to bans, then you're just admitting that you're biased against information that goes against your beliefs which drops your credibility to basically zero. You could be lying for all I know just like the same hundreds of reports that you failed to disprove. The fact that you do not see the irony in your statements speaks volumes. It isn't a theory that Nintendo bans at random, it is a proven fact because not all people have been banned for undertaking equal, if not similar, actions. After all, even if we assume Nintendo bans in waves, they never ban everyone in a single wave so there is an element of randomness to it. Unlike ReSwitched who likes to assume their theories as fact until proven false which, again, does not earn them the respect from the community. Look no further than the massive number of developers that have left the scene for one reason or another. I never once stated their technical information was incorrect. In fact, you were the one who said that there is a chance that they may be wrong. Well, here is that chance.

That was exactly my point, your sample size is not big enough to prove anything about cfw only bans from just reports alone, neither is mine. Through having people online on multiple switches for years certainly makes it unlikely that just atmosphere bans people, if there is something that's not on the list of the main offenders, then its likely something specific done in CFW.

And to repeat it, the sample size of people you got in 5 years for people who where banned while only using cfw only is 13 people, if we ignore that they used layered fs, or 3 if we remove the layered fs people. That's a tiny bit more then 2 people a year on average, or less then 1 person a year, that doesn't prove anything and can be seen as margin of error.
If I put in the work, I could probably find the same amount of people here who are going online and are not banned, probably even more with enough work.
This also ignores, that not every entry has a date attached to it, so some of those 13 entries could very well be from before fatal, or could have been marked for a ban wave based on logs from before they updated to an atmosphere version from before fatal.
Even in your data eshop online with homebew without a ban seems to be much more common then people who got banned that did nothing problematic.
Its also not that I ignore data that doesn't match my experience, but for it to be more important then data found through reversing that also matches my expecience, it would need to be a more regular occurrence. If you had like 10-50 CFW only bans a year reported, we could speak about it, but again, then it would likely be better to directly investigate them together with the people that got banned, to find out what exactly got them banned, e.g. by finding out what they have in common and what they don't have in common with people who didn't get banned for years, which would give us better info and help the community.
You could also bet your ass, that I would thoroughly investigate a ban happening in my friend and family circle, the moment one happens, but for that, one of them would first need to be banned after years of online CFW usage, and it currently doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.

Also are you trying to tell me you only got around 20 reports since march 2019, while also laughing about the idea of using only a small amount of bans, like 10, with a deep analysis as aid in comming to conclusions through reversing?
I don't know how many reports reswitched used for their data, but as mentioned multiple times already, I don't care about the amount, because their main point of data is not the reports, and instead reversing the os.

Also the AIO point was to give you one of many potential sources for user error during the reporting of data (and that was not my only one). Do you really expect there to be a 0% error rate, when people with widely different knowledge levels and interests into the topic get questionaire, and report things done over the last weeks or even months, of likely active usage?
There could also have been a big time difference between them doing something that gets them banned, and the moment they notice they are banned.
Then there is also be the problem of pride, some reporters might not want to admit they made a mistake themself, and thous search for the problem outside of their actions, so they don't even try to think about things they might have done wrong. Or they could just be very angry about getting banned, which would also affect the thought process, and result in mistakes.
Btw. besides AIO packets and video tutorials with predone packages, there are also sellers of modchips, that give you ready to use packets with stuff preinstalled, those people likely also don't know a lot about whats running on their system, but they could still report to your ban list.

To be able to come to proper conclusions, you either need a lot more data, deeper investigations of each case and/or you need other means of verification that you can combine with your data, e.g. reversing stuff, reports from nintendo employes and more.
I also don't need to disprove hundrets of reports, since its not the case that you have hundrets of reports that are relevant for the topic of being banned for just using CFW online on sysnand.
And for the random bans, that woud just be hard to prove disprove for both of us, but I already gave you some reasons why its more likely that nintendo bans in waves, instead of keeping people who they know did problematic stuff online for years.
I also don't think anyone reports a false ban, that users might be forgetting things they did in the relevant time frame, even if you have yes and no questions, and that you might need to update some questions, or add some extra questions, to reduce the error margin required when interpreting the data. Again there are more way to install something to the home menu besides nsp, like installers, xcis or their extra compressed counterparts. And cheats can also lead to bans, but would currently look like a cfw only ban in your spreadsheet.

Also you are talking about verifiability of data all the time, but for example there is nothing in this thread about the `SquirrelKiev` ban, except for you mentioning it, so as for all I know, you could have just made up some of the data in your spreadsheed. I don't think you did, but still, to actually verify your data, somone would need to find contact at least many of the people from your reports.
But still for something reported as important and used as prove of cfw only usage banning, I would have expected a bit more public info and a deeper investigation of that case.

 

[impeeza]

Probably makes more sense to move it here.


That was exactly my point, your sample size is not big enough to prove anything about cfw only bans from just reports alone, neither is mine. Through having people online on multiple switches for years certainly makes it unlikely that just atmosphere bans people, if there is something that's not on the list of the main offenders, then its likely something specific done in CFW.

And to repeat it, the sample size of people you got in 5 years for people who where banned while only using cfw only is 13 people, if we ignore that they used layered fs, or 3 if we remove the layered fs people. That's a tiny bit more then 2 people a year on average, or less then 1 person a year, that doesn't prove anything and can be seen as margin of error.
If I put in the work, I could probably find the same amount of people here who are going online and are not banned, probably even more with enough work.
This also ignores, that not every entry has a date attached to it, so some of those 13 entries could very well be from before fatal, or could have been marked for a ban wave based on logs from before they updated to an atmosphere version from before fatal.
Even in your data eshop online with homebew without a ban seems to be much more common then people who got banned that did nothing problematic.
Its also not that I ignore data that doesn't match my experience, but for it to be more important then data found through reversing that also matches my expecience, it would need to be a more regular occurrence. If you had like 10-50 CFW only bans a year reported, we could speak about it, but again, then it would likely be better to directly investigate them together with the people that got banned, to find out what exactly got them banned, e.g. by finding out what they have in common and what they don't have in common with people who didn't get banned for years, which would give us better info and help the community.
You could also bet your ass, that I would thoroughly investigate a ban happening in my friend and family circle, the moment one happens, but for that, one of them would first need to be banned after years of online CFW usage, and it currently doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.

Also are you trying to tell me you only got around 20 reports since march 2019, while also laughing about the idea of using only a small amount of bans, like 10, with a deep analysis as aid in comming to conclusions through reversing?
I don't know how many reports reswitched used for their data, but as mentioned multiple times already, I don't care about the amount, because their main point of data is not the reports, and instead reversing the os.

Also the AIO point was to give you one of many potential sources for user error during the reporting of data (and that was not my only one). Do you really expect there to be a 0% error rate, when people with widely different knowledge levels and interests into the topic get questionaire, and report things done over the last weeks or even months, of likely active usage?
There could also have been a big time difference between them doing something that gets them banned, and the moment they notice they are banned.
Then there is also be the problem of pride, some reporters might not want to admit they made a mistake themself, and thous search for the problem outside of their actions, so they don't even try to think about things they might have done wrong. Or they could just be very angry about getting banned, which would also affect the thought process, and result in mistakes.
Btw. besides AIO packets and video tutorials with predone packages, there are also sellers of modchips, that give you ready to use packets with stuff preinstalled, those people likely also don't know a lot about whats running on their system, but they could still report to your ban list.

To be able to come to proper conclusions, you either need a lot more data, deeper investigations of each case and/or you need other means of verification that you can combine with your data, e.g. reversing stuff, reports from nintendo employes and more.
I also don't need to disprove hundrets of reports, since its not the case that you have hundrets of reports that are relevant for the topic of being banned for just using CFW online on sysnand.
And for the random bans, that woud just be hard to prove disprove for both of us, but I already gave you some reasons why its more likely that nintendo bans in waves, instead of keeping people who they know did problematic stuff online for years.
I also don't think anyone reports a false ban, that users might be forgetting things they did in the relevant time frame, even if you have yes and no questions, and that you might need to update some questions, or add some extra questions, to reduce the error margin required when interpreting the data. Again there are more way to install something to the home menu besides nsp, like installers, xcis or their extra compressed counterparts. And cheats can also lead to bans, but would currently look like a cfw only ban in your spreadsheet.

Also you are talking about verifiability of data all the time, but for example there is nothing in this thread about the `SquirrelKiev` ban, except for you mentioning it, so as for all I know, you could have just made up some of the data in your spreadsheed. I don't think you did, but still, to actually verify your data, somone would need to find contact at least many of the people from your reports.
But still for something reported as important and used as prove of cfw only usage banning, I would have expected a bit more public info and a deeper investigation of that case.

TLDNR

 

[RednaxelaNnamtra]

TLDNR

tldr, discussion that started with me trying to explain why his data doesn't prove that nintendo bans random and just for cfw usage without doing anything know problematic and that user reported data is not perfect.
Also him being weirdly obsessed with reswitched not being a credible source for technical switch info for some reason, without any real prove, besides some hidden discord channel that seems to exist and wrong theories about how sx core might work, before it got released.