Declined Rule Clarification For VPNs (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
15
For Rules of play:
a) Use of third-party tools

It should be clarified that VPNs are not allowed on the servers and are counted as a third-party tool. I would not think of a VPN when seeing a rule that says no use of third-party tools unless told so, and most others would likely not think of VPNs as well. Many ban appeals are due to VPNs being banned and it seems that almost all banned players do not know of this rule.
This clarification would be logical to implement and would avoid unnecessary explanation by staff.
 
For Rules of play:
a) Use of third-party tools

It should be clarified that VPNs are not allowed on the servers and are counted as a third-party tool. I would not think of a VPN when seeing a rule that says no use of third-party tools unless told so, and most others would likely not think of VPNs as well. Many ban appeals are due to VPNs being banned and it seems that almost all banned players do not know of this rule.
This clarification would be logical to implement and would avoid unnecessary explanation by staff.
i do not think that it would make sense to add such a rule nor is it forbidden.
the only thing to maybe add (or not) is that you may get issues using a VPN as in bans upon joining incase someone else used it aswell for cheating etc.
 
Okay, I did not know that they were not banned but in that case it should be clarified that using a VPN may get you banned if it was already banned. Just as a warning.
 
Okay, I did not know that they were banned but in that case it should be clarified that using a VPN may get you banned if it was already banned. Just as a warning.
unsure if that wouldnt lead to more confusion as normal players cannot check their ip if its banned or not.
 
unsure if that wouldnt lead to more confusion as normal players cannot check their ip if its banned or not.
Okay, so is there nothing to be done to avoid any confusion? If so then you can archive this suggestion, I was just unaware of the situation when I made the suggestion.
 
Okay, so is there nothing to be done to avoid any confusion? If so then you can archive this suggestion, I was just unaware of the situation when I made the suggestion.
i'm just not sure if it would've make sense but i'll leave it open to see what others think about it.
 
So just to clarify using a VPN on panda does not result in a valid ban. You're allowed to use a VPN but it is discouraged as you could receive a ban of an VPN IP that's all ready banned. We keep these IPs because, sure enough, there are still used by throwaway accounts to come onto panda and hack away. Although anti cheat now does a great job catching this, still cheaters get through and rule breakers of different rules.

Those that get the 'accidental' ban won't read the rules. The first thing they'll do is want to appeal it. 'Duplicate account' as a reason mostly confuses them, giving a range of excuses that do not explain the matter at hand.

What would probably help is something in the ban appeal rather than a rule. Perhaps a clarification from the appealer that they admit to using a VPN. Maybe a disclaimer can go there.
Also adding that duplicate bans aren't always VPN matters and require the appealer to list their known accounts they have created or others of the same household have.

So what might be interesting is to create a separate appeal template specifically for the reason 'duplicate account' having the same layout but including two additional requirements. I can see problems with this however as users will just pick the first template and use that rendering that template useless as we can just process it regardless. Also admins can tell if they're using a VPN we don't need them telling us they do. The extra question about alt accounts only comes rarely to those that static IPs that fall under the 3 months.

So is it worth doing it? Not really no. I'll leave it open too. Maybe someone wants to make the argument it's imperative the disclaimer is placed.
 
  • Informative
  • Indifferent
Reactions: TRGGB2 and aphid
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread