Warnings

[Cookie]

yoyoyoo waddup hoes.

Recently I've noticed that a new rule has been implemented, in which players may not use the word 'hack'. I've seen numerous players get muted for 24 hours just for even trying to say the word. Now, although I do understand that it is extremely annoying to staff and players to see someone being accused of hacking every two minutes, in my opinion, I feel like the punishment for breaking this rule is much more harsh than necessary.

Every single time a player just says the words, 'hacks' or 'hacking', it ends up with an insant mute for an entire day. I don't find this fair at all, since no staff has attempted to at least warn the player or explain what to do instead of saying x is hacking. This being said, I think staff should take it upon themselves to tell a player before muting them for calling hacks. My reasoning behind this is that there may be new players that don't completely understand the rules yet. I'm aware that doesn't give them the right to go on blabbing and bothering everyone but at least give them a chance. Yes, it does warn you in chat to not bypass the filter, and that is clearly wrong but you have to keep in mind that this is a kitpvp server. Even if you don't want them, there's going to be toxic and salty players no matter what. It's just how it is, and there's really no way to change that. If someone were to just join, get upset over a player killing them, and want to accuse hacks, then get muted for it, the player isn't going to come back, which is far from what Snapcraft should be doing.

SC is a community that should only be getting bigger. People come and go, but giving them a bad first impression is only going to be making players go. These players, instead of being muted and never coming back, can be helping the community, becoming staff members or donators.

Even besides the new players, I believe warnings should go for any player, no matter how long they've been here for. People are allowed to have emotions, and although not every single one of them are appreciated on the server, on a kit server it's expected for salt to go around. Hacksacuting is always going to be a thing no matter how harsh the punishment.

TLDR; I strongly believe that staff should be warning before muting a player for accusing someone of hacks.

 

[an3rror]

no staff has attempted to at least warn the player or explain what to do instead of saying x is hacking

https://gyazo.com/906e21f61f4277b33e26860494579332
There is a warning that explains what to do instead of hackusating in public chat

 

[Cookie]

https://gyazo.com/906e21f61f4277b33e26860494579332
There is a warning that explains what to do instead of hackusating in public chat

I'm aware of the warning, but I don't think players would intentionally continue to say the word to get muted. They do it in an attempt to get their point across, but instead they get muted, which doesn't really help their case. If a staff member were to at least notify them that there is a rule that does not allow accusing in chat, then the player would of course message the staff member next. This'll also help them know for the next time. If they continue, then of course you should mute. I'm not saying they should be allowed to accuse, but I don't see the harm in just quickly noting that they shouldn't be doing that and if continued they will be puninshed.

 

[jasonstover9]

Players always have the following ways to notify staff of a hacker.

1. A support ticket.
2. A PM to the staff on the forums.
3. A PM to the staff in game.
4. A PM to staff in discord.
5. By going to discord staff help.

With all those options players cant lean on being allowed to bypass the filter and avoid a mute because they dont want to take one of the 5 other options.

 

[Cookie]

Players always have the following ways to notify staff of a hacker.

1. A support ticket.
2. A PM to the staff on the forums.
3. A PM to the staff in game.
4. A PM to staff in discord.
5. By going to discord staff help.

With all those options players cant lean on being allowed to bypass the filter and avoid a mute because they dont want to take one of the 5 other options.

I think you kind of jumped over the point of this. I'm not saying players should be bypassing the filter and getting all the freedom to say that. It's not about avoiding a mute either. It's about after making the mistake of bypassing the filter, to not get a direct mute. I'm not saying no player should be muted for accusing, because trust me I 100% agree players should be punished for continuously accusing players of hacking. But my key word is continuously. If they were to bypass the filter once, I don't think it's fair for them to be muted right away. I just think it would be more fair to at least give a warning, and if continued they would get punished.

 

[jasonstover9]

Let me ask you a question though. What happens when you try to say anything about someone hacking in chat? The answer is that you get that giant red warning telling you exactly what happens if you do it again. When a message makes it to the chat and is visible we mute. Because at that point that player was previously warned by that giant red text and we don't mute until it makes it to chat because that means the player has taken extraneous steps to go around the filter and do it anyway. Despite the very crisp and clear warning on the chat.

 

[Kath]

Why is hackusating now taken more seriously than before? Is it absolutely necessary to mute on first offense? It seems like the warning is triggered whenever a player mentions anything along of the lines of "hack" (e.g. hax, hacking, etc). By the time the player reads this "warning" note, he/she would've already been muted without any chance of redemption. Aren't warnings implemented to REMIND players that a punishment will POSSIBLY happen under certain circumstances? This "warning" seems more of a predicament. Seems bizarre to mute someone whenever the scandalous word "hack" is uttered. Also, I don't believe this is a formal rule either? So, how must players KNOW for certain? They will only know if they hackusate unknowing that there are CONSEQUENCES to it.

 

[jasonstover9]

If someone is making repeated attempts to bypass the filter they clearly dont care that the servers owner (the person who programmed that big red message) is telling them not to do it and what will happen if they do.

 

[jasonstover9]

Also to be clear here. The reason for this rule is rather simple. When a player sees people in chat saying they are hacking they will either see staff show up, that staff are on or fear that someone is running a screen recorder and they stop. Some players might also do that as a way to warn the hacker in front of everyone to stop doing it cause a staff is there or someone is recording. It is also a form of flaming (we don't allow that here) and is defined as toxicity. It is also not in someones business to make such a final call without examining the situation. They often yell hacks when they get beat in pvp or the other persons ping is really high. Finally, it is a formal rule covered by several cover all rules and the point that this is Maartens server and he says you are not allowed to hackusate, that alone is an end argument with no rebuttal. He says it and it goes. We staff are basically arms legs, eyes and ears of him. What he wants we do without question.

 

[Cookie]

Let me ask you a question though. What happens when you try to say anything about someone hacking in chat? The answer is that you get that giant red warning telling you exactly what happens if you do it again. When a message makes it to the chat and is visible we mute. Because at that point that player was previously warned by that giant red text and we don't mute until it makes it to chat because that means the player has taken extraneous steps to go around the filter and do it anyway. Despite the very crisp and clear warning on the chat.

I do hope you understand that players occasionally skip over the "giant red warning" when they're frustrated and upset about someone hacking. But players are players, and you're going to be muting half the server just because they mentioned the word 'hack' itself. Once again, it is a kitpvp server. I'm not sure how you expect to be able to ban the word itself. Also you can't rely on technology to just get the message through to them. The player won't be responding to the computer, but they can respond to the staff member, who can actually direct them to the best way to report a hacker instead of getting muted for attempting to inform the staff member.

I feel like I didn't really state the part of the warning properly. A "giant red warning" will forbid them to say the word hack, but it will not take action for it, nor will it listen to what it is saying because it is a text. A staff member is able to take action (which also gives the player a reason to take the warning more seriously) and also is able to do something about said hacker. That will make them feel like they're being more listened to, instead of a warning popping up, and then boom muted the second they try and tell someone about the hacker. I get it, yes there's a warning and they've been informed by a message to not say that word that should never be said - but a player will actually feel like they're being listened to and will (hopefully, if not go ahead and mute) stop saying it.

If someone is making repeated attempts to bypass the filter they clearly dont care that the servers owner (the person who programmed that big red message) is telling them not to do it and what will happen if they do.

Once again, that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm saying warn once. If they continue mute as long as you wish, but at least they'll be aware how serious the consequences are after you tell them that.

Also to be clear here. The reason for this rule is rather simple. When a player sees people in chat saying they are hacking they will either see staff show up, that staff are on or fear that someone is running a screen recorder and they stop. Some players might also do that as a way to warn the hacker in front of everyone to stop doing it cause a staff is there or someone is recording. It is also a form of flaming (we don't allow that here) and is defined as toxicity. It is also not in someones business to make such a final call without examining the situation. They often yell hacks when they get beat in pvp or the other persons ping is really high.

I'm not asking why the rule is there, I know just as well. But does it really hurt that much to at least warn first? A lot of players don't have those intentions and it just doesn't seem fair if they have to suffer from it just because they didn't understand. And If only it was possible to just get rid of every single toxic player, but we both know that's not possible especially when it's a competitive game to the players. Also muting them doesn't always help in a way beacuse some players may get salty about that and just rage even more. I'm really not trying to say accusing is okay.

Finally, it is a formal rule covered by several cover all rules and the point that this is Maartens server and he says you are not allowed to hackusate, that alone is an end argument with no rebuttal. He says it and it goes. We staff are basically arms legs, eyes and ears of him. What he wants we do without question.

My god, you sound like a robot. You do realize you can have an opinion and a voice, right? I'm sure Maarten would appreciate it if you approached him with something you feel is off, only thing is he gets the final word on whether he agrees or disagrees.

Sorry for making all this so long, but I really do hope you understand my view in some sort of way.

 

[jasonstover9]

I understand your view cookie. Surprisingly I understand everyone's. But my point here is that we staff we have reasons for enforcing the rules. Those reasons are really good. We agree with all of the rules. For the reasons they are rules. Since all of them come from solutions to real problems that have come up, and been solved since the servers birth.
Now, to what you said. Maarten is one of the easiest server owners ive ever seen (matched only by 1) to talk to. If any of us felt that muting for hackusating (after bypassing the filter) was unfair in any way we would have brought it up privately. I cant say if that's ever happened since that is the definition of private. But as evidenced by the fact that none of us have locked this thread, discussions about such things are never unhealthy. I just wanted to make clear for anyone who reads any of this where I stand and why certain things are the way they are.

 

[Kath]

If someone is making repeated attempts to bypass the filter they clearly dont care that the servers owner (the person who programmed that big red message) is telling them not to do it and what will happen if they do.

Seems bizarre to mute someone whenever the scandalous word "hack" is uttered.

Two similar, yet different views presented in a table.
Since I have no better way of explaining my puzzlement, I will be describing a hypothetical situation.

When one simply mentions the word "hack" in a sentence, I (and @Cookie, I believe), do not feel it is just to immediately mute on the dot. As said before, it seems the warning is primarily triggered whenever the system traces for any signs of the word "hack." Say someone says something along the lines of "Blah blah blah is hacking" once. Not repetitive. Just once. From a player's perspective, I feel it is partially beneficial for staff members. When a hacker is detected by a large group of players (assuming we're down in the infested /kitpvp PIT), it is highly likely players will be pointing out x player is hacking or whatnot. Why do they do this? They most likely do not mean to "flame." I believe it is reasonable the "hackusaters" want to reel in attention from staff members onto this potential hacker. Yes, you can strongly argue my point by saying there is an apparent support ticket system; yet it should be kept in mind that not all players have that from the get and go--meaning not all players have accounts or recording systems beneath their fingertips. As much as anyone can encourage for players to follow the reporting process, it should always be kept in mind that not every, single, individual player in this server would feel prompt to do it. Yet again, you can point out that it is obviously not difficult to get involved with that. However, when you are in a situation where you have nothing in your possession (recording/account), it seems awfully tedious to take the time to create one for one hacker report in present time. Honestly, I do not blame those players for hackusating. It seems they want to notify others who are oblivious to the fact that there is a hacker lurking about in the pit. Yes, if it is repeition, then by all means count it as spam and flooding the chat. Likewise, meerly mentioning it once does not count as reptition.

Finally, it is a formal rule covered by several cover all rules and the point that this is Maartens server and he says you are not allowed to hackusate

Quite frankly, the use of hack clients are prohibited regardless of the situation, as explicitly accentuated in the rules.

Explicitly Stated Rule: Clients

The rules are concrete. Solid. The code of conduct. It's there for a reason, to notify players about the official Snapcraft rules. Rules can always change, so why is hackusating not explicitly written? It's a new "rule," so where is it? Just because someone "says" something, does not mean everyone will see its complete, concrete form. Granted that you are a staff member, I will take your word that Maarten said it's an official rule now, but I do not speak for everyone else. Everyone else will not know about this new, implemented rule. Unlike what it says about "Client Modifications & Hacks," there is no trace of "hackusations" and how it's defined as "flaming" and "toxic" even. As said before (how redundant), it's not a great idea to generalize everyone. Not all hackusations are meant to be beligerent. There are players out there who simply wishes to not only catch the staff's attention, but perhaps warn everyone else about this, potential hacker.

So, here is the final solution:
- Add this new rule into the official, documented Snapcraft rule section.

 

[jasonstover9]

That big red text box starts first by telling the player what they are doing wrong (before a staff has acted mind you)
It then tells them the proper way to go ahead and do what they are trying to do.

It then goes on to make very clear what will happen if they try to go ahead and figure out a way to say what they were just told not to say.

A player is only muted after they go ahead and ignore this message, ignore what its saying to do, and figure out a way to write their accusation so that they can bypass it.

Also to be clear, you have to try to bypass the filter and get your message into the chat. You have to put conscious effort into bypassing it.

 

[Cookie]

That big red text box starts first by telling the player what they are doing wrong (before a staff has acted mind you)
It then tells them the proper way to go ahead and do what they are trying to do.

It then goes on to make very clear what will happen if they try to go ahead and figure out a way to say what they were just told not to say.

A player is only muted after they go ahead and ignore this message, ignore what its saying to do, and figure out a way to write their accusation so that they can bypass it.

I honestly dont think you're reading what I'm writing lmao. I'm aware of the message, hence why I said this:

I feel like I didn't really state the part of the warning properly. A "giant red warning" will forbid them to say the word hack, but it will not take action for it, nor will it listen to what it is saying because it is a text. A staff member is able to take action (which also gives the player a reason to take the warning more seriously) and also is able to do something about said hacker. That will make them feel like they're being more listened to, instead of a warning popping up, and then boom muted the second they try and tell someone about the hacker. I get it, yes there's a warning and they've been informed by a message to not say that word that should never be said - but a player will actually feel like they're being listened to and will (hopefully, if not go ahead and mute) stop saying it.

Thanks for responding (a whole lot), but I really don't think my point is coming as across clearly to you, so I would appreciate it if we had other people respond as well and hear their views as well, and not just continue a back and forth "argument" that is taking us nowhere.

 

[jasonstover9]

Ok then the best way to do this is as follows.

@Maarten the above players, after a very lengthy discussion are wondering if hackusations can be put into the official server rules.

 

[Cookie]

Ok then the best way to do this is as follows.

@Maarten the above players, after a very lengthy discussion are wondering if hackusations can be put into the official server rules.

Well that's not really the entire thing, @Kath was only responding to your bit. But ok.

 

[Kath]

@jasonstover9

Recently I've noticed that a new rule has been implemented, in which players may not use the word 'hack'. I've seen numerous players get muted for 24 hours just for even trying to say the word.

The rules are concrete. Solid. The code of conduct. It's there for a reason, to notify players about the official Snapcraft rules. Rules can always change, so why is hackusating not explicitly written? It's a new "rule," so where is it? Just because someone "says" something, does not mean everyone will see its complete, concrete form. Granted that you are a staff member, I will take your word that Maarten said it's an official rule now, but I do not speak for everyone else. Everyone else will not know about this new, implemented rule. Unlike what it says about "Client Modifications & Hacks," there is no trace of "hackusations" and how it's defined as "flaming" and "toxic" even. As said before (how redundant), it's not a great idea to generalize everyone. Not all hackusations are meant to be belligerent. There are players out there who simply wishes to not only catch the staff's attention, but perhaps warn everyone else about this, potential hacker.

So, here is the final solution:
- Add this new rule into the official, documented Snapcraft rule section.

The whole basis of what I said was a suggestion to add it onto the rules section. Hackusating only pops up as a warning. I personally feel it should be more evident, and that can easily be solved by adding it into the rules. Perhaps title it as something broad, so it can tackle more than hackusations: "Do not bypass chat filters."

 

[Maarten]

I think you kind of jumped over the point of this. I'm not saying players should be bypassing the filter and getting all the freedom to say that. It's not about avoiding a mute either. It's about after making the mistake of bypassing the filter, to not get a direct mute. I'm not saying no player should be muted for accusing, because trust me I 100% agree players should be punished for continuously accusing players of hacking. But my key word is continuously. If they were to bypass the filter once, I don't think it's fair for them to be muted right away. I just think it would be more fair to at least give a warning, and if continued they would get punished.

Yet we've blocked so many ways of saying it that bypassing on its own gives you at least 5 warnings. Not to mention it is only a 24 hour mute.

 

[Maarten]

Why is hackusating now taken more seriously than before? Is it absolutely necessary to mute on first offense? It seems like the warning is triggered whenever a player mentions anything along of the lines of "hack" (e.g. hax, hacking, etc). By the time the player reads this "warning" note, he/she would've already been muted without any chance of redemption. Aren't warnings implemented to REMIND players that a punishment will POSSIBLY happen under certain circumstances? This "warning" seems more of a predicament. Seems bizarre to mute someone whenever the scandalous word "hack" is uttered. Also, I don't believe this is a formal rule either? So, how must players KNOW for certain? They will only know if they hackusate unknowing that there are CONSEQUENCES to it.

If a player receives the warning the chat message is canceled and the player will not get muted.

 

[Cookie]

Yet we've blocked so many ways of saying it that bypassing on its own gives you at least 5 warnings. Not to mention it is only a 24 hour mute.

At this point, players already have found other ways to say it. They don’t listen to chat warnings because nothing “real” is telling them what to do. I don’t think anyone says anything with the intention of getting muted unless they only want trouble, in which case, yes you should 100% mute them. But not the innocent people who just want to get rid of a player breaking the rules. Or even someone joking about hacks for that matter-

Yesterday on the server, someone had said “-helpers name- has tracers”. In my opinion, what he said was clearly sarcastic because not only was the player ranked and a member of the server for a while now, he was well aware that staff members don’t hack. Instead the only reaction the staff member gave was muting him. Yes, it’s a 24 hour mute. But it’s a mute they never deserved, that’s 24 hours they should never have been punished for.

The staff member assumed it was an accusation but do you think this player would have done it again if he was told not to? He never got that chance to prove to staff that his intentions were not bad. All I’m asking is for staff to just give a quick heads-up before muting. In scenarios like the one just said, these mutes don’t seem fair.