(iReaper) Benihime STEAM_0:0:50856523 10-02-13

[Nemesis]

cyber and i aren't altering any rules. we're operating off of precedent. ITB's perma ban on milky set this precedent, that admission of guilt is enough for a perma ban. no rule states that demos must be posted, it's traditional but some cases have extenuating circumstances and those need to be considered. also from zero's post on the links to demos page, "These demos are acceptable as evidence for reporting admin abuse and hackers." the demos are acceptable, not mandatory. there is no rule being changed, no rule being ignored, no rule being created by any of this.

there's also this thread ( http://www.ibisgaming.com/forums/sho...light=tehfudge ) in which it seems to me the ban was made not after watching a demo (as no ULA posted) but from the admittance that he was bhop scripting. and that's not even walls, just a bhop script. fudge admitted to it, and maynard (another clan member) banned him. if the demo i provided was watched and that's why the user was banned, then this particular case can be ignored but it appears to me that maynard banned solely off the admittance of bhop scripting.

"YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO." Zero's exact words from the "how to post a ban" in the Admin perma-ban request section. And if this is the case I can post a steam chat message that says anything from anyone, and they will immediately be banned without question, as the rules apply to everyone equally, or do they not?

[brett friggin favre]

"YOU MUST ATTACH a DEMO." Zero's exact words from the "how to post a ban" in the Admin perma-ban request section. And if this is the case I can post a steam chat message that says anything from anyone, and they will immediately be banned without question, as the rules apply to everyone equally, or do they not?

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.

[Nemesis]

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.

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.

[acolyte_to_jippity]

sadly, i'm going to have to agree w/ nem on this one, though i do think benihime should be immediately perma banned, i do not think that it is a good idea to do so based soley on a steam conversation with cyber. i'm not saying cyber is lieing, far from it. i fully belive him, and i fully believe benihime did in fact admit to hacking on ibis servers. BUT...if we let this happen now, it'll allow people an easy way to ban others "for cause" by just messing w/ their names and screenshotting "admittance" convos...yet i still want this cunt banned.

:sigh: there is no point in anyone else posting here. this is soley for zero and clan to decide.

[brett friggin favre]

sadly, i'm going to have to agree w/ nem on this one, though i do think benihime should be immediately perma banned, i do not think that it is a good idea to do so based soley on a steam conversation with cyber. i'm not saying cyber is lieing, far from it. i fully belive him, and i fully believe benihime did in fact admit to hacking on ibis servers. BUT...if we let this happen now, it'll allow people an easy way to ban others "for cause" by just messing w/ their names and screenshotting "admittance" convos...yet i still want this cunt banned.

:sigh: there is no point in anyone else posting here. this is soley for zero and clan to decide.

except to say this: don't turn this into a snowball fallacy. this isn't some new thing, this is based off precedent. it's been done before, and there's been no rash of bans made off of steam conversations.

[Nemesis]

except to say this: don't turn this into a snowball fallacy. this isn't some new thing, this is based off precedent. it's been done before, and there's been no rash of bans made off of steam conversations.

That's not what a snowball fallacy is. Snowball fallacy claims that, if you take one step in a certain direction, you will get yourself into a series of sticky situations from which you will be unable to extricate yourself. You take one step onto the slippery slope and you'll end up falling all the way down. This fallacy ignores treats all similar situations the same and fails to note that we are free to assess and judge each particular situation independently, if we so choose Basically what you're doing.

What you're doing is creating case law, which is a real thing and which is fine, if it can be even and equally applied to all situations. What I'm trying to show you is that if it is ok this time, it will be ok for all times, regardless of who is bringing it forward, unless you can get someone higher up to come out and say that the rules only apply to specific people, or to specific people more than others.

If you're saying that each situation show be regarded by who is presenting it rather than what is provided, please delete this thread(http://www.ibisgaming.com/forums/sho...rver-Rules-1.7) as it no longer means anything and should not be used to confuse new admins. Also consider changing the admin agreement to "It doesn't matter what you say, only who you are." This should help with further disagreements.

[Erdenay]

Just throw in one thing - these 2 people have already been banned for level farming. I'd say their credibility is next to none. Add this along with the fact that numerous admins have been on their tail for a while now with the evidence here. Just putting it out there.