In KMS a guy in a non-reboot world beat reboot to the first spot of getting 275 so keep the rankings to give the non-reboot guys the fire they need.
We started the survey with an open question on how we can be more transparent and many of the answers we received reflected the statistics shown above. A very large portion of the collected responses requested that we provided more transparency in regards to hackers and bans.
Maplers provided feedback such as:
However, we withhold information related to ban evidence because it can be used by hackers to avoid future detection. Additionally, an official post was made with further reasons as to why we cannot disclose the evidence:
- “Full disclosure of evidence and procedures during ban appeals.”
- “Provide information as to how hackers and botters are being handled.”
- "Give more information with how evidence is gathered."
As players have mentioned in this thread, there are various reasons as to why we do not publicly share the evidence:
- We wish to ensure fair treatment for all players whether they're vocal or nonvocal. Presenting an individual case to the public doesn't give the case entitlement over others. For a widespread issue such as this, we gave equal attention for all accounts banned from the Arcane Umbra exploit.
- We don't promote public defamation. Making an example out of a player is not a method we endorse to deter players to follow the rules. By presenting the evidence of banned individuals publicly, we'd be encouraging peers to attack and harass individuals found guilty.
- Bans and ban appeals are between the investigations team and the individual that was banned. The community at large is not the jury that decides whether the banned are innocent or guilty. The reason for this is because evidence presented by the appealing player will always be skewed towards their favor. Due to this, the community team would need the evidence and proof acquired by our investigations team and that evidence cannot be made public for the reasons stated above.
In our efforts to provide more transparency with the banning process, we have plans to set up a Q&A session with our Customer Support (CS) and Investigations team.