Player Reports: 'Do not request log checks'

[Jonas]

Honestly, i don't think that they should just say "You can see logs that he did this", and having no evidence, that's what i'm against.

If there is solid evidence i usually check logs for confirmation, i belive many other staff members do aswell, but i don't think it should be allowed to just "request" a log check, it will be checked if needed by any staffmembers.

[DVN]

Honestly, i don't think that they should just say "You can see logs that he did this", and having no evidence, that's what i'm against.

If there is solid evidence i usually check logs for confirmation, i belive many other staff members do aswell, but i don't think it should be allowed to just "request" a log check, it will be checked if needed by any staffmembers.

I understand what you mean, but it all fairness this is why we're saying there's a much bigger staff team even since this was originally suggested making it somewhat easier to run through reports and put more time into a case. Sometimes we can't all record footage or grab screenshots of things like CDM etc. where they become too complex, but are easily spotted within the logs.

[King Kickass]

I don't understand the problem here the logs should always be checked regardless of if anyone asks, obviously the logs will only be checked by the staff that is reviewing the case. I'm sure it's a big pain in the ass scrolling down but it's all a days work for an admin or mod.

[Prompt]

Should be case for actually reasonably serious cases (scamming, abuse of commands, etc...)

[god]

Should be case for actually reasonably serious cases (scamming, abuse of commands, etc...)

For starters you wouldn't request to check logs for the sake of checking logs lol

But yeah you should have perfect reasons for checking logs. Doesn't always have to be serious cases either.

And I don't think evidence is always needed. Logs should always be checked if someone has a valid reason. For example if someone claims I raided for invalid reasons however I smashed contraband so it was valid reason to raid. Logs could back me up. I think logs should always be checked because I think it is the biggest peice of evidence in certain scenarios.

[Prompt]

It'd be a waste of time if admins looked through logs for every PR however

[Random]

Depends on the scenario, really. If someone is breaking FearRP for instance, evidence should be provided. However, if someone is to mass CDM, but they are uncertain on who was driving, then yes. Logs should/could be checked to make sure.

I don't feel like people should post a PR with text only though. Somewhat evidence should be required.

[Haarek]

It is alright if the reporting player has screenshots or a good explanation.
However if it just "Check logs, he did it." you can't really operate on the logs either because the admin can't get any true/useful information out of it. 
There needs to be a combination between evidence and log checking if the logs is going to be used. If the admin only has the logs to base his verdict on there's a big chance of getting it wrong. The logs should only be used if the user has a proper explanation or evidence so the admin can match it up with the log.

[DVN]

It is alright if the reporting player has screenshots or a good explanation.
However if it just "Check logs, he did it." you can't really operate on the logs either because the admin can't get any true/useful information out of it. 
There needs to be a combination between evidence and log checking if the logs is going to be used. If the admin only has the logs to base his verdict on there's a big chance of getting it wrong. The logs should only be used if the user has a proper explanation or evidence so the admin can match it up with the log.

That just means the admin is going to access the logs to verify the proof anyway, because the logs will clarify for sure and prove the evidence is right. All I'm saying is imagine the below scenario:

I and 3 other users get CDM'd by a new player in an Ambulance. I explain in full providing the Ambulance drivers Steam ID, Steam name & In-game name/ID. I provide the time that it happened and maybe a screenshot of me and other bodies on the floor. If I requested a staff member to check the logs at this time he would easily be able to find the user that was driving the Ambulance from the information I have provided, even though I didn't get a definitive recording of him CDM'ing us.

Does that sort of clear it up a bit better for everyone? Last thing I want to see is a report description saying "Check logs at about 2am yesterday please".

[Woods3yy]

It is alright if the reporting player has screenshots or a good explanation.
However if it just "Check logs, he did it." you can't really operate on the logs either because the admin can't get any true/useful information out of it. 
There needs to be a combination between evidence and log checking if the logs is going to be used. If the admin only has the logs to base his verdict on there's a big chance of getting it wrong. The logs should only be used if the user has a proper explanation or evidence so the admin can match it up with the log.

That just means the admin is going to access the logs to verify the proof anyway, because the logs will clarify for sure and prove the evidence is right. All I'm saying is imagine the below scenario:

I and 3 other users get CDM'd by a new player in an Ambulance. I explain in full providing the Ambulance drivers Steam ID, Steam name & In-game name/ID. I provide the time that it happened and maybe a screenshot of me and other bodies on the floor. If I requested a staff member to check the logs at this time he would easily be able to find the user that was driving the Ambulance from the information I have provided, even though I didn't get a definitive recording of him CDM'ing us.

Does that sort of clear it up a bit better for everyone? Last thing I want to see is a report description saying "Check logs at about 2am yesterday please".

Couldn't sum it up better myself.