'Admitting to Hacks'

[roguehh]

Well, firstly there's the fact that not everybody reads the rules. Probably the majority of people that play haven't, and it's an obscure rule. So while a lot of players who know the rule may get banned, most players don't actually know that they have to refrain from the rule. And it's not exactly an obvious rule either - sarcastically joking about stuff is a pretty normal thing to do.

You have a point there. Unfortunately, in order for rules to work you have to assume people have read them.

Secondly, the staff being unable to pick up on gamma etc: Yes, of course that's a problem. However, the truth is that most of those players are using those because they know they won't get found out, so they almost certainly won't admit to it. The players that say stuff like that in chat are almost always joking. To put it in another way, this rule is not an effective way of banning them since they are unlikely to admit to it anyway.

Not necessarily true. In my time as a moderator I've seen a lot of users admitting to using those kinds of hacks/mods. For example, telling me that they know someone is using regen because they have damage indicators.

And lastly on your point about the staff taking them into context, I've seen 2 or 3 of my friends get banned by this rule, and in all of those cases it's pretty clear that had a mod looked at it for more than a few seconds, or taken it into any context, they would not have been banned. One got banned for saying "Oh yeah, I'm obviously the hacker here" or something along those lines.

What I mean by context is that there needs to be more than one line of text where the user admits to hacking.

Basically the rule gets a ton of normal people banned and barely any real hackers since they always say stuff like "no youre hacking" if you accuse them.

I disagree with this. Sometimes hackers actually make banning them easier by admitting it. I remember numerous occasions where I saw someone hacking but wasn't recording at the time. Later, the hacker brags about hacking in the chat. This saved me a lot of time trying to get good evidence.

 

[I_love_desk]

Not necessarily true. In my time as a moderator I've seen a lot of users admitting to using those kinds of hacks/mods. For example, telling me that they know someone is using regen because they have damage indicators.

This makes me a bit sad because I know those people don't want to harm the server and again have obviously not read the rules :/ But I would still say that the majority that use those KNOWINGLY will never admit it since they know it's bannable.

What I mean by context is that there needs to be more than one line of text where the user admits to hacking.

ah. my bad.

I disagree with this. Sometimes hackers actually make banning them easier by admitting it. I remember numerous occasions where I saw someone hacking but wasn't recording at the time. Later, the hacker brags about hacking in the chat. This saved me a lot of time trying to get good evidence.

Fair enough, you're the ex-staff so you can probably judge the situation better than me, but I still think that so many normal players who actually care about the server are getting banned because they made a little joke that it outweighs the importance of the mods having an easier job - obviously you are pressed for time but it's still possible to follow them into another game.

Overall what I'm trying to say is that while this rule may get some hackers banned, it also gets some players banned who would never think of breaking any game-changing rules. For those people it is unfair. Personally I would rather have a hacker go un-noticed for one more game than see people perma-banned for little things which are pointless and completely harmless in nature.

 

[roguehh]

Overall what I'm trying to say is that while this rule may get some hackers banned, it also gets some players banned who would never think of breaking any game-changing rules. For those people it is unfair. Personally I would rather have a hacker go un-noticed for one more game than see people perma-banned for little things which are pointless and completely harmless in nature.

I agree with you in theory. Ideally we would be able to distinguish between people who joke about hacking and the actual hackers. Unfortunately, we can't always be certain as to who is and who isn't. That's probably why we have the 'even jokingly' addition to the rule in the first place.

And even though I believe that there are many hackers being banned because of this rule, I'm sure some people have been banned for joking about hacking. If they knew about the rule, it's their own fault. If they didn't, that's a shame. It's a well known fact that not all in-game players use or even know about the forums. Assuming all the players actually know the rules can therefore be problematic. We used to have the rules in-game too. I tried to find them in the hub before responding to this thread, but I couldn't find them. Maybe that's just me. If not, it may be an idea to make the most important and/or unknown rules available in-game again to help prevent unnecessary bans.

 

[Synzt]

The rule is there for a reason. Some hacks/modifications like chest finder, gamma alteration and damage indicators can only be caught by having a look at the hackers' screen. This isn't usually possible (unless they upload a video of themselves playing). Therefore, to detect these hacks the staff relies on the next best thing; their own admittance. If the 'even jokingly' part of the rule was removed everyone would be able to dispute their ban by saying that they were joking. This would practically render the rule useless and would make some hacks impossible to detect.

I can understand that some players think the rule is harsh. But that's what it needs to be if we want the staff to be able to enforce the rules effectively. For example. If someone says 'Yeah, I'm the hacker...' you could think he was being ironic. At the same time, he might be serious. This probably wouldn't lead to a misunderstanding in a normal conversation. But the thing about text messages is that there's no intonation like in normal speech. The things you say online could be interpreted very differently than how you intended them to be. This is something to keep in mind in all communication via text messages.

For the staff to have to decide if an alleged hacker was joking or was being ironic would usually be very difficult and would lead to very inconsistent outcomes. I think it's better to have a clear policy so everyone knows what to expect. And honestly, how hard is it to refrain from joking about hacking?

This is not to say that the staff are robots and just ban everyone who seemingly admits to hacking. Before taking any action the staff always reviews the context in which the statement was made. When the context shows that the user wasn't actually admitting to hacking the staff will obviously not take action against him. But when there is no context and the user just says that he's hacking, they will. As well they should.

Seeing as that's the case, you will get banned only if u admits to certain hacks, such as chest finding/x-ray. And not admitting to LeafyGreenTea hax

 

[I_love_desk]

I agree with you in theory. Ideally we would be able to distinguish between people who joke about hacking and the actual hackers. Unfortunately, we can't always be certain as to who is and who isn't. That's probably why we have the 'even jokingly' addition to the rule in the first place.

And even though I believe that there are many hackers being banned because of this rule, I'm sure some people have been banned for joking about hacking. If they knew about the rule, it's their own fault. If they didn't, that's a shame. It's a well known fact that not all in-game players use or even know about the forums. Assuming all the players actually know the rules can therefore be problematic. We used to have the rules in-game too. I tried to find them in the hub before responding to this thread, but I couldn't find them. Maybe that's just me. If not, it may be an idea to make the most important and/or unknown rules available in-game again to help prevent unnecessary bans.

Yup, to be honest a rulebook would solve so many problems. Might make a feature suggestion thread for it since there's no reason against it.

 

[KorStonesword]

The rule is there for a reason. Some hacks/modifications like chest finder, gamma alteration and damage indicators can only be caught by having a look at the hackers' screen. This isn't usually possible (unless they upload a video of themselves playing). Therefore, to detect these hacks the staff relies on the next best thing; their own admittance. If the 'even jokingly' part of the rule was removed everyone would be able to dispute their ban by saying that they were joking. This would practically render the rule useless and would make some hacks impossible to detect.

I can understand that some players think the rule is harsh. But that's what it needs to be if we want the staff to be able to enforce the rules effectively. For example. If someone says 'Yeah, I'm the hacker...' you could think he was being ironic. At the same time, he might be serious. This probably wouldn't lead to a misunderstanding in a normal conversation. But the thing about text messages is that there's no intonation like in normal speech. The things you say online could be interpreted very differently than how you intended them to be. This is something to keep in mind in all communication via text messages.

For the staff to have to decide if an alleged hacker was joking or was being ironic would usually be very difficult and would lead to very inconsistent outcomes. I think it's better to have a clear policy so everyone knows what to expect. And honestly, how hard is it to refrain from joking about hacking?

This is not to say that the staff are robots and just ban everyone who seemingly admits to hacking. Before taking any action the staff always reviews the context in which the statement was made. When the context shows that the user wasn't actually admitting to hacking the staff will obviously not take action against him. But when there is no context and the user just says that he's hacking, they will. As well they should.

I understand what you mean by this, but I_love_desk made some good points. Since the majority of the people getting punished by this rule are innocent, it seems pointless to keep it.

Imagine if every time you said something that, if taken literally, would be an action that could get you arrested (for instance 'oh hey dude, I'm gonna go rob a bank lol'). If the police enforced this, it would ultimately hurt more good people that it would bad, and it would defeat the purpose of it in the first place.

I think it's stupid that people can get banned when there is essentially no evidence that they did anything wrong. It's pretty much the same thing as banning someone because some random stranger 'says' they are hacking. It doesn't work that way, you need evidence to support the claim.

[EDIT]:

Not necessarily true. In my time as a moderator I've seen a lot of users admitting to using those kinds of hacks/mods. For example, telling me that they know someone is using regen because they have damage indicators.

I do agree that this is substantial proof, but as you can see from the person's post, they were serious and it was to be taken in context. Use of 'lol', 'xD', and 'jk' (as well as other such light-hearted words and emoticons) generally indicate that the person is intending for their post not to be taken seriously but rather in a humorous fashion.

And even then, I disagree with providing an insta-ban. Due to the sheer obscurity of the rules, (Some random room in the hub..like really?) I find that 99% of the time where the person admits to using gamma or damage indicators or otherwise and is actually using them (which is 1% of the time people refer to using them), they usually don't even know that the rule exists. Many, many, servers allow things such as Gamma, BSM, Minimap, and other slight modifications to the game, so why would MCSG be different?

For instance, let's say a boy gets told by his friend about an awesome survival games server. Let's call him Billy. Billy joins the server with his Damage Indicators mod, that he still had installed from playing on other servers that allowed it. He sees a regen hacker and mentions it to a mod in chat. He proceeds to get banned for a week and out of frustration and anger, leaves the server forever and goes to play elsewhere. MCGamer just lost one potentially valuable member. This may not seem like much, but it does add up, and even if it never amounted to a very large number, every person is important. You never know who will be the next leaderboard topper, or the next great admin, or the next developer (perhaps Billy takes computer science in his spare time.)

As Doctor Seuss famously wrote; "a person's a person no matter how small"

(perhaps I am taking it out of context, but I felt it was applicable here.)

 

[roguehh]

I understand what you mean by this, but I_love_desk made some good points. Since the majority of the people getting punished by this rule are innocent, it seems pointless to keep it.

He did make some good points. But didn't I make some too? Certainly the rule isn't pointless.

Imagine if every time you said something that, if taken literally, would be an action that could get you arrested (for instance 'oh hey dude, I'm gonna go rob a bank lol'). If the police enforced this, it would ultimately hurt more good people that it would bad, and it would defeat the purpose of it in the first place.

I don't think you can always compare real life situations with online situations. And I don't particularly agree with this comparison. We need to remember that this is just a game. Being punished in a game doesn't compare to real life punishments. The standard of proof, therefore, is also different. However, the situation you're describing is (sadly) already happening in my country. See this thread. This is kind of off topic, but I think it's a fun fact considering you brought it up.

I think it's stupid that people can get banned when there is essentially no evidence that they did anything wrong. It's pretty much the same thing as banning someone because some random stranger 'says' they are hacking. It doesn't work that way, you need evidence to support the claim.

The evidence is them saying it. But I get your point.

I do agree that this is substantial proof, but as you can see from the person's post, they were serious and it was to be taken in context. Use of 'lol', 'xD', and 'jk' (as well as other such light-hearted words and emoticons) generally indicate that the person is intending for their post not to be taken seriously but rather in a humorous fashion.

That's true. But it could also be abused.

And even then, I disagree with providing an insta-ban. Due to the sheer obscurity of the rules, (Some random room in the hub..like really?) I find that 99% of the time where the person admits to using gamma or damage indicators or otherwise and is actually using them (which is 1% of the time people refer to using them), they usually don't even know that the rule exists.

Probably true. But that's a problem that can be fixed by making the rules available in-game or otherwise promoting them.

For instance, let's say a boy gets told by his friend about an awesome survival games server. Let's call him Billy. Billy joins the server with his Damage Indicators mod, that he still had installed from playing on other servers that allowed it. He sees a regen hacker and mentions it to a mod in chat. He proceeds to get banned for a week and out of frustration and anger, leaves the server forever and goes to play elsewhere. MCGamer just lost one potentially valuable member. This may not seem like much, but it does add up, and even if it never amounted to a very large number, every person is important. You never know who will be the next leaderboard topper, or the next great admin, or the next developer (perhaps Billy takes computer science in his spare time.)

The 'the community depends on me' argument is not really convincing. The staff bans hundreds of users everyday while MCGamer is doing great.

 

[Cartercraft99]

Like most people have been saying, this is the rule from the MCGamer rules: Admitting to using a modded/hacked client, even jokingly, will result in a ban. Even though you may think it's unfair, a rule's a rule. It's there for a reason. If you don't like the rule, there's a simple way to avoid it. Just don't say, "I have hacks" and you'll be fine. It's not that hard to do.

 

[jonnysurvives]

Like most people have been saying, this is the rule from the MCGamer rules: Admitting to using a modded/hacked client, even jokingly, will result in a ban. Even though you may think it's unfair, a rule's a rule. It's there for a reason. If you don't like the rule, there's a simple way to avoid it. Just don't say, "I have hacks" and you'll be fine. It's not that hard to do.

Throwing the rulebook at me isn't going to win you any arguments when I'm arguing that the rulebook needs revision.

 

[I_love_desk]

The 'the community depends on me' argument is not really convincing. The staff bans hundreds of users everyday while MCGamer is doing great.

The one thing I have to say to that is that our man Billy who joins the server not knowing that damage indicators aren't allowed is far more likely to be a valuable user to the server than someone who joins just to hack. The majority of hackers is going to re-offend, whereas Billy will either leave, or he will come back knowing it is not allowed and may go on to be a respected player. Not saying that a hacker can't do that, but an accidental rule breaker is far more likely to.

Like most people have been saying, this is the rule from the MCGamer rules: Admitting to using a modded/hacked client, even jokingly, will result in a ban. Even though you may think it's unfair, a rule's a rule. It's there for a reason. If you don't like the rule, there's a simple way to avoid it. Just don't say, "I have hacks" and you'll be fine. It's not that hard to do.

That is the point of this thread. Rules change, or become outdated. Up till this year gay marriage was not allowed in the UK. If everyone had responded to people saying gay marriage wasn't allowed by saying "The rule is there! We can't change it!" Our society would go nowhere. Just the same here.

 

[Scott]

This rule is not going to be changed as it is the easiest way to catch hackers. TL

 

[Scott]

Thread unlocked due to request.