So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

Public discussion of the forum software and other things run by Zandronum staff.
TerminusEst13
Contributor
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:06 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#21

Post by TerminusEst13 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:52 pm

Galactus wrote: The thing with these rules is that they are all black on white(except for Hypno's). You seem to only take the crime into consideration instead of the whole circumstances around said crime. For instance a person that uses a lax in-game exploit without any malicious intent shouldn't get banned for as long as a person who did it with malicious intent.
During my short time as moderator, almost every single instance of discussing things with a dude who broke the rules, the first excuse everyone has used is either:
A: I didn't mean to do it.
B: It was a brother/roommate.
or C: They didn't know it was breaking the rules.
(The only one that didn't was a guy who tried to bribe me with Clint Eastwood DVDs. How strange!)

Malicious intent isn't really a reliable thing to adjust for because everyone will say they weren't doing it maliciously, especially if they have a chance of getting a shorter sentence for it.
The Ranger - New class for HeXen.
ZDoom Wars - I drew some pictures.
Samsara - Some class-based mod I guess?
Metroid: Dreadnought - I am a dumb fanboy.
DemonSteele - ~come with me to anime world~

Lollipop
Zandrone
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:34 am
Location: Denmark

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#22

Post by Lollipop » Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

@TerminsusEst13
Then again, what if malicious intent cannot be proven? Let me examplarize:
1. A dude use an exploit to give himself an advantage of sorts in a competetive game. Let's say on a priv server and his team won because of it.
2. Another dude use the same exploit under the same event as dude 1, but only during picks, and hence didn't impact the actual game that followed.

I'd say there is a distinct difference between these two. If Gal, as he claims, is dude 2, then he shouldn't be treated as if he is dude 1.
For me it basically boils down to wether or not the exploit was used for cheating in a legitimate game or not.

I have a little question in general though:
What about exploits in mods? Should the same count for those or does it simply fall on modders to fix those exploits?
I'm personally inclined towards the latter, though I think it is worth discussing.
Spoiler: Modding Qualifications (Open)
ACS: I like to create complex systems.
DECORATE: Bit boring, unless it gets complex.
Maps: I only map for testing ACS.
GFX: Not enough time or experience.

If you need help, advice or similar, feel free to send me a PM. ;)
Spoiler: My Current Projects (Open)
> AOW branch (Paused because others do the same)
> ACS DOM - An ACS based domination gamemode. (I'm too lazy to get this done, but feel free to bug me about it.)
> Various undeveloped ideas.
Combinebobnt wrote:i can see the forum league is taking off much better than the ctf ones

Konda
Forum Regular
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:22 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#23

Post by Konda » Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:26 pm

Lollipop wrote: @TerminsusEst13
Then again, what if malicious intent cannot be proven? Let me examplarize:
1. A dude use an exploit to give himself an advantage of sorts in a competetive game. Let's say on a priv server and his team won because of it.
2. Another dude use the same exploit under the same event as dude 1, but only during picks, and hence didn't impact the actual game that followed.

I'd say there is a distinct difference between these two. If Gal, as he claims, is dude 2, then he shouldn't be treated as if he is dude 1.
For me it basically boils down to wether or not the exploit was used for cheating in a legitimate game or not.
It seems as though mods do not want to delve into the specifics of exploit cases. This is their way of saying "don't use exploits, period". Whether it be for advantage, for dicking around before a map change, or even checking to see if such an exploit works - if you get caught, you're fucked. And you'll be let off only if you have solid evidence that you did not commit this sinful act for the sake of pure and utter evil, chaos, and destruction. This is exactly what I'm getting from D'Sparil's case. Would he have gotten away had he not recorded the demo? Or would he be also running around the forums trying to justify himself while being compared to kalfoxis?

Well, it's not of the most fair methods of discouraging exploits, but it works I guess.
Last edited by Konda on Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Code: Select all

<Synert> fuck
<Synert> plugged in my memory stick and got a bsod

User avatar
Mobius
Posts a lot
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:43 am
Location: The center of the A3's controversial and machiavellian conspiracy
Clan: Cube
Clan Tag: Aᵌ
Contact:

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#24

Post by Mobius » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:31 am

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.
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

or

http://zandronum.com/forum/announcements.php?aid=17

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).
Last edited by Mobius on Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
dewsome: i can do this all day
dewsome: do you think you're somehow special? i spent years arguing with nostar, jenova, mobius
<+Thomas13> Mobius u r inferior, go outside and get beaten up
Alfonzo ~ "I wonder who will hear him trash talk when the dirt closes over him?"

User avatar
SwordGrunt
Forum Regular
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:43 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#25

Post by SwordGrunt » Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:28 am

There should be some common sense as to what is cheating and what isn't, instead of treating any exploits the same way because people are assumed to be too dumb to differentiate wallhacking from a chaingun alias that can be done in 10 seconds on your console with the standard engine.

This entire thing would've been 'meh' if Galactus and others weren't using a modified client. THAT is the real problem here. Anyone that modifies their client can be assumed to do the worst type of cheating because they have that power.

When you're talking about banning people for having a name longer than the character limit, that's just plain stupid. Of course, a modified exe is a potentially much bigger threat even if they're only doing it for something stupid that barely affects gameplay, if at all.


Edit: just to mention what Mobius said right before me, obviously if several people are using the same modified version of a client for a purpose such as Water's, it's a different story. What I meant is people individually modifying their client can use that for exploits, obviously if they don't nobody will even know they modified their client so there's nothing wrong with it.
Last edited by SwordGrunt on Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mobius
Posts a lot
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:43 am
Location: The center of the A3's controversial and machiavellian conspiracy
Clan: Cube
Clan Tag: Aᵌ
Contact:

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#26

Post by Mobius » Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:36 pm

SwordGrunt wrote: Edit: just to mention what Mobius said right before me, obviously if several people are using the same modified version of a client for a purpose such as Water's, it's a different story. What I meant is people individually modifying their client can use that for exploits, obviously if they don't nobody will even know they modified their client so there's nothing wrong with it.
That is correct, but not the exact platform I am advocating. What I was referring too (poorly) was that a user or party should not be indicted for possession of modified clients whether or not they were malicious by design. This is purely an old debate on whether or not users with cheating executables should be punished or looked at with disdain for merely having them. I think we can both agree that the nature of the crime doesn't truly warrant a penalty, but my stance is the reduction of Zandronum staff on dictating master server executions on what is considered misdemeanor crimes. A name with 60 or 600 characters is an exploit, but it isn't an exactly game changing or breaking exploit to warrant severe master server action and such should be left at the discretion of the local server's administration.

Server clusters like Funcrusher or Best Ever should have a lot more power in deciding their edicts and orders, if they find the offense to warrant penalty to begin with. I don't think having a modified client should be enough of a priority to issue a ban unless there's proof that malicious action took place, unless of course the client passively does these things on their own then that's a whole other debate. I, personally, wouldn't use an incriminating piece of software at all unless I have the intent to use it. I am a responsible user and have only used cheating mechanisms in sanctioned duels against opponents that were told in advance to test out the limitations of said software.
Last edited by Mobius on Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dewsome: i can do this all day
dewsome: do you think you're somehow special? i spent years arguing with nostar, jenova, mobius
<+Thomas13> Mobius u r inferior, go outside and get beaten up
Alfonzo ~ "I wonder who will hear him trash talk when the dirt closes over him?"

User avatar
SwordGrunt
Forum Regular
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:43 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#27

Post by SwordGrunt » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:36 pm

Mobius wrote:
SwordGrunt wrote: Edit: just to mention what Mobius said right before me, obviously if several people are using the same modified version of a client for a purpose such as Water's, it's a different story. What I meant is people individually modifying their client can use that for exploits, obviously if they don't nobody will even know they modified their client so there's nothing wrong with it.
That is correct, but not the exact platform I am advocating. What I was referring too (poorly) was that a user or party should not be indicted for possession of modified clients whether or not they were malicious by design. This is purely an old debate on whether or not users with cheating executables should be punished or looked at with disdain for merely having them. I think we can both agree that the nature of the crime doesn't truly warrant a penalty, but my stance is the reduction of Zandronum staff on dictating master server executions on what is considered misdemeanor crimes. A name with 60 or 600 characters is an exploit, but it isn't an exactly game changing or breaking exploit to warrant severe master server action and such should be left at the discretion of the local server's administration.

Server clusters like Funcrusher or Best Ever should have a lot more power in deciding their edicts and orders, if they find the offense to warrant penalty to begin with. I don't think having a modified client should be enough of a priority to issue a ban unless there's proof that malicious action took place, unless of course the client passively does these things on their own then that's a whole other debate. I, personally, wouldn't use an incriminating piece of software at all unless I have the intent to use it. I am a responsible user and have only used cheating mechanisms in sanctioned duels against opponents that were told in advance to test out the limitations of said software.
Agreed, I think my post sounded too generalizing against the use of a modified client - the port is open source and anyone is free to do it, but if they attempt to use it to gain any kind of advantage, they will be punished. If they don't, odds are no one will ever know they altered their client anyway.

I also agree about the master server banning policy - the "only cheaters get masterbanned" policy was in effect for a long time if I'm not mistaken, and in my opinion should stay true, save for absurd cases. Common sense is the best guideline there is; admins have the final word on a ban no matter what, and if they feel as though their action is needed to punish someone who isn't necessarily cheating, but for example trolling massively and just straight up ruining the game for others, then so be it. But in general, as you mentioned, servers should be the ones dealing with this kind of thing under most circumstances. Exploits that don't affect gameplay shouldn't warrant a master server ban.

I think one of the biggest issues with the consistency of banning and such is that people are so quick to yell that x was favored and y wasn't, that shit like this needs to be done. Which is understandable given these situations were true for so long in the Doom community, but doesn't change the fact it holds the staff back from being able to perform their duties properly. As I've already said, common sense should be running this, not a written rule set, especially because not every situation is the same.

Admins are humans too and they make mistakes sometimes. Apparently some guy got banned for much less time not long ago for modifying his client as well, and people are crying about ban lengths. I don't see why the staff has to take that bullshit into account seeing as they've already fucked up to get banned in the first place, and while they obviously have the right to defend themselves and ask whatever they want, the staff shouldn't feel they're forced to make the ban length more "fair" or whatever. Just my two cents on this.

User avatar
Mobius
Posts a lot
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:43 am
Location: The center of the A3's controversial and machiavellian conspiracy
Clan: Cube
Clan Tag: Aᵌ
Contact:

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#28

Post by Mobius » Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:57 am

You know I wish there was a like button because I believe we've reached an agreeable conclusion, though an addendum would be that perhaps even cheaters should be left at the discretion of server host. I don't know if you would agree to that stipulation, but considering how unlisted servers "bypass" publicly hosted masterserver policies it is already at the discretion and behest of host-cluster's administration. This makes it a little harder to enforce by the master and such I wonder if it should only be reserved for more malicious offenders like distributors of viruses, ddosing, and so on.
dewsome: i can do this all day
dewsome: do you think you're somehow special? i spent years arguing with nostar, jenova, mobius
<+Thomas13> Mobius u r inferior, go outside and get beaten up
Alfonzo ~ "I wonder who will hear him trash talk when the dirt closes over him?"

User avatar
Nati46
Forum Regular
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Ramat Aviv

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#29

Post by Nati46 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:52 pm

I would like to know If The Chaingun tap alias is considered legit or not. It is absolutely dependent on the alias features of the original client and doesn't require any external clients (Similiar to the sr50 bind).
If necessary I will provide the associated code.

Thanks
Want to know how to run faster? Check this out!

Zandronum Duel Championships

Image

Konda
Forum Regular
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:22 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#30

Post by Konda » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:05 pm

Nati46 wrote: I would like to know If The Chaingun tap alias is considered legit or not. It is absolutely dependent on the alias features of the original client and doesn't require any external clients (Similiar to the sr50 bind).
If necessary I will provide the associated code.

Thanks
If sr50 is considered legit, then the chaingun tap alias is sure as hell legit too.

Code: Select all

<Synert> fuck
<Synert> plugged in my memory stick and got a bsod

User avatar
Frits
Forum Regular
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:04 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#31

Post by Frits » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:21 pm

Nati46 wrote: I would like to know If The Chaingun tap alias is considered legit or not. It is absolutely dependent on the alias features of the original client and doesn't require any external clients (Similiar to the sr50 bind).
If necessary I will provide the associated code.

Thanks
Aliasing is knowingly build into Zandronum so i assume nobody considers any of it's functionalities as an exploit.

Code: Select all

Mode #grandvoid -o Konar6 by Frits
<Konar6> the fuck
<Konar6> who made this IRC
<Konar6> how is this possible

User avatar
Ænima
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 3348
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Location: Shpongleland

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#32

Post by Ænima » Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:27 pm

yeah all a console alias does is execute commands that the client is allowed to call anyways

even if it were disallowed there would be no way to prove that you're using a console alias

and automatic chaintapping probably doesn't give you a game-breaking advantage anyways. you can chaintap like that without an alias if you have good rhythm.
Last edited by Ænima on Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image ­ ­
­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Doom64: Unabsolved: Doom64 and Diablo2 had a baby


ZandroSkins
: a pack made by our community
Squad Radio: a WASD-powered chat menu, add your own sounds
AeniPuffs: neat blood and puff effects

User avatar
Nati46
Forum Regular
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Ramat Aviv

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#33

Post by Nati46 » Sat Feb 13, 2016 7:46 pm

Konda wrote:
Nati46 wrote: I would like to know If The Chaingun tap alias is considered legit or not. It is absolutely dependent on the alias features of the original client and doesn't require any external clients (Similiar to the sr50 bind).
If necessary I will provide the associated code.

Thanks
If sr50 is considered legit, then the chaingun tap alias is sure as hell legit too.
Frits wrote:
Nati46 wrote: I would like to know If The Chaingun tap alias is considered legit or not. It is absolutely dependent on the alias features of the original client and doesn't require any external clients (Similiar to the sr50 bind).
If necessary I will provide the associated code.

Thanks
Aliasing is knowingly build into Zandronum so i assume nobody considers any of it's functionalities as an exploit.
Yea it makes total sense. I do want an official staff confirmation for this though since some people might still question its legitimacy.
Want to know how to run faster? Check this out!

Zandronum Duel Championships

Image

dart620
Banned
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 1:44 am
Location: Australia
Contact:
Banned: Permanently

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#34

Post by dart620 » Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:27 pm

Imho aliasing is very close to cheating. now matter how i look on it.

User avatar
Slim
Zandrone
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 7:11 am
Location: Zero Space
Clan: Can't fit it in here
Clan Tag: -=FSR=-
Contact:

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#35

Post by Slim » Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:26 pm

dart620 wrote: Imho aliasing is very close to cheating. now matter how i look on it.
If it's naturally a command, it doesn't make it cheating. All it can do is make the slightly inconvenient a bit more convenient. Anything an alias can do is nowhere near the level of aimbots or wallhacks.
Image

"Your childish antics grow tiring. If you dare to fight me, then I accept your challenge: Anytime, anywhere." - Zero, Megaman X5
Spoiler: Quotes (Open)
5:54 PM - Slim: you're complaining about something so small that
5:54 PM - Lance: so? we do that all the time
5:55 PM - Lance: we're a bunch of losers complaining at a bar minus the bar
Spoiler: Galactus tried evading (Open)
Image

User avatar
SwordGrunt
Forum Regular
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:43 pm

RE: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#36

Post by SwordGrunt » Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:46 pm

All the chaingun tap alias does is fire as quickly as possible, with practice a player can do it nearly as reliable by manually tapping fire, but of course it provides a slight advantage within what is allowed in the game and built into the console. This is a game feature and is as much cheating as it is to turn off decals and music for less distraction during a competitive game.

I really can't see what's wrong in sharing the code for this so I'm going to go ahead and do it, especially because if some people think this is an "unfair" advantage to those who use it (seeing as not everyone has the knowledge to make their own console scripts) it's better off with a public working example. This is the alias I made myself a few years ago, which I tested a few values with until reaching the ideal (minimum) delay. It's probably not the same as other people's but it's what I did with the knowledge of the console I had at the time. (bind key chaintap)

Code: Select all

Name=chaintap
Command=ctapon; rebind ctapoff; wait 1; tapon
Name=ctapoff
Command=alias tapon; rebind chaintap
Name=ctapon
Command=alias tapon "+attack; wait 4; -attack; wait 3; tapon"

User avatar
fr blood
Frequent Poster Miles card holder
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:04 pm
Location: France
Clan: Incredible
Clan Tag: [I]

Re: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#37

Post by fr blood » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:01 pm

Is it possible to ban someone from Zandronum Master Server(1 week for example)if he keeps hosting a server with wads which has stolen content from your projects, even after telling him 100 times to turn off his server and saying that he doesn't care?

User avatar
Dark-Assassin
Maintenence Crew
Posts: 960
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:25 am

Re: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#38

Post by Dark-Assassin » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:10 pm

Back in the old days, I believe that warranted that user being blacklisted from being allowed to host servers, but not actually being masterbanned from the game entirely.

User avatar
Ænima
Addicted to Zandronum
Posts: 3348
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Location: Shpongleland

Re: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#39

Post by Ænima » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:15 pm

fr blood wrote:Is it possible to ban someone from Zandronum Master Server(1 week for example)if he keeps hosting a server with wads which has stolen content from your projects, even after telling him 100 times to turn off his server and saying that he doesn't care?
Good luck.

Been there before. Some guy ripped like ALL of the weapons from one of my old mods, some maps from someone else, and some monsters from someone else, and he claimed he made all of it. I argued with him and he banned me. I took screenshots of the whole thing and made a thread stating my case. IIRC he didn't get masterbanned but his mods got deleted from Wadhost.

What's this guy's name, Blood? Post screenshots here of the mod and your convos and MAYBE the current administration will do something about it.
Image ­ ­
­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­
Doom64: Unabsolved: Doom64 and Diablo2 had a baby


ZandroSkins
: a pack made by our community
Squad Radio: a WASD-powered chat menu, add your own sounds
AeniPuffs: neat blood and puff effects

User avatar
fr blood
Frequent Poster Miles card holder
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:04 pm
Location: France
Clan: Incredible
Clan Tag: [I]

Re: So what merits what punishment?: A treatise on ban length

#40

Post by fr blood » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:24 pm

Well it's Lister, to begin with the forbidden wad that he is hosting is not made by him, it was made by one of his friend called DimaKiller.
It's an addon for Complex Doom/LCA which has stole my whole SpecOps Zombie section(zombie marines with all weapons:both codes/sprites) from Complex Doom Invasion without asking.

He admited that the files aren't him, you can check killerspack-lca-rm-v1_4.pk3, credits are inside.

So I'm asking you to close his server on that address: 31.133.201.213:11666(Russian / Survival Gameplay) or to ban him it's up to you, but give me justice.

EDIT:
Dark-Assassin wrote:Back in the old days, I believe that warranted that user being blacklisted from being allowed to host servers, but not actually being masterbanned from the game entirely.
Yeah! This is what I would like.

Post Reply