[BANS] Hackers Get No Warning Ban

[GradeZeroGamer]

If they're hacking, they obviously know they're doing something wrong.

 

[Col_StaR]

Folks, let's talk Recidivism.

Hacking is wrong, no doubt about that. And in my experience, most hackers who genuinely do hack will always continue to do so (it's a problem associated with behavior and rewards). But there are two significant portions of the population whom are being completely overlooked: reformed hackers and the falsely-accused.

There are hackers out there who have genuinely changed, usually people who were using hacks unintentionally (e.g. the cousin they share a computer with installed BSM without their knowledge), hacking experimentally (e.g. they wanted to know what aimbot was like, so they tried it out and were caught on their first offense), or who have genuinely felt the consequences of their actions and have changed their ways. In this last week, I've talked with at least one person whom has existed in each case, one of whom was pursuing an age exception but could not due to a single experimental match with aimbot over 7 months ago (he was denied for that incident, despite my continued belief in him). The problem with the suggestion proposed by the OP is that these individuals who have genuinely changed their ways would never be given the chance to demonstrate that they have changed. Such a cynical attitude of, "Hackers are evil who don't deserve second chances" shuts the door on a large number of people whose only true crime is one of circumstance.

For argument's sake, I've compared data on criminal recidivism in the US, thanks to this report from the Bureau of Justice in 2007. According to, "Table 6. Parolees returned to incarceration, 2007", only 15.5% of parolees returned to prison during their parole period, meaning a majority of offenders who were given a second chance in normal society went back to living a law-abiding life. I argue that the same principle applies with hackers, and I am not willing to unjustly shut down a majority of one-time hackers in order to stop the minority of multi-time hackers for the sake of convenience.

Then there are the falsely-accused. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has those amazing moments, it's the outliers like that that we have to account for too. But I do not want to increase the risk of false-positive perma-bans simply because of a policy. People may not feel welcomed in a community where playing too well may earn them a hack accusation and a perma-ban to boot. Ban Disputes do exist, but that's an added level of complexity that most people will not want to deal with, and they'll just pack up and leave to play elsewhere instead.

Our system is fair, and has served us well thus far. The problem isn't how to punish players in suspicion of using hacks, but rather being there to catch the ones who do. For that reason, I feel that the community's efforts should be put towards correctly catching hackers, instead of coming up with ways to punish them. You help us catch them, we'll get rid of them.

 

[MetagrossVSwablu]

Folks, let's talk Recidivism.

Hacking is wrong, no doubt about that. And in my experience, most hackers who genuinely do hack will always continue to do so (it's a problem associated with behavior and rewards). But there are two significant portions of the population whom are being completely overlooked: reformed hackers and the falsely-accused.

There are hackers out there who have genuinely changed, usually people who were using hacks unintentionally (e.g. the cousin they share a computer with installed BSM without their knowledge), hacking experimentally (e.g. they wanted to know what aimbot was like, so they tried it out and were caught on their first offense), or who have genuinely felt the consequences of their actions and have changed their ways. In this last week, I've talked with at least one person whom has existed in each case, one of whom was pursuing an age exception but could not due to a single experimental match with aimbot over 7 months ago (he was denied for that incident, despite my continued belief in him). The problem with the suggestion proposed by the OP is that these individuals who have genuinely changed their ways would never be given the chance to demonstrate that they have changed. Such a cynical attitude of, "Hackers are evil who don't deserve second chances" shuts the door on a large number of people whose only true crime is one of circumstance.

For argument's sake, I've compared data on criminal recidivism in the US, thanks to this report from the Bureau of Justice in 2007. According to, "Table 6. Parolees returned to incarceration, 2007", only 15.5% of parolees returned to prison during their parole period, meaning a majority of offenders who were given a second chance in normal society went back to living a law-abiding life. I argue that the same principle applies with hackers, and I am not willing to unjustly shut down a majority of one-time hackers in order to stop the minority of multi-time hackers for the sake of convenience.

Then there are the falsely-accused. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone has those amazing moments, it's the outliers like that that we have to account for too. But I do not want to increase the risk of false-positive perma-bans simply because of a policy. People may not feel welcomed in a community where playing too well may earn them a hack accusation and a perma-ban to boot. Ban Disputes do exist, but that's an added level of complexity that most people will not want to deal with, and they'll just pack up and leave to play elsewhere instead.

Our system is fair, and has served us well thus far. The problem isn't how to punish players in suspicion of using hacks, but rather being there to catch the ones who do. For that reason, I feel that the community's efforts should be put towards correctly catching hackers, instead of coming up with ways to punish them. You help us catch them, we'll get rid of them.

*Claps*
Well said, Col_staR. Very well said.

 

[CandyCranium]

hacking experimentally (e.g. they wanted to know what aimbot was like, so they tried it out and were caught on their first offense)

I tried this before. I wanted to see what Nodus was like, so I went on a server that I don't like to play on which was MCTheFridge. I tried aimbot, and immediately, someone accused me of using aimbot. I really suck at hacking

Of course, I don't use this on MCSG. I'm already skilled enough to the point where I can dominate without hacks

 

[shoottomaim]

Folks, let's talk Recidivism.

Recidivism.

You lost 95% of MCSG at that word LOL.

 

[GradeZeroGamer]

They are always going to be people that are falsely accused and banned for hacking. I, myself, have seen several examples of it myself. But let's think about this carefully: If they were intentionally using hacks, intentionally attempting to sabatoge gameplay, do they honestly deserve to get a second chance? Most people make ban appeals. The ones who were blatantly hackings appeals will be obvious to read and distinguish, as compared to the falsely accused. So far, I've seen no cases of a false ban leading to a denied appeal. Take NoahSailor, for instance. He was banned, but quickly unbanned. Now take your average hacker, who gets banned and makes little effort to fix his bad ways after an unban. What I'm getting at is: How many peoples appeals do you incorrectly deny? Few 'obvious' hackers, if not none, make the effort to post the appeal, as it is useless. So what am I getting at: Exactly what I was trying to -- hackers get no warning, because the falsely accused will just make an appeal, of which you can review the evidence and make good judgement of.

 

[Niall]

I think the system we have is fine tbh

I agree.

 

[OnlyMathias]

Well Personally I think this is a bad Idea as I know people (not IRL) That have hacked but did npt know they weren't allowed so what about those people... They get banned ok cool now they can't play anymore even if it was a mistake.

 

[Col_StaR]

You lost 95% of MCSG at that word LOL.

But so long as I managed to enlighten one person, it was all worth it. And for the others, the term is linked to the Wiki page for further explanation. No one else seems to have a problem with it.

Please do not insult the community by disregarding its intelligence. I expected more mature and tolerant behavior from a member of our staff. Now let's get back on topic.

 

[Blunt]

What shiat have you been smoking?

 

[Zinky]

I kinda agree. On the first ban hackers should get banned, no warning. No one like hackers.

 

[shoottomaim]

But so long as I managed to enlighten one person, it was all worth it. And for the others, the term is linked to the Wiki page for further explanation. No one else seems to have a problem with it.

Please do not insult the community by disregarding its intelligence. I expected more mature and tolerant behavior from a member of our staff. Now let's get back on topic.

Em... with all due respect it was an attempt at a joke, but seeing as this seems to be too serious of a topic I will be mature. I didn't see the hyperlink because of this new forums design; the hyperlinks look black. My apologies Col_StaR.