I was just browsing through some reports I hadnt read yet, and I came across a report that was 100% valid and should have been completed, except for it was turned down as invalid due to not enough evidence: https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-fox.48846/ The first video shows a clear aimbot/Aimtracking in action, Personally its a short video but there is no doubt about the guy in the recording is hacking. Yet it still got turned down as not enough evidence, which made me Question How much recording do you need for a hacking report? I mean it depends on how clear the hack is of course. But with a Hacking as clear as the above report, Im shocked that it didnt go through, so how much recording is needed for a aimbot that is as certain as this one?
Enough to be conclusive. You pretty much answered your own question towards the end there. As regards to that report, as a side note- Old Fox, which I can say with a fair amount of confidence wasn’t hacking, has the same type of movements at the start of his own video. I’m fairly convinced that guy is hacking as well as the movement is characteristic of a low FOV aimbot, but it just as well may not be. I personally would require just a slight bit more than that for a ban as well.
The report isnt against Old Fox, and I was always told if the person could tell who was spectating them and them saying it was enough. Has this changed since I left?
Well then I'm wondering what you think of this report I did a couple weeks ago https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-positivejojo.48750/ I submitted a 5 second clip and it was enough proof to conclude a hacking ban on the player.
I know, what I’m saying is he has the same movement of the person who is being reported. That’s enough at times- however it couldn’t be confirmed in this case that these people were actually spectating him.
Has anyone asked Jabba if he was spectating him at the time and Lawyer was obviously watching due to the fact he reported him.
Then why wouldnt he be banned due to spectate hack cause that should be enough even if the aimbot isnt? I know it seems like im being stubborn on this and I apologize if I come off rude but this just doesnt seem right to me.
Because we weren’t able to conclusively say, nor have the evidence that they were both indeed spectating him during the time that was said. We don’t ban without the proper evidence.
One instance on a video is hardly enough to be conclusive in the first place, not to mention in my experience that instance, while looking fishy, is certainly not conclusive. Garry's Mod has alot of weird issues when it comes to spectating and people have been unfairly banned due to that in the past, which is why staff are required to put extra effort into it determining acceptable evidence. I know it might suck, but all you can do is hope to get more evidence at a later date.
I dont think ol fox has such a shaky aim, I mean if you take around the 0.05 mark and repeats it over and over, the difference between this fox's aimbot and old fox's aim is very different, Like you see the whole screen shake 3-4 times in each direction in just a second. which I doubt is physical possible for a hands naural reflexes
If we are arguing the whole single shot thing isn't enough we need multiple shots arguement then why did this report become vaild against Black? All that was given was one shot. https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-black.48092/
Recordings and detailed evidence are the most important factor, but another variable is who the staff looking at the report / evidence is. Mods who aren't confident in banning off one clip are going to err on the side of caution. This can work both ways, because sometimes there's really not enough evidence; other times, the staff are worried about defending the ban. There are definitely some staff in the team who would have felt confident banning for that report, but the mod who handled that report either felt like it wasn't hacking or wasn't comfortable banning with only that as evidence. Even when other staff are involved in the decision, people may still disagree. The only person who can really jump in and say "Hold on, this verdict was wrong" would be the mod's admin or leads+. Your best bet, even if the evidence isn't tricky, is just having a couple go-to experienced staff members who are going to be 1) confident in whatever decision they reach and 2) know what to look for.
Without rereading everything to check for it- I don't believe I ever said multiple shots were needed. Just that what is provided needs to be conclusive. The video you just linked is about as clear as could be as an unnatural aim snap.
It simply has to be conclusive, I've seen a recent report that had like a 40 second video and I even said to myself, how is this enough evidence. But during that time the reported player basically did 4 180 degree headshot snaps. Other times you might need 10 mins of video to see slight walling evidence and a few flicks.
Were Jabba and Lawyer not recording at the time of being called out for spectating him? If not, then I would highly recommend that you obtain some form of shadowplay. In my time of being active on SGM I have been able to catch many people breaking the rules due to using shadowplay. If you had had shadowplay, we would likely have conclusive evidence to get this guy banned due to having spectator hacks. Just adding my 2¢.
On a side note: the scenario you speak of when it comes to the start of Old foxes video, that is a glitch that occurs when a player is moving in the general same direction as you and at the same time blocking you while you jump. It happens to me all the time and is so annoying, but my point is that that part is a glitch/bug and has nothing to do with the reported Fox's Aimbot o.o So not sure why you bring that up in this >.>
