Not disputing a ban, just pointing out...

[Wolfegger]

Bat is the one that mentioned the inconsistency with punishments, Skuhoo simply further expanded upon the point. If you reread the first post in the forum you will see your evidence.

No. Bat listed some things, but he did not specify what was inconsistent about them. Skuhoo wrote, ". . . rule enforcement seems to be hugely inconsistent." If you don't want to make a case for it, then so be it, but please stop acting like it has been established.

 

[Wolfegger]

And I still do not see why in the case of Bat instead of him being banned he wasn't just told to go back on the server. A ban for something which should just result in the loss of all your items is already fairly absurd.

Well, and his head? I do agree it should just result in the loss of all your items--and head. But when somebody runs, which is an option we should have, logging off as part of a means of escape should not be an option (mind you, Bat was trapped; his logging off was an attempt to avoid what was coming--and it inconvenienced the players who had caught him. What about them? Were they to wait 24/7 for him to log back on?). Still, AT&T kicks me every now and then for a few minutes. I would hate to get banned in that instance, but if it happened, I would deal with it (and hope for a lesser sentence on appeal). We have discussed the possibility of alternatives, but in the absence of something better, we have to have a rule against combat logging and enforce it. Combat logging is despised on every server I have been on.

If you log out a few seconds after being in combat and get killed by the plugin, will that be punishable by a ban too? If you combat log immediately, the punishment is the loss of your items.

I don't feel a ban is necessary in such an instance, as it would clearly not be an attempt to circumvent the scenario of losing one's items.

But 60 seconds, and multiple chunks away and the result is seven day ban, later reduced. Why would not giving the logging out member's items to the other party not suffice for something like this?

Combat logging like that is an attempt to avoid loss of items, and it ruins the game experience for other players. Maybe loss of items (and head) would suffice if we were all being watched every moment we are on the server. As it is, we are not. The rule does function as a preventative measure: if you get caught, then you have to face a ban. I'm not sure how feasible it is to have the server track pvp better (beyond the "You have entered combat" phase--maybe distance could be the determining factor. Still, I would require a player to be 8 or 10 chunks away for a safe log-off. And I would make the loss of stuff and head automatic if one logged off in a foreign town).

Exploiting into a locked room and accessing chests is obviously against the rules, there just needed to be sufficient evidence to prove it. Once the evidence was gathered there was no party involved that could refute that.

If I had sufficient evidence, it would have been a simple matter.

But in the case of Bat, due to how the rules are written he could not have known if what he was doing was combat logging. But our complaint here is not about Bat being banned, but rather the fact that Bat would not have logged out there if the rules were more clear. I understand the rule is written so that admins have more freedom with enforcing it, but if that results in more people breaking the rules themselves that can hardly be a healthy system. This is like a cop ticketing a driver for breaking a law which states "Don't go too fast". The reason laws like this do not exist is because both parties having differing opinion on the interpretation of the law results in a worse society as a whole.

11. Don't PvP Log
11.1. Don't log out in an attempt to avoid PvP (either fleeing or to avoid an incoming fight) or prematurely terminate a fight in progress.

Did Bat log off to get away? Yes.

 

[Skuhoo]

No. Bat listed some things, but he did not specify what was inconsistent about them. Skuhoo wrote, ". . . rule enforcement seems to be hugely inconsistent." If you don't want to make a case for it, then so be it, but please stop acting like it has been established.

I seriously have no idea how to respond to you anymore. We've compared and pointed out differences in how multiple bans were handled. If you have an issue with me criticizing those differences than write about that. But stop asking us to make a case about something when we already have.

 

[Wolfegger]

Seriously? Your response, after not having made a case for things being "hugely inconsistent" is to say that you have made the case. Nice. You won't support your claim. QED.

 

[kallious]

Seriously? Your response, after not having made a case for things being "hugely inconsistent" is to say that you have made the case. Nice. You won't support your claim. QED.

Wolf, I'm sorry but, I have had literally no idea what your posts have been talking about this entire thread. What do you think that the first post in this thread is about? It is listing multiple bans and their sentences. The severity of the rules broken, and the resulting bans is inconsistent and does not match up with the severity of the rule broken. How on earth, for instance, is logging out out of someone's render distance a minute after combat has ended, equal the same ban sentence as someone who has exploited into a locked room and accessed their chests? If you want to make a point about why you think this is consistent feel free to, but please do not just keep repeating "no you have not supported your claim". Your own claim, that these punishments were handed out consistently, you have not talked about at all. QED.

 

[Calixx_]

If I had sufficient evidence, it would have been a simple matter.

While I can't necessarily blame you for data given/not given to you by the logging system, Krivens literally told Crypt that he exploited, and showed him the exploit. I don't see how it can get much simpler, and yet Skuhoo still had to press Crypt to punish him beyond giving up items that he cheated to get and should not have had in the first place.

11. Don't PvP Log
11.1. Don't log out in an attempt to avoid PvP (either fleeing or to avoid an incoming fight) or prematurely terminate a fight in progress.

Did Bat log off to get away? Yes.

And while I won't dispute the rule/ruling, I think the issue remains here that Bat was under the impression that he was far away enough from other players to logout safely, but had very little/no idea that he was actually in violation of the rule until Crypt joined our Discord channel to tell him he was banned. It also falls into somewhat of a grey area (at least in my opinion), because he was not logging out to completely avoid a fight, but to delay until he had some help (once again, under the impression that he was at a safe distance), since Skuhoo was on his way to Auru to assist. And while I know it's not necessarily a valid argument here, it is quite possible, given history, that he could have taken on both NI members and won on his own, meaning that the loss of items was not a guarantee.

And by the wording of the rule, logging out in your own home when someone is outside it would be considered combat logging. You're logging out to avoid fighting the person outside your home. The rule itself needs to be clarified. In your post you mentioned

Still, I would require a player to be 8 or 10 chunks away for a safe log-off. And I would make the loss of stuff and head automatic if one logged off in a foreign town.

but this isn't stated at all in the rules. So, while I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all/parts of such an update, this shows that an update is necessary, since it's not entirely clear what the rule is and how the admins intend to enforce it, to a point where a(t least one) player has been banned, and others may be banned because of it. I do understand the need to remain vague in some cases for the admins' sake (obviously something like logging off in your own home with a player outside shouldn't be a combat log), but if there are cases where rules are vague enough that people can get away with things that should be illegal (re: cobble into furnaces), or vague enough that people who have been on the server for a long time and know the rules can be banned because they weren't aware they were in violation of a rule, clarification is clearly necessary.

 

[Wolfegger]

Wolf, I'm sorry but, I have had literally no idea what your posts have been talking about this entire thread. What do you think that the first post in this thread is about? It is listing multiple bans and their sentences. The severity of the rules broken, and the resulting bans is inconsistent and does not match up with the severity of the rule broken.

In order to argue something, you make a claim, you provide what you consider to be evidence, and then you explain how the evidence supports the claim that you are making. For some reason, this last step has been avoided.

How on earth, for instance, is logging out out of someone's render distance a minute after combat has ended, equal the same ban sentence as someone who has exploited into a locked room and accessed their chests? If you want to make a point about why you think this is consistent feel free to, but please do not just keep repeating "no you have not supported your claim".

Now you are trying to support part of the claim--that there is an inconsistency (but only that there is one--you are far from attempting to support the claim that ". . . rule enforcement seems to be hugely inconsistent"). Still, your underselling of combat logging--and attempts to game the system in order to avoid losing gear and possibly a head--is hard for me to grasp. As I explained earlier, we are not ever watching you. Because of this, a punishment of a ban is necessary (so I feel--not something I have been told)--so you don't it, especially when you think you aren't being watched. Again, it's combat logging in order to game the system and avoid losing your stuff that is at issue, while ruining game play for other players--and it is a despised act throughout the Minecraft world. I wouldn't mind better alternatives, but until then . . . I'm not sure why you think it is a lesser evil.

I'm also not sure why you are surprised about the punishment for the exploit, given that the main, damning evidence was the players admission of guilt, and given the cooperation and offering of insights into an exploitable glitch. I missed what this exploit was, by the way, but it was brought up earlier in this thread. You can say that players shouldn't be given more lenient punishments when they cooperate or tell us about unknown exploits, but that is how it is in the real world (cops and criminals). I have no problem with this.

Your own claim, that these punishments were handed out consistently, you have not talked about at all. QED.

I did not previously make that claim. Nice try.

 

[Wolfegger]

and yet Skuhoo still had to press Crypt to punish him beyond giving up items that he cheated to get and should not have had in the first place.

That's how you see it, but you aren't privy to what we discuss. It's a big assumption to make.

What you quoted from me about ". . . 8 or 10 chunks . . ." was assuming we had a function within the server to measure this. Given that we don't, I see bans for pvp-logging that is an attempt to avoid losing gear/head (or wait for backup) as necessary.

 

[gabrosen]

A punishment is a punishment bat did something wrong, he understands this. Their is no need to argue over something that's never going to change and if it does its not going to help the situation at all. So quit this foolish act of rebellion and move on!

 

[EastBowmen]

Let me make my point. Wolf you say that you are unable to see how one action is a lesser evil. I respect you completely, but I 100% disagree. There is a major difference between someone who has never broken a rule before (to my knowledge) that logs off to avoid a fight and someone who was built around 15 tunnels into Valkyrie (town betrayal), made multiple one block towers upwards outside Valkyrie, and used a boat glitch to get into Valkyrie. Not to mention, this guy with a million past issues that were barely acknowledged now EXPLOITS into a freaking chest room and steals. You mention that it makes it better because he admits the bug afterwards? So you're saying if I vclip into Hilo and raid the living crap out of it, but I tell you about how I did it that I'm gonna get a weakened consequence? Heck, that's ridiculous. It should be expected that someone should reveal an exploit and if they refuse to, then I say they deserve a perm ban.

The point of this thread is to make the ban times more accurate and consistent. As someone who has experienced inconsistent bans, I also agree that this is an area that we need to improve on.
FYI, Krivens broke about 4 rules yet he wasn't even temp banned until Skuhoo pushed Crypt hard. I warned admins at least 4 times about his malicious activity around Valkyrie by the way. He deserves at least 3 times the duration of bat's ban.

 

[Calixx_]

I'm also not sure why you are surprised about the punishment for the exploit, given that the main, damning evidence was the players admission of guilt, and given the cooperation and offering of insights into an exploitable glitch. I missed what this exploit was, by the way, but it was brought up earlier in this thread. You can say that players shouldn't be given more lenient punishments when they cooperate or tell us about unknown exploits, but that is how it is in the real world (cops and criminals). I have no problem with this.

That's the problem. Giving back the our items that he illegitimately stole is not a punishment. He should not have had those items regardless, since he cheated to get them. Giving us back our property does not have any net affect on the exploiter. Regardless of whether or not they cooperate, those who deliberately cheat/break the rules should be punished. Whether or not compliance should reduce severity of a punishment is one thing, the issue we have is that there was no punishment, even after open admission of wrongdoing. Sure, if a robber gives up the names of his accomplices, he'll likely get less prison time as part of a deal, but he'll still get sent to prison. Whether or not I agree with reduced punishment for complying is irrelevant, but I do understand the reasoning. I, however, cannot agree that a blatant breach of the rules should be completely forgiven, and without the insistence of Skuhoo/Eldritch, Crypt was going to let Krivens off with no "punishment" other than returning the items, as mentioned earlier. It's not a matter of us not being privy of what admins discuss when we directly spoke to Crypt about our complaints (after the admin meeting found him innocent), convinced him to question Krivens further, and got a confession directly from him. Despite this, Crypt came into the Eldritch discord channel and tried to convince Sku that returning the items was sufficient punishment.

(Also, for reference, the exploit allowed players to spam locked doors in such a way that they could not walk through them, but so that they would appear clientside to be open and allow players to open chests in the room)

 

[Skuhoo]

A punishment is a punishment bat did something wrong, he understands this. Their is no need to argue over something that's never going to change and if it does its not going to help the situation at all. So quit this foolish act of rebellion and move on!

You misunderstand what our arguments are about then. We aren't arguing for Bat to be unbanned. Among a few other things, we feel that the current vague wording surrounding some rules causes infractions that don't need to happen. The rules shouldn't be hard to follow.

This isn't "act of rebellion" and trying to make that claim is silly and shows that you haven't even read the contents of this thread. We aren't complaining and calling for someone's head, we're pushing for an improvement of the current rule system.

 

[Jedoi]

Holy cow guys. Different people with different pasts and different issues require different sentences. Just trust the admins. In most cases they have good judgement on this type of thing.

 

[gabrosen]

Holy cow guys. Different people with different pasts and different issues require different sentences. Just trust the admins. In most cases they have good judgement on this type of thing.

This is what I'm trying to say ^

 

[Cryptite]

In most cases they have good judgement on this type of thing.

Sometimes we do get it wrong though. I think this thread has more than run its course. We'll be discussing all of this at our next admin meeting.

 

[Jedoi]

Sometimes we do get it wrong though.

That's why I said in most cases.

 

[bat3415]

Well, and his head? I do agree it should just result in the loss of all your items--and head. But when somebody runs, which is an option we should have, logging off as part of a means of escape should not be an option (mind you, Bat was trapped; his logging off was an attempt to avoid what was coming--and it inconvenienced the players who had caught him. What about them? Were they to wait 24/7 for him to log back on?). Still, AT&T kicks me every now and then for a few minutes. I would hate to get banned in that instance, but if it happened, I would deal with it (and hope for a lesser sentence on appeal). We have discussed the possibility of alternatives, but in the absence of something better, we have to have a rule against combat logging and enforce it. Combat logging is despised on every server I have been on.



I don't feel a ban is necessary in such an instance, as it would clearly not be an attempt to circumvent the scenario of losing one's items.



Combat logging like that is an attempt to avoid loss of items, and it ruins the game experience for other players. Maybe loss of items (and head) would suffice if we were all being watched every moment we are on the server. As it is, we are not. The rule does function as a preventative measure: if you get caught, then you have to face a ban. I'm not sure how feasible it is to have the server track pvp better (beyond the "You have entered combat" phase--maybe distance could be the determining factor. Still, I would require a player to be 8 or 10 chunks away for a safe log-off. And I would make the loss of stuff and head automatic if one logged off in a foreign town).



If I had sufficient evidence, it would have been a simple matter.



11. Don't PvP Log
11.1. Don't log out in an attempt to avoid PvP (either fleeing or to avoid an incoming fight) or prematurely terminate a fight in progress.

Did Bat log off to get away? Yes.

Just so were clear about "waiting 24/7 and players being inconvenienced"(paraphrase), KakashiSen logged off in Hilo and has been boxed in, has returned multiple times, but has never been caught by combat logger(as I was not fast enough to get a hit in) but has been there for at least 2 months in this one box on top of the barn in Hilo.
edit: JK it's actually closer to 4
Edit2:"Effective immediately, in any instance where you are trapped in a town and are clearly about to die with no means of possible escape, a logout now counts as a combat log and the punishment will be as equal."
Bro literally 4 months

 

[bat3415]

Also
Wolf in response to Kallious "I don't feel a ban is necessary in such an instance, as it would clearly not be an attempt to circumvent the scenario of losing one's items."
Wolf in response to Calixx_ " I see bans for pvp-logging that is an attempt to avoid losing gear/head (or wait for backup) as necessary."
geegee

 

[Wolfegger]

Just so were clear about "waiting 24/7 and players being inconvenienced"(paraphrase), KakashiSen logged off in Hilo and has been boxed in, has returned multiple times, but has never been caught by combat logger(as I was not fast enough to get a hit in) but has been there for at least 2 months in this one box on top of the barn in Hilo.
edit: JK it's actually closer to 4
Edit2:"Effective immediately, in any instance where you are trapped in a town and are clearly about to die with no means of possible escape, a logout now counts as a combat log and the punishment will be as equal."
Bro literally 4 months

Wow, this is the first I have heard of your KakashiSen problem. That is a tough one, as, for a pvp-logging that isn't dealt with by the plug-in, I would need to witness it (Cryptite or Magpieman might have access to data that would allow them to verify).

 

[Magpieman]

It's not pvp logging if they are trapped in a town. They should be allowed time to either suicide themselves or have a friend attempt to rescue them. However if a player has not returned for a significant length of time then an admin killing them is a fair solution. She clearly has no intention of playing. I will kill her when i next log in and her items will appear in bat3415's escrow chest.