These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
#421 - 2012-04-03 19:20:39 UTC
Anshio Tamark wrote:
Shepard Book wrote:
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.

How about a full-fledged branding-system? Anyone who is undesirable should be branded as such. Bot-miners, Bot-missioners, Corp Jumpers, Corp Thieves and Corp Gankers are all examples of undesirable people. Let CEOs know what kind of people are applying to join them. I honestly don't think CEOs are very interested in hiring a pilot, who then turns out to be a Corp Thief, or even worse, a Corp Ganker. Of course, there should be some kind of measure in place to prevent players from abusing this just to grief someone they don't like.


While I don't approve of flagging someone for doing legal-in-game things... perhaps it could be turned into a huge ISK sink to flag someone as such a character and another to run the background.

(Talking about the thief/ganking/hopper, etc)

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!

Cpt Syrinx
Jovian Labs
Jovian Enterprises
#422 - 2012-04-03 19:20:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Syrinx
I havent read the entire thread, just skimmed the bits up to Sreegs' last post, call me lazy - I actually really don't have the time. So, I may be rambling about something already discussed, but this is something I feel so strongly about to at least take the effort to bring it across. Even though I'm about to take an eve vacation for the period this discussion matters most, since the latest news about this subject makes me expectant that the RMT issue will be a lot less profound by the time I have time for hobbies again.

To get to the point...

There SHOULD be some indication that action has been taken against a character's account on grounds of game-destructive behaviour such as botting, and it SHOULD be visible to all.

Why?
Not for reasons of revenge.
Not for reasons of inciting shame.
Not in a feeble attempt to change the perpetrator's behaviour for the better.
I do not care about these people.

I care about me. Also, to a lesser extent (this is EVE after all), about the other people that are not risking damage to this game for their own betterment.

I feel that we 'normal' players have a justifiable entitlement to the information required to shield ourselves from these people: I want the ability to avoid business with them, I want the ability to avoid conflict with them. I want the information required to utterly and completely avoid ALL INTERACTION with these people. If I were crazy enough to feel tainted by their very presence in the same system as myself, I would still be entitled to the information required to decide to get the hell out.

If we do not know, if we befriend these people and, for instance, loan them isk or assets, we get involved involuntarily!

The effect that these people can have on those they interact with can potentially be so profound, we need to know. Deceit is integral to EVE, but the deceit must remain contained within EVE and the meta game. A drastic permanent mark on these people would not be interfering with the meta game, as RMT and botting has no place there either. You can not remove these people from our game experience entirely - you can reason that, due to the sandbox, we are also entitled to our chances to play with fire.

But RMTers and botters have crossed the boundary of the sandbox, we should be able to know, all of us.

As with all drastic policy changes:
Announce widely, then apply the mark to those that transgress despite the policy change only. While the reasons I stated above are valid for 'old cases', there is one major problem with retroactive marks on botters: People have already been involved with them involuntarily, either directly or by affiliation. That does **** with the metagame while still in the sandbox. Can't have that.
Andrev Nox
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#423 - 2012-04-03 19:26:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrev Nox
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Hello wonderful Internet Spaceship Pilots!!!!!

Though not all of you have seen my presentation last Friday at this point I have some time to kill so I'd like to get this conversation started that I not only promised, but that I'm really looking forward to.

In some of my past dev blogs and conversations with players it's been mentioned by a number of you that you'd like botters identified publicly. As you will eventually see from my presentation once it's posted, I'm not entirely convinced that this has any real tangible benefit to you as a player in any respect other than as a tool to implement the metagame.

I'm also not convinced that it's a worthless pursuit so what I'd like to see from you, the players, is a discussion regarding how you feel about this and I'm hoping to see some really cool ideas.

If I'm forced to frame it as a question I'd like answered I think I'd frame it as "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?"

Please try to stay on topic. If this thread gets garbaged (Sarah Palin License to invent words) then we'll clean it but I'd rather we just stick to the topic and provide some really good input personally.

DISCUSS!

:)


Firstly - I applaud the change of confiscating botted ISK along with the RMT stuff. It is excellent (even necessary) for game health and I am fully behind it.

Speaking as a part of a player run gambling service, however - the inability for us to know who the "risky" players are means we risk allowing them to use dirty isk to gamble on our service, pay out prizes to them, then have their dirty isk confiscated. Without some type of flag showing that a character has been punished for engaging in this type of behavior, we have no way of pre-emptively preventing them from using our service - and thus no way to protect ourselves from being used as a method for them to trade dirty isk for clean ships, with us taking the bullet from the dirty isk deduction.

We go to lengths to make the service unattractive to this type of player - isk and prizes are ONLY paid to the character who won them, no balance transfers out of game, or alt depositing. If this information were made public (ideally in the public API for a character as well as in game), we could go one step further to prevent these types of players from joining our service.

Edit to add: While I agree this doesn't provide much incentive for reform - it DOES prevent punitive actions against those of us who followed the rules from the start. It prevents the botters and RMT-ers from being able to influence (or even ruin) our gaming.

Edit 2: While no company does yet do this, I would be hard pressed to name a community who doesn't want it. So, will you be Fearless?

Edit 3: I would be more than happy to discuss the inner workings of our business privately with you, to illustrate in more detail how the lack of this information brings negative consequence to players who have followed the rules from the start, and how the presence of it allows conscientious players to continue generating player-content without risking their own assets (or even accounts).

Somer Blink - The original microlottery site.

Shar Tegral
#424 - 2012-04-03 19:28:15 UTC
This thread is going to get very long so I doubt if you, Sreegs, will get to read this however here goes:

I have interacted with all kinds in Eve. From saints to sinners, from miners to pirates. However in every case, no matter how venal or virtuous the in game actions of the player each one maintained the minimum level of ethics. The minimum level of ethics, the barrier between good player and bad player is the EULA. Now, I do not doubt that mixed in that motley crew of misbegotten individuals there might have been a malefactor or three. However if I had any inkling there of I would have immediately and brutally ended any relationship I had with them.

In fact, during my time as Editor at Eve Guardian we in fact did find out that one of our reporters was purchasing ISK via RMT. He was summarily dismissed and I contacted CCP directly about our obligations as far as reporting "known" RMT activity. Fortunately there were no financial or any other in game connections to be had with this player but what if it had? This is why Name and Shame serves to the player base. Not as a deterrent, though it is a good one, but as protection from unsuspecting innocent bystanders... errr... victims depending on circumstances.

I would say, in the most strongest terms, you owe me the names so that I may protect myself. Far better than me having to plead with you that I really wasn't involved, that I wasn't connected, and please oh please can I have stuff/account back. By not naming and shaming: You put me, my efforts, and my investment in your product totally at risk.
Mathis Athins
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#425 - 2012-04-03 19:31:09 UTC
I previously played another game that became heavily bot infested. As part of a legit community we fought for quite along time against the botters, basically taking and holding control over a server for a couple of years. We eventually gave up as the game just simply became to much of a grind to legibly do and just left for greener pastures. (To make it clear here the Company that ran the game didn't really seem to care about botters, and eventually the entire game became botters.)

Anyway the point I am trying to make is that there are groups who would like to be able to identify those who are botters and prevent them from joining their communities (Corp/Alliance).
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#426 - 2012-04-03 19:31:48 UTC
Scarlett Letters ?

Yes Plz Ma'aM Bear


keeping your corporations clean of spies and thiefs is hard enough,

anything that helps to not have RMT or Botter in there because of a flag helps alot.


Flag should be active at 2nd warning imho, 1st warning you said alot didn't go back to their evil ways

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Mer Flenaly
Dreadnoughtz Conclave
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#427 - 2012-04-03 19:36:24 UTC
I think its a great idea... mark the targets.. let the eve community force additional social pressures on these fools.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#428 - 2012-04-03 19:37:11 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Hello wonderful Internet Spaceship Pilots!!!!!

Though not all of you have seen my presentation last Friday at this point I have some time to kill so I'd like to get this conversation started that I not only promised, but that I'm really looking forward to.

In some of my past dev blogs and conversations with players it's been mentioned by a number of you that you'd like botters identified publicly. As you will eventually see from my presentation once it's posted, I'm not entirely convinced that this has any real tangible benefit to you as a player in any respect other than as a tool to implement the metagame.

I'm also not convinced that it's a worthless pursuit so what I'd like to see from you, the players, is a discussion regarding how you feel about this and I'm hoping to see some really cool ideas.

If I'm forced to frame it as a question I'd like answered I think I'd frame it as "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?"

Please try to stay on topic. If this thread gets garbaged (Sarah Palin License to invent words) then we'll clean it but I'd rather we just stick to the topic and provide some really good input personally.

DISCUSS!

:)


Identifying a character nailed for botting basically puts a giant bullseye on them in local. If I see them in a belt, mining (for instance), I would be far more likely to flip their can and cause them trouble (as it would be more likely that they were still botting and thus an easy target for stuff like that). If they have reformed, and no longer bot, they would respond rationally like a human, and not fall for tricks that would fool a bot. At which point, I would continue on my way happy for their souls.
Sjet Anasazi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#429 - 2012-04-03 19:38:27 UTC
1) Remove CONCORD protection
2) Mark them ingame so we know who they are
3) Make locator agents keep a real time list of their locations
4) Let us the players sort them out Lol
Meryl SinGarda
Belligerent Underpaid Tactical Team
#430 - 2012-04-03 19:43:12 UTC
There's another game I play every so often (All Points Bulletin: Reloaded) and they do naming and shaming for different types of "botting." What people seem to do, in that game (which is sort of also a sandbox), is they'll gather on the forums, when names are released and they'll create a massive thread in order to make fun of each person who they recognize. And then, of course, whenever the ban is lifted on any of those accounts, they're made fun of whenever someone recognizes them ingame.

Although, the APB community is slightly different compared to the EVE community.
Proud Blackman
Doomheim
#431 - 2012-04-03 20:08:15 UTC
Maybe I'm a terrible person, but I don't really see the whole point of the scarlet letter concept. It just sounds like something for whiny people to use against other whiny people. There really is no valid reason for it.
Te Tumatauenga
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2012-04-03 20:08:33 UTC
I for one can't wait to get my scarlet letter. They're the new monocle, except instead of proving you've more isk than sense it proves you're a bonafide no honore cheater. What would be the minimum I'd have to RMT to acquire such wonderful bling?
Dendrin Koljn
NecTech
#433 - 2012-04-03 20:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dendrin Koljn
/error
Angel HUNG
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#434 - 2012-04-03 20:24:40 UTC
I want them. If you don't want a red letter, biomass, and start over.

"You made your bed."
Blade M Howser
0........0
#435 - 2012-04-03 20:26:01 UTC
I vote YES to making isk buyers and sellers names public ..if your running a corp that doesn't want scammers in it we need to know who plays illegally in rl more than likely they will also play a shady character in game.
here is a solution to making more players stay legit .


ccp needs to provide a solution for players that buy isk to buy it legally at a cheaper price. lower the price of plex
here's a example -my monthly sub fee is $14.95 month the price to buy a plex (30 days game time) is $19.95 us/
i would never buy isk with real money but people who wish to fatten their wallet don't want to pay extra $4.00 for the option of selling a month sub for 490 million isk. that's the reason idiots buy isk illegally to save them a few extra dollars
put a flat rate of $14.95 for 1 plex

ban the hell out of isk farmers ,make the one who bought their isk illegally suffer in game, reward the ones who play by the rules
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#436 - 2012-04-03 20:27:24 UTC
Personally I would not send letterrs with the names. Most of the large alliances honestly don't care about members botting.

What would be interesting is, if they receive some kind of ingame punishment. For example concord stops protecting these players for a time in highsec.

Or in 0.0 when a botter logs off while being in space, his ship stays were it is, without despawn.Twisted

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.

Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#437 - 2012-04-03 20:29:55 UTC
instead of the killing of assets, make player event where we the players are officially at war with the bots that are "banned"

do it in a random highsec system and announce it any way you see fit
force spawn the bots in all their assets
players then have a turkey shoot, make it so they can't fire, but we can

its highsec so shooting nonbots = concord
bots lose assets
players get lols
news worthy events about bots getting killed repeatedly.
all the bots isk itself can be taken later.
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#438 - 2012-04-03 20:31:54 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.


This is true, but there are plenty of larger corps too. A solution would be for anyone with the role 'personell officer' (or whichever role is the one that allows you to accept applications) would be able to see Scarlet Letters of applicants. Since CEOs also have this role (since a CEO has all roles), it doesnt change anything for tiny corps, but it means you don't make the life of CEOs of mid-large size corps a living hell.

I think, especially in the light that assets do get seized, it is important that corporations can see if the people they recruit haven't been caught botting in the past. This is the main reason for somehow making that scarlet letter visible.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide

Ibeau Renoir
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2012-04-03 20:37:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ibeau Renoir
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.

That's why making the scarlet letter go away after some period of good behaviour is the right thing to do (assuming the scarlet letter is a good idea in the first place, which I'm not convinced of). For a RL example, see the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: if you apply for a job and the employer asks if you have convictions, you have to disclose them all, except ones that are "spent" because they happened a long time ago.

CCP Sreegs wrote:
Benilopax wrote:
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.

I understand what you mean. To put it in other terms:

Corp jumping is something that happens entirely within the sandbox. Linking war and employment history to show corp jumping is changing the nature of the sandbox, and that's what CCP devs do.

Botting is a form of metagaming, and it and RMT inherently straddle the boundary between the sandbox and RL. CCP flagging accounts as botters in some way that's visible to other players is CCP putting its hand in and stirring the sandbox about a bit without changing its nature, only its content. And CCP's philosophy is to refrain from doing that as far as possible.

Ceci n'est pas un sig.

Obadiah Snooks
Reportable Offensive Name
Goonswarm Federation
#440 - 2012-04-03 20:39:48 UTC
Deviana Sevidon wrote:
Personally I would not send letterrs with the names. Most of the large alliances honestly don't care about members botting.

What would be interesting is, if they receive some kind of ingame punishment. For example concord stops protecting these players for a time in highsec.

Or in 0.0 when a botter logs off while being in space, his ship stays were it is, without despawn.Twisted

Before our directors just basically said don't do it. Some people were pretty blatant about it, but with 8000+ members, it's almost impossible for the directors to do their jobs and babysit/police all the discussions going on.
Quote:
Greetings,

I come to announce a change in GSF policy. Effective immediately any discussion in jabber or on the forums that encourages players to violate the EVE Online EULA or TOS is forbidden. For clarity, some of the things this would include are:
- Real Money Trading (RMT) which includes any real currently for ISK transaction as well as the buying and selling of characters or in-game assets for real currency.
- Botting, macros and other systems that automate repetitive tasks within EVE that have not been explicitly permitted by CCP.

Things that are NOT included in this are:
- The buying and selling of PLEX, GTCs and Accounts for ISK so long as they are done within CCP's guidelines.
- The use of any application or tool that has been sanctioned by CCP or relies on sanctioned methods of data retrieval (EVEMon, GTS, etc)

These lists are obviously not exhaustive. Violations may result in anything ranging from the revocation of your posting abilities to your removal and banning from the GSF.

Our team finally built the necessary filters to search for this stuff.