GuiltyCr0wn maphack.....again

[poopscoop1]

Your battle.net username:poopscoop@uswest
Violator's battle.net username:guiltycr0wn@uswest
Game name (if known):
Bot name (for example, ENT15):ent
Approximate date/time of game (alternatively, link to a Stats page):http://clanent.net/openstats/?u=guiltycr0wn
Rule player violated:maphacking
Time of incidents (Note in-game timer or replay timer):
Any further thoughts:

OLD POST: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1727

he got banned for maphack a year ago and in the game he states his friends will just unban him...well come a month and a half later he is playing again because his "admin friend" unbanned him. AC and agreements confirmed maphack for him and banned for a year, but someone unbanned him

he stopped played on 8/23/12 and started playing again on 10/6/12, so someone obviously unbanned him

[adventureclub]

uakf.b said the click on side shop is a bug. if we can find evidence of a clear fog click or maphack-oriented game play then it will be easier to ban him. No, a friend did not unban him though.

[poopscoop1]

Ok well excluding the shop fog click he still selected CM in base without vision...

[uakf.b]

Right, but that could easily have been a delayed click.

[uakf.b]

Post time of click so someone can confirm.

[uakf.b]

What do you mean it's gone from that one? If you weren't talking about the original ban request, then what were you talking about?

[Vapula]

So, how did he get unbanned between 09/23/12 and now? I thought he got banned back in the middle of the summer too, for map hacking. This would be his 3rd time then.

[uakf.b]

This is same as last time, there's nothing new here. If he was banned once before and wasn't unbanned then that's weird.

[ForMaDawgS]

can i just ban him

[uakf.b]

There's nothing new here, the two clicks from referenced ban request could be bugs. If agreements has a ban request without evidence that was not a bug then you can ban (but if he posts an appeal and claims he didn't then he gets automatic unban). But if there is no such ban request then need additional evidence (although I think agreements is working on some).

[uakf.b]

Moving to processed. If there is any new evidence, please post a new ban request.