TOPIC: My view on some of the excessive bans

Archick wrote: Archick, you're idea of a server is hell on earth..

I saw Clarky permanently ban someone for interrupting a sit...

Gody wrote: Haha, he just missed 720 minutes in the time and put it on the reason

I agree with a lot of these stances but the Hacking is absolutely ridiculous.

If I see someone spinbotting, with aimbot, which I did, and I banned them as they were 2 friends with 400+ kills. I need to send a video because I might be bias to the situation?

That makes absolutely no sense and that policy needs to change. If someone is clearly spinbotting I believe I'm within the full right to ban them but at the moment I won't do this due to the policy obviously.

We need to start giving less leeway for hacking, people are doing it more and more, and honestly if it's clear the point of it being comedic how clear the hacks are they need to be banned with proof or not.

Coutinroy wrote:
What i hate about having to first warn/kick someone is that you put so much effort in catching them and when you kick them they will know that they will have to look more real next time making it harder to catch someone.

AA RFLeX wrote:
Yes I agree. If they were to be kicked they will take this to this advantage and hack again. Maybe get better hacks, or hide it in a better way making it harder for us to catch them with evidence.

Morgan wrote:
I disagree with your point that you shouldnt provide proof of someone hacking. There is a reason why only sa+ can handle hackers. Not only do they have the right powers but they are also more trusted. If it were for admins to not have toprovide any evidence then people would ban others because they though he was hacking. Also keep in mind that admins are not that trusted and we had several situations of admins abusing.

AA RFLeX wrote:
I do feel a good change to the policy would be to allow admins to ban hackers if it wasn't even questionable if he/she was hacking or not. As in, spinbotting spawn. If it's more controversial and not easily distinguishable, then an admin should try to get proof and send it to a lead team member.

Morgan wrote: But if an admin starts banning random people on the off chance that they're hacking then who's there to stop them? Who will say "Oh you banned that guy for hacking, are you sure that it was for real?" when proof doesn't need to always be provided?

In the end, allowing admins to ban people for hacking doesn't just allow for more abuse but also for more misunderstandings. Perhaps an admin saw it wrong. A LT member can check, an admin can't.

Raeker wrote:
Please read the post and then apply your logic.

If an admin see's someone with a clear aimbot/spinbot in spawn or whatever it may be, taking everyone out, one taps to the head and hundreds of kills, they couldn't be wrong. It's clear as hell.

Why was my post calling tyler a hypocrite removed?

He warned me for going into a building after a nuke had gone off, nothing and no one was in said building yet he still warned me due to it being in spawn, I effected no one and he still warned me for doing pretty much nothing BUT some guy can call me a nignog and get away with a verbal (not off tyler) :/

Sorry for expressing my opinion against tyler I know he dislikes it

For the record im talking about this part of his reply:
I will however say that I do think there should also be a big difference between someone doing something where it causes no harm and someone that does something that causes actual harm and I agree that seeing harsh punishments handed out for doing very minor things that do not affect anyone should not be a a thing as it is unreasonable.

S_T_E_W_I_E wrote: You're free to express your opinion, just do it in a way that's actually constructive instead of just offensive. Also, you do ruin the game for others by breaking NLR as it's completely unfair for anyone else trying to get in there.

You'd also just been warned prior for breaking the exact same rule in the exact same base.

Had you also actually read my post I said harsh punishments, warnings are not harsh punishments.

Tyler Durden wrote:
I ran in looked around and as I called the elevator TO LEAVE out pops invisible tyler who was watching me to warn me.

Also since you were watching me you would have seen there was no body in there.

(the first warning was fair but the second come on man you know it was completely unneeded and you warned me because of the first one that effect you)

Morgan wrote:
Today i had to get proof of a guy hacking that tapped me 3 times when I was noclipping cloaked

it's not particularly black and white but things in TTT like the limit being 2 slays regardless of the number of RDMs is pathetic - absolutely no logic to it at all

I disagree with a lot of the stuff you wrote. If somebody has a psg and is frantically speeding around spawn and spinning in all directions landing every shot, they are hacking, there is no need for proof. Obviously some hacks are not as easy to detect and I believe that they should be anti cheated to make sure.

Your paragraph on DDOS threats is just stupid, as I said to Morgan, a mute is going to do absolutely nothing. Yes they may be empty threats a lot of the time, but it's a serious thing. If someone was joking around saying they are bombing an airport in 3 weeks, then they arent going to have their mouth taped shut.

Racism is fucking illegal in most cases, and it used to be perm bannable around 2013/14. Maybe they should be permanently banned or banned at all, but it is disgusting behaviour and should be punished harshly.

As for your statement on banning for previous punishments, I have recently banned numerous players for having a lot of past punishments. You can rulebreak 4 or 5 times before receiving a single hour ban, and after that you may continue for another 4 or so. There are people getting 10-15 punishments a day and they are not stopping. Clearly they don't want to follow the rules which are set in place for a reason so they should not be allowed to play.

Other staff members and even users agree that people with a lot of punishments in a short amount of time should be banned, as other punishment methods aren't working. You know me para and 90% of the community do, I do not give out false punishments, I give out fair and reasonable punishments. Not naming names but I banned someone today for over 13 punishments in 3 or 4 days. Multiple staff told them to stop rulebreaking but they ruined the chances given and continued. I told them that if they continue, I will ban them. They later got warned for RDM, interrupted an F1 twice, called me a "fucking abuser" and a spaz, so I banned him for constant rule breaks.

Sometimes I believe staff are too harsh, sometimes too lenient, but a lot of the staff do a fantastic job and are doing their jobs well and giving out fair punishments.

There is my view.

I think it should go back to staff dealing with something HOW they feel is needed (no ethos) Because atm you can rdm a friend or mass rdm spawn and both is the same punishment.. REALLY?

What it should be is a verbal for the rdm of a friend (depending on how the friend responds) and a ban for the mass rdm in spawn due to the mass problems it caused but thats just not the case...

Also when it comes to disrespect there is quite a wide spectrum of disrespect things you can say to someone ranging from a simple "fuck you" or "your a dickhead" to full on disgusting language and again its both a warn or a mute for disrespect...

The ethos is protecting the rule breakers atm and it shouldnt be like that. Why is it fair that someone can mass rule break many times while having 0 intent to play probably get treated like someone fucking up here and there?

since when did admins need guidelines to ban players, if the admin feels it's necessary to ban a player for what they did as long as it isn't announced in a meeting, in the rules, or directly told by a leadteam member then they should be able to punish how the feel fit, we are giving them a role because we trust they will do it right if we are up their ass all the time making decisions for them how are we gonna get more players with their OWN experience.

I miss the days where if you had your rank you were allowed to ban for what you see fit unless objected otherwise by a Super Admin+ and eventually agreed upon by the majority of the leadteam or an owner.

I remember when ZARP was getting DDosD every day or two and if someone threatened you could deal with them how you want, ban them (permanent is a little harsh unless they went over the top) warn them, mute them, jail whatever you see fit. I agree with the hacking thing if they apologize not just if they havent had a punishment before, even if you are a random and you hack but dont apologize stay banned.

So para you mean i could join the server and brake 10-15 different rules on the same day without getting banned?
Well thats just ridiculous

I completely agree with the fact that they should only issue a ban for recent warnings which very much relate to each other.
What I suggest is increasing the amount of time in which a warning is still active, thus making sure that the system itself punishes the player for the excessive amount of warnings, rather than having admins wish to step in and deal with them just because they've been breaking a fair bit of rules. Also, increase the ban time they receive once they have been given 4 active warnings.
This system can be easily abused if the player understands the way it works.