These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Team Security - Banning Bad Guys and also Bad Guys

First post First post
Author
Kane Hart
Sanitized Souls
#81 - 2012-03-01 19:03:20 UTC
Tetragammatron Prime wrote:
Make it so 2nd warning they can no longer send isk, trade in station or create contract from the botting character!!

Ahh so make them 100% useless so all they can do is spam local chat and help channel and harass the players and such :)?
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#82 - 2012-03-01 19:04:53 UTC
Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Kane Hart
Sanitized Souls
#83 - 2012-03-01 19:05:10 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Kane Hart wrote:
Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.

I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.

I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.

As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol


Sorry I keep missing this. It's not being ignored. It's also not my department. I'll follow up on it tomorrow.

Thanks, But my suggestion is give them idiots a warning if you guys do plan on doing things. They been allowed to do it for years and It might be slightly wrong to ban everyone without some kind warning but then again you gave isk botters a fair warning to stop or be ***** slapped before so haha you guys are pretty fair.

Thanks :)
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#84 - 2012-03-01 19:06:38 UTC
I don't eat into the "they abandon account at first ban". Maybe now, they try dump it on the market fast but surely it will change after characters get un-transferrable. In the future they will keep a pool of new alts "growing" and keep the flagged accounts till they are busted


Shandir wrote:

I personally think that when a botter has multiple accounts, you should strip the botting account dry of all ISK (possibly even leave them negative if they transferred any out you can't reclaim) and any items they could potentially sell, as well as stripping any ISK that was transferred via any method between accounts/characters.
Probably should be more lenient to single-account botters, as they are more likely to just up and leave, but still try to strip any botting related ISK and don't be light on the estimation.


With what said above, CCP will want to keep those who only got caught once and "smarted up" (most will be casual botters that will get scared to sh!t). Money is money.

Thus, going out to great efforts nuking the bejeezus of their assets and money would push the casual botters much more into quitting than what CCP probably wants to.

I can foresee a penalty but not above a thresold that will make casual botters rage quit.
Devore Sekk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#85 - 2012-03-01 19:09:08 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Zero tolerance works fine if it involves capital punishment. Exactly 0% commit the crime second time ;)


Except for the innocent and semi-innocent who get caught under that bus. Which is the point. The big stick is there. If a bigger one is needed, I'm sure CCP can build one.
KrakizBad
Section 8.
#86 - 2012-03-01 19:09:36 UTC
Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know!
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2012-03-01 19:15:27 UTC
KrakizBad wrote:
Any comment on whether market bots were also hit? Inquiring trading minds want to know!


As a trader, I can say from how the market has changed in Jita, yes.
Jita Alt666
#88 - 2012-03-01 19:17:03 UTC
Great blog. Good to see the nuking is active again. Nice to see characters locked to account after first warning. I would encourage you to keep this permanent but understand the need to not state that categorically in a thread being read by 300000 aspies.

Asuri Kinnes wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Good job. Still would love for you to release some information on where, alliance, corp and or names.


Naming and shaming has been and will continue to be part of an internal dialogue but for the time being it's something we've been avoiding. I understand completely why people would want to see that but I also understand completely why it's pretty dicey to be doing it. As it stands the policy is not to do so.

Not trying to quibble here, but seriously - in game sanctions for in game actions.


Since you've locked the character to the account now, there shouldn't be any problem. Unless I've missed something (because naming (in-game) names surely *can't* be illegal)!.


TY - love the blog/action/picture.


Introduction of naming and shaming will open up another area of meta gaming that most players will dislike.
Andrea Griffin
#89 - 2012-03-01 19:18:07 UTC
CCP Sreegs, you are my favorite developer. No offense to the rest of the CCP crew, they're great as well, but you hold a very special place in my heart.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#90 - 2012-03-01 19:18:24 UTC
naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Nirnaeth Ornoediad
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#91 - 2012-03-01 19:19:55 UTC
Kane Hart wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Kane Hart wrote:
Jita Spammers are annoying but you can't really class them ass botters as much as you can class them as macro users who actually a lot of times are actually at their pc watching a moving and using a g15 and etc... The problem why I assume the developers don't ban the chat macroers is because there is a fine line there where it might be an aggressive action against actual scammers and cause a **** storm.

I saw a dev on jita chat the other day they seem to just lol at it just like most of us do. It's part of and how eve has been a long time.

I assume if they were going take action they would have to first do a famous dev blog announcing g15 keyboards and other things were extremely not tolerated.

As it stands now I assume CCP are going ignore it for ever and really the only way to cut down jita spam and macroers is to maybe stop falling into their scams? lol


Sorry I keep missing this. It's not being ignored. It's also not my department. I'll follow up on it tomorrow.

Thanks, But my suggestion is give them idiots a warning if you guys do plan on doing things. They been allowed to do it for years and It might be slightly wrong to ban everyone without some kind warning but then again you gave isk botters a fair warning to stop or be ***** slapped before so haha you guys are pretty fair.

Thanks :)


You can also just block the toons so you don't have to look at it. It only takes a few minutes.

Fix POSes.  Every player should want one (even if all players can't have one).

CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#92 - 2012-03-01 19:21:01 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective.


I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :)

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#93 - 2012-03-01 19:26:13 UTC
What about an asset lock for 30 days on top of the 14 day suspension, so the character can't trade assets/isk/plex?

This would prevent the character from transferring ISK out to create a new account after the ban went into effect.
Dalmont Delantee
Xoth Inc
#94 - 2012-03-01 19:34:07 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Devore Sekk wrote:
Bubanni wrote:
Make it zero botting tolerance FFS! first strike, permaban!


Zero tolerance doesn't work anywhere, and it won't in Eve.

A warned player will either quit playing (so pointless to ban them) or start playing legitimately (a subscriber that would have been banned and probably wouldn't return). A small percentage will continue botting, and will eventually be gone. Many MMO players come from games where botting is officially against the rules, but seldom if ever enforced. No point dropping the hammer on them once they learn the lesson.


Zero tolerance works fine if it involves capital punishment. Exactly 0% commit the crime second time ;)


Sadly some people see capital punishment as a crime.

Well not sadly exactly....but that discussion is not for this thread!

When I first read there wasn't permabans 1st go I was upset. But I do think the potential of asset removal will be a decent punishment as well as PERM no character selling on that account/s
Dalmont Delantee
Xoth Inc
#95 - 2012-03-01 19:36:24 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective.


I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :)


Data protection issues on ingame names/corps/alliances? Not sure that counts...:P

More likely a PR issue, especially if all the negative talk about certain alliances/corps being botters pans out as being true :P
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#96 - 2012-03-01 19:40:09 UTC
Dalmont Delantee wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
naming and shaming introduces a whole DPA issue. I'd pretty much say 'They can't do it', from a legal perspective.


I was trying not to pretend to be a lawyer but the DPA and issues related to that are indeed discussion points. :)


Data protection issues on ingame names/corps/alliances? Not sure that counts...:P

More likely a PR issue, especially if all the negative talk about certain alliances/corps being botters pans out as being true :P


Yes, there can be DPA issues with in-game names. I really don't want to devolve into that conversation because I'm not a lawyer and someone would find something I'm wrong about and I'd just be sad and wrong at the same time, but I will say the DPA is a PART of the discussion.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012

Shandir
Indigo Archive
#97 - 2012-03-01 19:41:41 UTC
Brunaburh wrote:
What about an asset lock for 30 days on top of the 14 day suspension, so the character can't trade assets/isk/plex?

This would prevent the character from transferring ISK out to create a new account after the ban went into effect.

Why do that when you can watch where it goes, sneaking up behind them with a banhammer in your pocket.
If they're sending ISK to alt accounts, then those accounts are worthy of investigation, and as soon as you can prove that they're not doing it to troll an innocent person, ban.
ps3ud0nym
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-03-01 19:42:10 UTC  |  Edited by: ps3ud0nym
I have a three questions.

1) The first is in regards to the confiscating of large assets. When this is implemented will this include Supers and Titans bought with botting ISK? If so, how long do you think it will be before we can look forward to some titan pilot tears?

2) Will you be looking at botting activities retroactively? If not, why? It isn't exactly fair to go after current botters and give those who have gained the benefits of botting but aren't CURRENTLY botting a free pass.

3) Has CCP discussed at any point a "If you can't beat them, join them" sea change and looked at providing more automation for dull and repetitive tasks such as mining (perhaps making killing bots a new form of PVE)?
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
#99 - 2012-03-01 19:44:05 UTC
Anyone banned should have their character portraits hair shaved off and some sort of 'Botter' tattoo stamped on their forehead for eternity.

Fear God and Thread Nought

Rojo Ocho
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2012-03-01 19:49:30 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
Now when you said locked does them mean they cant bio mass either?


Sreegs, was wondering if you could confirm this or not. Thanks.