open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked WE ARE FED UP!!!! TIME TO MAKE SOME NOISE ABOUT RMT AND BOTTING!!!!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 77 78 79 80 [81] 82 83 84 85 ... : last (89)

Author Topic

Roq Godslayer
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:52:00 - [2401]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Roq Godslayer

I am thinking naming and shaming will not really work. I feel this way because these are just avatars, and the person behind the avatars would still be held anonymous for privacy concerns.

I do feel however, that CCP could improve on transparency. Perhaps a report on the statistics in the following categories on a monthly basis:

1. Number accounts permatetly banned.
2. Number accounts warned. Types or warning issued.
3. Number of repeat offenders warned. Tell's whether the punishments really work.
4. Systems where botting occured. Give's us an idea of which alliances and corps are supporting these activities without naming and shaming.
5. The amount of ISK that has been removed from the game. (Not just botting but RMT too).


I'm sorting out how best to report on progress and it's kind of a tricky situation. To give you a bit of insight, I really don't think telling you we've banned x number of accounts really gives you anything useful, nor does saying we've warned x number.

I'm curious how giving you system names could give you an idea as to the alliance of the botter, given that you don't know who the actual botter is? My concern would be that we're now giving way to corporate witch hunts based on information we've provided.

The amount of isk I'm also a bit concerned about as it's really just a number.

Ultimately what I want to do is try to report items that actually show a measure of success. The only way numbers give anyone any concept of effectiveness is if they know the scope of the problem. If that was known we could just be rid of them and be done with it to be 100% frank with you. So what we're exploring is some creative ways to deliver information that actually speaks to our effectiveness and the work that we're doing instead of spitting out arbitrary numbers and I think we're almost there.


Fair enough. I gave these as examples because in my mind it seemed useful to have a picture of that.

A. CCP is wielding the Ban Hammer.
B. The Ban Hammer is working to prevent repeat offenders.
C. Yeah, your argument the naming of systems doesn't prove corporation or alliance support of botting.
D. Does botting & RMT inflate the EvE Economy or depress it? I guess I would just be interested in knowing how much ISK is really being recovered from these activities. It gives a measurement of wow, that's alot. Maybe even deter people by realizing their going to lose, and lose big time. Even going so far as someone thinking the risk is not worth the reward.

Thanks for replying.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.04.28 17:57:00 - [2402]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: Roq Godslayer

I am thinking naming and shaming will not really work. I feel this way because these are just avatars, and the person behind the avatars would still be held anonymous for privacy concerns.

I do feel however, that CCP could improve on transparency. Perhaps a report on the statistics in the following categories on a monthly basis:

1. Number accounts permatetly banned.
2. Number accounts warned. Types or warning issued.
3. Number of repeat offenders warned. Tell's whether the punishments really work.
4. Systems where botting occured. Give's us an idea of which alliances and corps are supporting these activities without naming and shaming.
5. The amount of ISK that has been removed from the game. (Not just botting but RMT too).


I'm sorting out how best to report on progress and it's kind of a tricky situation. To give you a bit of insight, I really don't think telling you we've banned x number of accounts really gives you anything useful, nor does saying we've warned x number.


It would tell us how many botters you'd warned/2nd warned/permabanned. Taken in isolation, a single month's figures wouldn't mean much, true. Being able to look at the trend over 3-6-9 months would, though. If the number of bot accounts being detected and acted against falls, whilst we're still seeing pervasive botting, we can ask you to account for the discrepancy. If the number falls along with a decline in bot activity, then we know you're doing a good job and we can spread good word of mouth around the MMO community


Originally by: CCP Sreegs

I'm curious how giving you system names could give you an idea as to the alliance of the botter, given that you don't know who the actual botter is? My concern would be that we're now giving way to corporate witch hunts based on information we've provided.


Why would that be bad? I'm sure you're not so naive as to think that the owners of a given bit of space don't generally know full well who bots there, still less that you're foolish enough to believe that an NPC corp bot can't be connected with the alliance that controls the space it's botting in. Given that, by definition, a banned bot account is one that CCP themselves agree is guilty of botting, what's wrong in principle with players taking in-game action against space-holders who encourage or tolerate botting in their space? It seems like as good a reason as any to fight, and better than most.


Originally by: CCP Sreegs

The amount of isk I'm also a bit concerned about as it's really just a number.


For the same reasons that we'd like to see the number of accounts. It will also be worthwhile to see if the average ISK removed per detected account increases or decreases, since that in itself is an indicator of how quickly you are detecting bots. Again, one-off data doesn't mean much; it's the trends that we're interested in.


Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Ultimately what I want to do is try to report items that actually show a measure of success. The only way numbers give anyone any concept of effectiveness is if they know the scope of the problem. If that was known we could just be rid of them and be done with it to be 100% frank with you. So what we're exploring is some creative ways to deliver information that actually speaks to our effectiveness and the work that we're doing instead of spitting out arbitrary numbers and I think we're almost there.


That's fine too, but your much loved customers are also freaky sperg math-heads who lust for raw data. After years of apparent neglect by CCP, giving us some hard facts on a regular basis would do a lot to build our confidence in your commitment to addressing the bot issue in the long term. I'm sure you hardly need me to remind you that two of CCP's core principles are Transparency and Fearlessness. Giving us this information would seem to embody both of those.

GIGAR
Caldari
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:02:00 - [2403]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
Originally by: GIGAR

While I think you underestimate some of the math-wizards that plays EVE, it's good to hear such things :D
Hats of for that!


Well from that perspective let me amend what I was saying to be that I want to report on what we consider success and we don't have a quota so numbers ain't it.

Oh, I understand what you meant - I was just saying that it's great to hear CCP saying "We actually did something, and we will show you when we finish this report/devblog", in comparison to, say, the usual "we know therz bots ineve lulz, it's wip" Wink

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:03:00 - [2404]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs


......

Ultimately what I want to do is try to report items that actually show a measure of success. The only way numbers give anyone any concept of effectiveness is if they know the scope of the problem. If that was known we could just be rid of them and be done with it to be 100% frank with you. So what we're exploring is some creative ways to deliver information that actually speaks to our effectiveness and the work that we're doing instead of spitting out arbitrary numbers and I think we're almost there.


I hope what you give us is something we can verify so it can be proved to not be just some arbitrary data fed to us as a pacifier. We are trying to do what we can in the "reporting from the front lines" thread, but additional, verifiable information is desired. Its part of why "name and shame" is being requested.

EVE is getting a bad name because many think CCP flat out lies about the bot issue, saying you are anti-bot but really doing nothing because the botters pay for subscriptions. Just saying that is not the case is insufficient. You got to be able to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Anything less and eve will continue to have a bad name, costing CCP new subscribers.

Xelena Shellar
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:05:00 - [2405]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs
I really don't think telling you we've banned x number of accounts really gives you anything useful, nor does saying we've warned x number.
...
The amount of isk I'm also a bit concerned about as it's really just a number.
...
Ultimately what I want to do is try to report items that actually show a measure of success. The only way numbers give anyone any concept of effectiveness is if they know the scope of the problem. If that was known we could just be rid of them and be done with it to be 100% frank with you. So what we're exploring is some creative ways to deliver information that actually speaks to our effectiveness and the work that we're doing instead of spitting out arbitrary numbers and I think we're almost there.


If you don't want to give us the numbers because you are afraid of your effectiveness as a whole being judged by the community then just say so. All of that information will be really useful to us in doing what we want, judging the effectiveness of you and your team. If you don't think you should be held to any sort of critique of your effectiveness by the community then we disagree.

Remember, you care about this issue, but so do we. You tell us you know what you are doing, and that you are making progress, and all we are looking for is solid progress, not 'creative ways to deliver information'.

Don't hide behind market-ease and management-speak, show us numbers, they don't lie.



Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:21:00 - [2406]
 

Quote:
I'm sure you're not so naive as to think that the owners of a given bit of space don't generally know full well who bots there, still less that you're foolish enough to believe that an NPC corp bot can't be connected with the alliance that controls the space it's botting in. Given that, by definition, a banned bot account is one that CCP themselves agree is guilty of botting, what's wrong in principle with players taking in-game action against space-holders who encourage or tolerate botting in their space? It seems like as good a reason as any to fight, and better than most.




While in many cases and alliance will know exactly who is botting in there space, in just as many cases a typical ratting bot will be there in spite of the wishes of the space holding alliance. When they react the moment someone enters system, it is difficult in the extreme to effectively push them out of your space.

So you have just proven his point. If a large number of bots are shown to operate in a given alliances space most people assume they must own the bots or have an agreement with them. Very, very often this is not the case, and the sov holders end up with a bad rep for no good reason.

Quote:
EVE is getting a bad name because many think CCP flat out lies about the bot issue, saying you are anti-bot but really doing nothing because the botters pay for subscriptions. Just saying that is not the case is insufficient. You got to be able to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. Anything less and eve will continue to have a bad name, costing CCP new subscribers.


Citation needed. Very Happy Judging by the commentary on a number of gaming sites CCP is well respected in the gaming community, and always has been.

Quote:
Don't hide behind market-ease and management-speak, show us numbers, they don't lie.


Actually numbers can and do lie all the time. You can make numbers mean pretty much whatever you want them to mean, particularly if the parameters that define those numbers are nebulous or arbitrary. Did you know that 68% of all people that die regularly eat celery? Did you know that 100% of all people that eat celery die? Unless we/CCP can find RELEVANT numbers to measure against, any numbers they put out will be meaningless.



Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:31:00 - [2407]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Quote:
I'm sure you're not so naive as to think that the owners of a given bit of space don't generally know full well who bots there, still less that you're foolish enough to believe that an NPC corp bot can't be connected with the alliance that controls the space it's botting in. Given that, by definition, a banned bot account is one that CCP themselves agree is guilty of botting, what's wrong in principle with players taking in-game action against space-holders who encourage or tolerate botting in their space? It seems like as good a reason as any to fight, and better than most.




While in many cases and alliance will know exactly who is botting in there space, in just as many cases a typical ratting bot will be there in spite of the wishes of the space holding alliance. When they react the moment someone enters system, it is difficult in the extreme to effectively push them out of your space.




It's not that difficult; use the space and the bot will move elsewhere. Notice that I said "encourage or tolerate".

Of course, given your alliance's close links to an alliance that was recently outed as encouraging botting on their forums, I can see why you'd be unenthusiastic about this.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.04.28 18:57:00 - [2408]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Ranger 1
Quote:
I'm sure you're not so naive as to think that the owners of a given bit of space don't generally know full well who bots there, still less that you're foolish enough to believe that an NPC corp bot can't be connected with the alliance that controls the space it's botting in. Given that, by definition, a banned bot account is one that CCP themselves agree is guilty of botting, what's wrong in principle with players taking in-game action against space-holders who encourage or tolerate botting in their space? It seems like as good a reason as any to fight, and better than most.




While in many cases and alliance will know exactly who is botting in there space, in just as many cases a typical ratting bot will be there in spite of the wishes of the space holding alliance. When they react the moment someone enters system, it is difficult in the extreme to effectively push them out of your space.




It's not that difficult; use the space and the bot will move elsewhere. Notice that I said "encourage or tolerate".

Of course, given your alliance's close links to an alliance that was recently outed as encouraging botting on their forums, I can see why you'd be unenthusiastic about this.


You know as well as I do that there are many corners of EVERY alliances space that see little if any traffic.

Malcanis, you should know me by now. Few people on this board are as outspoken as I encouraging anti-botting initiatives, and I have never filtered my responses on ANY topic to reflect my alliance/allies point of view. My flaws are many and varied, including being abrasive and often overly blunt, but sugar coating an issue to further a point of view I do not believe in 100% isn't one of them.

My point of view on this particular point actually stems from my time in NC back when Fluf was running the show. He detested bot users with a passion, and encouraged every effort be made to force them out of our occupied space one way or another. We had many successes... but frankly, unless they screw up, it's pretty difficult actually force one out.

Although it may sound like an alliance leader can easily force a member to keep an alt tied up 23/7 sitting in system for weeks to "encourage" the bot to move on, in practice many prefer to make that kind of activity voluntary out of a sense of fairness to their fellow alliance members.

You, of all people, should know that statistics like that would not accurately tell the tale.

nakinto
Posted - 2011.04.28 19:32:00 - [2409]
 

some of you dont seem to get it. CCP would MUCH prefer to catch 5000 people cheating all at once and ban them all all at once then to catch one person ban him have the bot creators change there bot so CCP has to go through all kinds of work to cath ONE more botter, etc etc. IMHO they are doing a bang up job at managing there anti cheater programs. I watch the isk farmers prices and every time CCP does a mass ban the prices sky rocket some times tripling in price and this is evident proof enough for me that the farmers that are using bots are being banned and they are the only ones I REALLY care about being banned as the isk farmers are what inflates the economy of a game and makes the products that i sell decrease in value as a result (industrialist T3 pilot)

Xylengra
Posted - 2011.04.28 19:46:00 - [2410]
 

Originally by: Xelena Shellar
...show us numbers, they don't lie.


But, the numbers themselves might be a lie.

We seem to be stuck here.

Sreegs insists they are making progress and that some kind of reporting is hoped to be made at some point in the future. He admits that name and shame is not policy, but they are "considering" everything. Perhaps the reporting would contain numbers, statistics, but even there Sreegs is hesitant, even noncommittal.

A contingent here feels that the ONLY way to go is verifiable information. Another would be satisfied with information that is unverifiable. CCP, through Sreegs, doesn't seem to want to provide either.

I believe Sreegs has been given an impossible PR task by CCP. I believe he is doing his best.

I believe the only thing CCP is actually doing is attempting to placate the community.

I will not be placated.

To borrow a phrase, NAMES or it didn't happen.

Landlady
Posted - 2011.04.28 20:10:00 - [2411]
 

Originally by: Xylengra
Originally by: Xelena Shellar
...show us numbers, they don't lie.

But, the numbers themselves might be a lie.
...
To borrow a phrase, NAMES or it didn't happen.


They own the database, they could easily insert 5000 characters with realistic-looking faction standings/creation date/corp history/etc and then 'ban' them all, and supply the names, to inflate their name list.

If you aren't happy with numbers, then names won't help you either.

If you think they would directly LIE to you, then there is no level of proof that is possible. If you instead assume they will use any sort of smooth words/management speak to obfuscate the data without actually lying(as I feel, since he straight-up admitted that they are working on this atm) then numbers would be fine.


Xylengra
Posted - 2011.04.28 21:00:00 - [2412]
 

Originally by: Landlady
They own the database, they could easily insert 5000 characters with realistic-looking faction standings/creation date/corp history/etc and then 'ban' them all, and supply the names, to inflate their name list.

If you aren't happy with numbers, then names won't help you either.

If you think they would directly LIE to you, then there is no level of proof that is possible. If you instead assume they will use any sort of smooth words/management speak to obfuscate the data without actually lying(as I feel, since he straight-up admitted that they are working on this atm) then numbers would be fine.




Well, no.

If they supply real names, then some pilot somewhere will have seen that character and will know that they never again log in. If they supply fake names, no pilot will have ever seen them.

Names, simply are MORE verifiable than mere numbers, which are completely UNverifiable. Could there be some trickiness inserted in either? Sure, but the fact remains that names are more trustworthy.

It is not up to us, the players, to work to prove CCP is trustworthy. It is up to CCP to prove their trustworthiness to us.

Aquila Draco
Posted - 2011.04.29 21:41:00 - [2413]
 

This thread must be on first page...

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.04.30 21:57:00 - [2414]
 

Ive been doing some more thinking about Name and Shame. It occurred to me that if CCP's intention is to lie to us and make it look like they are doing something, then all they need do is look at those who have quit eve, pick some who also have no kills, "accidentally" delete their accounts (so they cannot come back) and list them as people they have perma-banned. How would we know? We would have to take it on faith that those on the list were botting, and take it on faith that the reason we no longer see them on line is they were banned.

To verify a list of banned botters we would have to have independently found them botting and then track their on line time. But we can do that without a list from CCP. So I am seeing less and less of a need for a list of names from CCP. Better they spend their time banning botters than preparing lists for us.

Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr
PORSCHE AG
Posted - 2011.04.30 22:30:00 - [2415]
 

Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 30/04/2011 22:34:08


OK... what is this???

Wrongly accused of using a macro

Originally by: Master Slave Slave
Two of my housholds accounts have been unfairly banned for three days for use of a macro Which is just not true.... (more stuff) ...




Question ONLY 3 DAY BAN FOR BOTTING??? Question

and thats new post... Posted - 2011.04.30 21:40:00


Rolling Eyes


Dealth Striker
Caldari
Striker Ltd
Posted - 2011.05.01 06:22:00 - [2416]
 

Originally by: Crucis Cassiopeiae
Edited by: Crucis Cassiopeiae on 30/04/2011 22:34:08


OK... what is this???

Wrongly accused of using a macro

Originally by: Master Slave Slave
Two of my housholds accounts have been unfairly banned for three days for use of a macro Which is just not true.... (more stuff) ...




Question ONLY 3 DAY BAN FOR BOTTING??? Question

and thats new post... Posted - 2011.04.30 21:40:00


Rolling Eyes




Maybe u should read the whole thread before making that comment

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.01 06:58:00 - [2417]
 

Yeah that thread is clearly a topic by a bot who is trying to spin it. Come on it is classical: think of the children, and someone is very ill and eve was the only thing in his life, oh and they uninstalled eve anyway yet. It isnt even close to believable that it wasnt a botter.

So apparently they are back to three day bans, CCP is trying hard to find a good middle line between keeping the general playerbase happy that they are doing something against botting, without actually stopping people from botting.

Elanor Vega
Posted - 2011.05.01 15:43:00 - [2418]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer
Yeah that thread is clearly a topic by a bot who is trying to spin it. Come on it is classical: think of the children, and someone is very ill and eve was the only thing in his life, oh and they uninstalled eve anyway yet. It isnt even close to believable that it wasnt a botter.

So apparently they are back to three day bans, CCP is trying hard to find a good middle line between keeping the general playerbase happy that they are doing something against botting, without actually stopping people from botting.



I only hope that thats not true... Neutral

Severian Carnifex
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.05.02 19:33:00 - [2419]
 

Any progress here???

Mikel Laurentson
Posted - 2011.05.02 23:41:00 - [2420]
 

Originally by: CCP Sreegs

The amount of isk I'm also a bit concerned about as it's really just a number.


It's not just a number, any more than the amount of ******* seized by border control is. It'll have an impact on the economy, and it'll give the amateur economists in the audience a bit of data to work with.

I assume the good doctor is already asking you about this, to be honest. Any chance we could see 'ISK removed by GMs' as an ISK sink in the next QEN? :D

Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2011.05.03 00:57:00 - [2421]
 

Originally by: Xylengra
Originally by: Xelena Shellar
...show us numbers, they don't lie.


But, the numbers themselves might be a lie.

We seem to be stuck here.

Sreegs insists they are making progress and that some kind of reporting is hoped to be made at some point in the future. He admits that name and shame is not policy, but they are "considering" everything. Perhaps the reporting would contain numbers, statistics, but even there Sreegs is hesitant, even noncommittal.

A contingent here feels that the ONLY way to go is verifiable information. Another would be satisfied with information that is unverifiable. CCP, through Sreegs, doesn't seem to want to provide either.

I believe Sreegs has been given an impossible PR task by CCP. I believe he is doing his best.

I believe the only thing CCP is actually doing is attempting to placate the community.

I will not be placated.

To borrow a phrase, NAMES or it didn't happen.


It comes down to trust CCP or dont. They will NEVER post numbers or names or anything.
Im voting with my wallet, you wont see me posting again after 5/21/11 as thats when my sub runs out and I wont be back.
For the "yeah lots of ppl say that" people
remember the date if you think Im lying lol

Amber Accelerando
Posted - 2011.05.03 02:34:00 - [2422]
 

i don't see how CCP releasing numbers could be a bad thing, unless those numbers are extremely low & reflect a cultural complacency withing the Company towards Macro gaming.


Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2011.05.03 05:02:00 - [2423]
 

Originally by: Amber Accelerando
i don't see how CCP releasing numbers could be a bad thing, unless those numbers are extremely low & reflect a cultural complacency withing the Company towards Macro gaming.




really cant be any worse than their history of this has been so far.

Vincent Athena
Posted - 2011.05.04 15:30:00 - [2424]
 

CCP Sreggs: Any word on when we get your blog on the anti-bot effort?

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.05.04 18:02:00 - [2425]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel

It comes down to trust CCP or dont. They will NEVER post numbers or names or anything.
Im voting with my wallet, you wont see me posting again after 5/21/11 as thats when my sub runs out and I wont be back.
For the "yeah lots of ppl say that" people
remember the date if you think Im lying lol


Can I has your stuff?

Hectanooga
Posted - 2011.05.04 18:24:00 - [2426]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel

It comes down to trust CCP or dont. They will NEVER post numbers or names or anything.
Im voting with my wallet, you wont see me posting again after 5/21/11 as thats when my sub runs out and I wont be back.
For the "yeah lots of ppl say that" people
remember the date if you think Im lying lol


I see what you did there... are you the annoying person that keeps dropping those "warning" cans all over gates?
Teh endz0rz!

Ingvar Angst
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.05.04 19:15:00 - [2427]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel
It comes down to trust CCP or dont. They will NEVER post numbers or names or anything.
Im voting with my wallet, you wont see me posting again after 5/21/11 as thats when my sub runs out and I wont be back.
For the "yeah lots of ppl say that" people
remember the date if you think Im lying lol


I'm still looking for the place where we're supposed to care. Silly eThreats mean nothing.

Crucis Cassiopeiae
Amarr
PORSCHE AG
Posted - 2011.05.05 17:21:00 - [2428]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
CCP Sreggs: Any word on when we get your blog on the anti-bot effort?

Paul Mustaka Hekard
Posted - 2011.05.06 15:24:00 - [2429]
 

Originally by: Vincent Athena
CCP Sreggs: Any word on when we get your blog on the anti-bot effort?

Aurum Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.07 11:38:00 - [2430]
 

CCP is not interested in banning. EVE becomes boring. I will not pay for a game anymore. I can play with bots free of charge in X2 or X3.


Pages: first : previous : ... 77 78 79 80 [81] 82 83 84 85 ... : last (89)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only