I suggest that if a player is clearly seen hacking and appeals, they should stay banned for at least a week. This will serve as like a final sentence.
Minecraft PC IP: play.cubecraft.net
I find it really rude to accept an appeal (cause of one of the reasons stated above) and let them wait one more week.
But Moderators are human. They make mistakes. If a player is unfairly banned, they should still have to wait out a week?
When a staff member bans a player they should be 100% certain they are hacking. So really you can argue that all bans are clearly shifted that way.
Do you think that they can get a moderator rank if they don't even know what hacks look like on reports?
There's a clear difference between toggling hacks, and using everything like B-hop, Killaura, AntiKB, no fall, fly, etc.
But what I was trying to say here is: They wouldn't have gotten staff if they don't know what hacks look like. For instance:
My reports have been denied, because they were looking for killaura, even though I recorded for crits. This means, that they'll look for the more common hacks and stuff, and not the hard-to-notice-at-first hacks.
The way to differentiate between obvious and not-so-obvious ones is simple.
If it's obvious in a report, it's something like: killaura, anti KB, fly and stuff like that.
The non-obvious type of report, it's things like: no slowdown, no fall(only if it happened once), crits. etc.
7 days before appeal
- Thread starter TheVenom27
- Start date
Yes I know, but if they say something like "I am sorry that I hacked, I won't do it ever
Ok, I suppose it's ok but everyone has a second chance. I don't think they would implement this.
This doesn't make sense at all. Someone could be hacked or generally sorry.
I find it really rude to accept an appeal (cause of one of the reasons stated above) and let them wait one more week.
That they already feel happy, but that they are still 1 week banned (If you appeal the first day of your ban and your appeal is accepted that you don't get a unban at the same time, but 1 week later)
Misspoke?
But Moderators are human. They make mistakes. If a player is unfairly banned, they should still have to wait out a week?
So how do you differentiate between a player clearly seen hacking and one that's not?
When a staff member bans a player they should be 100% certain they are hacking. So really you can argue that all bans are clearly shifted that way.
Gainfullterror
Forum Professional
They are staff members.
Do you think that they can get a moderator rank if they don't even know what hacks look like on reports?
There's a clear difference between toggling hacks, and using everything like B-hop, Killaura, AntiKB, no fall, fly, etc.
So... people that are sorry? Might wanna change that OP.
I've been falsely banned for Regen, but does that make the Mod who banned me anymore unqualified than the next? No, that means they are human and made a mistake.
D
Deleted member 169486
Guest
Gainfullterror
Forum Professional
How one even gets evidence for regen, is unknown to me.
But what I was trying to say here is: They wouldn't have gotten staff if they don't know what hacks look like. For instance:
My reports have been denied, because they were looking for killaura, even though I recorded for crits. This means, that they'll look for the more common hacks and stuff, and not the hard-to-notice-at-first hacks.
The way to differentiate between obvious and not-so-obvious ones is simple.
If it's obvious in a report, it's something like: killaura, anti KB, fly and stuff like that.
The non-obvious type of report, it's things like: no slowdown, no fall(only if it happened once), crits. etc.
That would surpass the less common bans like crossteaming and things
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
BlockWars Poll- Does Iron Gear make you a Priority in Bridges?- Latest: jamesthesignificant
-
-
-
