I'm going to try to be as thorough as I can here without being unnecessarily specific in regards to things that are said in confidence.
Night of the Incident
Walkers enumerated the events of that night, you can read the OP for that. What happened on our end was,
in all fairness a failure of our process to handle potential hacks with screenshares. To this point of the post, I consider it to be fully fair. We should be taken to task if we are failing in the duties we claim to set for for ourselves.
To the point of my saying "This conversation is over", I wasn't insinuating that the
whole incident was over and not to be discussed or dealt with further. In the full text of that dm with Walkers, the argument had merely become circular and no new points were being made. At no point were we going to ban Kaph because of something like being offline on Steam. Many points have been made about what justifies as "real life", or legitimately not seeing whispers, etc.
We expect and encourage players to come to the forums and raise hell if we're not doing our jobs. We may not always agree what our jobs are perceived to be, but on this I think it was 100% fair for this to be brought up. However the timespan on dealing with this situation is somewhat unique ---
Handling the Screenshare
For our breakdown of what happened, it's best to just put this in bullet point form:
- Kaph was accused of hacking by those fighting him
- Sku messaged Kaph after the fight asking for him not to log off - roughly 20 seconds after the message was sent, Kaph logged out
- He was contacted by Sku on discord as to why he logged out to which he said he did not see the message. Sku then told him it's not important (this was so we could ss him after another fight, hoping he would think it was nothing)
- We did not want to SS him straight after he logged out because we were not confident we would be able to find evidence since there was time for him to potentially hide any client from us.
- After some research we were now confident we could find evidence of clients even if he had deleted them and believed Kaph knew we wanted to ss him. Because of this we decided the best chance we had of finding anything was to ss him asap.
- At this point it was late at night, kaph had gone, and we decided to ss him the following day
- Kaph was not available and we were aware of personal reasons so decided to give him a bit more time. (we were still confident we would find anything he had)
- As of now numerous days have now passed and we have not been able to ss kaph.
We had not forgotten or ignored the incident. We were discussing internally the best course of action and it has still been less than a week after the incident and Kaph hasn't been online since. Because of this and some sensitive issues,
we did not feel there was a huge rush to exact justice. In the past, we have not historically hunted down people screenshares immediately unless we see something blatantly obvious that we feel confident we can catch then and there. These kinds of hack reports are generally followed by extremely close scrutiny of the player so as to catch him/her in the act and do the screenshare.
That all said - Despite numerous attempts to do a ss, it boils down to plain evasion of the screenshare. And, as we have stated in the past, the punishment for this is the same as being found guilty of hacking. So,
Kaph will receive a 1 month tempban.
/freeze Feature and the Future
Simply put, we did not possess at that time a
/freeze feature at the time of this incident.
This feature now exists, is very obvious, and is
our due diligence on warning a player not to log out which is far better than a very subtle, and frankly easily-missed whisper. Further, because now have /freeze,
logging out if /frozen will result in a minimum 1 MONTH BAN. This was the missing piece of the puzzle that we failed to have ready for this instance. Players can
no longer effectively use "ignorance" or otherwise to claim to miss a screenshare request.
Handling "Hackusations" in the Future
How we handle this is not going to be very much different than what we
have been doing. We're using this section to set expectations. Still file a /report if you'd like to give us a heads up that you think somebody might be hacking. Admins will then closely watch that player over the next few days/fights. If they then see anything suspicious, they will /freeze and screenshare if they feel confident that they can find a client. It's very unlikely a screenshare will happen
that very day unless an admin can see the obvious behavior immediately. Failing to catch a hacker quickly isn't
nearly as bad as prematurely trying to catch one, failing, and then they've passed a screenshare. What we have in place is a system where evading a screenshare is no longer possible, but we will still be methodical in catching players. Again, if they're blatant, and you can get an admin to see
that they're doing obvious hacking right this minute, it's more likely we can do an immediate screenshare, or at least right after a fight is over.
Hopefully this helps shed some light on the situation. We feel more confident now than we have in the past and while we messed up on this one, we hope the inclusion of
/freeze and the subsequent mandatory punishment if evaded will prevent this from happening again.
-Crypt