Voice of community

[nightryder]

because its a unique situation

[P!nk]

Intent is irrelevant unless you can get evidence of the action. In all other cases, it definitely plays a role, multiple accounts being the most recent example.

[jitspoe]

To make your comparison more accurate:

If somebody speedhacked once on an empty server with the intent to try to help find a way to prevent it, then it's lilkely he would go unbanned.

[Spook]

The flaw in jitspoes story is that speedhacks are undetected anyways, so he'd get off with a clean slate no matter what..

[jitspoe]

The flaw in jitspoes story is that speedhacks are undetected anyways, so he'd get off with a clean slate no matter what..

As were the exploits at first, so it's really a pretty good comparison.  If somebody posted on the forums apologizing that he used a speedhack on an empty server, would he be banned?  Probably not.  Somebody would have to catch him in the action.

[Spook]

... but a server owner could notice his/her server getting shutdown after someone connected and research it further

[Edgecrusher]

It's also not possible to ban everyone involved.  There are likely a number of people who went undetected, and I don't feel it would be fair to punish the people who admitted and not the ones that didn't.  Also, somebody could just say "wait, I was just kidding - I never really crashed any servers," and there would be nothing to go on but his word.  So, basically, what we're left with is the cases where the perpetrator was logged and the admin has reported it.

Weird, why was Brock banned then for 32 since he addmited for doing it?

This has become a scharade, clearly there are some people with protection and cover. I'm not saying that sk89g or any other is a bad guy. Bud he did maked a mistake. So did the others. But to ban someone and others no? You can see why it looks biased. Did sk89g had authorization to crash that server? No.

Since there's no intention to be fair on this situation, I'll just lock this thread. I hoped something good will come out of this, the reason it's named Voice of community is to show that there are diferent opinions from those of committee who we elected, and also I wanted to be heard, because theres more than just Cola, Flame, Y2J... that are on the same opinion in this case. But I guess we were ignored. Well go further, protect any golden boys you wanna, it's obvious nothing can be done.

[jitspoe]

Brock was banned because XtremeBain detected him using the exploit.  There is intention to be fair, but what's considered fair is somewhat subjective.  While there may be more than you four who share an opinion, I do believe it is the minority, and your attempts to rally up support have caused a lot of unnecessary ruckus on the forums.  The committee is still evaluating the situation, and in a way the committee IS the voice of the community, but a small sample instead of a raging mob.

[Edgecrusher]

So you just admitted subjectivity on the matter.

Minority through history always made a diference. We were not stiring up anything, or rallying support, we were voicing our opinions. Some in diferent ways but that's the point.

Personally, I feel insulted on calling us raging mob. Those words were unneccesary, since I always try to maintain my objectivity.

[jitspoe]

That wasn't directed toward you specifically.  I was referring to the community as a whole and how differing opinions can quickly get out of hand.

What is considered "fair" (the length of the bans, etc.) is, and always will be, subjective.