These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Scarlet Letters and Botters

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#21 - 2012-03-27 02:28:24 UTC
Well, are the other deterrents working?

From the fanfest presentation, I see a lot of downward spikes on patch days, followed by a speedy return to 'business as usual' levels.

I think 'behave for a year and the letter goes away' is a decent enough incentive to straighten up and fly right.
Endeavour Starfleet
#22 - 2012-03-27 02:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
Name and shame does NOT work and leaves you open to ALOT of problems if it was a false positive.

The ONLY way I would support this is name and shame an entire alliance that has been gutted because a majority of its assets were bot based.

Edit: Also I dont want time being put on making sure it is right letting other botters get away. Do more against alliance "Do not report blue" rules first.
Benilopax
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-03-27 02:29:59 UTC
As CCP were saying at fanfest, as people are saying about Mitts.

It's all about consequences.

You do something bad there are consequences, as long as it's made clear to people beforehand I say do it.

...
Ohh Yeah
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#24 - 2012-03-27 02:30:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
Scarlet Letters should be implemented, but not visible to all players.

These should only be visible to corp CEOs when a pilot has put in an application to the corporation. Something along the lines of a notice that the applicant has had strikes against their account for botting.

This allows conscientious CEOs to turn away players with whom they seek to prevent their corporation members from exchanging ISK with. I say this because botters tend to be notorious for a certain type of transaction which is not allowed. I don't think any CEO would want potentially dirty ISK being passed directly from a "marked" botter to their corp members through trades, contracts, or what have you. There's also the possibility that one player's knowledge of botting could easily be shared to others (I think, Darius, you are familiar with a certain Space Captain Schettino who crashed his corporation into the rocks by spreading knowledge of botting).

Lying about your intentions ("Oh I'm not joining this WH corp to clean out the hangars") is one thing, but being able to lie about actions taken against your account is another.

TL;DR - Strikes not visible to everyone, only CEO/Directors of corps when a player with strikes against their account applies to that corporation. This allows them to make smart decisions and not accept players they would not otherwise.
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#25 - 2012-03-27 02:30:20 UTC
Quote:
"What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting, whether or not they were still engaging in this activity?"


Taking a break from leading a corp myself, but the big benefit in my view is not recruiting a botter.

While it's nice to want them to turn into good citizens and the like, I wouldn't want to fly around with a botter in a corp I lead. Best to avoid people who take such extreme shortcuts.
AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#26 - 2012-03-27 02:31:21 UTC
I'd make it like this:

first offense: whatever the current punishment is + 1-year scarlet letter

second offense: whatever the current punishment is + permanent scarlet letter

third offense: biomass (which is the current punishment, I believe)
Frying Doom
#27 - 2012-03-27 02:31:40 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
The primary advantage of the scarlet letter would undoubtedly be as a deterrent and I support the concept for that reason.

Maybe the scarlet letter could be removed after say 1 year of good behavior?


But I could argue that there are plenty of other deterrents in place. This one has the additional negative of also providing a disincentive for turning into a Good Guy, which is something we've been trying to prevent.

Why not make the penalties more severe for botting like with this scarlet letter also give them a period without concord protection on all the accounts associated to the person and their alts. It would give the PvP guys something to do. Also it would make less people want to try botting. Like in real life crime deterants are in place but people still commit crimes, a lot of that is to do with poverty and perceived injustice, this is more like a crime of opportunity for the rich and botting costs money initially so make it so disgusting if you are caught no one would want to.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Revii Lagoon
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-03-27 02:32:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Revii Lagoon
As a recruiter for my corp, If there was some sort of public display such as a decoration that you couldn't remove that displayed that character as a flagged botter. Possibly they could get this "Award" when they receive the first warning for botting. I would immediately reject a person regardless of circumstances if they had this sort of flag. I'm sure multiple corps would do this as well, not only would it discourage botting because trying to get into a respectable alliance (Mind you some corps in TEST do have slightly higher recruitment standards) would be very difficult.

If it was just a public list, that's just one more thing for me to check as a recruiter, and it would let us kick people out who were botting, because it is kinda hard to keep track of everyone in corp sometimes. And please do something with the API as well, having that info be available on an account wide API key would be very very handy as well.
Pampers Toralen
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-03-27 02:32:22 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Pampers Toralen wrote:
This the distraction from the mittens thread? Any word from ccp about the issue



There's plenty of other threads to post in about this. Leave mine alone PLEASE.


Wow Someone's crankey just posted here yes there is many threads but lack the blue mark from a ccp employee has posted
Fixed your post also thing called manners?
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2012-03-27 02:34:37 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
But I could argue that there are plenty of other deterrents in place. This one has the additional negative of also providing a disincentive for turning into a Good Guy, which is something we've been trying to prevent.

This is a pipe dream, and you guys keep protecting and trying to reform criminals are doing it at the expense of existing players and future participants in Eve as well.

You know what Facebook does when they take action? No appeal.

Google? No appeal.

The evidence needs to be solid, but if someone is botting, they need to be thrown out of the game because they are potentially ruining the experience for thousands of other players (butterfly effect and all that jazz).

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#31 - 2012-03-27 02:34:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminal Insanity
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
I think 'behave for a year and the letter goes away' is a decent enough incentive to straighten up and fly right.


This would be a solution to the 'preventing them from becoming a good guy' problem. They indeed need to be publicly shamed for participating in the destruction of our market though.

oh and if we see some guy ratting in our 0.0 belts who logs out every time we enter system... we'd be able to report them easier if they were marked this way.

CCP's own deterrent isnt really enough. Does CCP monitor botters that have been caught on a regular basis? I really doubt it. But us players could.

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
Shepard Book
Underground Stargate
#32 - 2012-03-27 02:35:47 UTC
I am not sure if you watched the wardec video from Fanfest and that prompted you to ask this or not but I invite you to see what is be proposed there. Basically its a branding system of people dropping corps to avoid wardecs. During the Q/A portion it was asked why would you brand a corp jumper but not a botter. It sounded to me like a good suggestion for both cheaters.

I am sure that some would wear it like a badge of honor anyways but I think the penalty for botting is way to lax to begin with. Will you ever start showing the number of bans done on a monthly basis? I did not see over what period of time when you stated yall have banned over 1k botters. Thanks for your efforts. +1 for showing us the characters used for botting.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#33 - 2012-03-27 02:35:51 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Well, are the other deterrents working?

From the fanfest presentation, I see a lot of downward spikes on patch days, followed by a speedy return to 'business as usual' levels.

I think 'behave for a year and the letter goes away' is a decent enough incentive to straighten up and fly right.


I think you might want to look at where the dips are happening again and watch the overall downward trend. What I seem to recall seeing is a nice slowly declining curve that I expect to start dipping lower.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-03-27 02:36:49 UTC
The only benefit that could come from this would be the resale value.

Three stars is bann so when selling a Char you look for no star chars.
Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-03-27 02:37:25 UTC
Personally, I think name (character names) and shame works on the final ban. People can make mistakes or be ******** but don't need to be pointed out to the community on the first go around, or possibly the second. We all know how warm and fuzzy the EVE community is. . . anonymity and the internet are often bad.

Unless someone has been extra careful in all their dealings any "non botting" accounts they own or control will show up on a through API check, for those corps who would care, in the various transactions in the wallet.

Also it would show that CCP is actually banning peoples accounts for breaking the rules and give the community some feedback as to what you guys are actually doing about botting, as opposed to just saying you are banning accounts.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#36 - 2012-03-27 02:37:25 UTC
Benilopax wrote:
As CCP were saying at fanfest, as people are saying about Mitts.

It's all about consequences.

You do something bad there are consequences, as long as it's made clear to people beforehand I say do it.


This is actually my biggest problem with the thing. We'd be putting ourselves in the position of making a solid statement that would incur player consequences and I prefer to stay out of the sandbox if that makes sense.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-03-27 02:37:57 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Scarlet Letters should be implemented, but not visible to all players.

These should only be visible to corp CEOs when a pilot has put in an application to the corporation. Something along the lines of a notice that the applicant has had strikes against their account for botting.

This allows conscientious CEOs to turn away players with whom they seek to prevent their corporation members from exchanging ISK with. I say this because botters tend to be notorious for a certain type of transaction which is not allowed. I don't think any CEO would want potentially dirty ISK being passed directly from a "marked" botter to their corp members through trades, contracts, or what have you. There's also the possibility that one player's knowledge of botting could easily be shared to others (I think, Darius, you are familiar with a certain Space Captain Schettino who crashed his corporation into the rocks by spreading knowledge of botting).

Lying about your intentions ("Oh I'm not joining this WH corp to clean out the hangars") is one thing, but being able to lie about actions taken against your account is another.

TL;DR - Strikes not visible to everyone, only CEO/Directors of corps when a player with strikes against their account applies to that corporation. This allows them to make smart decisions and not accept players they would not otherwise.


This is a better idea - it implies consent, rather than ridiculous and unnecessary crucifixion of idiots who decided that trying out an anomaly macro WAS A GREAT IDEA.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Eian
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-03-27 02:38:52 UTC
I wouldn't want lots of resources to go towards this but what I think would be cool if we could gank them freely for several days.
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Guiding Hand Social Club
#39 - 2012-03-27 02:39:04 UTC
Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.

Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.

In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#40 - 2012-03-27 02:39:06 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Scarlet Letters should be implemented, but not visible to all players.

These should only be visible to corp CEOs when a pilot has put in an application to the corporation. Something along the lines of a notice that the applicant has had strikes against their account for botting.

This allows conscientious CEOs to turn away players with whom they seek to prevent their corporation members from exchanging ISK with. I say this because botters tend to be notorious for a certain type of transaction which is not allowed. I don't think any CEO would want potentially dirty ISK being passed directly from a "marked" botter to their corp members through trades, contracts, or what have you. There's also the possibility that one player's knowledge of botting could easily be shared to others (I think, Darius, you are familiar with a certain Space Captain Schettino who crashed his corporation into the rocks by spreading knowledge of botting).

Lying about your intentions ("Oh I'm not joining this WH corp to clean out the hangars") is one thing, but being able to lie about actions taken against your account is another.

TL;DR - Strikes not visible to everyone, only CEO/Directors of corps when a player with strikes against their account applies to that corporation. This allows them to make smart decisions and not accept players they would not otherwise.


Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(

I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.

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