Well, i just wondered... reading aka's post
Whenever someone gets banned they come and whine and claim admins are oh-so-unjust, so why don't we just leave the ban to the community?
I think it's small and mature (rofl) enough for such a thing so here's my suggestion:
Why don't we, whenever there's no clear evidence that a person is cheating/not cheating, make a poll about it? Wouldn't that be the easiest thing to do? In this case the community gets a saying in this, and i figured a 70+% "HE HAXX!" resulting in a ban would be fair.
This way, whenever someone gets banned, whether it's really for cheats or he's just a plain moron whom people hate and want off the stage, he's getting banned for a just reason: improving the gaming-experience for 70% of the scene, which can only be a nice thing?
ps. I'd vote aka unbanned
Cheating/Not Cheating
Moderator: Moderators
Cheating/Not Cheating
A good discussion is like a miniskirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to pertain interest
//Splinter
//Splinter
bad idea 
if we were to ban ppl just for being serious loudmouths, then the scene would die rather soon 
and voting would hardly help when it comes to cheating, as most ppl would vote to ban aka, just since he is aka no matter if he cheats or not.
(i have no opinion in the "aka-case", i doubt that he would cheat.. but i havent seen any of the demos)
if we were to ban ppl just for being serious loudmouths, then the scene would die rather soon and voting would hardly help when it comes to cheating, as most ppl would vote to ban aka, just since he is aka
no matter if he cheats or not.(i have no opinion in the "aka-case", i doubt that he would cheat.. but i havent seen any of the demos)
whine...<br />
"på kvällarna förvandlas den spenslige solidas till....... STÅL-TIRRE!" - minch<br />
"i hoped i cud get a chance in iN when i saw even solidas cud do it " - Snigge/2fast4j00<br />
"iN minus sajh would be a nice clan and way better, but i would never ever stand playing with such an annoying player, lucky me that i didnt get a try in iN" - Romo
" it seems he is a "rich" mans child with to much attitude, he's like the man version of Paris Hilton... such a jerk" - Romo
"på kvällarna förvandlas den spenslige solidas till....... STÅL-TIRRE!" - minch<br />
"i hoped i cud get a chance in iN when i saw even solidas cud do it " - Snigge/2fast4j00<br />
"iN minus sajh would be a nice clan and way better, but i would never ever stand playing with such an annoying player, lucky me that i didnt get a try in iN" - Romo
" it seems he is a "rich" mans child with to much attitude, he's like the man version of Paris Hilton... such a jerk" - Romo
You've got all the right in the world to disagree, dear!sajh wrote:bad idea
But I mean, honestly, how many would you want off the scene so badly you'd actually make it happen?
I can't even mention one, I think. And god I hope more than 70% of the stage feels the way I do!
ps: i forgot! it's not like every single person can make a poll, it was thought for exceptional cases (based on an admin suspecting a h4xx), which happen to cause a lot of fuzz. I've only seen two cases matching this so far tbh.
A good discussion is like a miniskirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to pertain interest
//Splinter
//Splinter
-
Flunx
- feels some chest pain
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 10:35 am
- In-game Name: iN Flunx
- Location: Trondheim
- Location: no
I think it's good as it is. In cases like this the demos or whatever "proof" is showed to several admins and discussed internally if it's a cheater or not.
I don't think they've judged wrong a single time from what I've seen. Also in most cases you get a warning first, which I think is awfully nice of them.
I don't think they've judged wrong a single time from what I've seen. Also in most cases you get a warning first, which I think is awfully nice of them.
I like to play games, not watch them
It's all about who knows who when it comes to accusations and bans, and it's always been like that. If I had a server I'd ban ppl cause I don't like them, and I would tell them why also. I would ban ppl when I think they are cheating, without any proof or whatsoever. :P Your server, your rules. Thats why I think the united aq2daddys server-rules stinks so bad. I would just call them a group of online-friends, such as any clan or whatever. Ppl that backs up oneanother when it comes to suspisions, accusations, and 'proven' guilty, just like me in the aka-case - I havent even bothered to watch the demos :P Still on his side.
Anyway, about the poll - No! That would just tempt the weakminded into voting 'cheat' cause of some old <insert the lamest reason you can come up with>
Anyway, about the poll - No! That would just tempt the weakminded into voting 'cheat' cause of some old <insert the lamest reason you can come up with>
Last edited by Samislide on Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Alright, given Devirus' argument concerning weakminded just voting "BAN PLZ!" cuz they saw a lame flame of the defendant, i rest my case.
(lol, been watching too many lawyer-shows!)
.... Nevermind
(lol, been watching too many lawyer-shows!)
.... Nevermind
A good discussion is like a miniskirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to pertain interest
//Splinter
//Splinter
I really don't think it's a good idea to leave it to the general public. There are far too many idiots whos opinions shouldn't count. If you left it to the select few, who would elect those people? Even then, that idea would have far too much politics for a 10 year old internet game.
I don't give a shit.
I agree with Dev on this topic, and Dev also demonstrates why this is a bad idea ;). As he says, he hasn't checked the evidence, but still assumes a player is innocent.
As Clown is saying, we need to find a solution that isn't too much politics and work.
Dev: When it comes to how AQ2Admins works I think you are absolutely right. However AQ2Admins started out as a supplement to the casual admin work and thus had soft rules. Now we see a lot of servers admined solely through AQ2admins and the result is bad public play.
The problem is somewhat related to overly kind admins who realizes that a ban over several popular servers is a lot more serious than a ban from his/her own server. I think it would be an interesting debate for the community aswell as internally by the admins how things ought to be.
As Clown is saying, we need to find a solution that isn't too much politics and work.
Dev: When it comes to how AQ2Admins works I think you are absolutely right. However AQ2Admins started out as a supplement to the casual admin work and thus had soft rules. Now we see a lot of servers admined solely through AQ2admins and the result is bad public play.
The problem is somewhat related to overly kind admins who realizes that a ban over several popular servers is a lot more serious than a ban from his/her own server. I think it would be an interesting debate for the community aswell as internally by the admins how things ought to be.
-
IBA
- didn't throw its grenade far enough
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 7:28 am
- Location: de
- Contact:
not really more to say, but even in AQ2ADMINS are some guys which dont have a clue.Clown wrote:I really don't think it's a good idea to leave it to the general public. There are far too many idiots whos opinions shouldn't count. If you left it to the select few, who would elect those people? Even then, that idea would have far too much politics for a 10 year old internet game.
atleast rcon increases ur online penis! hf
#quadaver || TEAMS !"§ || http://www.quadaver.de
The thought the AQ2 Admins were meant to be the 'government' by default anyway. They just don't seem to do very much. I guess it's like the real world politics. I don't pay too much attention to what they do because it doesn't affect me. I hardly play on publics, and more often than not, I'm playing with people I know who don't cheat.
I don't give a shit.