On base finding methods

[KoriJenkins]

Yukarion, if you were active on the server discord, it is clear the absolute devastation upon my own character that Dakka's leaks have caused, and again people are calling for my ban despite it being unwarranted. Burger_Malone has threatened to defile 'every build I have' and Lord1 has sworn to commit himself to making me never have fun again on the server. This is all because an admin broke the rules. Do something about it.

AntHand, your actions caused devastation upon your character. You're the equivalent of a captured robber being mad at a witness for testifying against you even though you were caught on camera.

You aren't entitled to respect or fondness. I didn't get on the boards and cry to Yukar every time Dakka slandered me in chat because I didn't care. If you truly believe you did nothing wrong, you wouldn't care so much about whatever DakkaDok said about you.

You're essentially arguing that DakkaDok should be banned for being mean to you, when the meanness comes entirely as a result of your own actions. Had you simply not exploited, you wouldn't be in this situation. This is of your own making, and why you fail to understand that I do not know.

Restating public information is not admin abuse.

When it comes to talking to the admins about mechanics and interpretations of the rules, it is imperative that confidentiality be maintained at all times, not only because said information could not have been obtained without the use of an admin position, but also because admins must appear to be trustworthy to effectively run a server. Your analogy to a bank robbing is flawed in this case - this situation is more along the lines of a lawyer violating client confidentiality.

Secondly, I do not care if 'admins mean'. If I did, I would have complained on the forums months ago (My conversations with Dakka often became heated). The same goes for respect and fondness - I am very aware that players pushing the boundaries can be extremely annoying, especially if the admin is already growing out of touch with the server. If you can't see the difference between an abuse of admin power and 'being mean', either you are arguing in bad faith, or are simply not worth talking to.

To address your last point, you are correct: stating public information does not qualify as admin abuse. However at no point in time did I leave any physical or verbal evidence either in game or on the discord linking me to the wolf method. Even when Burger Malone found the remnants of one of my tracking stations, he was unable to find enough conclusive evidence to either figure out what it was, or to confirm I was behind it. One hundred percent of public awareness either came from Yukarion's public plugin updates (and yes, I do not believe those should have been public either), and from DakkaDok. At the time of the leaks, even clipchip knew this information wasn't public; he says it in the evidence sheet. So yes, you are right that public information is public information, but I do not believe that is relevant here.


PS:
I think that's a great idea Burger. A consistent and useable set of rules would be wonderful, I personally hate that I have to clarify things with the admins now, because the current /rules are horrible indicators of what is and isn't allowed. Clearly the admins hate listening to my questions too, so the only reasons I could see for the lack of change is either laziness or desire for direct control.

To start with the obvious, DakkaDok is not your lawyer or anything close to it. The admins are, in every case, your prosecutor. You're your own public defender.

Adding on to what Burger just said, people knew you were the one who did the exploit. You left a lot of physical evidence behind. (Which Burger found) You also fall victim to circumstantial evidence that links you to it. (Which clipchip deduced)

You want to talk about bad faith arguments? Okay. A bad faith argument would be trying to claim this is something other than DakkaDok discussing what you did with clipchip, who already knew what you did. The closest thing you can get to to a genuine "admin abuse" claim is Dakka saying you were told you'd be banned if you did it again, but that's not admin abuse because it's apparently not even true.

You intentionally misrepresented a glitch as an "intended mechanic" to Yukarion, and it's in his own chat logs. It is most definitely an intended mechanic for pets to follow their owner, but it's absolutely fucking asinine to suggest that it's intended for animals to face their owner who is thousands of in-game kilometers away from them. You know that, and arguing the opposite is ridiculous.

As I've said, DakkaDok is irrelevant in this. You trying to deflect to him is an obvious effort to take the heat off yourself. Had you not done what you did, had you not intentionally skirted the rules TWICE you wouldn't be facing criticism. It doesn't help that your goals with this exploit were to negatively impact other players on the server.

This is a situation entirely of your own making. Stop trying to pin it on DakkaDok. If you're mad at him, you're free to take it out on him in-game in some capacity. Making weak ass "admin abuse" claims won't do anything but make you look like more of a fool.

(Btw, this isn't admin abuse and even if it was, it's nowhere near his worst example of it. He routinely leaked the location of TheOnlySlash during the First Siege, which allowed people to show up and disrupt him. And THAT'S not even the worst example of it. Point is, DakkaDok hasn't harmed you. Reputation isn't physical.)

[Anthand]

Alright well as I said previously, you don't seem to understand to difference between being mean and abuse, which means that it isn't really worth continuing to argue. I do not expect DakkaDok to be banned as Yukarion is unwilling to hold older players accountable. I also find it interesting that he demands I be *more* open with exploits despite my previous openness leading to this complete shitstorm. If Slash's location was leaked by DakkaDok, I sympathize with you and Slash. I am aware of DakkaDok's other abuses as well (Dakka lightning, etc), and maybe this isn't the absolute worst thing he's done. Anyways, I'm dipping from this conversation. I still believe DakkaDok *should* be banned, and you still believe he shouldn't. It doesn't appear that anything will change regardless of this, so I guess we'll both have to take what we believe to be justice into our own hands, not Yukar's. Farewell!

[Azdin]

I haven’t followed any of this until now when I read this thread. I don’t think dakka needs to feel bad about anything here. I think yukar was wrong to allow the exploit. I think anthand clearly intends to cheat.

I want to know if someone has your map art and you’re standing on the map’s location so your green dot shows up on the map, are your coordinates sent to that player’s client? If not what was yukar referring to? Also if your put he map under glass and make it uneditable does your dot not show up and thus there is no risk?

what’s this tnt arrow exploit?

How do you make someone’s pet stand up?

what’s this about dakka having revealed slash’s location?

[Burger]

@Azdin As far as I'm aware there is no method to track you based on map arts or whatever, and I *think* that would be illegal now anyway (but Yukar is being intentionally unclear and AntHand seems able to get away with anything so who knows). I'm not sure on the details of maps or TNT/arrow exploits but:
>How do you make someone’s pet stand up?
I saw two ways: put them in a cart and put them in a water bubble column.

>what’s this about dakka having revealed slash’s location?
While Slash was lavacasting spawn at some point, Dakka would give away this fact in chat. Pretty harmless of course but an example of technically "admin abuse".

[DakkaDok]

Over years of spectating people on the server, I have at a few points accidentally revealed minor details that I shouldn't have in public chat. That is not admin abuse, but a normal amount of human error. At no point did I intentionally leak anything while I was admin. Nobody's perfect.

[Yukar9]

This is how we're going to handle asking for permission to do things in the future:

Admins should ask (and players should say)

• What they're planning to do
• What they've already done
• An explanation of what impacts the thing will have
• What other admins have said about the thing in the past

If one admin has said no to something, then another admin should explicitly say that they're overriding the other admin's no.

[Burger]

This is how we're going to handle asking for permission to do things in the future:

Admins should ask (and players should say)

• What they're planning to do
• What they've already done
• An explanation of what impacts the thing will have
• What other admins have said about the thing in the past

If one admin has said no to something, then another admin should explicitly say that they're overriding the other admin's no.

I've always trusted the admin's arbitrary powers because I believed they made sound decisions for the good of the server. So I was fine with rules being completely subjective. But the fact that AntHand came forward with an obviously unintended exploit which meant he could untraceably destroy every base anyone ever makes unless they literally purchase a new account - and the admins felt that was perfectly fine and repeatedly gave him the go-ahead to destroy several major bases - makes me question the admin's judgement.

The implication of this thread is that you'll probably be harsher and less permissive when it comes to new exploits, but nothing has actually changed. It's still entirely down to your judgement. This is why I want a new rule that draws a line in the sand and unambiguously bans any basefinding method beyond the few you mentioned in the original post. Otherwise, this will happen again.

[Yukar9]

I don't think it would make sense to add a rule #4. What you're proposing is effectively already the rules. I think what you're really asking for is to have a public list of allowed "exploits"?

[Burger]

I don't think it would make sense to add a rule #4. What you're proposing is effectively already the rules. I think what you're really asking for is to have a public list of allowed "exploits"?

Yes, that would work. Just some way to unambiguously rule out any exploits to prevent this from happening again, rather than continuing to leave it up to admin's discretion.

[Yukar9]

I'm not necessarily against that.

The idea behind keeping legit "exploits" secret is the same as the reason not to say how a base was found if it was found legit, that essentially admins shouldn't intervene if there wasn't cheating.

Making a public list would mean that someone couldn't use a new technique not on the list without having their method revealed, essentially admin intervention in the case where no rules were broken. While it would also prevent this scenario.