Theos

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective. The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet @Fonza Please lock and move

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective. The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet @Fonza Please lock and move

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective. The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet @Fonza Please lock and move

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective. The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet @Fonza Please lock and move

"My apologies for the false ban detection by the Leys Anticheat. On 10/05/2021 I had turned off all detections that were showing potential of false detections, however, the creator (Leys) insisted I turn on a method that I raised concerns regarding, and it seemed to have gone on a rampage of banning everyone on the server. This situation will not arise again as that detection method was removed, and only the conservative (100% chance of positive detection) methods were left on the server - albeit less effective. The creator of the Anticheat has been notified, and all players affected have been unbanned." - Garnet @Fonza Please lock and move

+1 Could make some events very interesting. So long as the tablet is only added to the server, and not specific classes, so it can be given with /giveweapon for events, then yeh.

-1 I still have some minor concerns over your behaviour on the server, and the events you've suggested aren't too detailed. Whilst the events seem simplistic so explaining them to players would not be difficult, 2 of them just sound like a Raid with a side-objective of RP.

Description: Currently the Anti-Cheat Bot automatically bans people it interprets as cheating. In order for this system to work most effectively, it will require lengthy fine-tuning as stated by reviewers of the Bot and the Bot's own automatic message. As of right now, the Bot is not fine-tuned enough to the setup of the Server and it's addons for the Bot to be given permissions to immediately ban. The Bot should be setup in a manner where it flags up suspicious players, with the reasoning why the Bot has flagged them, and this information is provided to the Staff team (in some form or another) so they may spectate the Users flagged. This will mean that any further issues over the configuration of the Bot won't be as impactful as they are now and won't require Garnet's immediate attention. Reasoning: This allows Staff to be aided by the Bot, and act as a failsafe to prevent Cheating bans that are not warranted. Additional Information: -

In-game name: Theos SteamID (https://steamid.io/): STEAM_0:0:130146048 Staff members in-game name: LSAC Bot @Nutter Staff members SteamID (/id (name): - Date & Time of incident: 5th Oct. - 4:15am Timezone: BST Ban Reason: Cheating How long were you banned for?: Perm Proof of Ban: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/737510775119151115/894785490132303882/unknown.png What happened? (include any proof): Was just chilling on the server, shot at a few people, other than that did nothing notable Why should your ban be removed?: I maintain that I don't cheat. As stated by the Bot's ban message, it needs to be configured differently to every Server and it's not configured correctly to MRP to warrant it have the permissions to automatically ban.

@Nutter will need to deal with this appeal due to it being from the bot. He has stated on other appeals however that what you get banned for is not necessarily what you did the moment before a ban.

Personally I find the Kidnapping of AFK players incredibly cringe. It's sad to see it happen. In regard to a rule, the idea has been floated among staff too, but the concerns brought up would be determining if someone is actually AFK. We would need to define AFK in the context of being Kidnapped. The most logical form of this would be to state people who have their job set to 'AFK' and are not visibly contradicting that job title would be considered AFK, but this wouldn't apply to every scenario. People don't always set their job to AFK, also sometimes someone can go AFK moments before being Kidnapped and so it is unreasonable to assume the Kidnappers definitely knew. In my opinion, Kidnaps are a RP scenario, but if someone is AFK then there is no RP occurring so why bother.

Since this is a bot ban, as with the other appeals, @Nutter will need to deal with it

-1 My reasoning for this is I don't feel it's too necessary for base factions to have Defibs, and there's many situations where they can be abused. Defibs, in my opinion, should be considered a more specialised equipment, and therefore being exclusive to SOC (or donator classes) makes sense. I understand that base faction members may feel disadvantaged against SOC who do have Defibs, however base factions should be pushing with numbers, and people rarely Defib instead of engaging pushing enemies.

The issue right now is the bot really should be analysed in detail. I know there's a few ban appeals awaiting Garnet's response already, but reasons for kicks matter too. I say this because if a new player comes on to the server, and the bot is kicking people for reasons it shouldn't be, then the bot could harm the server's intake of players. I'm not sure on the removal, I personally haven't had issues with the bot and as far as I'm aware the issues are limited, but I think it's something that will need quite some time dedicated to in order to ensure it is set up right for the server.

+1 Firstly I'm glad you have edited your application since Salmon's comment, that's always a good sign that someone is willing to change their application based on the feedback they receive. Whilst we don't interact directly very often, your behaviour is not an issue from what I've seen and heard, and you deserve the chance to be a T. Mod, and hopefully take full advantage of that and become a valuable member of the Staff team.

A TLDR: MRP has 2 threads for Server rules, as well as unwritten rules, and one of the pages doesn't get updated. This doc is updated and includes unwritten rules. I'm obviously a +1 on this, combining all our rules onto a single forum post would be a lot more helpful for the community to understand the rules, and for staff to enforce the rules. Whilst there can be adjustments for layout of all the rules, for in a forum post, the content is all there. Providing it would be posted by an active Executive (so Garnet doesn't have to update it himself) this would be great for the long-term too.

Not debating that, but this is a competitive conflict where US can't automatically shoot an Afghan model, so Afghan could cap everywhere technically and not be killed if they kept keys out. That was not the situation before, because wartime allows shoot on sight

So technically could Afghan just get away with capping skirmish points, no weapons out, US can't kill them?

Should've put this in my earlier comment but how would the rewards be handed out? Would it need to be handed manually by a staff member, or automatically by the server for having an objective claimed at the end of the timer? The reason I'm asking if you suggested the usage of claims during Skirmish, but if, for example, a faction used a claim in Skirmish and incidentally capped the location would they also then get the reward at the end of the Skirmish?

How would this work on Taiga v3, which appears to be the next map coming and presumably isn't too far away. Referring to Skirmish objectives

This is from a suggestion that only changed RU to Afghan. Any changes or additions to US were not included, so if you want one you'll have to suggest it

I'm commenting before most votes so this comment could be irrelevant soon, but if the final vote is Omega, will there be a removal of the massive walls and arches? Personally that was the biggest issue, with the choke points. Also I'd recommend Construction be replaced with another objective, as it became just a massive headglitching sniper point, that made people's experiences in Mosque wars worse, both SOC and base faction

If this is a separate add-on that would need to be included to the server, and you have a specific one in mind, I'd suggest including a link to that add-on.

I'm going to address your confusion from the perspective of the current rules so as to clarify the confusion for yourself and anyone else in a similar position: During wartime, ROEs state you can shoot at anyone (except teammates technically) "Do not shoot at anyone unless it is in a war" Goats are able to be granted PTE, as GA I have told all my Officers I don't want anyone granting PTE to Goats, as it makes very little RP sense and the Goat class is a minge class The swep causes damage. Same rules regarding RDM and ROE apply to Goats as they do anyone on the server, and as Goats have no claimed areas (and cannot claim as no rank structure) there is no scenario the ROE permits them to do damage other than War. This is the first part of your paragraph that would enact an effective change to rules. As of this moment, you cannot sit on the head as there is no differentiation made to exclude Goats from this, but as Eli has already said, if this were to change it would need limitations. If you wanted to be realistic, adults don't ride goats because it would harm the goats I understand the desire to give Goats more freedom, as they are a minge class. However, I personally don't feel Goats should be excluded from (specific) server rules, as there is plenty of minging one can do on a Goat class at the moment anyway.

+1 You've been back for a couple weeks now, and you were a perfectly good staff member last time. Frankly don't see why you shouldn't get staff again, sure some people aren't sure about your activity lately but as a T. Mod you'd have to show activity anyway.