Banning for LTAP

[Golden Pup]

Banning for LTAP is so hazy unless it happens directly infront of you. When a sit sits there for awhile, the person may leave just because they have something come up or want to get off for the day. Another thing about LTAP I've come to dislike is that going AFK is a "form of LTAP." Just some little thoughts I've had on this topic. Would like to hear more opinions on banning for LTAP and what should be considered as actually leaving to try to avoid punishment.

[Walter the Assaulter]

I mean, it's highly situational. If it's obvious in the logs and shownlr that the guy, say, revenge RDM'd and then left a second after the kill happened...

On the other hand, "he didn't mug me right!1!! :@ " and the guy left like two minutes after it happened, yeah.

Just use your best judgment.

[HotShot26]

Another thing is the whole crashing scene but when it comes down to it IF it was something they can always come here and appeal or tell about what happens.

[Golden Pup]

I mean, it's highly situational. If it's obvious in the logs and shownlr that the guy, say, revenge RDM'd and then left a second after the kill happened...

On the other hand, "he didn't mug me right!1!! :@ " and the guy left like two minutes after it happened, yeah.

Just use your best judgment.

 

What about the people that use "AFK is a form of LTAP"

[Monoxide]

I am SO glad you made this thread.

 

Here is my take on LTAP: the term LTAP should be reserved for special cases, I feel it is grossly overused. 

 

In order for the term LTAP to be included in a ban report one of two things should have to occur.

 

1) the user in question clearly and excessively breaks the rules and then disconnects (i.e. mass RDM, mass RDA, Server threats, etc.)

 

2) the user in question is brought to a sit, upon being teleported the user recognises they have been brought to said sit and disconnects immediately.

 

I feel these are the only two instances in which LTAP should be a viable addition to a ban report, in any other case there is plausible deniability. We as staff can't prove the user left to avoid punishment, and the user can't prove that they didnt. It winds up landing in a "grey area" which makes it difficult and to be honest annoying to reach a clear verdict. 

 

This is my own opinion however, someone else may see it differently.

[Golden Pup]

I am SO glad you made this thread.

 

Here is my take on LTAP: the term LTAP should be reserved for special cases, I feel it is grossly overused. 

 

In order for the term LTAP to be included in a ban report one of two things should have to occur.

 

1) the user in question clearly and excessively breaks the rules and then disconnects (i.e. mass RDM, mass RDA, Server threats, etc.)

 

2) the user in question is brought to a sit, upon being teleported the user recognises they have been brought to said sit and disconnects immediately.

 

I feel these are the only two instances in which LTAP should be a viable addition to a ban report, in any other case there is plausible deniability. We as staff can't prove the user left to avoid punishment, and the user can't prove that they didnt. It winds up landing in a "grey area" which makes it difficult and to be honest annoying to reach a clear verdict. 

 

This is my own opinion however, someone else may see it differently.

 

It's kinda like NITRP in how often it's used.

[Walter the Assaulter]

Just do the sit when they come back, there's no need to rush. Nobody would seriously try to say AFK is ltap, right...?

 

NITRP is another story entirely. I've use it so often because people will straight up, when I ask why they killed me/this person, say "because I felt like it" or "I like RDMing" or dumb shit like that. Or just try to shoot everybody in the sit. No intent to play the damn game, just trying to piss off the server staff.

[NotBiased]

First off, whoever says AFK is LTAP, you're probably retarded, AFKing isn't LTAP, it's at most refusal to comply with staff, secondly if someone leaves after X or Y calls RDM I'm going to assume it's LTAP, one thing I've learned about gmod is no matter what, some asshat will call RDM when you kill them for a valid reason, so stick around after you kill them.If they appeal the ban, then I will do one of three things, unban, interrogate on the forums, or just say sucks if I don't believe it. You can't read their mind to find out why they left, you only know that they left.

[Dindu Nuffin]

First off, whoever says AFK is LTAP, your probably retarded, AFKing isn't LTAP, it's at most refusal to comply with staff, secondly if someone leaves after X or Y calls RDM I'm going to assume it's LTAP, one thing I've learned about gmod is no matter what, some asshat will call RDM when you kill them for a valid reason, so stick around after you kill them.If they appeal the ban, then I will do one of three things, unban, interrogate on the forums, or just say sucks if I don't believe it. You can't read their mind to find out why they left, you only know that they left.

 

You're*

 

 

 

 

(read whats red)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Lmao you fixed it

[IPug2]

I think that before banning for ltap you should wait atleast 3-5 minutes before the

ban because this avoids banning for ltap with the computer or gmod crash scenario

 

Unless what happens which Doug.qst pointed out

 

1) the user in question clearly and excessively breaks the rules and then disconnects (i.e. mass RDM, mass RDA, Server threats, etc.)

 

2) the user in question is brought to a sit, upon being teleported the user recognises they have been brought to said sit and disconnects immediately.