mh

Approved or denied ban requests are archived here.

Moderator: ENT Staff

MudMan
Treant
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 43 times

mh

Postby MudMan » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:54 am

Replay Link: find it down. i need more help watching replays and gathering evidence pls
Game Name: LTD
Your Warcraft III Username: mudman
Violator's Warcraft III Username: 1ce
Violated Rule(s): maphack
Time of Violation (in-game or replay):
Any further thoughts:

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11763826 Right before round 1, adds tk stuff to hold warr

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11763842 before round 1, sells ygg and changes build completely as soon as enemy send warr. and before round 4 enemy send

Please help me gather more proof to get this tard. He also on muultiple occasions would vote FF before round starts of his enemy team sending on a loss round.

holymoly
Resource Storage
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 12:08 am

Re: mh

Postby holymoly » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:18 am

map hack confirm he did pretty sure

epicdeath
Treant
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:25 pm
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: mh

Postby epicdeath » Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:42 am

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767905.w3g (somewhat suspicious)
- "but we still send" level 1 where one teammate missed second war due to latewisp he insisted on send even with bowman. Result: 46 leaks mid 30 kingleak (insane with 1 bowman)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767335.w3g (minor)
- 2 people on his team want to send 5 (scout ea, ts, engi) team is confident they can break ea. 1ce heavily against sending 5 and the lane they dont know is turret. Quote from teammate: "well turret, nice we didn't"

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767314.w3g (major)
- His team is bad 2, like seriously awful and he goes 250 aqua,
- He is against sending 2 but supports sending 5, adds in "I like 4 too" (no scout against lod, spawn, aqua, engi) aka 4 and 5 are jackpot
- He also pushes very late (at the start of round 3) when he can see they are not sending 3 (350 aqua no t1 with latewisp sus af)
- After enemies start sending 4 he cancels wisp and max builds with aqua (500 value) to me this confirms mh (he still leaked 19 pigs to 2x bo because karma)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767298.w3g (fairly suspicious)
- after enemies start to send 4:
(07:32 / Allied) 1ce: well
(07:34 / Allied) 1ce: ob 4
(07:36 / Allied) 1ce: som1

he also adds acolyte behind (significant since infront better for 5+ but worse for 4) when he already had 400 val (100% hold nosend)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 766314.w3g (minor)
- immediately supports purps question to send 4, (enemy is noscout aqua, lod, ea, malf/engi)

last thing I want to point out is even though some of these replays are somewhat minorly suspicious I think that with the replays above it paints a fairly clear picture. Moreover this player is often quiet when it comes to calling/discussing calls so a quick support for a very obvious call (if u know units) is suspicious for me.
Last edited by epicdeath on Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MudMan
Treant
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: mh

Postby MudMan » Sat Jul 20, 2019 12:22 pm

epicdeath wrote:http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/view_replay.php?file=11767905.w3g
- "but we still send" level 1 where one teammate missed second war due to latewisp he insisted on send even with bowman. Result: 46 leaks mid 30 kingleak (insane with 1 bowman)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767335.w3g
- 2 people on his team want to send 5 (scout ea, ts, engi) team is confident they can break ea. 1ce heavily against sending 5 and the lane they dont know is turret. Quote from teammate: "well turret, nice we didn't"

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767314.w3g
- His team is bad 2, like seriously awful and he goes 250 aqua,
- He is against sending 2 but supports sending 5, adds in "I like 4 too" (no scout against lod, spawn, aqua, engi) aka 4 and 5 are jackpot
- He also pushes very late (at the start of round 3) when he can see they are not sending 3 (350 aqua no t1 with latewisp sus af)
- After enemies start sending 4 he cancels wisp and max builds with aqua (500 value) to me this confirms mh (he still leaked 19 pigs to 2x bo because karma)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767298.w3g
- after enemies start to send 4:
(07:32 / Allied) 1ce: well
(07:34 / Allied) 1ce: ob 4
(07:36 / Allied) 1ce: som1

he also adds acolyte behind (significant since infront better for 5+ but worse for 4) when he already had 400 val (100% hold nosend)

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 766314.w3g
- immediately supports purps question to send 4, (enemy is noscout aqua, lod, ea, malf/engi)

last thing I want to point out is even though some of these replays are somewhat minorly suspicious I think that with the replays above it paints a fairly clear picture. Moreover this player is often quiet when it comes to calling/discussing calls so a quick support for a very obvious call (if u know units) is suspicious for me.


ty man. I just dont know how to prove it, but his gameplay is super suspicious in every single game. he has never been "surprised" by any enemy play

User avatar
FalenGa
Oversight Staff
Posts: 7857
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:38 pm
Location: Mars
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 138 times

Re: mh

Postby FalenGa » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:09 pm

What you guys have provided so far sounds enough to prove your point, in theory. All that's needed now is a mod to review and conclude, before processing the request.

Good job and thank you for your reviews.

User avatar
Meshtar
Treant
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: mh

Postby Meshtar » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:12 pm

Didn't see epic's replays yet but the two you posted can only be a case of ghosting rather than mh. Both times he changed/added for lvl 1 before enemy team has sent warrs, and both times your team was weakish for 1 so I suppose it could be a case of just wanting to cover 1 or a mild warr paranoia. This should be investigated to lengths no doubt, but its better not to jump to conclusions

User avatar
Meshtar
Treant
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: mh

Postby Meshtar » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:27 pm

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767298.w3g Epic's replay link

I don't know how you find this a proof of maphack seriously man. They sent warrs, they didn't re 2 even it was obvious to any map hacker hermit send would rape the enemy. They resend 3 cause they saw on 1 enemy has 2 yggs, was a big goal but its hardly suspicious.Ice went 400 aqua on 3 even if the enemy didn't send anything 3. Now 3 send was a big goal but since enemy didn't send yet and they aren't upping the king and trying to save heal, but wasting it instead, you find it suspicious he asks for 4 cover? Isn't 4 or 5 send usual thinking vs warr? Come on, if you got legitimate reasons for thinking hes a mh go for it, I personally find mh-ers worst thing you can do in competitive games, but as it is now this is almost a witchhunt. I'll maybe take a look at other replays later.


http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767314.w3g This one is pretty suspicious, I can't find any logic in underbuilding for 3 and then hard ob for 4.

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767335.w3g again absolutely nothing suspicious about his reasoning. He simply expected ts holder and ea ob and thought 5 would fail and then 7 would hurt his team. Funny thing here is that enemy team actually wasn't good 5 at all and 5 send was very nice. TS guy had only 3 ts on 5, ea was 3 eas and ogre and turret guy had 6 turrets only 560ish value, all perfectly breakable and killable 5. If this proves anything, it proves he isn't maphacking.

http://storage.entgaming.net/replay/vie ... 767905.w3g again not suspicious to me at all. His team had 3x 3 0 so even if bow, time suits them. Enemy had prisoner lane so if he was maphacking and he knew, priso could have been strong mid and even ygg could have gotten a bow and go mid as well.

So far your case really doesn't stand at all, with total of 1 suspicious replay.

epicdeath
Treant
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:25 pm
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: mh

Postby epicdeath » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:09 pm

1. he said it a couple of seconds after the enemy teams first sends on 4, the timing was suspicious more than anything else to me

3. definitely not proof but certainly it aroused minor suspicion so I thought it worth including, I dont know what maphack lets you see/not see but I'm assuming you cant see lj or gold so it was strange to me he was vocally against the send where his team was confident of an easy break. Irrelevant in a vacuum but interesting as part of a holistic examination I feel

User avatar
Meshtar
Treant
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: mh

Postby Meshtar » Sat Jul 20, 2019 2:14 pm

epicdeath wrote:1. he said it a couple of seconds after the enemy teams first sends on 4, the timing was suspicious more than anything else to me

Which is about the exact same time he realizes enemy isn't gonna up king and will waste a heal instead, isn't it? It all depends on the initial position you take how are you going to see the replays and in which light you are going to paint them :)

MudMan
Treant
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: mh

Postby MudMan » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:55 am

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11769084

mid level 9 - he mentions this:
(19:44 / Allied) 1ce: they just die if skip 10
(20:05 / Allied) Mudman: why would they skip 10
(20:34 / Allied) 1ce: we suck 12 imo
(20:39 / Allied) 1ce: 13
WE FUCKIN HAVE BLASTER BTW (fat blaster lane)

during 11:
(26:50 / Allied) 1ce: they already sent imo
(26:56 / Allied) 1ce: so we can just king 17
forces upgrade HP as soon as he sees enemy send

reminder: we have 4 heals and fat blaster lane

oceano
Armored Tree
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:41 pm
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: mh

Postby oceano » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:09 am

This is disgusting. That is the lowest point you can reach in your pathetic life as a lame fucking cheater. I thought it`s not possible to have mh since like patch 1.26. I must be getting old.
I don`t know if it`s allowed, but back in days when I was moderator on eurobattle.net we used this tool to hunt them down and ban them permanently without possibility of parole. Here is a link.
http://dota.eurobattle.net/la/forum/ind ... ic=73254.0
Last edited by oceano on Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Meshtar
Treant
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: mh

Postby Meshtar » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:47 am

I really don't get where you come from with this certainty the guy is a maphacker. In that last game he didn't really ob for their 3 send and your argument is he was afraid enemy will send 12 even, as you said you got 4 heals and a "fat" blaster lane? . So guy is a maphacker for thinking they will send 12, the send that made so little sense, yet you died to it still? :D
As I said, there is space for investigating this for sure, idk if its somehow possible to detect these tools, its just this certainty which people present here that really triggers me, when there is very little concrete evidence, yet this guy could get banned for a year or 2 for mh?

Augustinus
Treant Protector
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:07 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: mh

Postby Augustinus » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:27 pm

Ok, I looked through some replays too:

https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761126
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #10
Spoiler!
lvl 1: Calling Warrior send the moment after teal sold his sprites and placed harlot, which was fairly late at this point. other lanes are sg, pyro and malf
(00:59 / Allied) 18..: warr or furbs
(01:06 / Allied) Mudman: idm any
(01:14 / Allied) 1ce: g war

---> suspicious

writing this when leaks start to appear in the middle avenue:
(02:33 / Allied) 1ce: notbad
(02:35 / Allied) 1ce: x3

(02:39 / Allied) 18..: if lord eat
(02:40 / Allied) 18..: bad
(02:44 / Allied) 18..: oh

his evaluation of the warr send is a bit too early for my taste and ojs notices this too, as you can see on his argument that it could be LOD mid, but this might be simple jumping to conclusions ----> rather unsuspicious

Some arguing is in team east over the pushes of enemy team and here is it very odd that yellow is asking about the bounty of 250 value builds when mudman is claiming they must be all 1/0 because of 100% bounty. Why is he asking exactly for 250 value?! Coincidentally this is exactly teals value at lvl 1:
Image

(02:52 / Allied) Mudman: they cant 2
(02:55 / Allied) Mudman: 2 of them are 1/0

(03:01 / Allied) Mudman: maybe 3 of them
(03:02 / Allied) Mudman: 1/0
(03:09 / Allied) 18..: not sure
(03:10 / Allied) 18..: but
(03:11 / Allied) Mudman: ?
(03:13 / Allied) Mudman: its 100% bounty
(03:15 / Allied) 1ce: 250 val its 100 bounty?
(03:15 / Allied) Mudman: dont sya not sure
(03:17 / Allied) 18..: i think

(03:21 / Allied) 18..: if 1blo
(03:21 / Allied) Mudman: 250 value is 60-70
(03:22 / Allied) 18..: they can
(03:23 / Allied) 18..: maybe
(03:24 / Allied) 18..: send
(03:28 / Allied) 1ce: so its 1 1/0

Reasoning about them not being 1/0 all is legit since midbounty was visible but asking for the bounty of the precise value of one enemy lane is really suspicious imo ---> extremely suspicious


lvl 2: Yellow calls for lvl 4 send right at the start of lvl 2:

(04:16 / Allied) 1ce: go 4
[...]
(05:25 / Allied) 18..: go?
(05:28 / Allied) 1ce: 4

resendung 4 might be a fine option, but with the scout they had and right at the beginning of lvl 2 it seems a little bit strangely determined. ----> slightly suspicious

lvl 4: again he is giving some information about enemy builds and making a call:

(09:23 / Allied) 1ce: harlot kinda mixed with some shit

(09:37 / Allied) 1ce: go 6 mb

His statement on the mixed harlot is on the one hand redundant because harlot has to start with add, but on the other hand strangely precise because teal is indeed having a lot of spitters and is not going for pure harlot holder build. Why would someone even mention harlot is with adds if there wouldn't be bigger values in adds. And this is something he couldn't know at this point. ----> extremely suspicious

6 call is a bit too determined for my taste, but again might be jumping to conclusions. ----> rather unsuspicious


stopped watching at this point.


https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761431
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #49
Spoiler!
lvl 1: he started spawn, enemies sent warrs. no further actions done.
----> unsuspicious
lvl 3: writes in chat before seeing mid
(05:51 / Allied) 1ce: gg

----> slightly suspicious

lvl 4: tries to overbuild against 5 send; perfectly normal motivated.

----> unsuspicious


https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761444
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #52
Spoiler!
lvl 1: normal start with aqua ----> unsuspicious
lvl 2: underbuilds with aqua although noticing super slow killrate on enemy team and calls lvl 4 without any scout which is is suprisingly accurate according to enemy builds

(02:12 / Allied) 1ce: they r slow

(02:24 / Allied) thegreatMOAMOA: go?
(02:25 / Allied) SEBAS32832: mb ygg or clock
(02:30 / Allied) 1ce: go str 5
(02:31 / Allied) 1ce: or 4
(02:34 / Allied) 1ce: something like that

I can't really judge what is the logic behind his 4 call, might be some idea to surpise the enemies. I don't see any hints why 4 might benefit his team from the infos they had. Any ideas to his defense? ---> rather unsuspicious, but odd

The underbuild lvl 2 might be just bad gameplay. ----> rather unsuspicious

Then calling resend lvl 6, which is a potentially risky call, but again accurate here:
(09:00 / Allied) 1ce: go 6
(09:01 / Allied) 1ce: full
(09:01 / Allied) SEBAS32832: +
(09:07 / Allied) SEBAS32832: wait scout here
(09:07 / Allied) 1ce: full 6 it is
(09:08 / Allied) 1ce: guys
(09:10 / Allied) 1ce: alpha clock
(09:12 / Allied) SEBAS32832: otherwise king
(09:12 / Allied) 1ce: all we know
(09:14 / Allied) 1ce: clock not 100%

After the mini scout lvl 4, with 1 single alpha barely mid this is a little bit too confident for my taste. There might be any type of holder build behind this and if they have big mid lvl 6, its a huge fail, but purple seems adamant its a good choice to send here. ----> suspicious


https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761460
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #55
Spoiler!
lvl 1: suggesting to oj to build more risky:
(01:01 / Allied) 1ce: oh
(01:01 / Allied) 1ce: oj

(01:06 / Allied) pusemuckl: ?
(01:06 / Allied) 1ce: u still leak to war go mb 2nd geo?
(01:14 / Allied) pusemuckl: i ll add gg

(01:15 / Allied) pusemuckl: for 2

Not a good suggestion imo, as oj said, his lane planning early game is fine with what he built. Makes sense however when you know that no warrs come (Enemies hat ygg and wyvern ob build) , since 2 clocks lvl 2 would be an advantage when planning for potential 2 or 3 send. So he was guiding oj to plan for a later send than lvl 1. Could be a random tip however. ---> slightly suspicious

lvl 2: Encouraging green to risk 2 Ygg build lvl 3:
(02:19 / Allied) Milkyway: ill risk for 2nd ygg 3
(02:23 / Allied) pusemuckl: dont
(02:24 / Allied) pusemuckl: pls
(02:25 / Allied) pusemuckl: -rolls
(02:25 / Allied) 1ce: y
(02:26 / Allied) 1ce: do it
(02:27 / Allied) 1ce: tyes
(02:28 / Allied) 1ce: yes
(02:30 / Allied) 1ce: they 3 us
(02:33 / Allied) 1ce: do it

Although he asked oj previously to plan for 2 send rather than lvl 1 send, he is now suddenly very sure that 2 send won't be an issue, hence suggesting a super risky build to green. Oj argues against it, which is imo the logical thing to do here with the info team east has at this point.

Enemy team already started to king-10 at this point, but this is something yellow wasn't aware of, I'm sure, since he suggests huge overbuild lvl 3.

Could be ofc he just gives random tk advices, but for me the info about enemy teams builds and sends before lvl starts are the missing puzzle piece to these tips. ---> suspicious [/b]

Team east gets some mid scout at lvl 2, which is this one:
Image
to which yellow points out:
(04:21 / Allied) 1ce: nice mix, he ez hold 6

lvl 5: He suddenly changes his mind about team west holding 6 and calls spontanously
(09:21 / Allied) 1ce: guys
(09:22 / Allied) 1ce: go 6
(09:23 / Allied) 1ce: here?

At this point red had transitioned his Ygg + Mudman build into Tok, which yellow couldn't have known at this point. Although what is shown above is the only scout that team east had and he stated himself that he thinks this build is good against 6, he suddenly decides to send 6 even though his team doesn't even have lumber for it. [i]----> very suspicious



I didn't want to quote the whole chat, but this game is all in all highly suspicious of maphacking. He is constantly urging his team to overbuild for incoming enemy sends and gives precise infos what to expect next lvl, but apparently lacks the information that team west was doing with their king. Which is typical for maphack usage, since he would be detected if he was fog-clicking the enemy king. This explains why he knows so much about their lanes and sends, but nothing about the king which leads to some inaccurate ob tips from him.


https://entgaming.net/findstats.php?id=11761882
[ENT] Legion TD Mega 1200+ #3
Spoiler!
lvl 1:
Image
44 seconds to lvl 1

Image
14 seconds to lvl 1
team east decides to send warriors although yellow was 1/0 starter

Image
5 seconds to lvl 1
he suddenly decides to add 2 t1s to his single EA.

[i]He initially started 1 EA alone which is rly risky, but can be done. Then suddenly started adding 2 t1 6 seconds before the lvl started. My explanation to this is that he initially scouted yellows SG build and went for the risky single EA start, assuming at this point that no warrs will come. Team East decided to go warriors anyway which he notices from yellows warr send and reacts by overbuilding last second. ----> extremely suspicious, if not evident [/b]

he makes some unsuspicious calls after that, I stopped watching at lvl 6.


I tried to be fair and assume in doubt that he is just lucky in his calls/decision making.
But if you take the whole picture of his gameplay into consideration, many players would take it already as evidence what I marked as "slightly suspicious" only because you can frequently notice things that don't quite add up:
  1. He is often doing tk builds that turn out to be oddly usefully. (See the alchi replay the OP posted pls)
  2. Although he has fairly patchy gameplay knowledge and his gamereading is not very good (see the bounty chat above pls), he is really successfully calling at unusual lvls which aren't exactly meta.
  3. He has really poor knowlegde about builds and holds and is often not paying attention to general lane planning, yet knows very often when unproportional OB is helpfull for the team. (His tips when to ob, or adding trash T1s...)
  4. He is often chatting about leaks too soon to really evaluate the situation. Writing stuff like "gg", "looks good" before seeing full scout. Together with his patchy knowledge on bounty ect this is for me also a piece of evidence against him, although it wouldn't stand up as proof in a 100% "in dubio pro reo" trial.

Moderators may draw their own conclusions from the stuff collected above.

Off topic:
@Meshtar
I understand where you are coming from. Some folks who dislike this 1ce guy stepping in and coming to the conclusion he is maphacking from some lucky calls ingame is also not what I would consider a fair judgement, especially given the severity of the impending punishment.
"In dubio pro reo" should be considered when dealing with such cases ofc, but from the logic of judging evidence I would consider this:
IF he is maphacking it doesn't mean that he has to use the additional infos in each and every situation. Thus seeing him doing mistakes is not making the maphacking claims invalid.
On the other hand the occurence of certain actions that require some sort of intelligence that he could not have had at the moment, are enough to assume he must have been using maphack at least once. When this is occuring in several games, it is a very straight forward prove of a player using maphack or more unlikely ghosting to make calls.

I am totally with you that his calls and actions done at a later point in the game can hardly be used against him, since there are so many pieces of info or plans around at this point. This is why I focused on his behaviour around warrior calls and calling early when it is more clear what info is usable and which one is not.

This is also how ENT has been judging such maphack accusations in the past and I do believe it is valid enough to judge that a player is using third party info to play.


EDIT: Something is wrong with the pictures, can't figure out what atm; look here pls: https://imgur.com/a/PmQXu4D
Fixed some formatting mistakes

User avatar
Meshtar
Treant
Posts: 470
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:21 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: mh

Postby Meshtar » Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:32 pm

First replay you posted, his lines are taken out of context and can seem completely reasonable and not suspicious. First his warr call was actually a response to oj who asked warr or furbs, he replied go warr and its ok call since his team has some push. Second of all ofc he says x3 leak when he sees 3 different groups of creeps together with their warriors coming down the mid, I don't get why you even mention this. After that Mudman talks about their push based on the bounty creeps give and he hypothesizes they are 2x or 3x 1 0 push. In that sense Ice asks does 250 value give full bounty, which you interpret as him maphacking seeing a lane with 250 value and I interpret as asking if 250 value can give full bounty cause 250 value is a max value you can have obviously and not be 1 0 push that Mudman hypothesized, but 2 0 instead.
You people are on a witch-hunt to ban this guy in my opinion and are painting everything according to your desired outcome. Its sad that there are 5 people jumping on the bandwagon started by Mudman as original poster (with maybe legitimate concerns) and you are so eager to prove him guilty, not even trying to see things differently and I am still solo trying to speak on his behalf and presuming innocence, while allowing that he can actually be a maphacker, you just didn't even remotely prove it yet. Either way, knock yourselves out, I won't watch another replay nor try to analyze it.
I just hope Ent has reasonable and patient moderators who won't ban this guy for a full year or two just cause everyone is yelling "guilty".

MudMan
Treant
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 43 times

Re: mh

Postby MudMan » Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:37 pm

Meshtar wrote: I just hope Ent has reasonable and patient moderators who won't ban this guy for a full year or two just cause everyone is yelling "guilty".


wtf are you saying? no one is yelling guilty, we are providing evidence that can lead to figuring out whether its mh or not

as for your shitty comment, ofc ent will do their best to deliver a fair judgment, so unless u got any useful info and not being the cool unique devil's advocate just fuck off bro thanks


Return to “Processed Requests”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 112 guests