These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Goons "legalising" botting!!

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2011-09-29 20:43:50 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
I missed the part where it said "Don't report bots." Can you bold it for me?


Omg. You're so fracking dumb. It's perfectly obvious. Do I have to spell it out for you?

Y O U A R E B L I N D.

or i could say, "You have a hard time seeing don't you?" (sarcasm)

See? i said the same thing. Try understanding the english language before you open your mouth again.
Psychophantic
#202 - 2011-09-29 20:46:30 UTC
Goonswarm doth protest too much, methinks.
Homo Erectus
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#203 - 2011-09-29 20:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Homo Erectus
Contemno Addo wrote:


^^ obviously my alt btw sorry- headed for recruiting fora

Vile rat wrote:
Are you suggesting I allow our guys to take the law into their own hands and shoot allies based on their own opinions? "this jerk who keeps hanging around my ratting spot sure rats a lot, but I want this system I'll say he was a bot and take him out!"

This is not something I condone. Report bots. They have the technical ability to get rid of these jerks. I'm not interested in arbitrating drama.


absolutely not what I am suggesting rat. you guys aren't stupid, and you are pretty f'n good at the name and shame game on the series of tubes. but not coming out and blatantly saying "yea the whole look the other way thing was off" is bs. trying to hide behind the goonswarm fleet tag while you wear a csm tag is also bs. botting is in and out of this universe so tackle it on both sides.

keep in mind 2 things:

1) I think it safe to say anyone who knows me knows I hope your in game group of goons dies in a massive lag fire (in game)
2) I want Eve to suck less so I can enjoy it more. If that means I support Goon CSM attempting to make it better, #1 doesn't matter.

If you are looking to box me in with a suggestion you can ****, fine, I'll play. Here's what would happen with a huge alliance I was at the top of, whether i was wearing a CSM tag or not:

Suggest folks report them to you first. Since you've got 7 billion pilots, maybe 5 can step up and give a crap to go through the tiny amount of goonblues actually reporting any goonblue bots. Do about 2 minutes of investigating for yourself, then you do the report bot. Name and shame the ungodly f out of them. Pod and kick.

Yes CCP could probably fix this problem in about 10 minutes if they prioritized to it. Obviously they haven't. So until they do, be part of the solution group instead of part of the "goons look the other way" group. And the more I see you guys only doing what's best for the game when it's best for you or makes you look chipper, the more I want to break you in half.

I predate you.
Cydori
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#204 - 2011-09-29 20:47:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cydori
Vile rat wrote:
We do not condone botting. We think it is destructive to the game. We tell people not to bot and strongly discourage it because it's stupid and easily caught, not to mention it cheapens the effort of players who play the game the way it was meant to be. We are also not CCP's policemen. It is not our job to police botting or EULA breaking activities in the game, this is CCP's job. CCP Sreegs is doing a wonderful job policing this and we support his actions. Asking a playerbase to police EULA infractions is dumb and it is not our place. There is a report bot mechanism, we encourage people to use it.


Your alliance and its members have went to great lengths to convince the rest of EVE that Goons are practiced liars and are never to be trusted under any circumstances. And, over a period of years, we've learned this painful lesson well.

So allow me the conceit of speaking for all non Goons in EVE Online: We don't believe you. You and your CSM chairman, like all Goons, are practiced liars and proud of that fact. Short of outright insanity, what possible motivation would any of us have to believe a word you say now?

The end.

P.S. CCP's willful ignorance of what goes on in its own game is, sadly, of no great surprise. So I take CCP Screegs at his word when he says CCP has no intent of taking any meaningful action unless presented with irrefutable evidence of a coordinated RMT scheme at the corp/alliance level. Which is exactly what all of us expected of CCP prior to this dreary and depressing "debate" about a problem which is manifestly evident to everyone with a functioning brain stem, but which somehow continually seems to elude CCP. The only logical conclusion is that all is working as intended.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#205 - 2011-09-29 20:48:48 UTC
Satav wrote:
Angry, angry words


I don't see any bolded text. I do see CCP Sreegs and Vile Rat both saying that this thread is stupid, though.
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2011-09-29 20:51:06 UTC
Vernn Miller wrote:
I must have missed that part in the EULA that says alliances have to enforce CCP`s laws.

Also, the copy pasta you quoted makes no mention of any botting activities, it just reminds members of a certain alliance and coalition of alliances not to shoot blues if they hoard all the havens or sanctums in a system for a large amount of time. Large entities have their own rules and if you fail to respect them I think it`s fair to get the boot.

If you want to do some good in regards to botting, fly to some major mission hubs and have a look on dscan for CNRs that belong to characters not even two months old and are in a 1 man player corporation with 0% tax.

And stop being a ******.



No, we don't have to enfore CCP's laws. But we do obey them and don't condone those who break them.

Yes, we respect each alliances way to run their group, cause that's just how they want to do it and if you don't like it then theres the door. (This is irrelevant when you openly tell people not to report someone that is known to bot. In effect, you're telling them to break the EULA to stay in the "brotherhood.")

All the TEST and GSF postes here confirm that they think that this is "their" eve and that they can do whatever they want. And all the posts are obviously deliberately denying the truth and acting like something doesn't exist.

Personally, i gave up on CCP being effective against botters a long time ago, so i now blast ratting and mining bots out ot the sky all the time because apparently there is so much corruption that nothing will ever get done about it.
Satav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2011-09-29 20:56:26 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
Satav wrote:
Angry, angry words


I don't see any bolded text. I do see CCP Sreegs and Vile Rat both saying that this thread is stupid, though.


Update for you,

This isn't the Italian mob. No one is above the law.

I didn't right angry words. I wrote true words, which is more than i can say for anyone i've ever talked to in GS.

Truth hurts don't it?

Gives me the feeling of deja vu when BOB thought that because several of their leaders worked at CCP that they could do whatever they wanted and could get away with it.

Recall history, dude. "Calling in you big dogs" won't work. Not anymore.

Go fail troll someone else, like " give us your freighters" thread.
N1gella Laws0n
Doomheim
#208 - 2011-09-29 20:59:37 UTC
inb4 CCP lies, Goon lies, botter lies...

oh wait...

also, sack GM Rust, he could be more useless, I just can't figure out how.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#209 - 2011-09-29 21:00:11 UTC
Where, oh where, did you read that Goons were "Above the law" outside of the OP? A CCP employee has told you that is not the case. Vile Rat has told you that is not the case. What, pray tell, leads you to the conclusion that Goons are a giant botting alliance that refuses to follow the EULA and gets away with it?
Homo Erectus
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#210 - 2011-09-29 21:15:06 UTC
I think you're missing the irritation. If best I could quote the wtf it would be:

GoonSwarm Federation Alliance Update wrote:
we have one rule in Goonswarm: we don’t **** other goons.


and

Vile rat wrote:
Consider this an official GSF response to this garbage thread.


We do not condone botting. We think it is destructive to the game.


So if a goon was being destructive to the game, would you break your one rule? If you throw in the repeated "we are not police" blow-offs, what do you think people think the answer to that question would be?

I predate you.
Cypermethren
Perkone
Caldari State
#211 - 2011-09-29 21:58:42 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Mallikanth wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
... I mean evidence of coordinated wrongdoing.


CCP Sreegs, what do you mean by "coordinated "?

It gives me the impression that because you need other people to coordinate anything then any evidence of a "lone" botter is not wanted? Surely that can't be right but I can think of no other logical meaning for the way this is phrased. A botter should be reported no matter what or who he's working with.

And on a related note, can you give examples as to what classes as Evidence? Player logs definitely show nothing What? last time I checked.

Thanks.






I'm REALLY uninterested in interfering with this thread, or its allegations. I have no opinion on them specifically and if I did the opinion would be carried out either in the action or inaction of an administrative response.

I don't really expect to get good feedback, but what I DO expect is that I can lay out for you quite clearly that we do not condone malicious behavior and that given proof of that behavior we will act on it. Some of you will say we won't, but I'm saying we will. It's really futile for me to argue with you on the internet about whether something I say is true, as only I can see what's occurring from my perspective. Getting into a war of words isn't what I'm here for.

This thread is not about the lone botter. There's a mechanism in place, that we built, for you to handle such. This thread is about allegations of organized corporate misconduct, which then had the allegation that we were somehow implicit in this misconduct attached to it.

So... the ONLY reason I even posted in this wonderful thread was to state quite categorically that our detection and action on botting activities is clinical. We're not taking sides. We're not choosing not to act because we're scared that *insert x group of players here* is going to get mad. We're acting on our results which are evidence based.

What is evidence you ask? Words on a forum aren't it. If you believe that there is some ACTION which can be examined and responded to is occurring, then I'm happy to hear what you have to say, conduct an analysis and handle things on our end. What's simply NOT going to happen is for someone to paste some text on a forum and for us to run out and ban a bunch of people. That's just crazy speak. If you suspect someone of botting, report them using the tool. If you suspect greater misconduct, email me and if I'm able to prove your allegations they'll be acted upon appropriately.

If you believe someone at CCP isn't acting appropriately, myself included, you're ENCOURAGED to report said behavior to IA. If you believe that CCP isn't acting on whomever you think should be acted on because we're somehow profiting from it I can tell you that's some tinfoil hattery. You can then call me a liar and a lot of people's time will be wasted reading it and coming away unfulfilled.

We do not believe we benefit from people cheating and when we find such behavior we act on it. We don't have to go run to the CFO every time we catch someone doing something terrible because we lack the courage or desire to deliver a level playing field.

tl;dr if you have something you think should be looked at mail it to me.




Nice. Very nice CCP.

So youv'e just said that you're not going to take action against people which you know damn well are botting/RMT, untill WE THE PLAYERS bring YOU evidance.

In the meantime, we can have CSM's making posts that even a ******** chimp understands is telling goonswarm members to leave the other goonswarm botters alone as it causes alot of internal and external BS/Drama, both confirming that he knows its happening and requesting others that know about it to keep quiet or face the wrath of the boot.

When a CSM is elected to represent the community, you make them sign NDA's. Do you realy not care or did not put any precautions in to stop you're CSM's from completely badmouthing/giving you're game an even more tarnished name?

What will you do CCP if you dont give a CSM what they've been pushing for - and CSM decides to get even with you - not by breaking the EULA but by leaking more internal stuff - such as more in-depth proof of you/CCP's "look the other way" policy with botters.

You're an absolute discrace, Scraag, to come here to tell us if we want something done about the obvious/rampant RMT/BOT issue - and people of power (coughCSM) decide to make a public post which RUBS IT IN OUR FACE, then turn around and tell us you're not going to do anything untill we provide you with the necessary evidance to remove them? No wonder subscribers are dropping like flies.

Way to go to furher proove that you cater to specific alliances, are in the know to exactly what they are doing, and making excuses as to why you cant/wont do anything about it.


Had this story been about a person whom Bots/RMT's in a smaller, lesser known alliance that did not have a CSM in their midsts you would have jumped at the oportunity to make a story about it to prove to us players that you're keeping you're word and doing what the playerbase wants.


Instead, because of all the bad wrap and utter hell that will follow if the true workings of your're head CSM in regards to their botting/RMT ventures you choose to ignore it - the same reasons you've been ignoring alot of **** that has lost you so many subscribers in the first place. You choose to ignore things that you feel are too difficult to handle under the reasoning that players will eventualy forget and rage about something else.

Absolutely Pathetic, CCP.
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#212 - 2011-09-29 22:08:16 UTC
Obviously the conclusion we can draw from this is that T20 still works at CCP and all of the devs are busy botting with Goonswarm characters. There's no other possible explanation.
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#213 - 2011-09-29 22:16:40 UTC
Vile rat wrote:
Consider this an official GSF response to this garbage thread.


We do not condone botting. We think it is destructive to the game. We tell people not to bot and strongly discourage it because it's stupid and easily caught, not to mention it cheapens the effort of players who play the game the way it was meant to be. We are also not CCP's policemen. It is not our job to police botting or EULA breaking activities in the game, this is CCP's job. CCP Sreegs is doing a wonderful job policing this and we support his actions. Asking a playerbase to police EULA infractions is dumb and it is not our place. There is a report bot mechanism, we encourage people to use it.


I call utter Bullshit.

Even a casual comparison between this statement and the original internal GSF communication shows how farcical your denials are.

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Vardec Crom
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#214 - 2011-09-29 22:18:57 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
We all know it goes on. We all ***** and complain and moan about it. But THIS drew my ire.

GoonSwarm Federation Alliance Update – September 28th

Quote:
Blue-On-Blue Violence

This is a sensitive – even a touchy – subject, so let me say that while he is, indeed, a keen ratter – a very keen ratter if we are honest – we have one rule in Goonswarm: we don’t **** other goons. Oh and we don’t play cop for CCP in their own game by reporting or petitioning goons, either:

But if it were the case that he had been ratting just a little too exuberantly for peoples’ liking, or if he had offended them by consistently ignoring their conversation requests for a brief window of, say, seventeen or eighteen hours, for instance, then it would be goon-****** to report him or to kill him. This will land you and your corp in trouble as all we know is that someone shot blues.


So at what point does an alliance, with it's head as THE CSM CHAIRMAN, allow bots, WHICH IS AGAINST THE EULA, and ACTIVELY THREATEN MEMBERS WITH EXPULSION if they should report said bots.

I know for a fact that several corps/alliances have a zero tolerance for bots, including a DekCo kiss buddy alliance called FA. Hoorah to Zag for that!

But for Goons to threaten expulsion flies directly in the face of the EULA. Surely even encouraging/harbouring such activity must be embedded into the EULA immediately. NO-ONE should have ANY tolerance for bots let alone SUPPORT them.

I call on CCP to start banning CORPS and ALLIANCES for ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING botting, knowingly and in the face of it being downright illegal ingame.

And for the sensible Goons (are there any?), if you think you can be threatened with expulsion for bot-reporting, just remember that no CEO will know, or can know, if you reported the cheating, thieving SOB!!


Yep Ban 8000 accounts. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Seymore Graves
Interkosmos
#215 - 2011-09-29 22:19:51 UTC
This thread is fantastic.
Barbelo Valentinian
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2011-09-29 22:32:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbelo Valentinian
Jita Alt666 wrote:
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:


We already reserve that right...


Expression of curiosity: weren't you leader of the Goons in EVE once?

Request for verification of personal reminiscence: Didn't you claim that your aim was for the Goons to "break EVE" or something?

Eager questioning: What happened with all that, and how come you're working for CCP now - and how can we trust you that your not still interested in "breaking EVE"?


Because the company that makes the game hired him. Or do you believe that CCP are so terrible they would actively hire people they know who are going to aim to destroy their products?


"Terrible"? I don't think that's quite the right word. "Silly"? Perhaps.

After all, the game has been going somewhat downhill since ex-Goons were majorly involved.

In the clear light of day, it seems singularly bizarre that a company would hire someone who had previously claimed that his aim was to "break EVE". To put him in charge of security seems the height of absurdity.

Are we supposed to just forget all about that?

You don't think it would be a bit of a jolly jape to bring down an MMO? Especially if you got paid for doing it?
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
#217 - 2011-09-29 22:41:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Mendolus
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:

In the clear light of day, it seems singularly bizarre that a company would hire someone who had previously claimed that his aim was to "break EVE". To put him in charge of security seems the height of absurdity.

Are we supposed to just forget all about that?


That's a rather naive outlook in the grand scheme of things I think, sort of the way felons in real life get branded as violent criminals in society even if they committed a victimless crime like growing too much herb for personal use in their own backyards or something.

It's all a matter of perception, in some sense, Sreegs would be the perfect person to take charge of security, being that he may very well have been poking at and learning its ins and outs, weaknesses, shortcomings, and loopholes of EVE Online for years before he was hired, who else would know better from a player perspective where the weak spots are?

CCP probably pays good money to have a guy who once tried to pry his way into those nooks and crannies instead now filling them up with putty, so to speak.

Money is the great motivator after all, you think someone would choose the joy of dismantling an online video game over food on the table? I don't, unless they're mentally or emotionally unstable, or have some other such extenuating circumstances.

...clearly the Ishukone Watch Scorpion is the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, i.e. the Brown Rider, otherwise known as Poopie.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#218 - 2011-09-29 22:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Kengutsi Akira
The Apostle wrote:
Oh and we don’t play cop for CCP in their own game by reporting or petitioning goons, either


bolded for the ostriches who cant read

Quote:

In the clear light of day, it seems singularly bizarre that a company would hire someone who had previously claimed that his aim was to "break EVE". To put him in charge of security seems the height of absurdity.

Are we supposed to just forget all about that?


I believe the original quote was they dont want to destroy THE game, just YOUR game.

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
The Apostle
Doomheim
#219 - 2011-09-29 22:47:56 UTC
OK. I'm out of bed and I see this post has gone on a bit longer than I expected. Some of the reactions are sad but expected. I also understand the bias appearing. I need it back on track. This is obviously a hot item and I'd like to see something good come of it.

Can we get a TL;DR'd by a CSM/Goon and CCP Screegs.

There are 2 areas I need clarified.

A) From CSM Vile Rat - Goon
Quote:
Asking a playerbase to police EULA infractions is dumb and it is not our place. There is a report bot mechanism, we encourage people to use it.

First you're saying that it is NOT up to the playerbase. So why bother declaring a policy asking members to report botting ONLY to diplos?

Then you state you encourage reporting. Well look. This has clearly been refuted. I am not going to quote/quote/quote this to infinity. Goons clearly state that reporting is Goon****ing and will neccessitate a boot. Even if this is "refuted" with clever wordplay it clearly does NOT encourage reporting.

I understand not shooting blue-on-blue. Goons/anyone have every right to discourage that practise. That part is not at issue.

So short version.
i) If you don't care about bots why have a policy AT ALL?
ii) Why did the OP specifically state that REPORTING bots is Goon****ing if you ENCOURAGE reporting?


B) To CCP Screegs
"If evidence" please report bla bla. We all know that 99% of 0.0, and specifically around Goontown is a no go zone to any bot hunters. How is this evidence to be determined? ONLY way I see is proactive CCP intervention or by alliance members reporting?

For CCP to be proactive, I understand how difficult and costly it is to track bots so I accept it's a difficult task for CCP despite the naysayers.

What I don't get is how you point-blank refuse to acknowledge the intent of the OP (in fact you go so far as to belittle the intent of this topic which I take exception to).

I completely understand the need to remain objective and not being swayed on internet topics but the content and intent of the OP is very specific. I'm ignoring how it has been discussed, heated or otherwise.

What I need (or we?)
1) Someone in CCP needs to categorically clarify the rules where an alliance has said their members CANNOT report a bot.

I have personally been in trouble for threatening to use the petioning system. I suspect that threatening to prevent use of the petition is just as (if not more so) damaging to the integrity and intent of said system

2) Someone in CCP needs to categorically clarify the rules where corps/alliances harbour/secure bottting and deliberately obfuscate attempts by members to report said bots.

It is this very public declaration of intent by an alliance (heavily CSM orientated) that sends an absolute and definitively bad message to everyone, in AND out of game. THAT is the part that needs to be addressed.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#220 - 2011-09-29 22:52:15 UTC
Its pretty obvious, CCP are unwilling to ban paying players (bots) themselves so theyre putting the power into the hands of the players (who refuse to do CCP's dirty work for them).

so CCP endorses botting :D

They just cant say that outright or ppl will rage

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes