I'd like to have a discussion about the ban of 46ftarCyberK.

[paceboys]

Hey, so I saw this appeal this morning http://escaperestart.com/forum/threads/blocktopia-lag-banned-me.17917/ and saw this response from tnmjimbob

I'm still not happy with unbanning you. You also didn't die in RoF when the house wad flooded, here are logs provided by X__x:

Spoiler: logs

Sorry, this broke. You're gonna need to read it on the appeal, I can't seem to fix it.

It's obvious this is client side modification, and I want you to promise to disable it on all of our servers before I consider an unban.

This information provided states that the user did not take damage from lava, was stuck floating while NOT moving, and didn't fall down when blocks under him were broken (If I misread any of this, please correct me).

This is not a hack.

There is no existing hacked client that makes a user invincible. There ARE hacked clients that make people fly, but they would still take damage if in lava while flying.
When you lag out in minecraft, a few things happen:

• Running/Sprinting particles show if the user was doing either before timing out
• Crit particles still show when the user is hit
• The user takes no damage, can't move, can't attack, and won't fall even if nothing is under them.

This seems to be exactly what happened to this user.

Now, onto the second part of this post.

I received this PM shortly after my original post which was in the appeal itself. I blacked out the name for privacy.
http://i.imgur.com/fdxi62A.png

As I recall, the rule for posting in ban appeals for non-staff is that you have to present relevant information. Obviously what I knew was pertinent to the ban he was about to receive for what I've found to be no reason at all. The fact that my post was deleted and I received a warning for trying to assist in a place where staff did not have all the angles covered means that they will not listen to any reasoning other than their own and is borderline staff abuse. Glorifying staff is a dangerous practice because we can all make mistakes and the color of your name shouldn't change that mindset.

EDIT: Fixed ban appeal link, my bad.
EDIT: Can't seem to get formatting right at the moment, the logs spoiler broke. Can't seem to fix it.

 

[IQD]

God forbid you bring this up in a private convo with the banning staff member.

 

[Jayfeather]

God forbid you bring this up in a private convo with the banning staff member.

Right. That'll solve the root issue for sure.

In fact, this may be why this has never been mentioned. When staff want to be addressed they ask for private convos

 

[superstein]

Hey, so I saw this appeal this morning http://escaperestart.com/forum/threads/blocktopia-lag-banned-me.17917/ and saw this response from tnmjimbob

This information provided states that the user did not take damage from lava, was stuck floating while NOT moving, and didn't fall down when blocks under him were broken (If I misread any of this, please correct me).

This is not a hack.

There is no existing hacked client that makes a user invincible. There ARE hacked clients that make people fly, but they would still take damage if in lava while flying.
When you lag out in minecraft, a few things happen:

• Running/Sprinting particles show if the user was doing either before timing out
• Crit particles still show when the user is hit
• The user takes no damage, can't move, can't attack, and won't fall even if nothing is under them.

This seems to be exactly what happened to this user.

Now, onto the second part of this post.

I received this PM shortly after my original post which was in the appeal itself. I blacked out the name for privacy.
http://i.imgur.com/fdxi62A.png

As I recall, the rule for posting in ban appeals for non-staff is that you have to present relevant information. Obviously what I knew was pertinent to the ban he was about to receive for what I've found to be no reason at all. The fact that my post was deleted and I received a warning for trying to assist in a place where staff did not have all the angles covered means that they will not listen to any reasoning other than their own and is borderline staff abuse. Glorifying staff is a dangerous practice because we can all make mistakes and the color of your name shouldn't change that mindset.

EDIT: Fixed ban appeal link, my bad.

Quick reply, I'm out but would like to address this now.

We enforce posting in appeal harshly because if players could freely post in them, it'd be a mess. That being said, a PM is appreciated because it does keep things more organized, and I'm sure there are players who'd disagree with some bans and would post.

However I understand your intentions with this post and thank you for handling it and a good manner. Don't have much time for more of a reply but tnmjimbob may want to reconsider (though it's entirely possible it was a fair ban)

 

[paceboys]

Quick reply, I'm out but would like to address this now.

We enforce posting in appeal harshly because if players could freely post in them, it'd be a mess. That being said, a PM is appreciated because it does keep things more organized, and I'm sure there are players who'd disagree with some bans and would post.

However I understand your intentions with this post and thank you for handling it and a good manner. Don't have much time for more of a reply but tnmjimbob may want to reconsider (though it's entirely possible it was a fair ban)

I understand the reasoning behind posts being deleted in ban appeals completely, the part I didn't understand is that I got a warning and was then told that, upon addressing it properly, it should have been addressed in a staff-centric environment where only the admins have jurisdiction.

The kid may have been hacking, but the evidence given to the public wasn't indicative of anyone hacking. I know a lot about the clients people use and nothing in those logs were from any client. If this kid wrote his own client that does this, he's literally a god among the minecraft hacking community, seeing as no one has made a client that has done this since release.

Thanks for your response, and I'll read a reply of yours any time you can post one ^_^

 

[CloudBryan9]

Sorta sounds like the ghosting issue back in classic.

 

[Rune]

This is not a hack.

There is no existing hacked client that makes a user invincible. There ARE hacked clients that make people fly, but they would still take damage if in lava while flying.
When you lag out in minecraft, a few things happen:

• Running/Sprinting particles show if the user was doing either before timing out
• Crit particles still show when the user is hit
• The user takes no damage, can't move, can't attack, and won't fall even if nothing is under them.

This seems to be exactly what happened to this user.

Pace is correct with his information. Hack clients do not have the ability to make a player invincible unless they are in creative, which is contradictory because: a) You wouldn't need fly hacks b) The player has insufficient permissions to go into creative mode. No hack client has the ability to circumvent the permissions placed on the server UNLESS the user had access to the server console and gave permissions OR placed a poison plugin into the server (Which needs admin permission in the first place) and then activating that poison plugin by typing in a plugin etc etc. The poison plugin would then give op status to the person who activated the poison plugin. Doesn't that seem like too much work? And wouldn't we detect that abuse of permissions in the first place?

Pace is correct on his 'hypothesis' that its lag. I have experienced lag and time outs as you guys may know, and these seem like obvious symptoms for lag. The banned person also checks out with the story, blaming it on lag. When someone lags, they have a sort of withdrawal with the server, and because of this client/server updates slow down with that player because they can't receive the packets. Because of this, the server does not register you damaging and the player cannot move in your client. Critical hit particles will still be registered because that is how MC is coded, that part of MC is offline, and does not need server authentication when showing critical hits. Same thing applies to the Sprinting particles, but have more of a online role. Just before the user times out or lags, the server still tells the client that the guy is still sprinting but he might not be running after that initial lag or may have timed out. It's ghosting.

If you look at the conclusive evidence that I, and Pace have given; it's enough to counter Bob's opinion.

I think that some sort of other player interaction is needed when in ban appeals. People who are eye witnesses should be allowed to comment on ban appeals. I still think that more player interaction is needed, even though EscapeRestart has strict rules on these things. Players should have the ability to PROVIDE evidence.

I feel that Bob's response is incorrect. I disagree with it completely and should be reconsidered. This continued belief that you are right (I will 'pre-apologize' if you take offense) has obviously made the player discouraged and upset over this situation. I urge you to reconsider Bob, and I apologize if this was a whole wall of text but I feel that my opinion should also be considered.

I hope that we reach a conclusion on the matter, and I also hope that this thread will bring staff and players together in these sorts of situations.

Yours sincerely;
-Runemen4

 

[paceboys]

Pace is correct with his information. Hack clients do not have the ability to make a player invincible unless they are in creative, which is contradictory because: a) You wouldn't need fly hacks b) The player has insufficient permissions to go into creative mode. No hack client has the ability to circumvent the permissions placed on the server UNLESS the user had access to the server console and gave permissions OR placed a poison plugin into the server (Which needs admin permission in the first place) and then activating that poison plugin by typing in a plugin etc etc. The poison plugin would then give op status to the person who activated the poison plugin. Doesn't that seem like too much work? And wouldn't we detect that abuse of permissions in the first place?

Pace is correct on his 'hypothesis' that its lag. I have experienced lag and time outs as you guys may know, and these seem like obvious symptoms for lag. The banned person also checks out with the story, blaming it on lag. When someone lags, they have a sort of withdrawal with the server, and because of this client/server updates slow down with that player because they can't receive the packets. Because of this, the server does not register you damaging and the player cannot move in your client. Critical hit particles will still be registered because that is how MC is coded, that part of MC is offline, and does not need server authentication when showing critical hits. Same thing applies to the Sprinting particles, but have more of a online role. Just before the user times out or lags, the server still tells the client that the guy is still sprinting but he might not be running after that initial lag or may have timed out. It's ghosting.

If you look at the conclusive evidence that I, and Pace have given; it's enough to counter Bob's opinion.

I think that some sort of other player interaction is needed when in ban appeals. People who are eye witnesses should be allowed to comment on ban appeals. I still think that more player interaction is needed, even though EscapeRestart has strict rules on these things. Players should have the ability to PROVIDE evidence.

I feel that Bob's response is incorrect. I disagree with it completely and should be reconsidered. This continued belief that you are right (I will 'pre-apologize' if you take offense) has obviously made the player discouraged and upset over this situation. I urge you to reconsider Bob, and I apologize if this was a whole wall of text but I feel that my opinion should also be considered.

I hope that we reach a conclusion on the matter, and I also hope that this thread will bring staff and players together in these sorts of situation.

Yours sincerely;
-Runemen4

'preciate the response buddy, this was really well put. I agree with everything you said, this was a really solid post.

 

[Rune]

No problem buddy, I usually reply to these sorts of situations because I experienced lag for a couple of months and I also understand how a greifing client works. I also know how servers work because either I have hosted a couple or staffed so I have a good grasp on permissions and plugins.

Have a good day buddy, I agree on what you said on the first post. I hope this friendship is official and will last :)

-Runemen4

EDIT: I can't seem to find the log that Bob supplied, is it possible if you could PM the log?

 

[Psycho]

One thing to consider is that KerbyCraft64 wasn't actively talking in the chat logs that tnmjimbob posted earlier with X_x talking in it.
And what I usually see in situations where a player is accused of hacking is that the said player will talk and say that they weren't doing anything etc.
Just something that I noticed.

 

[Haysagar]

It still doesn't change the fact that 46ftarCyberK was using a fly hack. I think you all need to take a step back and read the ban appeal again...(Yes I know some posts in it were deleted, but it doesn't change why he was banned). Tnmjimbob banned the player in the lobby because he was flying and they proved it. He was wrong to try and pursue the kid for not being able to be hit with the post that was deleted but it still doesn't change the fact the kid was fly hacking. Hell he even tried to lie about it when they knew he has a fly hack.

P.S. It's understandable why he is being so hard on the player in the ban appeal since he has continued trying to lie to staff.

 

[Rune]

One thing to consider is that KerbyCraft64 wasn't actively talking in the chat logs that tnmjimbob posted earlier with X_x talking in it.
And what I usually see in situations where a player is accused of hacking is that the said player will talk and say that they weren't doing anything etc.
Just something that I noticed.

I can't see the log but you are correct on players saying that they are not hacking.

Good job on noticing that one Rawr :)

It still doesn't change the fact that 46ftarCyberK was using a fly hack. I think you all need to take a step back and read the ban appeal again...(Yes I know some posts in it were deleted, but it doesn't change why he was banned). Tnmjimbob banned the player in the lobby because he was flying and they proved it. He was wrong to try and pursue the kid for not being able to be hit with the post that was deleted but it still doesn't change the fact the kid was fly hacking. Hell he even tried to lie about it when they knew he has a fly hack.

P.S. It's understandable why he is being so hard on the player in the ban appeal since he has continued trying to lie to staff.

Also Hay, I disagree with you. We gave substantial evidence that he was not using a fly hack. You have NO evidence to base that fact, and it really isn't a fact. They did not prove it. Think about it, if a player HAD fly hacks; wouldn't they be flying all over the place, of course they would. I recommend that you look over the information once more and consider mine and Pace's comments also.

 

[paceboys]

One thing to consider is that KerbyCraft64 wasn't actively talking in the chat logs that tnmjimbob posted earlier with X_x talking in it.
And what I usually see in situations where a player is accused of hacking is that the said player will talk and say that they weren't doing anything etc.
Just something that I noticed.

That's a really good point. It's sketchy, but applies directly to this situation. Nice catch!

It still doesn't change the fact that 46ftarCyberK was using a fly hack. I think you all need to take a step back and read the ban appeal again...(Yes I know some posts in it were deleted, but it doesn't change why he was banned). Tnmjimbob banned the player in the lobby because he was flying and they proved it. He was wrong to try and pursue the kid for not being able to be hit with the post that was deleted but it still doesn't change the fact the kid was fly hacking. Hell he even tried to lie about it when they knew he has a fly hack.

P.S. It's understandable why he is being so hard on the player in the ban appeal since he has continued trying to lie to staff.

I don't see what you're talking about, except this.

tnmjimbob

You Know I Wish I Did Used A Hacked Client
But Let's Just Say I Did Since I Was Floating At The Lobby
If You Think That's The Only Way How Players Can Fly
Ok I Believe You I Was Hacking.
Can I Please Be Unbanned Now?
I Never Wanted this To Go On Forever.

My translation of this is:

You know, I wish I DID use a hacked client, but let's say I did use one, since that's, according to you, the only way players can be floating. Ok, sure I was hacking. Can I be unbanned? I didn't want this appeal to go on forever

To me, this means that he knows he didn't hack, is hypothesizing as if he DID use one, so that he might be unbanned and can play again. He says he wishes he did use a client, meaning he knows he didn't, but knows he will be unbanned faster if he admits to it. I don't believe he's -actually- saying that he was hacking, I believe he's going along with Tnmjimbob's hackusation to try to play the game sooner.

His english/grammar isn't exactly stellar, so it's not entirely clear, but I'm pretty sure this is what he's trying to say.

EDIT:

No problem buddy, I usually reply to these sorts of situations because I experienced lag for a couple of months and I also understand how a greifing client works. I also know how servers work because either I have hosted a couple or staffed so I have a good grasp on permissions and plugins.

Have a good day buddy, I agree on what you said on the first post. I hope this friendship is official and will last :)

-Runemen4

EDIT: I can't seem to find the log that Bob supplied, is it possible if you could PM the log?

The logs were removed from the thread, heh. Luckily I put them in a pastebin.



THIS PASTEBIN AUTO TAG IS SICK

 

[tnm]

At the time of banning, I had not received that evidence from X__x and as such the ban was totally reasonable- a player floating in the lobby would cause anyone to believe the player was fly backing. He messaged me later on providing logs for the situation on RoF- which as you can see I posted on this ban appeal. I discussed it with another staff member and realised such a modification would not be possible in multiplayer as so I deleted that specific post in the ban appeal, happening to be 1 minute before this thread was posted. I understand your concern for the user, but you've got to understand that we don't ban people to punish them, we ban them because we don't want them to ruin other player's time. A simple PM to me, or even one of the admins saying that it would not be possible, would have been much better than bringing up a public thread about it- I highly doubt KerbyCraft would have wanted this to be the result. At any rate, I'm not denying I made a mistake in that post I made; it's something all of us do, but I hope we can move on from it.

 

[Haysagar]

Also Hay, I disagree with you. We gave substantial evidence that he was not using a fly hack. You have NO evidence to base that fact, and it really isn't a fact. They did not prove it. Think about it, if a player HAD fly hacks; wouldn't they be flying all over the place, of course they would. I recommend that you look over the information once more and consider mine and Pace's comments also.

1.[14:29:58] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): did your friend have a fly mod yesterday?

2.[14:30:39] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): kerbycraft

3.[14:30:46] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): or some name like that

4.[14:31:46] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] [boomer7642 -> me] no he was fly hacking

5.[14:32:08] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] [boomer7642 -> me] no no he got it from [site censored].com

They also have pictures on the ban appeal.

 

[paceboys]

At the time of banning, I had not received that evidence from X__x and as such the ban was totally reasonable- a player floating in the lobby would cause anyone to believe the player was fly backing. He messaged me later on providing logs for the situation on RoF- which as you can see I posted on this ban appeal. I discussed it with another staff member and realised such a modification would not be possible in multiplayer as so I deleted that specific post in the ban appeal, happening to be 1 minute before this thread was posted. I understand your concern for the user, but you've got to understand that we don't ban people to punish them, we ban them because we don't want them to ruin other player's time. A simple PM to me, or even one of the admins saying that it would not be possible, would have been much better than bringing up a public thread about it- I highly doubt KerbyCraft would have wanted this to be the result. At any rate, I'm not denying I made a mistake in that post I made; it's something all of us do, but I hope we can move on from it.

The more prominent issue in this thread isn't so much the fact that he was wrongly banned, I understand the reasoning behind banning him and I agree that it was a ban that needed to be made.

The main issue is the fact that I have no way to dispute it in a way that anyone other than admins have a say in what happens. That's not, in my opinion, a healthy environment.

Thanks for posting here and clearing up some issues, I appreciate it a bunch.

 

[Jayfeather]

you just reiterated all the staff responses that we can't accept

staff hide any possible mistakes with private conversations
staff only consult staff even if they're wrong (I don't know enough about minecraft mechanics to support runemen's claim)
questioning staff gets you a warning because they are always right

That's pretty much what this thread accomplished in bringing to light but your recent post (jim) does not acknowledge these things

 

[paceboys]

1.[14:29:58] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): did your friend have a fly mod yesterday?

2.[14:30:39] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): kerbycraft

3.[14:30:46] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): or some name like that

4.[14:31:46] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] [boomer7642 -> me] no he was fly hacking

5.[14:32:08] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] [boomer7642 -> me] no no he got it from [site censored].com

We also have pictures on the ban appeal.

The pictures don't indicate that he was hacking, at all. If they did, I wouldn't have made this thread.

The fact that his friend ratted him out doesn't mean that the bigger issue of this thread doesn't exist, or is invalid. The logs, images, and conversations in the ban appeal are not indicative of anyone hacking. The fact that he WAS hacking is pure coincidence. I still can't dispute the evidence anywhere except in a discussion, or a pm where only admins have jurisdiction, which is why I made this thread.

If the only valid and important evidence wasn't posted to the public, that's still not a healthy environment. There are bigger issues than his ban, which, if what boomer7542 said is true, should be upheld. The information in his appeal is not worthy of a ban.

EDIT: For clarification, the ban was made BEFORE his friend ratted him out. So the only evidence at the time of the ban is what is in the appeal currently. Realized that I didn't make it very clear.

EDIT: I suggest anyone who hasn't read the logs read them. rawrmynameisrex brought up a very valid point which is hard to understand without reading them. They are in a pastebin a few posts up.

 

[rosekill]

http://putlocker.is/watch-the-crucible-online-free-putlocker.html please watch this...

 

[Rune]

Hay, I still don't believe that its sufficient evidence. Boomer could very well be lying and does not apply to RoF or the lobby itself. If he was using hacks, he might have not been using it on the server.

I still believe in the person who got banned, its in my admin instincts. The side who agrees with the person who got banned has more evidence than the side who wants him banned.

 

[superstein]

you just reiterated all the staff responses that we can't accept

staff hide any possible mistakes with private conversations
staff only consult staff even if they're wrong (I don't know enough about minecraft mechanics to support runemen's claim)
questioning staff gets you a warning because they are always right

That's pretty much what this thread accomplished in bringing to light but your recent post (jim) does not acknowledge these things

I'm not quite sure what you mean by hiding mistakes with private conversations, we may make mistakes but I think most staff, if informed they made a mistake via PM, would be quick to admit that mistake given they were wrong. And if a staff member is covering up their mistake and not correcting it, then that's something that should be elevated to their directors/us admins.

Staff only consulting staff, that's because staff have a job to staff. People who staff servers are often knowledgeable enough about the game and the rules that they would be a good person to check one's judgement with. I'm sure that on each staff team there is one staff member who could figure something out.

In questioning staff, the reason pace got a warning is because he posted in a ban appeal when it should be a staff, the banned user, or a user who got permission to post - that being said, it helps keep things between the staff and the banned user when a PM is used. The warning he received is nothing more than a little warning tap, in reality unless he accumulates many more forum infractions in the following two weeks it won't mean anything. We do this because, I may have touched on it earlier, but appeals would be a mess and it'd be much more common if we allowed posting (within reason). In being strict in who can post there it sets a precedent that it's a forum where appeals are between staff and players, though players are free to send a PM to the involved staff if they disagree with something.

That being said, we've been trying to be more transparent as of late but we aren't going to go through pains to make everything visible. The tone you're approaching this with makes us out to be power-tripping, corrupt monsters, when in reality we're volunteers just trying to help the community out.

The more prominent issue in this thread isn't so much the fact that he was wrongly banned, I understand the reasoning behind banning him and I agree that it was a ban that needed to be made.

The main issue is the fact that I have no way to dispute it in a way that anyone other than admins have a say in what happens. That's not, in my opinion, a healthy environment.

Thanks for posting here and clearing up some issues, I appreciate it a bunch.

I think a PM would have accomplished this - you may be underestimating how much the staff appreciate a player's input who has reasonable knowledge and a fair point they can back up. But thanks for bringing up an issue of your concern maturely and straightforward, and if you have any ideas as to how we could make an environment where you think you can better have a say where reasonable.

I would like to point out however that staff do have a job and there is only so much influence the community can have in adminstrative/staffing duties. There's a reason why we have staff, and there's few situations where players should feel like they need to speak up.

http://putlocker.is/watch-the-crucible-online-free-putlocker.html please watch this...

Care to elaborate?

 

[X__x]

To explain that link, superstein , they're referencing the Crucible, essentially the Salem Witch Trials. Calling this a 'witchhunt.'

 

[superstein]

To explain that link, superstein , they're referencing the Crucible, essentially the Salem Witch Trials. Calling this a 'witchhunt.'

Very clever, a shame it isn't!

 

[paceboys]

I think a PM would have accomplished this - you may be underestimating how much the staff appreciate a player's input who has reasonable knowledge and a fair point they can back up. But thanks for bringing up an issue of your concern maturely and straightforward, and if you have any ideas as to how we could make an environment where you think you can better have a say where reasonable.

I would like to point out however that staff do have a job and there is only so much influence the community can have in adminstrative/staffing duties. There's a reason why we have staff, and there's few situations where players should feel like they need to speak up.

I disagree; I think that if I sent a PM to the admins, one of three things would happen:

1. They'd say 'Hey paceboys glad you sent this in unfortunately the case is already being dealt with but we appreciate it anyway'
2. They'd say 'No you're wrong we have proof it's not your place to judge but we appreciate it anyway'
3. They'd say 'Oh shoot dude you're right we goofed unbanning him now thanks man we appreciate it'

These are in order from most to least likely, in my opinion. I'm probably wrong but that's beside the point that if I want any opinion other than the admins I need to post it here, which is why I did. There needs to be a more public system behind bans/map applications. I see a lot more of the bans side than the map applications side. I'm not saying that non-staff members should have say, rather that all the information be present.

I imagined in the last posts of maps like 'The voting on your map was x to y resulting in your map being added/declined. We liked/disliked etc.' or for bans something like that where there is actual evidence and reasoning given to users/the public about bans/submissions. The fact that the proof Haysagar brought up isn't anywhere but here is, as I said, an unhealthy environment to be in. If only the admins can see certain things then generic community members have no idea what's going on in regards to submissions/appeals.

More specific about map submissions, taking a turn away from appeals, this comes to mind: http://escaperestart.com/forum/threads/farores-silent-realm.17696/

This kid made a pretty good map that no one had any problems with, and is declined. Why? This kid has NO idea what happened. If I looked at the post before Lovedaice said it was declined, I would have guessed that it would be accepted since everyone liked it. Now, I know why it was declined, but the public doesn't. This isn't a great example but this scenario has happened with reasons unlike this one.

I, and probably others, look at these appeals/submissions and are confused as to why they stayed banned or why it was declined when there was inadequate reasoning/lack of proof/no negative ratings.

I don't know exactly how any of this would work, but it's just a thought.

 

[Jayfeather]

To explain that link, superstein , they're referencing the Crucible, essentially the Salem Witch Trials. Calling this a 'witchhunt.'

Rose* not they, no one else agrees with Rosekill

That being said, we've been trying to be more transparent as of late but we aren't going to go through pains to make everything visible. The tone you're approaching this with makes us out to be power-tripping, corrupt monsters, when in reality we're volunteers just trying to help the community out.

No, corruption is not rampant in Blocktopia, I'm just mentioning a legitimate staff glorification issue that has been prevalent since I've been here. (this next point on is general and not pointed towards any one person, especially not the staff that have appeared in this thread as of yet) As staff has been the only way to differentiate a player, its also taken on a meaning of status which, when some staff receive it mean they may subtly or intentionally reflect their new position by imposing extra power via the rank. Especially considering no one can be considered as being on the same level of importance as staff:

I would like to point out however that staff do have a job and there is only so much influence the community can have in adminstrative/staffing duties. There's a reason why we have staff, and there's few situations where players should feel like they need to speak up.

As is evident on nearly every ban appeal, once the staff have a standpoint to go off of, they can not be dissuaded for any reason. Partially this is probably because of the internalization of staff being a threatening power and partially it is because they've done it to the point where some claims are instantly considered untrue as they show up time and time again. It is the players' job of speaking up that can sometimes correct this.

I think a PM would have accomplished this - you may be underestimating how much the staff appreciate a player's input who has reasonable knowledge and a fair point they can back up. But thanks for bringing up an issue of your concern maturely and straightforward, and if you have any ideas as to how we could make an environment where you think you can better have a say where reasonable.

Perhaps. I actually sortof agree with this line of reasoning, but it is much less streamlined to have messages sent into other staff's pm box rather than on the thread. Not every member of the server or forums is going to have remotely relevant knowledge of minecraft's coding or hacking community, nor are they going to be even present at the time of the incident, meaning that "relaxing" the rules for posting wouldn't actually harm the way ban appeals are carried out.

In questioning staff, the reason pace got a warning is because he posted in a ban appeal when it should be a staff, the banned user, or a user who got permission to post - that being said, it helps keep things between the staff and the banned user when a PM is used. The warning he received is nothing more than a little warning tap, in reality unless he accumulates many more forum infractions in the following two weeks it won't mean anything.

Why would you give it if it is meaningless.

He posted in a ban appeal with relevant information to the topic in where staff (I won't speak on behalf for his hacking aspect) could have picked the wrong decision, and it was then nearly instantly proved that "only the staff" would have a say in if a user would get banned - despite evidence from the other side. The issue here seems to be that counter evidence was deleted simply only for the color of his name and for no other reason.

1.[14:29:58] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): did your friend have a fly mod yesterday?

2.[14:30:39] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): kerbycraft

3.[14:30:46] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] (To boomer7642): or some name like that

4.[14:31:46] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] [boomer7642 -> me] no he was fly hacking

5.[14:32:08] [Client thread/INFO]: [CHAT] [boomer7642 -> me] no no he got it from [site censored].com

They also have pictures on the ban appeal.

These are pretty much my only grievances here. I really don't want to respond on whether or not the guy was actually hacking because I don't know how hackers have devised these tools.