Admitting to Hacking in Chat

[ViolentKitten]

Imagine of you were trying to record, or you were going for your 3000th win. Imagine if in deatmatch, you were killed by a hacker but did not get evidence. If this person was then to say 'I have kill aura haha I beat Huahwi' would you not want them banned?

Why is it that you think that there should be no punishment at all? People genuinely admit to having them more than you would think

 

[Kezzer]

Imagine of you were trying to record, or you were going for your 3000th win. Imagine if in deatmatch, you were killed by a hacker but did not get evidence. If this person was then to say 'I have kill aura haha I beat Huahwi' would you not want them banned?

Why is it that you think that there should be no punishment at all? People genuinely admit to having them more than you would think

Exactly, if you add this onto the point I made before it backs up why this rule is in place.

 

[Slqme]

Wow. So I made a thread like this first, and according to the rules this thread should technically be locked. If it were a norma; player who made this, it would be locked. But no, since its Huahwi's thread, it wont.

http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/the-situation-on-admitting-to-hacks.143675/ <- My thread 2 days earlier...

 

[Kauff]

Imagine of you were trying to record, or you were going for your 3000th win. Imagine if in deatmatch, you were killed by a hacker but did not get evidence.

If you're recording, how did you not get evidence?

If this person was then to say 'I have kill aura haha I beat Huahwi' would you not want them banned?

Can't speak for Huahwi, but I wouldn't.

Why is it that you think that there should be no punishment at all? People genuinely admit to having them more than you would think

Actually to convict someone of the crime, you would need some evidence, not just a confession alone.

 

[Snipez]

I agree Huahwi but I don't think it should be a ban, It should be a mute.

 

[ViolentKitten]

If you're recording, how did you not get evidence?

Can't speak for Huahwi, but I wouldn't.

Actually to convict someone of the crime, you would need some evidence, not just a confession alone.

Perhaps the evidence is not sufficient? Many people record but cannot obtain proper evidence.

Why would you not want them banned? I cannot understand why you would want a hacker roaming free after admitting that they hacked.

It wasn't the best analogy but the crime would still be investigated, the police would not just ignore it.

 

[TheCrazyCookie]

I like how the staff goes against Huahwi's logic and because they're a moderator they have to agree to the rules even if this on is ridiculously retarded...

 

[Kauff]

Perhaps the evidence is not sufficient? Many people record but cannot obtain proper evidence.

Why would you not want them banned? I cannot understand why you would want a hacker roaming free after admitting that they hacked.

It wasn't the best analogy but the crime would still be investigated, the police would not just ignore it.

Because I wouldn't want them banned over a message that could've easily been in a joking manner. And if I couldn't get enough evidence while recording, he may not have been hacking.

Then the user should not be banned, but rather monitored until evidence is obtained? Is that what you're suggesting in your analogy?

 

[ViolentKitten]

Because I wouldn't want them banned over a message that could've easily been in a joking manner. And if I couldn't get enough evidence while recording, he may not have been hacking.

Then the user should not be banned, but rather monitored until evidence is obtained? Is that what you're suggesting in your analogy?

Don't worry about the analogy, it doesnt really apply.

Though it may be the case that a number of people have fallen victim to this rule while joking and wll continue to, it isn't logical just to mute people that do admit. If someone admits to hacking, and get muted for a few days, would it really have any effect on them? No - if they did back they still could.

I do agree that it should be handled more carefully (such as on a case-by-case basis) but most times it's just so hard to tell so we aren't lenient on it.

In conclusion, every day you play MCGamer you will come across at least one player complaining about hackers. Someone admitting is the easiest way for us to tell, so we are not lenient on the policy. The hacks this person speak of could be something that cannot be detected too, such as a Chest-Finding hack, so we do not take chances.

 

[Kauff]

Don't worry about the analogy, it doesnt really apply.

Though it may be the case that a number of people have fallen victim to this rule while joking and wll continue to, it isn't logical just to mute people that do admit. If someone admits to hacking, and get muted for a few days, would it really have any effect on them? No - if they did back they still could.

I do agree that it should be handled more carefully (such as on a case-by-case basis) but most times it's just so hard to tell so we aren't lenient on it.

In conclusion, every day you play MCGamer you will come across at least one player complaining about hackers. Someone admitting is the easiest way for us to tell, so we are not lenient on the policy. The hacks this person speak of could be something that cannot be detected too, such as a Chest-Finding hack, so we do not take chances.

Yes the mute would: It would tell the accused player that pretending that he/she hacks via chat is unacceptable behavior.

 

[ViolentKitten]

Yes the mute would: It would tell the accused player that pretending that he/she hacks via chat is unacceptable behavior.

But it is more the point that it doesn't STOP them directly from hacking. People install hacks to win, most wouldn't care about talking in chat.

The 7 day ban is in place to show these people that have no tolerance for people that hack, but people disregard this.

Hacking is an epidemic in this server. Whether people are joking or not, it is more important to ban everyone who breaks this rule, even if it means a few people who do not back get banned (They can always dispute, right? )

 

[Scott]

MCGamerzism actually staff take all posts seriously and this post brings up some points for debate which so long as there is no hate or flame people can discuss. I said why it won't change from being a rule however I never said the ban length wouldn't change (although I don't deal with that.) If people want to discuss this topic in a civil manner then they may.

This. The staff members take everything into account, and regardless of it someone is a VIP or not.

Imagine of you were trying to record, or you were going for your 3000th win. Imagine if in deatmatch, you were killed by a hacker but did not get evidence. If this person was then to say 'I have kill aura haha I beat Huahwi' would you not want them banned?

Why is it that you think that there should be no punishment at all? People genuinely admit to having them more than you would think

This is also a very good point.

I agree Huahwi but I don't think it should be a ban, It should be a mute.

No, no, and no. We mute people when they are breaking chat offenses such as spam, chat flooding, advertising, etc. Admitting to hacking, or hacking itself isn't breaking a chat offense. It is like muting someone for normal hacking. Taking away there chat power isn't going to keep them from hacking.

I like how the staff goes against Huahwi's logic and because they're a moderator they have to agree to the rules even if this on is ridiculously retarded...

We don't have to agree to anything. We can have our own opinions if we wanted to. The reason a lot of staff member support this a good rule is because we are on the banning side... not the side of people getting banned.