About BSM Reports...

[gcb99]

Well recently many of my friends got banned for BSM. One of the evidences was like 20 seconds long. He got banned for it but this is not the point.
What I want to suggest is some sort of a requirement that a report video for BSM has to be at least 30 secs / 60 secs or whatever long.
Because if you just record a player 24/7 you will always find a scene that looks suspicous.
Also I suggest that this 30 secs / 1 min may not have any cuts. Because I'm 100% sure there are people who record 24/7 and just cut the innocent part away. this probably couldn't happen if you had to record him 30 secs with no cuts. (I won't call any names here but he is responsible for NoahSailers ban)

This would reduce alot unfair bans but also keep alot hacker unbanned because some people who report the BSMers won't follow the "At-least-1-min-video-with-no-cut-rule"

 

[darkai202]

Not a bad idea, although some players don't have the time to upload long videos of hackers.

 

[RC_4777]

A problem is that programs like free fraps only record 30 seconds.

 

[EvermoreHD]

How about mods actually be careful when reviewing BSM reports?

 

[FuSioN]

Yes, this would solve so many problems. There should also be requirements as to what the evidence is. For example, the evidence can't be of you starting your sprint really fast.

 

[Gustav Mahikano]

Having to gather 30 seconds + footage regarding BSM seems too much for me. If we're fairly certain someone is using BSM we ban them for it. Also, I edit footage out to cut through the pointless parts with nothing eye catching >>> I get to the evidence so I have a lower upload time and the main evidence can be seen (along with little evidence when I do make minute long videos).

 

[reven86]

As gcb said above, you can literally follow any player game to game for hours.. and eventually you will find something that looks like hacks. You can cut out everything but one part of a video that looks suspicious, and apparently that's enough for a ban. That's is not fair to the players in question. I agree that it does take a lot of time to upload long video, but seriously guys -.- this is not fair to ban someone unfairly. Better sprint mod needs clear 100% evidence.

I do feel like that the length doesn't make the biggest difference, it is how it is decided who uses bsm or not. It needs to be a unanimous decision from the staff if it is hacking or not. I don't mean unanimous among like 3 ppl.. I mean unanimous among a large number of mods.

Having to gather 30 seconds + footage regarding BSM seems too much for me. If we're fairly certain someone is using BSM we ban them for it. Also, I edit footage out to cut through the pointless parts with nothing eye catching >>> I get to the evidence so I have a lower upload time and the main evidence can be seen (along with little evidence when I do make minute long videos).

The problem with this is, you guys have been "Certain" with banning some players, and you guys end up changing your mind.. but already made yourselves look bad by making the wrong call. So much easier if you guys take it slowly... discuss it among a lot of mods, then make a decision. The evidence isn't going anywhere.. it's not going to just disappear if you guys don't make a decision right away when you get the evidence >_<. Besides, this is what you guys were hired to do. You were hired to make fair bans, whether its 30 seconds or 30 minutes. It's not fair to cut out parts that don't look like bsm, and just keep the ones that look like it could possibly be bsm.

 

[Gustav Mahikano]

The problem with this is, you guys have been "Certain" with banning some players, and you guys end up changing your mind.. but already made yourselves look bad by making the wrong call. So much easier if you guys take it slowly... discuss it among a lot of mods, then make a decision. The evidence isn't going anywhere.. it's not going to just disappear if you guys don't make a decision right away when you get the evidence >_<.

You do realise I'm still a fairly new moderator xD Anyway, I don't ban people off of evidence that looks sus when everything is okay. I see something wrong, follow them around and pull out fraps to see if they are hacking. If I see they are and there is not enough evidence, I simply follow them around. As soon as they start clipping blocks and sprint straight away up a massive mountain, repetetively show BSM when sprinting forward after shooting a bow or get into a fight, enough evidence is enough. I still usually way til they're in combat though.

 

[EvermoreHD]

I think the only way to prove BSM is if they're sprinting up a mountain or continuing to sprint after hitting someone. Any other evidence should not be accepted.

 

[reven86]

You do realise I'm still a fairly new moderator xD Anyway, I don't ban people off of evidence that looks sus when everything is okay. I see something wrong, follow them around and pull out fraps to see if they are hacking. If I see they are and there is not enough evidence, I simply follow them around. As soon as they start clipping blocks and sprint straight away up a massive mountain, repetetively show BSM when sprinting forward after shooting a bow or get into a fight, enough evidence is enough. I still usually way til they're in combat though.

It wasn't mean to call you out directly . You are a pretty active member in mcsg and I'm sure you are pretty good at recognizing better sprint when you see it . When it comes to obvious evidence.. It really doesn't matter how long the evidence is, its fine. But when it comes to the unclear evidence, it needs to be not cut. We need to see more than just that "suspicious" part.