Forum

Spanky, Pit, Sergio & Me are in favor of the "non hard proof bans" 
idk bout Utroda neither BB. 

Spanky hasn't said anything.

Spanky hasn't said anything.

Yea. I'm mostly mixed on the subject. On one hand I want to be fair and only ban with proof and give second chances. On the other hand... well... people would call me the 2nd Hitler.

There is too much room for error. Without proof it's your word against the person who is banned. And when you have multiple people in a thread backing up the banned user while you're the only one saying he's hacking, it really ruins your credibility. It shouldn't be like that, that should never happen.

I only focus on suspicious stuff that comes across my way.

I agree with this because there is never smoke without a fire somewhere.
Same thing for the cops, they only go after suspicious people, not the ones living a normal life.

And when you have multiple people in a thread backing up the banned user while you're the only one saying he's hacking, it really ruins your credibility.

Those backers can support whoever they want, they still never played on the accused guy's PC.
Therefore it's irrelevant. The Anti-cheat authority must not bend under the pressure of some yelling crowd.

Nevertheless, i agree with Killa that some videotaped proof should be provided, but...
somehow difficult to achieve. How should it be done ? Give an appointment to the alleged
cheater so we can monitor him ? no. So it would take time to do this in a discrete manner,
look for the guy in the right place at the right time etc...

Those backers can support whoever they want, they still never played on the accused guy's PC.
Therefore it's irrelevant. The Anti-cheat authority must not bend under the pressure of some yelling crowd.

You're missing the point. Without proof it's his word against the hacker's. That's dead even. When you have a bunch of other people saying he isn't cheating, that tips it in the banned users favor. That should never happen.

Just because we can't detect every hack doesn't mean we need to overcompensate and ban without evidence.

See... you are missing the point, coz this is EXACTLY the weakness that cheaters are trying to exploit,
like "I cheat, u don't have proof, booooo, fuck you, i keep on playin"... i say no.

Your point would make sense if we were only banning cheaters without proof. There is just too much room for legit players to get banned. Banning without evidence is an awful idea.

Pit, you can try to rule AA like a dictator, but you can't stop people from leaving. Keep using rules that could potentially punish legit players and you'll have nobody left to play the game.

Your point would make sense if we were only banning cheaters without proof. There is just too much room for legit players to get banned. Banning without evidence is an awful idea.

Pit, you can try to rule AA like a dictator, but you can't stop people from leaving. Keep punishing legit players and you'll have nobody left to play the game.

Every war has its own little % of collateral damage, wouldn't u agree ?
Important is that this war is worth to be fought. And it is. For the sake of the survival of this game.
People will be thankful once the ship has been cleaned from all the rats believe me.

And don't worry about people leaving, they're all addicted 

This isn't war, it's a fucking video game. Banning legit players will just cause outrage and everyone will quit.

Come on, name just one known respected nice old player which banning would have sparked
mass indignation across the community ? There isn't