All Networks Reducing or evening time of bans.

[Will090]

Bans by mods incur a 30 day ban while bans by the anti cheat incur a 7 day ban, depending on what it was. Why the difference? Why is potential human error harsher than the bot?

And with appeals seeming to get denied without explanation, it would seem to be fairer if the bans from a mod were lesser or the bans the same. Say a 14 day ban for both or 14 for just a mod. Since 7 day bans from a bot designed to tackle hackers and people using those types of mods seems quite small in reference to a mod ban. 30 days, over 4 times longer than a bot ban. Wouldn’t it seem fair to punish cheaters the same, no matter who they were caught by?

So I propose we change the bans to be the same or meet in the middle. 14 days for both. Reducing the time for possible minor cheating when caught by a mod but also increasing the time when caught by a bot, both of which are most likely more severe cheaters.

 

[KitsuneToru]

The staff team is far far far far better at detecting when someone is using a hack client compared to sentinel. Sentinel might be good, but human staff members with experience of witnessing hackers will always be better. Some human error is expected, but a lot lot lot less than anything sentinel could give. This is why the ban length is different as it is much much less likely for a staff ban to be false.

 

[Technosword]

The staff team is far far far far better at detecting when someone is using a hack client compared to sentinel. Sentinel might be good, but human staff members with experience of witnessing hackers will always be better. Some human error is expected, but a lot lot lot less than anything sentinel could give. This is why the ban length is different as it is much much less likely for a staff ban to be false.

Agreed with this. During the helper and mod process we are taught how to notice cheating and we even use Sentinel to help with bans. Staff members can use visual cues (someone flying) rather than an anticheat which just goes off packets.

 

[Ge1ster]

The staff team is far far far far better at detecting when someone is using a hack client compared to sentinel. Sentinel might be good, but human staff members with experience of witnessing hackers will always be better. Some human error is expected, but a lot lot lot less than anything sentinel could give. This is why the ban length is different as it is much much less likely for a staff ban to be false.

Exactly. I told you this on the discord when you asked this too.

Me: "Sentinel often does false bans, and if a person is banned more than once by it, it means the punishment is more accurate. But mods are usually correct in their observations, that's why they give a more proper punishment"

You:
"Usually correct, not always. And even when you appeal there’s a good chance you’ll get no response. I had to wait and try get an answer for 4 hours just to see why. And false bans by sentinel also have their own way to appeal and set it right. I also just wish sentinel would actually work lol. So when it does it would be nice to know it’s actually for some time, not a measly 7 days"

Of course. Both sentinel and staff members can naturally make false bans, but sentinel does it far more often, that's why there is a specific way of appeal for either punishments.

 

[kochido]

Because the anti-cheat isn't perfect, also mods have more experience with finding out rule breakers. It depends how you're using appeals its not to admit to breaking the rules its to prove you didn't and i don't think they need any explanation other than not enough evidence you weren't cheating.