Best Posts in Thread: KitPvP Dedicated Moderators

I was just on the other day, and there was an intense hacker in KitPVP. Three players, including me, modreqed it and waited. We didn't waste our time whining in global that there was a hacker. Lil Muunnkee-senpai came to the rescue and resolved it in about 5 minutes.

If you actually didn't spend time crying in chat and complaining about the hacker, the issue would've been resolved more quicker.

 

I think this idea alone would result in Helpers being too afraid to issue kitpvp/mini-game hacking bans from fear of backlash. It will help in terms of eliminating false bans, but seems to completely counter what this thread is hoping to accomplish: Catch hackers more quickly, and possibly more efficiently.

I'm not particularly a fan of the idea for KitPvP/Mini-Game only staff, however I've entertained the though before. My best advice if you're going to make a suggestion like this would be to have the ground work already outlined, similar to what Monkey was trying to say.

IF we have KitPvP/Mini-game only staff how would the system work? We need to provide checks and balances so they will not be able to abuse their powers, and if anyone does they would have to be aptly caught.

Usually the first step in creating a new position is to analyze the duties/tasks of the position and the requirements/qualifications to complete those tasks. Obviously the task is catch people with modified clients in KitPvP and each Mini-game server alike. They must be able to identify the difference types of modifications, and know the best way to prove proper evidence for that modification. The basic requirement I can think of (I'm not a pvp'er at all) is having the ability to record and upload videos in good quality. Also I don't know any qualifications, but everyone is welcome to add onto any of these aspects if they find anything that fits.

Now that we understand the job and the requirements we can move onto the first stage of the process to become any type of staff: Applications. How would an individual apply for this position? Perhaps they would be allowed to apply after filing X amount of accepted player reports related to hacking consecutively, with no reports being denied in between. Perhaps also they must be endorsed by a Mod+ prior to creating the application. The application would ask for the links to consecutive X amount of reports filed, and it would ask for the name of Mod+ that endorses them. The app may also ask similar questions to the current Helper/Arch/Tech/Media application systems. The application will be reviewed by all members of the Moderation staff, meaning Helper, Mod, Smod, Admin. This ensures that any mistakes/details will be detected and analyzed.

The interview process seems to be tricky. They'd definitely want to question the applicant with the basic Behavioral and Situational based questions to gauge a sense of character and what-not. But they may also set up a type of trial, perhaps staff can give the applicant videos to watch of previous hackers and have the applicant detect which hacks are being utilized or something along those lines: or similar to the trials for Architect and Tech.

Once staff they'll have to recieve training, they'll be taught how to use slack, navigate forums, handle a modreq from start to finish, and moderate chat. Handling modreq from start to finish is very broad that includes everything from how check modreqs, ban a player, file a report, etc. Someone suggested in this thread to use /kmodreq, I think that would fit well in our new hypothetical position, moderation staff will no longer see any kitpvp/minigame modreqs and Kitpvp staff won't see the other modreqs. This also ensures that moderation staff is no longer liable for anything related to kitpvp/minigames such as no liability for answering those modreqs, no liability for delays in answers from the kitpvp staff, and no liability for false bans from kitpvp staff.

The new staff will file reports in a new section of the Reported Ban forums. They will only be allowed to ban for 48 hours maximum and Mod+ would review the cases and approve them then issue whatever the appropriate ban length would be. Using @Deinen idea: If a Mod+ sees that a KitPvP staff issued a ban without sufficient evidence then that would count as a strike against the Kitpvp staff. 3 strikes and you're removed from the team, or perhaps you're on probation or something lol.

I may have missed some areas, but that's just an example of a better way to outline this type of suggestion, anyone is welcome to use it and perhaps build it into a better suggestion.

Edit* oh man there's some horrible grammar in here. Pls don't hate me, I'm using my phone xD <3

--- Double Post Merged, May 17, 2016, Original Post Date: May 17, 2016 ---

I think it's important that we separate the different types of false bans, for anyone that may not be aware. There is a Type 1 false ban where sufficient proof is collected, yet a player was not hacking. And there is a Type 2 false ban where a player may or may not have been hacking, but sufficient proof wasn't collected.

From my understanding the Type 1 ban happens more often than the Type 2 ban. Legendcaleb is the best example of this, I've even personally almost banned a few alts of his lol. Yet I'd rarely see the Type 2 ban, which admittedly does happen once in a while.

In response to your question @metr0n0me the determining factor for these two aspects seems to be the kitpvp policy itself. If a staff member followed the policy, and it was the policies fault that the Type 1 false ban occurred, then there shouldn't be repurcussions imo. Yet if the policy was not covered, and the Type 2 false ban occured, then it's determined from the lack of substance. Someone higher than the rank of staff that issued the ban, would have to determine whether or not the policy was followed.

If we want to prevent either of these false bans we'd have to alter the policy. In my opinion a lenient policy would lead to more Type 1 false bans, and a strict policy would lead to Type 2 false bans. However a lenient policy catches hackers more quickly, while a strict policy catches them more accurately. Any combinition of these that combines quickness with accuracy would be the total efficiency of the systen. In my opinion the current system (AFAIK) is very great in terms of efficiency, the staff get hackers as accurately and quickly as they can without much of a sacrifice to either attribute. I'm sure there's ways it can be improved and perhaps if OP incorporates how Kitpvp staff improve efficiency it would get more notice.

Again sorry for the grammar lol

 

This is generally a bad idea. It's unwise to split resources. What should happen is

1) All staff receive enough training to competently moderator kitPVP

2) False bans should be subject to consequences for staff that issued a false ban.

 

Not needed? My alts have been banned over 14 times in a single week due to false bans. Obviously the team doesn't know what they're doing

 

I just don't feel it's needed. Yeah it's annoying but I'm not sure what you want us to do - even if you apply you'll have other responsibilities as a helper.
Even if you were made into a kitpvp only staff, there is no way you can be on 24/7.
How many people could sign up for this job? How many are actually qualified? How many can represent the server correctly?
How many would even want to apply? What about how many people would want to apply that are on in the wee hours where there are less staff?
Yeah, it sucks that people can't be on all the time.
But then again I don't think enough people would be willing to do this job to justify it. I don't think enough people are going to want to spend 90% of their play time in kitpvp.
We can add the player to our watchlists but sometimes that's all we can do and I myself will apologize on behalf of the team for the issues related to this.
You can always, ALWAYS report on forums, poke a staff on TS, or anything. We may be able to get to it, and even if we don't and you have evidence they will still be banned.
Again, I apologize for the issues.
(Also is this a rant thread or a suggestion? If it's a suggestion I can move it to the suggestion thread and maybe it'll get more notice.)