Training New Staff to Review Minecraft Anticheat Alerts

How do you train new staff on anticheat alerts?

Train new staff in four stages: shadow a senior reviewer, classify past alerts, make supervised decisions, then sign off for solo review. Write the pass condition for each stage before the trainee starts. A new moderator should not hold punishment authority until they can explain, from the evidence in front of them, why a specific alert is weak or strong.

Stage 1 and 2: Shadow first, then classify old alerts

In the first week, the trainee watches a senior reviewer work through live alerts and says what they would check next. Nobody is punished during this stage. The trainee does not open a player's chat, history, or session data unless the reviewer is present.

In stage 2, give the trainee closed cases from your own alert log. Each case must already have an outcome that a senior reviewer confirmed. The trainee labels each case as likely cheating, likely legitimate, or needs more evidence, then writes one or two sentences of reasoning.

Stage 3 and 4: Supervised decisions and sign-off

Supervised decisions use the same tools as live staff. The trainee records a decision, the co-signing reviewer records agreement or disagreement, and both notes go into the case log. Disagreements are teaching material, not failures. Review them in a short weekly meeting, and update the written procedure when the same disagreement comes up twice.

Before any supervised decision, confirm that the trainee can find the alert, the player's session time, and the server version in your logs. Confirm they know which punishments need a second reviewer on your server, and how to escalate an alert they cannot classify.

What should sign-off require?

Sign a reviewer off only after a senior reviewer audits a sample of their solo decisions. Pick the sample before the audit, not after, so the choice cannot favor the trainee. A sign-off should be written down with the date, the sample size, and the reviewer who approved it.

Use these checks in the audit:

• Every punishment has a written record with the alert, the time, and the evidence reviewed.
• No punishment rests on one alert type without a second source of evidence.
• The appeal path is used correctly when a player asks for a review.
• Cases that stay open have a note explaining what is still missing.

How do you give trainees read access before they can punish?

Trainees often need to read alert logs before they hold any punishment rights. Grant view-only access through your permission setup, for example a LuckPerms group that has no punishment commands. Check the exact permission names in your plugin's documentation before you grant them, because a permission that looks read-only can allow more than its name suggests.

Keep a short list of what each rank can see. Review it when a trainee moves to supervised decisions, so access follows the training stage and not the other way around.

Record each trainee's progress in one place, with the stage, the date, and the reviewer who confirmed the pass condition. A shared sheet works for a small team, and a ticket board works for a larger one. The format matters less than the habit of writing the reviewer's name next to every stage change. Shadowing and classification notes belong in the same record, so a reviewer who takes over a trainee can see what was already covered and what still needs practice. When a trainee leaves, the record shows what they were trained on and which decisions they were allowed to make.

What we have not verified

This plan is a process, not a measured result. We have not timed it on any server, and we make no claim about how accurate trained staff will be. Test the stage thresholds during your own review period, and adjust them for your staff size and alert volume.