Many times now I have been rdmed and the rdmer behind it gets away with it simply because the mod says "Its beyond my power because its a word vs word situation." At first when I heard the rule I thought to myself, "man thats a good rule i hope they keep it!" Until people started to use it as a loophole to get away with everything wrong they did. Many players have been victim to this and you want me to stop playing the game so i can sit in spectate, record every match they play and HOPEFULLY catch them in the act of loopholing? Doesnt that take away from the fun were supposed to be having? My suggestion for that rule is instead of shrugging it off and saying "Oh word vs word situation sorry bro!" we should take an extra step and see if others witnessed said rdm that the person is testifying against to try and loophole their way out and have more then just two voices against it. That way everyone is happy, they can keep playing the game without having to stop and record, and the mods have a more peaceful way of settling things instead of trying to defend their stupid Word vs Word rule.
The staff actually do this, but again, we cannot take one side's word over another unless they actually have physical video evidence to disprove the other side. The problem is that because of this, not everyone will be punished for what happened. This is also why loopholing punishments are a lot more severe than the standard punishments. Because those players are trying to sidestep the rules for their own benefits.
The problem with this is you are suggesting to instead of just taking into account the words of both the victim and reported player but the testimonies of the surrounding players. The reason it is word vs word is because everyones word is equal, meaning that unless other evidence(mainly video) is provided there is nothing that can be done otherwise it would be biased.
I'd like to note that you do not have to hop in spectate to use the record command, you can record yourself and play normally which is what I was suggesting to you in shoutbox. With that you would at least have evidence of loophole trolling some of the time in the case of people saying "oh he T baited me" and possibly proof that you did not walk past any unidentified bodies.
Another thing, if I may add, is that WE are supposed to record evidence against other players? Arent the players there to have fun, while the Mods should be doing the recording and evidence taking? Just saying..
All players are allowed to have their fun, but if these players want anything done about certain situations, the least they can do is gather the proper evidence to support their side.
This is what the staff is trying to get through to you when they say "It is word versus word". They are not trying to offend you or cast a shade of doubt on your integrity. Staff are NOT allowed in ANY circumstances to be biased. There has been cases where they have been demoted for that very reason. I apologize that you feel attacked and that this is unfair, however it is actually very efficient. If we believed eye witnesses, that would be improper as we would be holding a bias towards those who "Claim" to have seen something. Let's make an example of this that is so clear you will be fully satisfied. I tried doing a demonstration with @Fiefoe and @DocturBrian but that went south real quick-like, so I'll be verbal about this, but still use their names purely as an example. Map is Minecraft_b5. We are all in front of the lighthouse. I see Fiefoe shooting DocturBrian, can I kill Fiefoe? Yes! However, what if Fiefoe was shooting DocturBrian because Brian originally threw a prop at me but I, nor anyone else, noticed it? If mods checked the logs for that round, nothing would appear for this, that is true. However, Brian claims he merely picked up the prop and didn't fling it at anyone. Fiefoe claims he did. This is word versus word, like Smash said, you cannot prove either side without sufficient evidence, therefore falling back onto verbal testimonies of He-said/she-said. There is a solution to this, if Fiefoe or DocturBrian were simply recording their gameplay, with that evidence they could firmly defend their case. All it takes is simply: Typing "Record (name of recording)" in console. Typing "Stop" in console to end the recording. Typing "status" in console to get the steamid of suspect. Boom, three easy steps to convict someone in a Word versus word situation. More: http://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/how-to-properly-obtain-proof-against-rule-breakers-abusers.2268/ However, if a moderator or admin is online and there was no physical evidence, all Brian would do to prevent this from happening again is ask the staff online at the time to watch Fiefoe more closely for loopholling. If the moderator or admin refuses to acknowledge this statement and doesn't watch them, you can simply message staff above that staff with evidence against that staff. For example, if I ask @Ascended to watch @Kenny for loopholling, and @Ascended does not reply after I have asked him several times in @chat and regular chat, then I would gather evidence of me asking him with no reply and report him to @irritatingness, same thing if he says he will but ends up just playing the whole time instead of following the person around/ spectating them. Simply put: If staff not online- Use 3 easy steps to record and gather evidence. Follow guide for more help. If staff online, ask them to watch the person closely. Also, it is nice to admit that perhaps, like in the theoretical situation above, maybe something happened without your knowing, like I didn't know Brian had tried to prop kill me so I killed Fiefoe. Remember that rarely do you know the entire situation why someone killed you. For example, whenever I used to train new mods, for example @Andyy, they always think something happened for a specific reason and it's adorable. Situation: Someone throws an incend and hurts a traitor after a traitor just finished killing someone. Me: "Andyy, why don't you report that incend damage and ask the gentleman why he fried the guy to death?" Andyy: "Oh Rek, he killed him because he was a traitor who just killed someone." Me: "Now now Andyy, you don't KNOW that for a fact, report it anyways!" Andyy: *Reports it* Report: "Why did you throw that incend?" Response: "DANK MEMES ROAST STEAL BEEMS AND MY FRIEND ON SKYPE SAID TO THROW IT RANDOMLY LOL" *Note: something along these lines has happened multiple times while I was training with people, I'm not picking on Andyy in particular, just couldn't remember who this happened with and he was the last person I trained.* "You don't know everything that happens in-game of SeriousGmod, so take everything that happens with a grain of salt." - Abraham Lincoln.
I understand that Exile. I understand what your getting at. But think about this dude. When the entire server confirms that the reports they made against Third-Eye are in fact true, (15-20 people estimated) and yet its STILL word vs word seems a little silly and I'm sorry but Guilty really shouldve included that in his report to the Admins that he asked about my slays when I "revenge rdmed." Does that make any sense at all? To still implement your rule when 15-20 people are saying that the truth is Third-Eye had rdmed and can confirm it without the "Video evidence?" But whatever. Your report was Liked, Funny, AND the Winner while my responses were simply Dumb. Thanks guys. Way to make your community welcome. Real mature and proper.
I'm sorry if you feel like we, the community, is acting towards hostile towards you. The SGMod staff cannot go on essentially votes from the majority of the server if someone was RDM'd or not. Having this system implemented will only always favor one side of the story even if the players of the server know the full story of both parties. There's too many variables to this like: What if someone just says yes that it was/wasn't RDM because they hated the RDMer or victim? What if some players wanted to troll the staff and give false stories? What if the victim/RDMer has friends that'll only back them up? The current system that's in place treats every player equally. It's not perfect but it is the best. If a player is found exploiting the loopholes of the system will be dealt with severely as others pointed out here.
I dunno if it's just me, but I take great joy in fucking loopholers over after I learn that they are indeed loopholing due to an invalid report. Besides, all you really do when you learn of this is just start recording a demo at the start of the round, and then just safely follow them around while playing the game when it comes to you VIA Ts going nuts. The demo recording can't fuck you over... I mean it's a 1-2 second lag and boom your recording.
Staff aren't there to be your god damn slave, they are allowed to have fun too, your comment is pig ignorant frankly.
Building on the quote @Carned used, if a sever has 20+ or even 5+ people paying, how do you expect 1 mod, who is also expected to be doing reports, to record everyone's point of view? As a mod I would record but if I'm watching one person I suspect of loopholing another situation can happen on another side of the map and I won't know about it until the report comes in. As far as multiple people saying someone is rdming, there are plenty of times most of the server has been wrong about someone rdming. Those witness to it don't fully understand the rules or why they were killed, and others then join in because of mob mentality. There are very rare cases where multiple words are used as evidence because the staff not using multiple words keeps people from ganging up on 1 person who may have been following the rules to begin with
What if something like this happens. Player A is walking along, minding his own business; he isn't doing anything traitorous, and hasn't done anything that warrants him being killed the whole round. Player B, who is innocent, then comes along and tries to propkill player A for no reason whatsover. Player A fires upon Player B, killing him for trying to propkill him. Player B then reports Player A for RDM, despite having a completely valid reason to kill him. Now, since the attempt to propkill doesn't show up well in logs, it's a word vs. word situation. Player A claims that Player B tried to propkill him and warranted a fair kill, while Player B claims that didn't happen and that it was RDM. Since neither side was recording in this case, it would be accepted as a word vs. word situation, and no punishment would be issued upon Player A. But say we implemented your system, and allowed the testimonies of other players to influence a moderator's decision/verdict. It turns out that Player B is actually on with a group of his friends, who all have the intention of causing mischief and break the rules. Player B then tells his friends, C, D, E and F to all back up his story. Those four players then tell the moderator that they did indeed witness the situation, that Player B never tried to propkill Player A, and that player A RDMed Player B. Since the moderator has no good way to tell whether or not the group is lying or genuinely telling the truth regarding the interaction between Player A and Player B, who are they to believe? We're honestly right back at square one here; the group could just as easily be lying to protect their friend or cause mischief and get an unwarranted slay on the server. There's just too many ways to loophole and abuse a system like this. Group trolls, or even casual friends on the server, can abuse the kind of system you've suggested to get out of slays, or get someone slayed that doesn't deserve one. If someone is really loopholing constantly enough to cause a problem, the staff will catch on soon enough and investigate themselves. You can obviously help out by gathering evidence and reporting the players, but even letting the staff member know that they might be loopholing can be helpful. Because even if that player won't be slain for loopholing on your report, tipping a staff member off will allow them to investigate the player, and catch them in the act of it. Back onto the suggestion, though: I just don't think it's going to work out the way that you'd like it to if it was implemented. There's to many ways to abuse it, and it can create a different type of loopholing that we don't really need on the server.
