Hello. I am Mobius, and as the supreme master of receiving unwarranted bans or given unfair sentencing for bans I should be one of the very core people to discuss this thread. I've read only 3 out of the 92 logs containing Galactus and the ban from the other thread, and I am not even going to pretend that it isn't the core issue for this one so here's some things I want to address.
Putting a metric on ban duration is incredibly difficult to determine without defining what exactly is consistent with the rules and how your average person can interpret them. Galactus, according to him, did not actively "cheat" in game in any meaningful way other than showing off his ability to use an exploit; however, this exploit was only financed by a custom Zandronum client beyond the means of any "normal" end user.
By definition he "had not cheated" despite what the rules predicate, but let's examine the policy and what constitutes cheating.
The only cheats that are allowed on Zandronum are sv_cheats 1. Anything that gives you a large advantage over normal players is not allowed.
This includes wallhacks, aimbots, and modifications that allow the client to override server settings. This includes making one immune to things like mutes, custom clients that grief players or speedhacks.
Cheating is defined as giving beyond normal means of advantages over another user, but in this case the evidence provided was only during the intermediary period between a serious game which means people are running around deciding on what map to play. He may have overwritten the server side settings using an exploitative client one can not accurately say without proof that cheating too place, and that alone warrants a reduction or removal of a person's sentencing; on the other hand, the shifting and constantly reiteration of his story gives off a mixed impression that perhaps he has not been forth-right and a violation of the rules dictated above might have occurred. This, however, does not warrant correctional dispensation because testimony alone does not count as actual evidence. I've said I've aimbotted a few times to Mexicans on Zdaemon when I was tossing them around on judas, but it doesn't make it true. The incompetency or otherwise of the guilty party does not prove anything. The only time it counts is outright confession, and the rest is used to determine whether further violation has transpired (hence the reduced sentencing).
The typical standard ban from Skulltag to Zandronum by the old administration was a year for cheaters. 3 months is a quarter of such a sentence if we were to penalize exploiters. So for this regard 3 months may seem a little much but the overall nature of the ban itself is contingent on the PR and explanation of one's own actions. Since the end-user was not found cheating then a year ban is literally out of the question. Honestly, this shouldn't even been an issue. It should be up to Konar6 how to dispense with Galactus, and having a modified client isn't exactly a crime either (though chuck with exploits makes one very, very suspicious); but for sake of the argument in this example you wish to give a sentence to someone so what constitutes as masterban worthy behavior?
Using an exploit for malicious purposes should constitute as worst offenders on par with cheating (if not worst), but honestly exploit usage that does not impact a games or what can be defined as a "serious game" is not the same as cheating. It's a victimless crime, as cheating was NOT had at the time of offense. This calls for a sentencing plea, but because the party used a modified module to achieve this affect overwriting server settings does warrant disciplinary action by its own merit. I push for the distinction of cheating and exploitation on grounds that the latter is negotiable because it's entirely situational dependent. The act, though bad for developers, host, and everyone alike, had no definite impact on anything tangible or important (property damage not-withstanding).
First we should rework the cheating clause and add a bit more bureaucracy into the ruling. Using a modified client, in of itself, isn't exactly a crime either. Some of us had used contributed works of Watermelon's maleware laden clients and to my knowledge none of had distinctive advantageous features. Does this call for a sentencing?
I'd honestly work on rewording the architecture of your rules for better interpretation first before working on a standard length of common crimes. A year ban is suitable for legitimate cheaters, and malicious exploitation rewards the same if not more if it can be proven such intent was there (I was banned from irc for spreading a virus from a hentai link I put on the main channel and like only 1 person was affected really?). Anything else is server side ONLY from clusters and home connections. I'm more for decentralization of the master server's ban policies.
Rules such as this
http://zandronum.com/forum/showthread.p ... 01#pid9201
Should be retyped for better accuracy to handle with problems in the future, but definitely a year or so banning for cheaters and malicious users is a step in the right direction. The rest should be handled a bit with care by server host to deal with situations as they arise based on their own specific rules (since they are providing a service).