Posts: 3,420
Threads: 154
Likes Received: 1,672 in 931 posts
Likes Given: 2,813
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation:
91
Country:
03-14-2017, 06:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
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.
Posts: 5,189
Threads: 150
Likes Received: 3,654 in 1,774 posts
Likes Given: 2,731
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
105
Country:
03-14-2017, 07:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
(03-14-2017, 06:49 PM)Jonas Wrote: 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.
Posts: 1,893
Threads: 52
Likes Received: 1,056 in 623 posts
Likes Given: 203
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
20
Country:
03-14-2017, 08:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community. Edited 1 time in total.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
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.
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 51
Likes Received: 381 in 290 posts
Likes Given: 214
Joined: Mar 2016
Country:
03-14-2017, 08:42 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
Should be case for actually reasonably serious cases (scamming, abuse of commands, etc...)
Posts: 2,945
Threads: 267
Likes Received: 2,309 in 1,157 posts
Likes Given: 1,150
Joined: Nov 2015
03-14-2017, 08:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community. Edited 2 times in total.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
(03-14-2017, 08:42 PM)ARPANettic Wrote: 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.
Posts: 1,099
Threads: 51
Likes Received: 381 in 290 posts
Likes Given: 214
Joined: Mar 2016
Country:
03-14-2017, 09:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
It'd be a waste of time if admins looked through logs for every PR however
Posts: 4,494
Threads: 197
Likes Received: 2,781 in 1,592 posts
Likes Given: 4,994
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation:
76
Country:
03-14-2017, 10:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
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.
The following 1 user Likes Random's post:
• DVN
Posts: 5,974
Threads: 219
Likes Received: 2,630 in 1,572 posts
Likes Given: 2,528
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation:
47
Country:
03-15-2017, 01:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
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.
Visit my profile here.
Posts: 5,189
Threads: 150
Likes Received: 3,654 in 1,774 posts
Likes Given: 2,731
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
105
Country:
03-15-2017, 03:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
(03-15-2017, 01:37 PM)Midget Wrote: 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".
Posts: 2,704
Threads: 158
Likes Received: 1,712 in 1,193 posts
Likes Given: 2,218
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation:
61
03-15-2017, 03:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:05 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
(03-15-2017, 03:25 PM)DVN Wrote: (03-15-2017, 01:37 PM)Midget Wrote: 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.
|