Quote Originally Posted by brett friggin favre View Post
if you finish the sentence, "YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO. Not link to the ftp it must be attached." i take that to mean he's just reinforcing the fact that you can't link to the ftp for your demo. i take that to mean the assumption is that demos will be attached in all cases, and that those must be attached, and not just linked to, but as i said before some cases are different. regardless, there is precedent that admittance of hacking is enough for a perma ban.

and in regards to your comment about posting steam conversations, no. context must be considred, credibility must be established, and screenshot evidence is also a must.
Quote Originally Posted by brett friggin favre View Post
if you finish the sentence, "YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO. Not link to the ftp it must be attached." i take that to mean he's just reinforcing the fact that you can't link to the ftp for your demo. i take that to mean the assumption is that demos will be attached in all cases, and that those must be attached, and not just linked to, but as i said before some cases are different. regardless, there is precedent that admittance of hacking is enough for a perma ban.

and in regards to your comment about posting steam conversations, no. context must be considred, credibility must be established, and screenshot evidence is also a must.
The main problem I have with everything you just said is that each comment started with "I take that to mean..." which means that's not what it says, not rather what you think it says. The meaning can therefore change from person to person, according to you. If that's the care I can just as easily interpret Hacking as having to use it with malice and against another person, which is totally the opposite of what you said before, and since apparently the rules mean nothing now, I'm right. The whole point of having rules is that they are infallible and are worded and understood as to prevent any kind of misinterpretation.

Could you please give me the links to the past threads where this has happened? I'd like to take a look. As I said before, when I banned another admin for this I was told I had to have proof of him hacking in server.

Also there will be a screenshot tomorrow(or at some point) that reads the following:

Brett Favre|ibis.a: Hello everyone, I currently play on IBIS servers while using hacking programs for my own benefit. I also enjoy Carrottop's comedy.
Nemesis|ibis.a: That is a sad fact but thank you for telling us, we'll be in touch.

I could then post a thread here and provide the exact evidence that is given here, it will carry the exact same weight and fall under the exact same rule definition, by all accounts you should receive a ban within a day.

Do you see what I'm getting at? There has to be a standard. There has to be the same standards for all admins. You and Cyber should have to provide the exact same evidence as thecat to get a ban. Are you telling me that if tomorrow that little cunt comes in here with a screenshot or some random shit you're going to support a ban without any form of confirmation? I hope not.