Right, I'm going to clear things up seen as I was the one who got the reports and asked Tazz to screen share him.
Tazz CLEARLY asked Rilo to not log off and get on teamspeak in the next 5 minutes or he would be banned. Rilo then proceeds to log off, change versions and then start the screenshare. We still screen shared him and found multiple things he could have used but we couldn't be sure seen as he logged off.
If I were you Rilo, I would be thankful that it's only a week long tempban.
Right, I'm going to clear things up seen as I was the one who got the reports and asked Tazz to screen share him.
Tazz CLEARLY asked Rilo to not log off and get on teamspeak in the next 5 minutes or he would be banned. Rilo then proceeds to log off, change versions and then start the screenshare. We still screen shared him and found multiple things he could have used but we couldn't be sure seen as he logged off.
If I were you Rilo, I would be thankful that it's only a week long tempban.
so basically this post is a bunch of people who don't know what there on about but think they do, so comment what they think but it ends up not being true and then rilo becomes known as a hacker/cheater because people don't actually know what they're on about. Classic.
so basically this post is a bunch of people who don't know what there on about but think they do, so comment what they think but it ends up not being true and then rilo becomes known as a hacker/cheater because people don't actually know what they're on about. Classic.
Well tazz the person who screenshared rilo said that he admitted to it so unless I'm missing something rilo is in the wrong rn
So he should be banned but because of bias reasons you aren't banning him?
What SpookeZZ is saying is that we do not have any solid evidence that he was using any mods or hacks at the time. In addition, he logged off before any concrete proof could be collected. Therefore, he is only temporarily banned.
What SpookeZZ is saying is that we do not have any solid evidence that he was using any mods or hacks at the time. In addition, he logged off before any concrete proof could be collected. Therefore, he is only temporarily banned.
You get banned on any big server for disconnecting mid screen share and it's REALLY obvious he had something to hide lmao
What SpookeZZ is saying is that we do not have any solid evidence that he was using any mods or hacks at the time. In addition, he logged off before any concrete proof could be collected. Therefore, he is only temporarily banned.
The point of saying; Don't disconnect while SS'ing is that you will be banned if you disconnect... this is the standard everywhere. If avi wants to implement SS'ing it needs to implement the expectations upon the community that SS'ing brings. With that said, I dont like SS'ing and don't believe it should be used.
You get banned on any big server for disconnecting mid screen share and it's REALLY obvious he had something to hide lmao
Be that as it may, we lack conclusive evidence of hacks or mods on his system. Thus, a temp ban most likely seemed like the most apt punishment. It is foolish to go around banning whomever we suspect of possessing mods or hacks without evidence.
The point of saying; Don't disconnect while SS'ing is that you will be banned if you disconnect... this is the standard everywhere. If avi wants to implement SS'ing it needs to implement the expectations upon the community that SS'ing brings. With that said, I dont like SS'ing and don't believe it should be used.
As I have already stated, we do not have valid evidence of a modded client in use. Thus, we can not ban him permanently.
I did not participate in the screen-sharing, so I do not know all of the details. However, it sounds like he was not told that he would be banned if he disconnected during the screen-sharing, only that he would be banned if he refused to.
To any other staff members: Feel free to correct me on anything I have said here. As previously stated, I did not take part in the screen-sharing.
As I have already stated, we do not have valid evidence of a modded client in use. Thus, we can not ban him permanently.
I did not participate in the screen-sharing, so I do not know all of the details. However, it sounds like he was not told that he would be banned if he disconnected during the screen-sharing, only that he would be banned if he refused to.
To any other staff members: Feel free to correct me on anything I have said here. As previously stated, I did not take part in the screen-sharing.
Now, can we please return to the topic at hand?
I don't think you guys understand how ssing and banning works lol
As I have already stated, we do not have valid evidence of a modded client in use. Thus, we can not ban him permanently.
I did not participate in the screen-sharing, so I do not know all of the details. However, it sounds like he was not told that he would be banned if he disconnected during the screen-sharing, only that he would be banned if he refused to.
To any other staff members: Feel free to correct me on anything I have said here. As previously stated, I did not take part in the screen-sharing.
Now, can we please return to the topic at hand?
No, he was told that he would be banned if he logged out.
You get banned on any big server for disconnecting mid screen share and it's REALLY obvious he had something to hide lmao
As obvious as it may seem, they still don't have concrete evidence.
It's like if someone screenshots a team spleef message, they probably did get intentionally spleefed but the staff can't tell if it really was intentional or not. Which is why they don't punish in that situation.
The same thing can be said here. Rilo probably did have something to hide but the staff can't definitely prove it, no matter how obvious it may seem. It's frustrating but that's how things work. Tbh it's a fair system. Otherwise it'll be incredibly biased.
As obvious as it may seem, they still don't have concrete evidence.
It's like if someone screenshots a team spleef message, they probably did get intentionally spleefed but the staff can't tell if it really was intentional or not. Which is why they don't punish in that situation.
The same thing can be said here. Rilo probably did have something to hide but the staff can't definitely prove it, no matter how obvious it may seem. It's frustrating but that's how things work. Tbh it's a fair system. Otherwise it'll be incredibly biased.
staff chose to implement SSing that means they need to ban if the person doesnt comply or disconnects. Arguing "oh we didnt have proof doesn't make jack for sense. His punishment is for disconnecting not hacking. The argument is that there is no way this system works with temps for not complying, it only works if it is a perm. Its really not difficult to get, SSing wouldn't catch anyone if it was ban for a week for refusing or perm for SSing. The system is stupid and staff will update it soon. Also ffs look up the meaning of biased. Yall just use it to describe staff you dont like. kthxbye.
As obvious as it may seem, they still don't have concrete evidence.
It's like if someone screenshots a team spleef message, they probably did get intentionally spleefed but the staff can't tell if it really was intentional or not. Which is why they don't punish in that situation.
The same thing can be said here. Rilo probably did have something to hide but the staff can't definitely prove it, no matter how obvious it may seem. It's frustrating but that's how things work. Tbh it's a fair system. Otherwise it'll be incredibly biased.
They don't need concrete evidence, he was told he was going to be permbanned if he disconnected mid screenshare, which he did. The situation right now is incredibly bias since it's so obvious he was using something but isn't banned. If this is how it works everyone should install a triggerbot.
I agree with DGB. I could use a ghost client which I would be perm banned for, then get seed and just disconnect to get a temp instead of a perm. It's so easy to abuse
So yeah, he was warned, he did it anyways. Your argument kinda hinged on that so I take it you agree he should be perm'd now?
You shouldn't take me as supporting either side. I understand the necessity of having solid evidence, but I also sympathise with your point about him ignoring the instructions of a staff member, and thus he should be punished with an appropriate punishment.
However, I do not know the full story, and therefore I may be mistaken in my understanding of the incident's back-story. With that said, I am not taking a side in this matter until more details are revealed.
They don't need concrete evidence, he was told he was going to be permbanned if he disconnected mid screenshare, which he did. The situation right now is incredibly bias since it's so obvious he was using something but isn't banned. If this is how it works everyone should install a triggerbot.
Come on.... Its Rilo... Just fricken Rilo... Why would he hack??? a disconnection isn't enough for a temp ban.. And am I wrong in saying all the hackers on Avicus that Come online, hacking, why not ask them to screen share????? Is there something I'm missing?
Come on.... Its Rilo... Just fricken Rilo... Why would he hack??? a disconnection isn't enough for a temp ban.. And am I wrong in saying all the hackers on Avicus that Come online, hacking, why not ask them to screen share????? Is there something I'm missing?
1. Saying rilo doesn't mean anything you never know you or me could be hacking right now 2. Why would he hack? Idk maybe he was bored maybe he didn't want to lose/die 3. Why not he disobeyed staff instructions he could of potentially gotten a perm ban imo he should of gotten at least a month 4. Oh boy... This is on a scrim server where you can easily screenshared regulars while public servers it's just a waste of time with the amount of reports that come in something
@OP are you even answering the questions on this thread
Come on.... Its Rilo... Just fricken Rilo... Why would he hack??? a disconnection isn't enough for a temp ban.. And am I wrong in saying all the hackers on Avicus that Come online, hacking, why not ask them to screen share????? Is there something I'm missing?
He was told that he would be banned if he left the screen-share, and he did. He's lucky he didn't get a perm-ban, although I don't agree that he should have gotten a perm-ban, like some people said above, he was warned, and is lucky that he was not perm-banned. He could be hacking, and that's why he was temp-banned, but there's no proof 100% that he had a client on or not.
Come on.... Its Rilo... Just fricken Rilo... Why would he hack??? a disconnection isn't enough for a temp ban.. And am I wrong in saying all the hackers on Avicus that Come online, hacking, why not ask them to screen share????? Is there something I'm missing?
Come on... It's Dualzz... Just fricken Dualzz... Why woukd he hack??? Being caught changing your versions your folder then refusing to not log off when he was told not to then disconnecting mid screenshare when he realised his client was going to be found just isn't enough for a tempban. And am I wrong in comparing blatantly obvious fly hackers and killaura users to low key triggerbots??? Isn't there something I'm missing??
Due to the thread going off topic, and numerous warnings thrown aside, the thread is going to be locked. :(
Locking...
This website is an archive of data gathererd by Avicus Network LLC between the years of 2013 and 2017
Copyright Ⓒ 2012-2017 Avicus Network LLC. All Rights Reserved