New Hacker Punishment Policy? Will that really work?

[Electrix]

What do you mean, 2 years? Has Leafy outlasted the "99 month" ban?

 

[SonicSplit]

What do you mean, 2 years? Has Leafy outlasted the "99 month" ban?

I was guessing...in that case around 8 years

 

[Tenebrous]

I strongly believe that the new punishment system will work... however...
The problem becomes where the line falls between hacked and illegally modified clients.
According to chad...

• Hacks = alterations made to your Minecraft that create a definitive unfair advantage during gameplay.
  • Examples include Aimbot, Kill Aura, and Regeneration

• Modded Clients = alterations made to your Minecraft that offer additional non-default functionality but offer questionable advantages during gameplay.
  • Examples include Gamma, Minimap, Chest Finder

I am going to hate myself for bringing this up but I think it will be necessary.
If this definition of hacked and modded clients stands, if someone with a modified low key low range triggerbot in which then they proceed to click over fights someone, gets reported for hacking, and banned, what happens next?
Hacks- "Alterations made to your minecraft, definite unfair advantage", is a low key low range triggerbot really a huge advantage?
The answer is no.
This would fall under the definition modded clients, which would result in a 7 day ban, however the user who is using the triggerbot is using a hacked, not modded client.

Now if the player admits to using the triggerbot then is it considered a perm hacked client ban? Because the player admitted to using a hacked client? Even though that if they don't admit, the advantage would be considered modded and therefore a 7 day ban.

I guess its up to the staff, I don't really know.
Ceroria Scott

 

[Nikola]

I don't get why did MCGamer add as a punisment 'Addmiting to hacking', it's like going to police station and saying 'I killed someone' but they don't have the evidence that you killed someone. Firstly they need to find out if you actually did something. If they arrest you and it ends up you didn't kill someone they need to payback. Same for hacking.

 

[Scott]

I don't get why did MCGamer add as a punisment 'Addmiting to hacking', it's like going to police station and saying 'I killed someone' but they don't have the evidence that you killed someone. Firstly they need to find out if you actually did something. If they arrest you and it ends up you didn't kill someone they need to payback. Same for hacking.

If you went to the police station and said you killed someone, you'd be arrested on the spot. Plus, only a true idiot would go to a police station and say that unless they felt bad about doing it. And, if they really felt bad about it, they'd surely give details and explanations to the police. Finally, I'd like to say we're a Minecraft server, not a real life city. If someone hacks and we find them, we simply get video evidence and they probably get banned within 30 minutes. In real life, investigations take weeks, sometimes months, and even years to complete. I know that it was just a analogy, but it really didn't work that well...

 

[bcfcAnt]

You do have to keep in mind that not everyone has an alt. account. Even if somebody does, they will be caught again and the process can repeat. They still will be caught and brought to justice. Eventually, there will be no other way for them to come back on the network.

Many hackers get 1,000s of alts, but I support the change, about time something is being done.

 

[Electrix]

QA; TL?

 

[Col_StaR]

I really don't see who disagreed with this change. Most players hated it, and the mods had to constantly defend opinions that weren't formed by themselves.
It's kind of ironic that all the mods had to do this, and now they basically all admit that is wasn't a very good idea in the first place. I don't blame them, but I wish they would have voiced it out a little more.

I definitely remember that both moderators and players took up positions on either side of the argument, so it wasn't just, "staff VS players". I argued in favor of this position earlier in my tenure here, and I was shot down by the Sr. Staff too.

But honestly, I don't think trying to be more vocal about the issue would have changed anything; the policy changed because of how the arguments were presented, not how loudly they were being shouted. The circumstances and the community were different from what they are now. And thanks to the study we had irrefutable data that trumps any anecdotes, assumptions, or ideals that we all held for so long.

Does that mean leafy will not be back after his around 2 years?

Since the old policy still applies to him, we'll be seeing him in about 8 years, give or take a few months.

 

[Electrix]

But honestly, I don't think trying to be more vocal about the issue would have changed anything; the policy changed because of how the arguments were presented, not how loudly they were being shouted. The circumstances and the community were different from what they are now. And thanks to the study we had irrefutable data that trumps any anecdotes, assumptions, or ideals that we all held for so long.

But the reason they did the tests in the first place is because of this debate, right?
If so, that proves that the staff realized that it was time for a statistical study to be done. Props.
If not, that proves that Feature Suggestions are basically never used.

Tip to Feature Suggestion writers, then:
Try to perform actual tests and act on evidence that nobody can disprove.

 

[Col_StaR]

But the reason they did the tests in the first place is because of this debate, right?
....
Tip to Feature Suggestion writers, then:
Try to perform actual tests and act on evidence that nobody can disprove.

Yes, we performed the study due to the outcry of hackers and the suspicion that our current policy truly was not effective (the community's voices were sufficiently loud, and going louder would not have done anything more). Thanks to the current circumstances, we were finally able to put the pieces together to create a comprehensive study. And after analyzing the evidence, we agreed to change our policy to one that was often suggested (which itself was suggested sufficiently loud, and going louder would have done nothing more).

I will second the, "act on evidence" proposal for any future feature suggestions. However, I will also posit that the average player may not be able to gain access to such information; the Hacker Recidivism Survey required Sr. Moderator level access, since it dealt with some very sensitive but highly necessary ban information. But remember that evidence doesn't have to be MCG-specific, and you can use evidence from outside sources (be they analytics from other networks or from real world situations) as the basis of your proposal. So long as it is relevant to what you're suggesting, it may be enough to encourage further research and discussion.

 

[Spectral_Slayer]

QA; TL?

I believe the thread should be left open because during the original post, the creator asked if the community agreed with the change

 

[criticadordegame]

Please leave this open. I just wanted players opinions, not a players vs staff flame war