David Miller

His was an interesting situation. The truth was that we jumped the gun on his ban and didn't have the evidence we usually require for scripting bans. It went through a review at the time, and the decision was made to revoke the ban due to insufficient evidence. It was a while ago for me, so I don't remember all the specifics from the initial ban. However, when we re-reviewed it for his staff application, it was pretty unanimous that we didn't have enough evidence to hold against him, and that there was no new indication of cheating. For the little its worth we didnt go, Oh hes a cheater we need a good cheater on our side, the conversation was he had changed alot since 2022, was being a reasonable and productive member of support team helping the server, and the scripting ban wasnt substantiated enough, albeit by our own failures which is super fair to be critical of, to hold him back. We gave him staff for being what we were looking for at the time, but the cheating suspicions were very close to making it not happen. I think it's fair to say if he was cheating, he got very lucky that we screwed up the procedure. If he wasn't cheating, he has been accused of something without us knowing for sure because we screwed up the procedure. I'm not really keen on which one is true, but either way, it was a mistake we hope not to repeat, that just fortunately or unfortunately ended up where it did. It's not a fair situation either way, but the unfairness is from the procedural screw up, and we try not to hold our failings against people as much as is reasonable.

This is pretty clever, I hadn't heard it before exactly like this, the quadrants idea is novel. I think addressing 1, 3 and 7 are the typical hangups I have. It feels like I can watch someone for hours, trying to bait them into a fight so I can watch, or get them to contest a cap, and inevitably, I end up watching someone do drug runs or generally screw around for an hour and get no evidence either way. For three it’s so rare I get to watch the person I want to watch play solo, its sometimes difficult to verify it wasn't a lucky callout, or that it wasn't another gang member with ESP calling out someone is in quadrant 4, and all of a sudden we are looking at the wrong person for cheating and unable to catch the actual cheater. And 7 I have been guilty of confirmation bias more times than I would like to admit, when I assume someone is cheating, a lot of things look like cheating that maybe shouldn't be. Regardless, I'd give it an attempt as a cheat detection. I'm not naive to the fact that people are going to find that video if they really want to, and it's going to be shared around, but it did have personal information, and for those people's sake, I would ask folks not to seek it out and not to spread it around. Maybe I don't know Fraali as well as I think I do, but I'm pretty confident that if I were cheating and he caught me, I would be gone. Certainly, if I caught any staff members actively cheating, I wouldn’t lose any sleep banning them. Maybe we aren't as good at catching cheaters as we think. I certainly don't know enough to say one way or the other, I know FAC catches a lot of stuff other anti-cheats don't seem to. I want to throw out there, I still think it's a little crazy that we, as the server, are expected to maintain an anti-cheat and investigate all of this stuff when the game itself has an anti-cheat. Why aren't they catching these people? Why do we have to cobble together an anti-cheat using the tools the developers of the game give us, but the developers of the game aren't really responsible for maintaining an anti-cheat when they are able to use the same tools we have and create more? I'm not saying that we aren't responsible, or that we won't try, but I want to throw out there that it gets a little tiring being expected to be master cheater catchers ontop of everything else and with 100 Monday night quarterbacks who don't actually have to do, or answer for the work, when the reality is most of staff are a half step above rule referees or just people that learned how to code SQF.

Fair enough, I agree entirely! The first message had me a little confused that you disapproved of how this one was handled, even though you agree with the outcome.

I don't understand your position here. "either you broke a rule or the accusation is stupid." but also "Not everything has to be two-sided" So there is or isn't a situation where the accusation is stupid, but is also technically a rule break? Your solution for too many gray areas is to remove some aspects from the rules and leave more open to admin interpretation, adopting a 10 Commandments-style approach? The reason this situation worked out the way you agree with is that Marcus, as Director & an admin, was allowed to make a nuanced decision, more or less indicating it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. If he just blindly followed a simplified version of the rules, would this not be against the rules? And if he was allowed to make his own decisions, but it wasn't written in the rules, would that not create more gray areas?

My immersion!

So much this. It fixes so many stupid problems with Arma.

Green = Added Red = Removed Yellow = Changed Chapter 16: Event Specific Rules 2. Conquest & Invasion Warzone rules apply inside the conquest zone (no NLR, KOS) Players may look through walls & floors, but may not poke their gun through to shoot. Jumping through windows is allowed, except when the jump requires floating or vaulting to complete Civilians can't use armed aerial vehicles, slung armed vehicles, or AT vehicles. Players may not tase or restrain people participating in the events unless they have been chased into the event. (this includes players spawning, gearing, or traveling in the general vicinity and nearby rebels) Players may not steal/chop vehicles used for Invasion or Conquest. ‘Borrowing’ an unlocked vehicle is fine, but it may not be removed from the Conquest or Invasion area. 3. Gang Base / Gang Turfs Warzone rules apply inside active Gang base / Gang Turfs zone (no NLR, KOS) Civilians can't use armed aerial vehicles, slung armed vehicles, or AT vehicles. Players may not tase or restrain people participating in the events unless they have been chased into the event. (this includes players spawning, gearing, or traveling in the general vicinity and nearby rebels) Players may not utilize RPGs, Mines, and Explosive charges/IEDS at the Gangbase Skirmish. A gang's fighting force (including non-members) may not exceed 10 players for the Gang base and 6 players for Gang Turfs. A gang that controls a Gang base may not participate in or interfere with other gang bases/gang turfs. Members of a winning gang cannot change groups or gangs to fight in multiple Gang bases or Gang turfs. Players may look through walls & floors but may not poke their gun through to shoot. Jumping through windows is allowed, except when the jump requires floating or vaulting to complete. TLDR: You can use each other’s vehicles for the conquest or invasion, but don’t chop the vehicle or remove it from the area so that other people end up chopping it. This does include after the conquest/invasion is over. No one, Civ, Vigi, Rebel, or APD is allowed to tase and restrain at events.

Green = Added Red = Removed Yellow = Changed Chapter 14: Blue Zones 1. The Altis Pharmaceutical Escort event, APD Escort event, Vehicle Yard Event, and Art Gallery event Blue Zones allow civilians to kill cops on sight, no RP is required by civilians. 1.1 RDM rules for civilian on civilian engagements are still enforced in Blue Zones. 1.2 Use of explosives against APD escort events with the intent to blow up the escort vehicle is prohibited and will result in an event disruption ban. 2. APD Escort Event 2.1 Any civilian interacting with, interfering with, or seen participating in the APD Escort event may be shot on sight by the APD; no RP is required. We relocated the rule from APD escorts to Blue Zones and removed the term "APD" to clarify that explosives should not be used against any escort event, including the APD escort event.

APD is discussed because It was suggested by the APD. There wasn't a big enough reason why this should change, as they already have a way to circumvent insurance. The APD can't blow up vehicles easily to make insurance matter, and ifrits are not blown up all that often, indicating they would not be used significantly less because of the change. Maybe they don't get blown up because of the insurance, but there just isn't good data to indicate that insurance is a significant factor in whether ifrits get used or not. There isn't a rule change occurring for this. The proposal was for a rule change, but the actual implementation will allow rotor-tapped helicopters to be slung. I can only speak to my opinion, but I believe the rule change would become a debate nightmare, every rotor-tapped helicopter will be intentional to the reporter and accidental to the person being reported. I would assume some will be obvious, but I bet the majority would become arguments, and players would become very skilled at doing things accidentally on purpose. We would also start having everyone ever request a comp for every rotortapped hawk, because there is a chance they get a hawk out of it. Not sure who actually came up with the sling idea, but I think it's a much more elegant solution. Players can still steal the helicopter, even if it's rotor-tapped accidentally or otherwise, covering situations where no one actually saw the helicopter get rotor-tapped, or it wouldn't be clear enough to issue a ban. Incentivizes people to fight over rototapped vehicles a little more instead of just abandoning them and reporting. I'm hugely excited to see if this works the way we want.

Red = Removed Green = Added Yellow = Changed White = No change Chapter 16: Event Specific Rules 2. Conquest & Invasion 2.4. Civilians can't use armed aerial vehicles, slung armed vehicles, or AT vehicles. 2.5. Vigilantes may not camp areas to stop or arrest conquest or invasion participants (including, but not limited to, the nearest city/rebel/sheds) 2.6. Players may not go to conquest or invasion with the intention of stealing/chopping vehicles With the conquest-like event, Invasions, coming to Server One, we are reintroducing the Server One conquest rules and applying all the conquest rules to Invasions.

This rule update has a lot to cover. The staff team has been hard at work rewriting a significant portion of the rules to make them simpler, clearer, and hopefully easier to understand. Before we get too far, the goal of this overhaul is NOT to change the way the rules currently work; there are some tweaks and some new verbiage that may clarify some interpretations, but any changes should be how administrative staff have been handling the rules for some time, and not intended to change the way players and admin staff are currently handling the rules. Too many changes exist for our normal Red = Remove, Yellow = Change, and Green = added format. I will try to go over some of what we changed and why. For a full changelog, see: https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/index.php?title=Altis_Life_Rules&diff=12670&oldid=12663 ON TO THE SHOW: A prominent feature of this overhaul is that almost all Examples have been removed and replaced with links to a new page. This makes the rules significantly shorter and to the point. Most of the Roleplay fluff and rules related only to the R&R or APD have also been moved to their appropriate pages. Some chapters have been combined or removed, a few rules have found new homes in more appropriate chapters, and many chapters have been rearranged. RDM,NLR, VDM, meta, Combat Log, and all other traditional rules are now the first set of chapters instead of chapters 1-5, and then, for some reason, also chapters 10 and 15. The second set of chapters is roles like WPL, Vigi, and Taxi, and the last set is rule modifiers like red zones and federal events. RVD and VDM chapters have been combined because they are so similar. The War chapter was removed, becoming an exception to RDM rules. Aviation was removed and covered by RDM and VDM. Terror, HQ Takeover, and Martial law merged into Events with Gangbase and Turfs. The first section, 'Rules and Guidelines,' is now a 'Chapter' to facilitate formatting on the back end. If we go into detail about the changes in every chapter, this post will end up being more ridiculous than it already is, so here is an example of what was changed on the RDM chapter, which was most likely the most changed chapter: War was added as an exception to RDM, Warning shots are added as an acceptable engagement method against aerial vehicles. Clarifications are made about Gang tags and the fact that [Medic] tags are not considered gang tags. A note was made that various events and situations change RDM rules. Examples all got moved to the supplemental page. Probably the most significant change to RDM rules, and what is likely to be the most controversial change of the whole rules update, is the addition of: 2.7 "Engagement typically applies within 1km of the initial fight but may extend if players actively participate, travel to the fight, or move around as part of the combat. Long-range weapons may justify extended engagements, but engagement should not be used to target distant, uninvolved players. Engagement follows active combat movement, and admin discretion will be used to evaluate disputes." I could probably write a post on this change alone. The admin staff team has long held that engagement has a set distance, but we have lacked a good acknowledgment or guidelines in the rules. This rule is NOT intended to have players pulling out rulers and shift clicks to decide if they are within an engagement, but rather indicates that players should not use an engagement significantly far away to justify starting a new situation without a new engagement. This rule used to be handled by the example: " Engagement happens in Sofia, all [A] and [X] in Sofia are engaged. All [A] and [X] who enter Sofia afterwards are engaged. If the firefight moves from Sofia to rescue without intermission, then it's still a free for all for [A] and [X]." This indicated there was a distance component to engagement, but it left a lot up to interpretation, disagreement, and confusion, especially as Sofia Rescue was moved around and people started calling it a hospital instead of a rescue. While it might sound like a major change, we hope this new rule will actually be pretty minor and will help players understand what the administrative team considers when considering the scope of an engagement. Most other chapters should be straightforward, with wording changes and examples removed, but essentially the same content as before. Players should notice alot more links in the rules, that take them to a new page: https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/wiki/Altis_Life_Rules_Supplemental This is where our examples and some added context for many of the rules went. The administration team is meant to edit this page as new examples or gray areas are pointed out to try to keep the rules page simple and clear while also providing extra clarity to those who might appreciate it. If anyone has any questions about the changes, please submit a general inquiry with the staff team or message me directly. I want to acknowledge that mistakes may have been made in this process, so minor tweaks may be needed. If you notice any issues, don't be afraid to send them along. https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/wiki/Altis_Life_Rules Thank you for reading and for playing Olympus!

Unless you have an alt account, there aren't any reports from this account you're posting from... I can post a screenshot if you want.

You haven't made a report since May of 2023.

It depends on the situation. We don't compensate for many of the things a player might compensate for; we only compensate for losses. but the 'No comp' has no effect on the compensation, if it would normally be eligible for comp, its still eligible for compensation after saying 'no comp'.

I don't fully understand your question. Players can comp each other and refuse compensation more or less as much as they want. Some admins will let players compensate each other after the fact for a ban reduction or removal, but it's not guaranteed, and you would probably want to discuss it with the banning admin beforehand. IDk if that answers the question. if not LMK.

The implication that American history starts with Columbus is a bit dismissive. You could have used the Declaration of Independence, targeted United States history, and gained 300 years.

Red = Removed Green = Added Yellow = Changed White = No change Reduced and Lifted Bans Reduced Bans A reduced ban will still count towards your current ban time. This means that even if you appealed a 2-day ban and the admin decides to reduce it to a 1-day ban, your next ban will be a 3-day ban. Reduced bans can only be shortened by a maximum of 3 days or half the ban, whichever is longer. https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/wiki/Ban_Times#Reduced_Bans This change addresses a growing concern from the player base about repeat rulebreakers receiving lighter punishments than would otherwise be reasonable. All bans, including those longer than three days, can still be "-lifted" to zero days when incorrectly placed or other circumstances justify a full recall. This change only affects "-Reduced" bans and does not guarantee all reductions will be a half-ban reduction. Examples: 1, 2, and 3-day bans can all be reduced to 0 days, AKA time served. 5-day bans can be reduced to 2 days. 7-day bans can be reduced to 3.5 days. 14-day bans can be reduced to 7 days. 30-day and permanent bans can be reduced to 15 days. Some permanent bans like misconduct or duping have pre-established higher minimum lengths and are unaffected by this change. 1,2,3,5,7,14,30, and permanent bans can still be lifted to 0 days when appropriate. https://wiki.olympus-entertainment.com/index.php?title=Ban_Times&diff=11561&oldid=11560

It's valid. Most threads are Dante or @ Milo XD, plus we complained about him in the beginning.

Taking over a thread about @ CaloomClark to complain about @ -dante- hello? Mr.Condescending ass question. This is the roast of Caloom and we will not be silenced!

YEAH LETS MAKE THIS ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT @ -dante- !!!!

we are waiting @ CaloomClark ! The people demand answers for your crimes!

@ -dante- You didn't even do anything this time and your still a shit admin XD

I didn't really look into that part because it wasn't being discussed in this thread. I have no idea what he thought related to not being a PO. I also didn't know it was over 20 minutes between waves and just assumed for the sake of explanation it was something between 5 and 15 minutes. If you believe he knowingly provided false information in a dispute to get money or a ban you definitely should report him for dispute abuse. Im more looking to explain the dispute didn't look like he was making up fake rules, but It very well could have made up a fake situation.

The support team can help with situations where what is and isn't a rule is in question. They can't tell you if a specific situation breaks a rule, but they can assist any player in understanding what is and isn't allowed. I also think you may have misunderstood the dispute, it looks to me like the claim is you took too long to wave in, so the engagement was over and the 15-minute no-return timer should have started, not that you were required to wave in. His argument is because you took longer than 5 minutes to start a new wave, the engagement was over and the situation should have been deemed clear, and a 15-minute timer should have started before the zone could be checked again. You guys deemed it the same situation and returned even tho the 5-minute engagement timer was over. Its kind of rule skirty to avoid waving back to a situation for an extended period of time but still deeming the situation extended to the point that you are allowed to return, but its really an APD issue not a server rule so its really @ Rexo s call if that kind of thing violates the APD handbook. I don't think the person who disputed you is making up rules, just different interpretations, without a report from the dispute we cant actually tell you who was right and who was wrong, but regardless I certainly don't think this was a dispute abuse. The related rules are server rule Chapter 1 rule 7 and APD handbook Chapter 10 rule 3