Keeping evidence private

[Bauer]

15 hours ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

this server is owned by a French man and hosted in Europe… the us constitution doesn’t stretch to GTAW lol

[i dont wanna od in LA]

1 hour ago, Bauer said:

this server is owned by a French man and hosted in Europe… the us constitution doesn’t stretch to GTAW lol

no shit it doesn't extend. the principles are universal for most westernized countries though.

[Jeroen]

32 minutes ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

no shit it doesn't extend. the principles are universal for most westernized countries though.

If the principles were universal then the constitution would stretch to Europe, but right now it's just a courtesy.

The part making it odd is how you've quoted like it's a bible verse.

 

Genesis 15:9

[Zani]

Hello,

 

I'm going to weigh in on this a little bit. Legal discussions aside, as far as hidden evidence goes, they're usually because there may be information which might be metagamed. Admins should be determining whether or not evidence is necessary be privatized. If evidence is deemed necessary to remain private, an admin should describe what actions and rule breaks they witnessed in that evidence. That should be enough for a person to know what actions are being questioned or enough to assist them in recalling the event.

 

Spoiler

A quick example so that people understand what I mean;

Admin: Could you explain your side of the story with what happened between you and X?

Player: I don't know what you're talking about.

Admin: The evidence I received shows you drive up to the Davis Mega Mall parking lot and run over X before reversing and driving away.

I don't expect that we'd come across admins who will just instantly punish someone without discussing certain specifics of privatized evidence.  In the end, private evidence should not be a common thing. In my experience, the amount of 'private' evidence I accepted is less than I can count on a single hand. I would rather have the option for it than not. I do not see it as that big of an issue. If someone suspects that an admin has misused private evidence against someone, then there is a staff report and appeals process for that.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Zani

[LongDog]

2 hours ago, Zani said:

Admin: The evidence I received shows you drive up to the Davis Mega Mall parking lot and run over X before reversing and driving away.

 

Player: How did I drive up to something that doesn't exist?

[Woona]

lol

 

lmao even. 

 

just follow the rules and read them it isnt hard.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Woona

[joebidensmokesyesca]

4 hours ago, Zani said:

Hello,

 

I'm going to weigh in on this a little bit. Legal discussions aside, as far as hidden evidence goes, they're usually because there may be information which might be metagamed. Admins should be determining whether or not evidence is necessary be privatized. If evidence is deemed necessary to remain private, an admin should describe what actions and rule breaks they witnessed in that evidence. That should be enough for a person to know what actions are being questioned or enough to assist them in recalling the event.

 

  Hide contents

A quick example so that people understand what I mean;

Admin: Could you explain your side of the story with what happened between you and X?

Player: I don't know what you're talking about.

Admin: The evidence I received shows you drive up to the Davis Mega Mall parking lot and run over X before reversing and driving away.

I don't expect that we'd come across admins who will just instantly punish someone without discussing certain specifics of privatized evidence.  In the end, private evidence should not be a common thing. In my experience, the amount of 'private' evidence I accepted is less than I can count on a single hand. I would rather have the option for it than not. I do not see it as that big of an issue. If someone suspects that an admin has misused private evidence against someone, then there is a staff report and appeals process for that.

I get where you're coming from, I just think it causes more harm than good. If someone is THAT worried about their information being MGed, they can literally take 3 seconds and edit it out. Or, better yet, report the person who MGs the information in the video. 9/10 when evidence has ' sensitive information ', they know that they likely broke a couple rules themselves and have a better chance of the admin missing it, rather if they posted it on the public forum, players would likely point it out. 

 

"If someone suspects that an admin has misused private evidence against someone, then there is a staff report and appeals process for that."

 

This is the core idea of my whole argument, we will never be able to know if an admin acting maliciously on private evidence because we haven't seen it. 

 

[Wuhtah]

If you're involved in the report or if you had already reported the party, you're going to know basically who broke what rules already.. or else why are you reporting them.

 

If they have a video of YOU breaking rules.. you know what you did, already.

 

No admin is going to go "Based off of evidence given, X is going to be banned."

 

If they do, feel free to staff report. All evidence that IS given in private, is on the report anyways in a hidden post that the staff team can see. 

 

The reporting and reported party know what rules they may or may not have broke. They'd know if the admin is acting maliciously or not to staff report as they know the situation. 

[i dont wanna od in LA]

4 minutes ago, Wuhtah said:

If they have a video of YOU breaking rules.. you know what you did, already.

Not really. See: all the 210391293010230 DM reports where people argue whether they could've been seen through tinted windows/walls/whatever else. It's always crucial to see the footage, cause even if you are unaware of doing something and you can't see the footage - how can you possibly own up to it? This entirely gets rid of the entire aspect of being able to notice your own mistakes. It's really just common sense to be able to confront the evidence against you. Especially when reports get dragged on for months, how can you reasonably expect someone to remember what they did on any given day 2+ months ago? It's common sense. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by i dont wanna od in LA

[joebidensmokesyesca]

4 minutes ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

Not really. See: all the 210391293010230 DM reports where people argue whether they could've been seen through tinted windows/walls/whatever else. It's always crucial to see the footage, cause even if you are unaware of doing something and you can't see the footage - how can you possibly own up to it? This entirely gets rid of the entire aspect of being able to notice your own mistakes. It's really just common sense to be able to confront the evidence against you. Especially when reports get dragged on for months, how can you reasonably expect someone to remember what they did on any given day 2+ months ago? It's common sense. 

This, you guys are really missing the entire point.

 

The entire arguments provided against this suggestion are "well just trust the admin", why should I have to trust the admin when its been proven countless times over again that several admins are corrupt or commonly overlook rulebreaks that a player can point out. 

 

Its nothing about 'sensitive information' its all about 'I reported someone and broke several rules myself so I'll send the video to the admin in private because its more work for them to point out my rulebreaks as well.'.

Edited November 25, 2022 by joebidensmokesyesca