Miia wrote:
Which to you is worse letting a hacker go until the meeting or banning someone who looks like a hacker when they are not? Innocent until proven guilty and as an admin who has no access to the Anti-Cheat you should not be allowed to ban anyone for hacking as you have no proof other than your opinion. In the cases where the Anti-Cheat shows nothing yet the user is still suspected of hacking then no single person should be able to make the call, it should be a group decision as some people will have different opinions about whether the individual is hacking or not.
Imagine i'm a new user who just started playing TTT, not hacking at all just here to have fun. I play really well for a few rounds and suddenly i get banned because an admin thought i was hacking. I'm not gonna bother appealing the ban i'm just gonna leave and join another server and the admin who thought i was hacking gets away with it.
Another issue is how do we define "evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt"? At what point do we say that very good aim turns into hacks? The fact that this cannot be easily defined is the reason why no single person should be allowed to ban a hacker, as some will think the user is using hacks and others that they just have really good aim. As a lot of it comes down to opinion it makes sense that a group of people should vote on it.
Admittedly this is very unlikely but could happen. What if TTR gets bored and decides to ban people for no reason again? He sees a rookie that just joined, waits a few rounds and then bans him for hacking, as the user is new and doesn't care he just moves onto another server and doesn't appeal the ban so TTR gets away with it. If we start letting admins ban people without having solid proof that they broke a rule situations like this could happen or even if they had no ill intent they could still make a mistake and ban someone for something they did not do.
Only giving hackers a kick may seem overly lenient but i thinks its best to give them this one chance to turn their hacks off before they get banned however i can understand that this must be frustrating for some people seeing a hacker play for almost a full week only to get a kick. To be perfectly honest though i would rather have a hacker play for the week and be voted on in the meeting over banning an innocent user because an admin thought he was hacking.
To me, letting a hacker go is worse. Innocent until proven guilty, sure, and the proof is in the recording. As for the anti-cheat command, I've said that already in the post - most cheats offer an option to make it so you can't see them through anti cheats, or are key-toggle injectors that don't show up on the screen. Making me as good of a judge for cheats as any other person. As for the "Opinion" part, I've provided proof, and edited it to show which parts of his game were significant in making my decision in his case "beyond reasonable doubt". Bullet curving, popular in garrys mod, is something that's isn't called on an opinion, it can be proven. Aim lock can be proven. Wallhacks, whilst speculation, can also be proven.
As for the group decision, the issue isn't as big as it should be. Hackers shouldn't be so special, they are rulebreakers, as are RDMers. They get punishments, similar to RDMers. And seeing as people can appeal an RDM warn, or a Mic spam gag, why is it different that they can't appeal a hacking ban/warn?
Playing well =/= Playing with cheats. People usually don't bother hiding it too well in Garry's mod, because there's no point - tons of servers to chose from, a punishment doesn't mean anything to them. Whilst in other games, it's much more planned. That's why it's easy to spot cheats in Garry's mod. This is also, why I propose that you should issue a ban IF, AND ONLY IF, and read this carefully : The evidence gathered for the suspects punishment would be beyond reasonable doubt that he is cheating. If it's an "iffy" kill, then it's insufficient evidence. Gather a case of evidence against him, potentially catch him admitting to it, then that would be considered "Evidence beyond reasonable doubt". IF, the person appeals it, and the administrator issuing the ban provides insufficient evidence or no evidence at all, he should be warned or even demoted. I'd say warned, because, as mentioned before - Staff get RDM cases wrong. Hacking is against the rules, RDM is against the rules. If you get an RDM case wrong, it's no different than getting a Hacking case wrong. I don't know if I'm constructing my point well enough here but I hope some people get it.
As for you saying that some people won't be bothered to appeal it - Yes, that might be a problem. That's why I'm not saying remove Anti-Cheat, I would say that staff should be instructed to ask a Lead Team member to view them on Anti-Cheat, FURTHER STRENGTHENING a case of evidence against the suspect. This however, should only happen if the staff member is having trouble defining weather or not the suspect is a cheater. This post is made towards blatantly clear hackers who don't even try to hide it, or hide it really bad. If it's a suspicion, and the admin would ban him based on a suspicion, that admin is simply corrupt. That's a whole, WHOLE 'nother issue.
It's not unlikely that TTR will ban people again (it's literally a 20%/80% lmao I'd put a low bet on the 20 myself but whatever) but for that point you've written, the whole point about TTR, is again - an issue about corrupt staff. It's not a hacking specific issue, but a more staffing issue. The way to go about this, is to see bans issued by staff at the end of each week, as they don't happen often - construct a rapsheet of all bans during the week and review them - This wouldn't be much trouble for LT to do at the end of the week, any red flags - they question it. Again, it's a staffing issue rather than the hacking-ban issue. As for the part about "banning someone without solid proof" - I'm saying an admin should have solid, SOLID proof (evidence beyond reasonable doubt) when issuing a ban against a hacker. They don't happen often, so it shouldn't be a problem.
I disagree with you a lot on letting the hacker go scat-free. He won't even care about the slap on the wrist he'll get, on my case with Emil, if you remember, the dude only got a warn. A warn. As for kicking people who hack for a chance to let them turn their cheats off - No thank you. It enforces people to hack whilst no admins are on, rather than stop hacking overall. A hacker will hack, he'll just realise he got caught and go about it differently, and seeing as we let KNOWN, PROVEN hackers continue playing, we just enforce the fact that they will alter their hacking methods. It's not a risk I'd have. I remember being a user on Zarp when no admins are on. It's scary.
EDIT : I think your main point was the whole innocent until proven guilty part.
I've had around over 4 warnings issued, all of which were appealed and proven to be wrong. Issuing a ban on a hacker would be no different. If someone does get it wrong, it should be noted and the person issuing the punishment should be warned or demoted.