France
Bonjour, désolé du manque de communication. Je prends l'intérim étant donné qu'il s'agit d'une conversation francophone. As-tu les ajouts en anglais ?
Nova the stalker of this forum, searching each day for a post from me or nasuper needs attention. I have nothing to deal with you. It's about a free-cheat run. What do you want with this? You're concerned by this?
This my real way of speaking. Bac +5 que veux tu?
I can send substances but that's not the goal here and the concerned people already knows the issue.
I'm not like you and your friends with the public trials way.
If there's a real reason for the final ban, then it's falsified. Because the reason for the cheat ban is false. He never cheated for a speedrun.
And strangely enough, none of the Payday protagonists involved intervened on the post, whereas when nasuper released his spam, the case was different.
Then why do they ignore the messages and not provide proof?
I'm not saying I have the best knowledge of the game, but having played the license for 9 years, I think I have a wide range of knowledge. So, yes, I'm saying that the cheat ban is unjustified because there is no cheat.
Just because they're Staff doesn't mean they should be given an immunity totem. Anyone can make mistakes.
Yep the ban is clearly for cheating on a run free-cheat.
Concerning spam, yes we all know it wasn't the best but it was banned for that, so I don't understand why the authors above are bringing it up again.
Yes, it seems to me to be a postponement, except that in general it becomes problematic because to consider that a game moderator is well placed is wrong. I know a player who knows the game better than the game moderators and yet he's not a mod.
The problem is that here, we're talking about a reported word without proof, contrary to what nasuper had shown.
There are some Payday 2 moderators who no longer play the game and are about 3-4 years behind on updates. However, the Staff still considers that their opinion counts. That's why mod or non-mod status shouldn't matter.
The problem here is that a moderator probably said that nasuper had cheated without proof, and that was enough to get him banned. What I find regrettable is not even confronting the banned player. It doesn't seem to bother anyone that a player is banned on a run where there's no cheat.
And yes he's not appreciated by the moderators so it could be an abusive postponement, maybe.
In fact, if we aren't ten or so of us, I don't think we stand a chance of being taken seriously by the Staff. So, only the mass counts?
However, if the staff took the trouble to look a little, they'd see that with the elements of comparison the run isn't cheated. It's something that can be solved in 10 minutes.
I know that the voice of the moderators is sovereign.
In this case, if the ban is for spamming, it must be clearly stated. Except that in this case, the ban is for a cheated run that isn't cheated. I doubt there was a very clear discussion.
Firstly, because the tickets are refused even though it's been proven that there was no cheat by the comparison elements. I've been able to see a little of the way they operate, and there are some extremely questionable decisions.
Secondly, because of the lack of response from the staff. The purpose of this post is not necessarily to discuss the matter publicly, but rather to point out that a mistake has been made. They don't seem to mind.
Nevertheless, I'm well aware that it's the staff and that, as I said at the start, their word is theirs alone.
Hello to the SRC Staff @Meta and @starsmiley,
I'd like to take the liberty of asking you to explain the nasuper cheat ban on a video that contains no cheat. This not in my habits to talk like this in public but I don't get your way to operate.
You've sent him that he's using software/hardware or that it's a banned glitch. About the hardware I'd like you tell me which proof you have to say this ? I can tell you quite clearly that when I was a moderator, I sometimes had a suspicion for one or two runs. However, without written proof, it's impossible to assert that the user has used hardware. So have you received an explicit message from nasuper stating that he cheated?
The other point said was the "humanly impossible". Alright, in that case I can show the same kind of speedrun with the same speed or even faster. Then you have to ban all runners with the same speed or faster than nasuper ?
In the message, you also mention another reason: "glitch banned". You need to know whether nasuper has used hardware or whether this kind of glitch is not allowed. From that point of view, I've never seen any announcement from the moderators to the effect that glitch is now banned. So I'd like to know where you got that idea from.
You're not clear. I'd be surprised if you were the one to take a closer look at this run. Someone must have sent you a ticket telling you that this was a humanly impossible run.
But if you look at the comparison, you'll see that it couldn't have been cheated, since the same kind of run can be found.
I'm also sorry to see that for this run, you're told without proof that it's cheated, whereas when nasuper gives you elements for other runs, you get nowhere. I'm not trying to reopen the debate on this, even though I've also sent you elements that are much more concrete than nasuper's and that you've knowingly ignored. In short, it just goes to show that there's a double standard here. You have the right to dislike nasuper for spam or whatever. Nevertheless, he has the same rights as everyone else in terms of treatment. And that treatment isn't fair.
Also, I saw him try hard this run for at least 2 weeks and I can tell you, he didn't used a cheat. Just hard work.
It would be nice to have a minimum of consideration for this ban, which is clearly undeserved.
Especially since you're banning him here without even asking him? If there had been concrete evidence, a direct ban would have been understandable, but here, just word against word, it's nonsense.
We isolated the factor that you guys keep insisting on (mask-up interaction being finished before host can) and have very reliably produced evidence that, once again, if the host lags enough, as very clearly shown in the run you guys keep claiming was cheated, it will desync the clients from the host, allowing the clients to execute actions seemingly faster than usual.
Except that it doesn't work like that, since you replaced it with something else to reproduce this event without having all the details of its nature. If you isolate a factor, you must remove it without adding anything else. You therefore have no certainty of having your identical parameters with the exception of one, which would have been removed
This is equal to saying your experiment is worthless because I said so.
Absolutely not since we based ourselves on a fact which is therefore a starting hypothesis for you and it is you who sought to experiment on the subject.
Also, on another note, why go after only pizza for this? Your screenshot clearly shows everyone else is already masked up, and highlights everyone but pizza even.
I don't comment this topic. I just question the name that was given "experimentation".
With that, I leave you. I hope you don't spend too much time scrutinizing the slightest messages in this "table tennis" thread. ^^
It was a necessary image as the other side tried to prove that it wasn't cheating.
Regarding the experimental protocol, you don't need to do an empirical study or publish it in a journal.
These are things that children are taught to do in elementary school, at least in France. Just repeat your experiment and isolate a factor for comparison.
I'm just saying that your "experiment", as it's called, is worthless for the following reasons. Unless you've managed to repeat it several times.
You could, but you won't, because the moderators have already decided which party they think was right. I was just reacting to the term "experimentation".
The source of this experience is that you tried to reproduce an event without being sure of the factors involved. When we carry out an experiment, we must also carry out a “control” experiment, that is to say, isolate a factor and therefore be able to conclude on its action. Except that here maybe the factor is not the right one. And I'm not inventing anything on this subject since it's about the experimental protocol, you who talk about experimentation. Furthermore, to have value an experiment must be repeated several times taking into consideration the "control", if your experiment is not repeated often, it has no scientific value.
All this energy for this. Happy to be removed and that's not all I live for.
What's a shame, though, is that some didn't have the same maturity in the construction of their speeches as they did in this post. And I don't think I'm betraying any secrets when I say that Zombie told me that some people had gone too far.
Saying we were wrong is fine, we've certainly made mistakes, but it's as good as admitting your own.
Anyway, I've already wished Zombie all the best for the future.
Maybe close this post, which has no interest other than playing table tennis.
Hey !
There's no problem with this issue. We already checked runs about players playing with Geforce NOW. We just need to see at the begining that you're using Geforce NOW.
Enjoy your run :)
Hey, I'm not able to understand this error message. But I invite you to join the Discord :) You'll find people able to help you!
I invite to share your problem on the Discord. I guess someone could help you
