- Messages
- 1
Context & Timeline:
Player *allena601129 (Bedrock Edition) launches from pvp(KOTH) area and glides toward the "enderchest" area using an elytra.
She is kicked and banned for “Hacked Client".
The moderator replies that Allena “appeared to be standing while flying” and therefore triggered a hack-client ban. Appeal allowed, but no log evidence shared.
1. One-Sided Moderation
("Next time don't use it on our server. Anything else?") -- Is purely accusatory. There's no room for player to explain or give evidence, a fact-finding dialogue becomes a flat warning. Punitive rather than professional.
The moderator based the entire ban on a single, short Medal.tv clip—without ever consulting server logs, anti-cheat flag read-outs, packet data, or any other technical cross-checks. After posting that clip, they dropped the verdict and never engaged further, ignoring our offers to provide screenshots, client logs, or a live retest. Even worse, they treated what may have been a simple Bedrock animation glitch as definitive proof of cheating, overlooking the well-documented bug that can make elytra gliders appear “standing” mid-air.
[Glide while standing in the view of other players.]
2. What the Moderator Actually Did?
The moderator’s handling went like this: first, they dropped a 1min30 second Medal.tv clip showing Allena “standing” in mid-air—but they didn’t include any anti-chext console output, or confirmation that elytra flight was disallowed in that zone. Next, they instantly declared “hacked client” based solely on that visual, with no sanity check for Bedrock’s known elytra-desync bug and no request to see Allena’s own point of view. Finally, they closed the ticket—no follow-up questions, no guidance on what evidence Allena could supply, and no escalation path offered.
3. Why This Matters - Technical Perspective
A more professional review would start by pulling the violation log (a task that takes under a minute) to confirm whether any anti-cheat rule actually triggered, then asking for the player’s point of view—screenshots of their launcher, resource-pack folder, or even a quick live screen-share—to rule out simple misconfigurations, followed by a brief reenactment in a test arena (2–3 minutes) to see if the animation glitch recurs, all while keeping the ticket open so both sides can review the evidence. This transparent, data-driven approach not only prevents false positives—which drive legitimate players (and their friends) away—but also builds goodwill by demonstrating that staff have nothing to hide, preserving the server’s reputation in tight-knit Bedrock communities where word of trigger-happy moderation spreads fast. Moderators have a tough job, but haste isn’t one of their virtues; a quick checklist and a culture of open dialogue would avoid punishing innocent players and ensure everyone feels the process is fair. Bedrock users should meanwhile protect themselves by recording sessions and insisting on raw data whenever they’re accused.
(P.S. Despite being clearly in error, the moderator never apologized for the accusation)
Player *allena601129 (Bedrock Edition) launches from pvp(KOTH) area and glides toward the "enderchest" area using an elytra.
She is kicked and banned for “Hacked Client".
The moderator replies that Allena “appeared to be standing while flying” and therefore triggered a hack-client ban. Appeal allowed, but no log evidence shared.
1. One-Sided Moderation
("Next time don't use it on our server. Anything else?") -- Is purely accusatory. There's no room for player to explain or give evidence, a fact-finding dialogue becomes a flat warning. Punitive rather than professional.
The moderator based the entire ban on a single, short Medal.tv clip—without ever consulting server logs, anti-cheat flag read-outs, packet data, or any other technical cross-checks. After posting that clip, they dropped the verdict and never engaged further, ignoring our offers to provide screenshots, client logs, or a live retest. Even worse, they treated what may have been a simple Bedrock animation glitch as definitive proof of cheating, overlooking the well-documented bug that can make elytra gliders appear “standing” mid-air.
[Glide while standing in the view of other players.]
2. What the Moderator Actually Did?
The moderator’s handling went like this: first, they dropped a 1min30 second Medal.tv clip showing Allena “standing” in mid-air—but they didn’t include any anti-chext console output, or confirmation that elytra flight was disallowed in that zone. Next, they instantly declared “hacked client” based solely on that visual, with no sanity check for Bedrock’s known elytra-desync bug and no request to see Allena’s own point of view. Finally, they closed the ticket—no follow-up questions, no guidance on what evidence Allena could supply, and no escalation path offered.
3. Why This Matters - Technical Perspective
- Bedrock’s Animation Desync Is Well-Documented
Bug MCPE-194442 notes that other players often see a glider “standing in mid-air” while the server still registers normal elytra physics. Relying on that lone visual cue is literally like banning someone in Counter-Strike 2 because their arms didn’t reload in your spectator view. - Elytra Speed vs. Fly Hacks
Legitimate elytra + fireworks top out at ~47 m/s horizontally and have a distinct dive-and-swoop pattern. Fly hacks typically show constant Y-axis velocity and bypass fall-distance resets. None of those metrics were checked (or at least not shown) to justify the ban. - Anti-Chext Plugins Already Log Violations
In my knowledge, most servers run tools (e.g., Spartan, AAC, Matrix) that flag packet irregularities long before staff notice visuals. If those plugins truly tripped, sharing the log takes seconds and would silence any doubt.
A more professional review would start by pulling the violation log (a task that takes under a minute) to confirm whether any anti-cheat rule actually triggered, then asking for the player’s point of view—screenshots of their launcher, resource-pack folder, or even a quick live screen-share—to rule out simple misconfigurations, followed by a brief reenactment in a test arena (2–3 minutes) to see if the animation glitch recurs, all while keeping the ticket open so both sides can review the evidence. This transparent, data-driven approach not only prevents false positives—which drive legitimate players (and their friends) away—but also builds goodwill by demonstrating that staff have nothing to hide, preserving the server’s reputation in tight-knit Bedrock communities where word of trigger-happy moderation spreads fast. Moderators have a tough job, but haste isn’t one of their virtues; a quick checklist and a culture of open dialogue would avoid punishing innocent players and ensure everyone feels the process is fair. Bedrock users should meanwhile protect themselves by recording sessions and insisting on raw data whenever they’re accused.
(P.S. Despite being clearly in error, the moderator never apologized for the accusation)