‘This user has been dealt with…'

[MiCr2]

That's the problem though, if the answer is always the same, how is the reporter supposed to know if they've got the right idea? What if they've got more evidence they would be willing to upload if what they had already submitted turned out not to be sufficient? It's a dumb convention that does nothing but keep the reporter in the dark when they don't need to be.

Normally, at least in my days, if a moderator came across such a report, he/she would either say:

"Thank you for the report, but unfortunately this isn't enough evidence to ban the player. If you have any more evidence, feel free to make a new thread. Thread locked."

or

"Thank you for the report, but unfortunately this isn't enough evidence to ban the player. You have 24hrs to upload any more evidence on this thread."

If a moderator was unsure about the evidence, he/she would ask the other moderators, if they weren't sure, but you still thought there was something fishy about it, they would take it up with the Sr. Mods.

"This user has been dealt with, thank you for the report." usually means that that person is banned. If you still see him in the game you reported him in, then the ban won't take affect until he has logged/kicked out of the server and tries to connect to the hub. It can also mean that it was old evidence, but normally they would tell you if it was old evidence.

 

[Azorces]

Now the reason they say this is so weird to keep someone's privacy they could at least tell you it's not like your going to tell the whole community this guy was banned.

 

[MiCr2]

Now the reason they say this is so weird to keep someone's privacy they could at least tell you it's not like your going to tell the whole community this guy was banned.

Tell one person, and he'll tell another, who will tell another and in no time you have the community knowing and then the abuse will start. All you need to know is if the person is banned or not. No more.

 

[roguehh]

Now the reason they say this is so weird to keep someone's privacy they could at least tell you it's not like your going to tell the whole community this guy was banned.

The alleged hacker's privacy isn't really at issue by informing the reporting user if action was taken. The reporting user can already tell whoever he likes that he reported the person in question. That's not what he'll say though. He'll say he got the hacker banned, since he has no reason to assume otherwise. So informing reporting users whether or not the evidence was sufficient might actually help prevent this in some cases.

 

[ChibiGoose]

I think moderators should say if the users were punished or not (not telling what the punishment was is fine with me) Because i'll send in ban reports of obvious hacking or bypassing the filters and these players still roam around the server, I had to send in 3 ban reports for one player before they actually got punished.

 

[SuperxAndrew]

This is a very interesting thread. I am not going to waste anyone's time with my opinions because they are the same as most of the stuff posted here. If I were to be quick with it I would use this guys arguments:

That's the problem though, if the answer is always the same, how is the reporter supposed to know if they've got the right idea? What if they've got more evidence they would be willing to upload if what they had already submitted turned out not to be sufficient? It's a dumb convention that does nothing but keep the reporter in the dark when they don't need to be.