The Goal: Demonstrating Cheat Usage

The ultimate objective of any screenshare is: to demonstrate, through verifiable evidence, whether or not a player was using cheats, or to definitively rule out such activity. This process is akin to a form of targeted digital investigation. However, the crucial point central to ethical screensharing, is that what constitutes sufficient proof and how that proof must be demonstrated is dictated solely and entirely by the specific rules and guidelines established by the server or community conducting the check. There is no single universal standard; server rules are the definitive authority. Failing to adhere to these rules, misinterpreting evidence, or lacking the technical skill to uncover hidden cheats can lead to a "bypass" – a situation where a cheating player evades detection. Understanding the server's specific criteria for evidence is paramount before initiating any check.

• Possession vs. Execution: The evidentiary standard varies significantly. Some servers operate under a stricter ban for possession policy. Here, the mere presence of cheat-related files (executables, DLLs, configuration files, known cheat components in specific directories like .minecraft/mods or download folders) within a defined recent timeframe might be sufficient grounds for a ban. The staffer's goal is primarily detection and documentation of these forbidden files. However, the vast majority of servers require proof of execution. This is a higher standard, demanding evidence not just that a cheat existed on the system, but that it was actively running and potentially influencing the game during the period relevant to the suspicion. This involves finding artifacts that indicate the cheat process was live, interacting with memory, or leaving operational logs.

• The Importance of Execution Context ("Instance"): When the standard is ban for execution, merely showing that a cheat ran at some point ever is often insufficient and can lead to disputes. Precision regarding the timing of execution is critical. Staffers must strive to demonstrate that the cheat was executed during the relevant timeframe, which is typically defined as the current game instance (from the launch of the game process, e.g., javaw.exe, until the check) or the current boot instance (from the user's logon time for the current Windows session until the check). This often involves meticulous comparison of timestamps: the last execution time of the cheat artifact (found via Prefetch, BAM, memory strings, etc.) must correlate closely with the start time of the relevant game process or the system logon time. This specific timeframe, sometimes referred to as "instance," defines the context. Issuing bans based on execution evidence conclusively dated outside this relevant instance (e.g., a cheat run days or weeks prior with no evidence of recent use) can be considered imprecise and may lack sufficient proof under many server rulesets. Understanding and respecting the "instance" context is fundamental to accurate and fair execution-based bans. The interpretation and weight given to evidence outside the instance depend entirely on the server's codified rules.