And spectators fun too.

I had most problems with campers who stayed on the same spot, when spot is defined as a range of about 250 units (not even walking one second, so area is imo a wrong term to use). This is when you for example camp behind the stairs at ps37ctf, stand in the corner of your base on ps37, or just camp in some other corner standing still on the same place all the time. Other camping is mostly strategy, though there are ofcourse exceptions. Imo it can not be decided by a computer when it is an exception or not, as the computer doesn't know or recognise any strats.
For example: on the bridge on ps37 you're a simple target from a large part of the map. Standing there to defend the passage from enemies to your base is not 'stupid camping' as you have to not get shot from any of the dozens of places, and frag a lot. So I mean frag a lot to prevent passage, to assist your team members to get the enemy flag, and assist in getting your own flag back.
From the other side when camping in the corner of your base (ps37 again), you are just waiting for any random enemy to pass which you can then easily shoot. As you are in a corner, you can see every enemy who can see you. This differs ofcourse when you have the enemy flag in your base, and the enemy has yours too, and are (ofcourse) desperate to stay alive.
Another thing is for example on oasago2, when you were in front of the bases platform and you see someone coming via the bridge, it is quite logic to stay just behind the slope to the base. Or go stand around the corner. This might be annoying, but you weren't waiting for any random player to pass (which imo changes things).

I agree that a computer cannot decide each case of camping, but it can for sure decide about excessive cases of camping. Here we don't remove the possibility to "camp a little" for defending or strategic purpose, but just not too much

A spot of 1 pixel would be useless as moving just one step would avoid the anti-camp : that's useless. You have to define an area, as you understood, and we can tweak it. I just need more informations and more testing, not just theories.

Please provide demos showing several players so we can further investigate this issue.

Though I do have another question about this from another topic http://oa-cl.ucoz.org/forum/75-503-1 (better to keep that generally about the servers, rather than some detailed question already having a topic).

it hurts attackers too, sometimes it is important to be sneaky or tricky by hiding in the back of the base for a small period of time.

The system makes games unplayable and not fun in the least. It turns a ctf game into a game with all the players running haphazardly around desperately trying not to get killed by the anticamp system. whatever way you look at it, the anticamp system seriously hurts everyone, not just campers.

IMO the anticamp system should get removed Or the radius should be set Very small but the timelimit a bit lower. Before the match started we were playing around a bit (mode was CTF, didn't change to CA yet), and sometimes when you circle a bit around the opponent you also stay just inside the camp-region getting hurt. The opponent too, and it also caused him getting killed due the anticamp while he wasn't really camping. This is one of the things which happen when you let a computer decide if what you are doing is camping...
Also I don't care how you manage to, but the killing when chatting should really stop or at least be triple as slow. It has been explained it's not really possible that easy, but you want the system to be there so make it function properly.

I know we can't create something with the anti-camp system that detects the lag ( or maybe yes idk ), but that's onr of the problem you can have ( though you don't usually have to lag during a match , so that's not such a huge problem )