https://etf2l.org/forum/user/147864/
About a week ago I was banned off serveme for the detection of psilent in a 6s center game https://logs.tf/3996757#76561199034220088. When I saw it I went to the serveme discord server to see what went wrong when Arie(serveme owner) said this https://imgur.com/a/HMqQuhu. I told him it is a false flag since why would I start blatantly cheating after 2 years of playing in a random center game while going 14-24 with 40 acc because like he said it is my only flagged game. Arie did not respond any more and another admin came to say this https://imgur.com/a/5PUbLYK like how is it weird to not record center games?
After that I made an ETF2L ticket in which they said they can not do anything about serverme bans. Few days pass and I get a cheating ban on ETF2L for 4 years. When I saw that I contacted the admins to see any proof of me cheating which they did not provide saying it could help cheaters avoid their mistakes in the future which is completely irrelevant since they gave me the demo that they banned me on.
From what I understand the ETF2L ban is based on one Serveme anticheat detection, a game played outside of ETF2L, no POV demo and no other flagged games or history
What I’m trying to understand is, can ETF2L ban someone for cheating based only on a non-league game? Is a single anticheat detection enough on its own without POV or repeated behavior?
Smac is a 10+ year old anticheat which is always known for being inconsistent, Zambz a prem demo was flagged for aimbot while on a Lan game. Emiel(etf2l admin) said this https://streamable.com/ir4i27 which is exaggerating the detections and not including that it was only a single game that was flagged plus he is trying to say because of these detections I have to be cheating concluding that my ban was most likely mirrored and the refusal of proof making it impossible to appeal and hard to trust by the community.
Pootis addition
The ETF2L rules are enforced at the discretion of the admin team. Any complaints related to rule breaking will be judged on a case by case basis, and different punishments may be handed out in each case. From my side, this rule feels like it’s being applied inconsistently. Just because it exists doesn’t mean it should be used without clear reasoning behind it. After the discussion, the reasoning shifted to me not providing a POV demo. But not providing a POV demo was already dealt with earlier as a warning, not a ban. Now it seems like rule 7.3 is being used to justify the final decision anyway. Using admin discretion like this makes it hard to understand what the actual standard is.
I know this will probably not get me unbanned but at least clear the situation.
Shout out to Pootis for helping me make this. #freebigeyeguy