What's new
By:
Loka Forums

Type /register while in-game to register for a forums account.

BTB Ban Dispute

Really depends on the situation, just using via fabric isn’t banable but I suspect chickpros wording is a little misleading. Everyone is very focused on viaversion, not that fact that chickpro stated he had other evidence.
 
He literally didnt get caught cheating, all that was found is via fabric (an allowed mod).

Just because he didnt wanna update his game he is cheating? Staff have stated themselves that they can only ban with proof, but this contradicts that

+1 innocent player
 
loka strongly stands on "innocent until proven guilty" so why is this case any different? Bread was banned with 0 proof of him cheating and the only justification being he was on via (a clearly stated allowed mod)
 
ThePigGang said:
I'm not questioning his credibility as a screensharer. I'm questioning his ability to speak to how Loka Staff handles their screenshares. Skuhoo being in that discord and his past screenshares do not qualify Skied to tell Bread "they wouldn't dodge sharing it". Skied is not privvy to the internal procedures that lead to, take place, and follow a screenshare on Loka. My point was that going to him to inquire about your LOKA ban is useless in getting you unbanned on loka.


What could have changed between the two screenshares that allowed bread to be banned on the second but not the first? Skied's ability to answer that question will define his credibility and hopefully ease your confusion.
Click to expand...
Ok I think you misintreperated what I said, due to Red Lotus and Ocean both working closely with Loka in a multitude of ways, one of the more major ones quite literally being that the Loka SSers follow the guide that is entirely made up by Skied to conduct their sses and to learn more about screensharing. I think this implicates five things

1. I think based off the internal procedure being the same and them overlapping, I think he is able to conduct a valid response because he is literally the creator of the procredure that the SSers follow. Doing so, I think if skied quite literally said that he should be able to know what got him caught he should be able to.
2. Red Lotus also has many free features, I think a lot of the procedure that was used was there.
3. If we take a look at Bread's appeal, he told us that he recorded the screenshare itself, I think the authority of keeping the things concealed in the screenshare itself is already public or already known to bread at this point, so the point of 'him not being able to bypass in the future' makes absolute 0 sense.
4. Even then, I think the reason the screenshare took place was abundantly clear for everyone, a insane amount of people think he cheats and he was playing in a tournament, screenshares like that are expected and bound to happen.
5. I don't think the credibility of Skied needs to be questioned but even if he wasn't credible and even if he had zero relevance to this conversation at all. Lets go over what you said about the two screenshare differences by taking a glance at Bread's inital appeal.
BreadToastBurnt said:
where I was ssed for the first time by ChickPro after my fight with Phantic in the Semi-finals. This ss took approximately 30 minutes and after ChickPro was done he said I was free to go and that my pc was clean.
Click to expand...
BreadToastBurnt said:
This ss was substantially shorter then the previous screenshare and ChickPro only ran Ocean which he had ran the day before too. After the scan the anydesk session ended and I went to ChickPro's dms on discord to see if he meant to close the session.
Click to expand...
For clarification, I do think the screenshare was longer then 30 minutes but even if it was just 30, I think we can make two very important judgements here.

First, in the first screenshare Bread had Ocean ran on him along with other cloud softwares and manual things as well.
Second, in the second screenshare Bread also had Ocean ran on him with the ss taking approximately ss.
If we can take into account that he had quite literally the same everything: same mods, same version, same pack even (all of which can be proven in mods) then the two screenshares are quite literally the same thing. I think it is more APPARENT that this was more about confirming whether or not he was on Via Fabric. We can also go further by again, looking at the tournament screenshare of bread.


ThePigGang said:
Are you arguing that since he mentioned the suspected cheat, that counts as sharing evidence? You are not informed enough to speak on the record about this. How do you know that Loka screensharer's have NEVER mentioned the suspected cheat to the suspect in the history of Loka screenshares? Even if they never did, there is literally no evidence being shared.

You have no clue exactly what he may have found in either of the screenshares. You do not know what specific evidence led to his ban, and it's naive to assume that Bread's use of ViaFabric is the sole reason. Chickpro literally says he has more evidence beyond ViaVersion. I do not know why you are choosing to ignore that.
Click to expand...
Obviously I am not informed to speak about this however I think I made a very clear distinction from the two screenshares (one taking 30+ mins with multiple softwares run vs one for 5 minutes and just ocean). I think from this we can determine that since every other variable in the screenshare was the same, the only anomaly and difference between the two was ChickPro questioning why he was on Minecraft 1.21.4, infact he quite litearlly said that it was not allowed & "I have more evidence t conclude that you're using drip viaversion..." However, I think if there was pre-existing proof of him being on a client they would've banned him the day before. I think it is pretty evident that this screenshare and the entire protocol was just to confirm his version (which again is allowed under the mods guideline).

Infact, we do know what was found in both if bread's claims hold up, ocean has pins where you can check exactly what happened. If we gain the ability to that and see that nothing changed from screenshare to screenshare, then I think it is very clear that the purpose of banning him was because he was on ViaFabric 1.21.4. And I will reiterate again, if he had more groundbreaking evidence to the point where Bread would be banned for it, I think it would have been clear that he would have been banned the day prior where the more thorough screenshare took place comparatively based off time alone.

Regardless of whether or not 'he is my boy' does not matter, this is quite literally a mutual stance
the_farter123 said:
I just want to know why ViaFabric is allowed yet somehow Bread got banned? you did find cheats then he is lying in the appeal, if you didn't, there is nothing against using ViaFabric and you might want to change the rules in "Approved (Legal) Client Side Mods" before banning another player.
Click to expand...

Conclusionz said:
Really depends on the situation, just using via fabric isn’t banable but I suspect chickpros wording is a little misleading. Everyone is very focused on viaversion, not that fact that chickpro stated he had other evidence.
Click to expand...
"if he had more groundbreaking evidence to the point where Bread would be banned for it, I think it would have been clear that he would have been banned the day prior where the more thorough screenshare took place comparatively based off time alone."

Again, I highly encourage reading through Bread's appeal entirely before making a statement.
 
dnalol said:
Ok I think you misintreperated what I said, due to Red Lotus and Ocean both working closely with Loka in a multitude of ways, one of the more major ones quite literally being that the Loka SSers follow the guide that is entirely made up by Skied to conduct their sses and to learn more about screensharing. I think this implicates five things

1. I think based off the internal procedure being the same and them overlapping, I think he is able to conduct a valid response because he is literally the creator of the procredure that the SSers follow. Doing so, I think if skied quite literally said that he should be able to know what got him caught he should be able to.
2. Red Lotus also has many free features, I think a lot of the procedure that was used was there.
3. If we take a look at Bread's appeal, he told us that he recorded the screenshare itself, I think the authority of keeping the things concealed in the screenshare itself is already public or already known to bread at this point, so the point of 'him not being able to bypass in the future' makes absolute 0 sense.
4. Even then, I think the reason the screenshare took place was abundantly clear for everyone, a insane amount of people think he cheats and he was playing in a tournament, screenshares like that are expected and bound to happen.
5. I don't think the credibility of Skied needs to be questioned but even if he wasn't credible and even if he had zero relevance to this conversation at all. Lets go over what you said about the two screenshare differences by taking a glance at Bread's inital appeal.


For clarification, I do think the screenshare was longer then 30 minutes but even if it was just 30, I think we can make two very important judgements here.

First, in the first screenshare Bread had Ocean ran on him along with other cloud softwares and manual things as well.
Second, in the second screenshare Bread also had Ocean ran on him with the ss taking approximately ss.
If we can take into account that he had quite literally the same everything: same mods, same version, same pack even (all of which can be proven in mods) then the two screenshares are quite literally the same thing. I think it is more APPARENT that this was more about confirming whether or not he was on Via Fabric. We can also go further by again, looking at the tournament screenshare of bread.



Obviously I am not informed to speak about this however I think I made a very clear distinction from the two screenshares (one taking 30+ mins with multiple softwares run vs one for 5 minutes and just ocean). I think from this we can determine that since every other variable in the screenshare was the same, the only anomaly and difference between the two was ChickPro questioning why he was on Minecraft 1.21.4, infact he quite litearlly said that it was not allowed & "I have more evidence t conclude that you're using drip viaversion..." However, I think if there was pre-existing proof of him being on a client they would've banned him the day before. I think it is pretty evident that this screenshare and the entire protocol was just to confirm his version (which again is allowed under the mods guideline).

Infact, we do know what was found in both if bread's claims hold up, ocean has pins where you can check exactly what happened. If we gain the ability to that and see that nothing changed from screenshare to screenshare, then I think it is very clear that the purpose of banning him was because he was on ViaFabric 1.21.4. And I will reiterate again, if he had more groundbreaking evidence to the point where Bread would be banned for it, I think it would have been clear that he would have been banned the day prior where the more thorough screenshare took place comparatively based off time alone.

Regardless of whether or not 'he is my boy' does not matter, this is quite literally a mutual stance



"if he had more groundbreaking evidence to the point where Bread would be banned for it, I think it would have been clear that he would have been banned the day prior where the more thorough screenshare took place comparatively based off time alone."

Again, I highly encourage reading through Bread's appeal entirely before making a statement.
Click to expand...
Why did you change my message so much because that wasn't even remotely close to what I typed lol, you just tried to make my message look so much more defensive for bread than it is
 
dnalol said:
Ok I think you misintreperated what I said, due to Red Lotus and Ocean both working closely with Loka in a multitude of ways, one of the more major ones quite literally being that the Loka SSers follow the guide that is entirely made up by Skied to conduct their sses and to learn more about screensharing. I think this implicates five things

1. I think based off the internal procedure being the same and them overlapping, I think he is able to conduct a valid response because he is literally the creator of the procredure that the SSers follow. Doing so, I think if skied quite literally said that he should be able to know what got him caught he should be able to.
2. Red Lotus also has many free features, I think a lot of the procedure that was used was there.
3. If we take a look at Bread's appeal, he told us that he recorded the screenshare itself, I think the authority of keeping the things concealed in the screenshare itself is already public or already known to bread at this point, so the point of 'him not being able to bypass in the future' makes absolute 0 sense.
4. Even then, I think the reason the screenshare took place was abundantly clear for everyone, a insane amount of people think he cheats and he was playing in a tournament, screenshares like that are expected and bound to happen.
5. I don't think the credibility of Skied needs to be questioned but even if he wasn't credible and even if he had zero relevance to this conversation at all. Lets go over what you said about the two screenshare differences by taking a glance at Bread's inital appeal.


For clarification, I do think the screenshare was longer then 30 minutes but even if it was just 30, I think we can make two very important judgements here.

First, in the first screenshare Bread had Ocean ran on him along with other cloud softwares and manual things as well.
Second, in the second screenshare Bread also had Ocean ran on him with the ss taking approximately ss.
If we can take into account that he had quite literally the same everything: same mods, same version, same pack even (all of which can be proven in mods) then the two screenshares are quite literally the same thing. I think it is more APPARENT that this was more about confirming whether or not he was on Via Fabric. We can also go further by again, looking at the tournament screenshare of bread.



Obviously I am not informed to speak about this however I think I made a very clear distinction from the two screenshares (one taking 30+ mins with multiple softwares run vs one for 5 minutes and just ocean). I think from this we can determine that since every other variable in the screenshare was the same, the only anomaly and difference between the two was ChickPro questioning why he was on Minecraft 1.21.4, infact he quite litearlly said that it was not allowed & "I have more evidence t conclude that you're using drip viaversion..." However, I think if there was pre-existing proof of him being on a client they would've banned him the day before. I think it is pretty evident that this screenshare and the entire protocol was just to confirm his version (which again is allowed under the mods guideline).

Infact, we do know what was found in both if bread's claims hold up, ocean has pins where you can check exactly what happened. If we gain the ability to that and see that nothing changed from screenshare to screenshare, then I think it is very clear that the purpose of banning him was because he was on ViaFabric 1.21.4. And I will reiterate again, if he had more groundbreaking evidence to the point where Bread would be banned for it, I think it would have been clear that he would have been banned the day prior where the more thorough screenshare took place comparatively based off time alone.

Regardless of whether or not 'he is my boy' does not matter, this is quite literally a mutual stance



"if he had more groundbreaking evidence to the point where Bread would be banned for it, I think it would have been clear that he would have been banned the day prior where the more thorough screenshare took place comparatively based off time alone."

Again, I highly encourage reading through Bread's appeal entirely before making a statement.
Click to expand...
anything but going too school
 
+1, am not +1ing bread cause he's my boy or something, bread doesn't even know me he sees me as a recruit therefore nor him or I know each other, but in my pov he doesn't look like as he is cheating (I've 1v1ed him before and almost killed him in a duel) in addition to chickpro saying " Do you enjoy playing on 1.21.4" is irrelevant and insignificant to the ban and as an sser i think he should know what mods are banned and not, but falsely claiming when a mod that is legal and said in the rules 2.1 and coming from magpieman himself.

Additionally, chickpro claimed that Drip lite mod which was claimed to be a 1.8.9 up to 1.21 hack client, I've seen bread once or twice him opening only lunar client and didn't see suspicious client or side mod.
 
+1 i dont know bread that well and i understand why staff / screensharers may be generally apprehensive to share specific info on ss findings... however i cant get past the fact that the initial ss didnt lead to a ban & viafabric is listed as allowed. i think some transparency from staff on this issue would be really helpful as it seems like this was a ban made on the assumption that viafabric was being used to run cheats as opposed to having actually found anything.
 
This seems like more of a critique on the integrity of the staff team rather then an appeal suggesting that you are not using cheats. This is true because if chickpro is not lying ("I have more evidence to conclude you're using drip ..."). Then your ban is deserved.

+1 Deserves a response from the staff answering your suspicions

*I trained bread in parkour and can confirm that he has S tier mechanics (definetely didn't take him 1 hour to learn how to press spacebar and sprint at the same time)*
 
+1 he's legit ive seen ss'ing in vcs for no rnz most of the time i'm in vc with him i seen no proof of him hacking during any of those ss and i have also fought him and i have not once hack during any one of those 1v1s or ss
 
Barend110 said:
some of the loudest detractors in this appeal may not even realize they are being biased and toxic some of the people making accusations against bread have autism or autism-related traits i don’t want to single them out so i wont name them and again this is not an attack
Click to expand...

Singling out autistic players, while claiming not to single out autistic players and alleging they're the reason bread is banned is a wild take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top