Do you see how big of a discussion and how muddied the waters have gotten just discussing what skill was being used, where, when, how someone got caught? Now imagine if this was the rule. This would be absolutely absurd to deal with and frankly, not something I nor the other staff would want to deal with. It's simple, if you're staying in one place spamming SOMETHING (talking to a pet, potions, buffs, attacks, what have you) and a GM comes by asking if you are there, answer them within 5 minutes. Period.
I know that, but the player himself did appeal, with all sorts of evidence which was backed up by other players. In this case, then if you spammed auto attack in FM, then you could also get banned if you don't reply to a GM. Is that really what the rule is there for? In my opinion, the rule could be done with some re-wording, because it is harming people that the rule wasn't initially introduced for, or at least has a large potential to do so. Which is injustice, or wrong-ful criminalisation in my eyes. But at the end of the day, it's Matt & John's server and their rules. So I guess players will just have to learn to accept that.
You are guilty until proven innocent. We have the evidence when you are banned to show you are guilty of the offense and unless you can prove your innocence somehow, the ban will stand. That's how it has always worked and will continue to work. There was evidence of a person botting by a GM and that one person was banned. If evidence exists of a person botting while in a HT run, then yes, the whole run would be banned for partying with a botter, but so far, I have not seen any evidence proving that.
The "using DB proves his innocence" is just as realistic as any argument made. Really we're just splitting straws here, as he could have shifted in his sleep from Huricane to Dragon's Breath very easily. And by using DB he could have stayed alive longer than by not using anything. Anyway, enough about Shook. The other situation are way to muddled and grey to be able to determine effectively. It's not like these people are being permanently banned, it's a week. That's really nothing in the long term. As for te "innocent until proven guilty," 1) that really doesn't aply to a server you consent to joining and living by its rules; and 2) case law would suggest that someone who is in town breaking a rule was doing it elsewhere. Obviously this isn't the case 100% of the time, but it is over 90%. Like I said, what about someone who was botting, died, was warped back to town, then was botting again? They could easily say they fell asleep.
I did not mean to bring a ban appeal case into this thread but this sort of ban does not happen often. I can not see how it is difficult to distinguish between botting in an area that will give you an advantage and distinguishing between an area that does not. I was hoping to understand why it would be difficult in implementing this rule. I'm trying to change this rule so that it won't affect people who fall asleep "botting" in areas that don't provide an advantage. If you were to "fall asleep botting" in an area that would give an advantage then that without a doubt should be bannable.
That's not the point of the rule. Botting, whether you are there and leaving your finger on a key to spam pots while watching TV, saying "hi" over and over again while in a random map while you are asleep, or HS botting at GS2 or WS is STILL botting, all 3 are the same. There isn't "advantage botting" and there is no reason to change the rule because the way the community acts, the next thread will be "What is considered an advantage?" and frankly, I'm not even going to open that can of worms.
Slightly OF: I don't see how straws are being pulled, it's pretty obvious that he wasn't using at automated program to bot, it just doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that at Prehead 1 and then just go AFK for a few hours, you are still required to move, once the prehead dies, so there would be no reason for the botter to even AFK, the fact that he did AFK with dragon breath with other people on the run as witnesses speaks for itself.
edit: rob beat me to it. But anyway, anyone that's an active forum user knows it is the case that if you're doing something in game and are unable to respond to a GM, you're considered botting regardless of the circumstances. Most everyone on this server is an adult, or at least old enough to know when they're too tired to stay awake. If you choose to continue playing under those circumstances, it's then your own fault. You were already aware of the consequences, now you deal with them.
I think the point of this thread, is not that players do not know about the current rules and consequences, but whether the rule should be given some feedback, and hopefully improved , but from what John has said, it seems very unlikely. Rob makes some good points that in most cases it would be hard for any person to give any proper evidence to get unbanned, I just think that cases with some clear evidence should be treated differently. A hypothetical would be, if a person fell asleep on his keyboard in FM, so his character keeps moving >>>>, or auto attacking, is that worth a seven day ban? Is it really what the rule was made for? because from what John has said, that person would be banned.
Well first of all you don't need an automated program to bot, so that's irrelevant. Second, it's pulling straws because you're using the argument that using Dragon's Breath, in part, proves his innocence, when that's not necessarily true. There are many reasons he could have been using DB instead of Strafe, so to say that proves his innocence is just as arbitrary as everything else that's being said. This just seems like a, if you don't like the rules change them, thread. This rule works over 90% of the time, and the cases it doesn't work are easily avoidable to anyone old enough to play this game. And in the cases where the ban holds, one week is NOT long at all! I don't know why we have to discuss changing a rule instead of hoping people take accountability and learn to live with consequences. It's almost like saying, "Oh I was drunk when I did it, I didn't know what I was doing." That doesn't excuse that you did it and put yourself into the position to do it.
Not with the approach that is being taken. The point of the rule shouldn't be to muddy the waters and make it more open to interpretation as that leads to trouble. I am not against changing any rule, as long as it leads to more clarity, and not less.
I said Dragon Breath should definitely be considered as a part of the argument, it is not the whole argument. Its anomaly contributes. Using Dragon Breath, is no where normal at horntail. You didn't answer why he would suddenly go AFK during a prehead (since they last 10 minutes) even if he was botting.
You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what skill someone is using. I don't care whether they are using the best skill for their job, or spamming Three Snails, they were botting. That's all there is to it.
You're ignoring nuance that should be there according to your argument. The point of this thread is that there is nuance that should be accounted for, yet you're disregarding some of it. And what does going AFK have to do with it? He didn't go afk, he fell asleep. EDIT: As for other people being there, yes that was valid proof, I never denied that. But the fact that you keep focusing on the most arbitrary and variable form of proof is odd to me. As for this topic as a whole, maybe, instead of changing the rule, we can advocate for and push people to ~gm when someone falls asleep while doing something to d/c them? I know I've done that before.
I think my point is being slightly missed. (I am not missing your point John). I understand that spamming any button is botting. Exactly, he did fall asleep, so how is he intentionally trying to get an advantage if he is asleep? If anything it is an honest mistake. My points about Dragon Breath (not strafe), People there as witnesses, and not moving after the prehead (ending up in leafre) are all anomalies that contribute to the conclusion that he honestly was just sleeping, and fell asleep on his keyboard. What i'm suggesting, or trying to imply, is that should people really be banned for things, where evidence concludes it is not their fault? Yes, I agree that he was spamming Dragon Breath in Leafre and therefore is technically botting (@ John you can stop repeating that! I understand), but there is no error for fault? Should he not be penalised less for not intentionally botting for no advantage? Since in my opinion the rule is there to penalise the rule breakers, who purposely intentionally break the rules, like holding a rock on a button at GS2/WS. Like Tim said before, it is up to the player to defend himself, and you need a certain amount of evidence, but if this isn't evident enough that it wasn't deliberate and he got no advantage, then what is? Will it ever even be possible to appeal a botting ban? Is it really okay to keep the rule so general, even if it harms people who are playing legitly?
This is something I can agree on. I was focusing on dragon's breath since that was the point that got the most counter argument, but it is no where WHAT I think is absolute proof. But I think that all the anomalies I posted on the post above is enough to prove that he was honestly sleeping, and Dragon breath is just something that adds to that. Which is why I didn't think it was considered pulling straws T-T
The fact that you are not allowed to directly respond to someone else's ban appeal to provide evidence against an unfair ban is why I'm trying to prevent this from happening to anyone else with this proposed rule change but i see now that it was pointless to even try due to the strictness of these rules. I understand that you and possibly other staff do not want to deal with the extra work that this rule change might create. I'm disappointed that this rule couldn't be changed to allow for more breathing room for people who continually play this server legitimately and have spent many hours of their time only to be penalized for human error which can be proven in detail that it was unintentional. It is also disappointing that the staff have to be so strict for enforcing these rules when it is proven and backed up by witnesses that the "botting" was unintentional. This is what i have been attempting to do to protect people who are innocent. I am also in favour of this. If someone were to ~gm about someone who knew they were asleep and "botting" maybe that would protect them from being banned.
