These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control. (Allegedly)

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shamon Hussad
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#721 - 2013-02-13 00:45:17 UTC
Moneta Curran wrote:
Please elaborate on this. Would you argue that "John" was wrongfully banned and that his accelerated market order update routines aren't just another form of botting?

On what grounds would you challenge the investigation done by CCP?

Oh no, if it's like they say and he was botting, then yeah ban ahead, not arguing with that, but only if what he was doing was against the current EULA. I'm arguing against people attacking Kelduum for no apparent reason to me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#722 - 2013-02-13 00:47:16 UTC
Callie Cross wrote:
Then you read it wrong.


No, I read it correctly. He got the only response that mattered in paragraph 15.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Shamon Hussad
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#723 - 2013-02-13 00:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Shamon Hussad
Sariah Kion wrote:
This why the defenders look like idiots.

Im sorry and I really dont mean to offend but you all sound so disingenuous when you say **** like this.

Its almost comical at this point.


But I seriously cannot see what he is talking about, since no one said he was botting until Sreegs came along, so how could Kelduum be supporting botting?
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#724 - 2013-02-13 00:48:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


...and CCP only bans on 150% proof.

-Liang


No, CCP bans on the "trust us" principle. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Someone is banned for botting, we'll call him Bill. Bill sends petition asking for proof. CCP replies to the petition and says "You were botting!". Bill escalates stating, "But I wasn't botting". CCP replies, "You were botting because we say you were botting...now kiss off!".

And that's CCP's proof. Since they won't discuss it, won't divulge it everyone in the game is left with trusting CCP.


Don't ban me, bro!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#725 - 2013-02-13 00:48:48 UTC
Shamon Hussad wrote:

Oh no, if it's like they say and he was botting, then yeah ban ahead, not arguing with that, but only if what he was doing was against the current EULA. I'm arguing against people attacking Kelduum for no apparent reason to me.


Ok, so you agree that he was botting. Cool. Now, let's go read paragraphs 4 and 5 of his OP on Eve University's forums where Kelduum explicitly endorses this behavior. Now read the rest of the thread there, and his actions here, and his statements on Twitter.

Kelduum explicitly endorses his friends botting, or perhaps the way in which they botted. But those dirty Goons and Testies ... they're all bad botters and need banned. Roll

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#726 - 2013-02-13 00:49:17 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


...and CCP only bans on 150% proof.

-Liang


No, CCP bans on the "trust us" principle. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Someone is banned for botting, we'll call him Bill. Bill sends petition asking for proof. CCP replies to the petition and says "You were botting!". Bill escalates stating, "But I wasn't botting". CCP replies, "You were botting because we say you were botting...now kiss off!".

And that's CCP's proof. Since they won't discuss it, won't divulge it everyone in the game is left with trusting CCP.


And that's all the proof you will ever need or get.

-Liang

Ed: Also, that is totally acceptable and expected. If you don't trust them, I suggest you navigate to secure.eveonline.com and examine your subscription options.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nikolai Lachance
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#727 - 2013-02-13 00:49:57 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Tough call on this one. I hate botters but I hate arrogant people who abuse their authority too.

The question is what authority has Kelduum abused?

His CSM status doesn't really give him any authority with either the player base or the security team, and Kelduum has already acknowledged this. Kelduum wasn't trying to assert some kind of CSM wieght when he was attempting to gain information from CCP via petitions. ISK was taken away, and the explanation was, in his eyes, suspicious and wholly unsatisfactory.

Kelduum posted about the incident on the forum for the corporation of which he is the CEO. The only "authority" he used in doing that was to make the post a sticky on the forum. This whole issue has gained notoriety because of E-Uni's notoriety, and Kelduum's notoriety as it's CEO and a CSM member. However, awareness of it outside the E-Uni community has only occurred as a result of the actions of others.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#728 - 2013-02-13 00:50:00 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Tough call on this one. I hate botters but I hate arrogant people who abuse their authority too.

I'd REALLY like to see John in action before I made a call one way or another. Sreegs seems to be saying that Sreegs gets to define what a botter is and by Sreegs' definition, John is a botter, therefore John is a botter. Color me unconvinced.

Maybe they should implement a 15 second cooldown between changing (different) market orders.



I think its funny that you consider "doing his job" abusing his authority.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Terraferma K10
Doomheim
#729 - 2013-02-13 00:50:14 UTC
Nikolai Lachance wrote:
their communcation with Kelduum served to reinforce this suspiction rather than allay it.


CCP Sreegs wrote:
2) ... We cannot typically share this information with them as it's really none of their business.


It then devolved into

E-UNI: "Yes it is our business."
-vs-
CCP: "No, it's not."

Terraferma K10 wrote:
Corp: "Why not? Aren't we involved in this too?"
CCP: "No, the owner of the driveway a thief ditches his stolen car in isn't entitled to the method of how the car was stolen."
Corp: *Rise*
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#730 - 2013-02-13 00:50:16 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:

Got proof of that? Just because someone says its so doesn't mean it is. Others believe differently. Just because they believe differently != they support what the person was doing in the scenario where they find out that they wrong, and yet that's exactly what you've been implying by saying E-UNI people support botting. It'd be like if I said you supported banning for no reason if I believed without a doubt that CCP was wrong. Same logic.


Sure, here's some proof:
- The guy's ISK was deleted
- The guy was banned
- The guy didn't get reimbursed
- There were 6 petitions that all ended the same way
- Sreegs has flat out said he was botting

The guy was botting.

-Liang


Punishment != proof
And if a person's word is proof then there's equal proof on both sides.

You have nothing. What you're doing is nothing short of being a yes man and believing that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty. This is not a sane bit of logic.
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#731 - 2013-02-13 00:50:17 UTC
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Moneta Curran wrote:
Please elaborate on this. Would you argue that "John" was wrongfully banned and that his accelerated market order update routines aren't just another form of botting?

On what grounds would you challenge the investigation done by CCP?

Oh no, if it's like they say and he was botting, then yeah ban ahead, not arguing with that, but only if what he was doing was against the current EULA. I'm arguing against people attacking Kelduum for no apparent reason to me.


Kelduum knew why the isk was confiscated and destroyed. To say or argue otherwise is to wear a sign hanging from your neck that reads. "I'm not very bright" on the front and "Im a good unista" on the back.

All this pussy footing and side show is just a way for him to express his inner rage that CCP didnt bow down to a CSM and the corp leader of the always benevolent Eve University.

End this farce.


Keldumm needs to be removed from the CSM.

[b]Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President[/b] Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. [u]A modern girl for a modern world.[/u]
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#732 - 2013-02-13 00:50:43 UTC
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Sariah Kion wrote:
This why the defenders look like idiots.

Im sorry and I really dont mean to offend but you all sound so disingenuous when you say **** like this.

Its almost comical at this point.


But I seriously cannot see what he is talking about, since no one said he was botting until Sreegs came along, so how could Kelduum be supporting botting?


Paragraph 15, Kelduum's OP in E-U's forums. He was either botting it or RMTing it, and frankly it doesn't matter which. That's well before Kelduum went off on his rant, defended this form of botting, and intentionally attempted to damage CCP's reputation.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#733 - 2013-02-13 00:51:16 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

CCP does, and that's all that matters.

For them and their actions. Not when forum posters try using it as a reason though.

You sound like you're making your opinion objective.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#734 - 2013-02-13 00:52:35 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:

Punishment != proof
And if a person's word is proof then there's equal proof on both sides.

You have nothing. What you're doing is nothing short of being a yes man and believing that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty. This is not a sane bit of logic.


Punishment is actually a fantastic proxy for proof. Your boy was botting and got caught. His ISK got taken and no you can't have it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Moneta Curran
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#735 - 2013-02-13 00:53:13 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


...and CCP only bans on 150% proof.

-Liang


No, CCP bans on the "trust us" principle. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Someone is banned for botting, we'll call him Bill. Bill sends petition asking for proof. CCP replies to the petition and says "You were botting!". Bill escalates stating, "But I wasn't botting". CCP replies, "You were botting because we say you were botting...now kiss off!".

And that's CCP's proof. Since they won't discuss it, won't divulge it everyone in the game is left with trusting CCP.




That's almost correct. I'd like to think, though, that they in fact choose not to share their actual proof, you know, the stuff they mull over before they decide to ban a customer, with some random dude on the internet.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#736 - 2013-02-13 00:53:49 UTC
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Sariah Kion wrote:
This why the defenders look like idiots.

Im sorry and I really dont mean to offend but you all sound so disingenuous when you say **** like this.

Its almost comical at this point.


But I seriously cannot see what he is talking about, since no one said he was botting until Sreegs came along

You mean besides Kelduum.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Shamon Hussad
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#737 - 2013-02-13 00:53:59 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Shamon Hussad wrote:

Oh no, if it's like they say and he was botting, then yeah ban ahead


Ok, so you agree that he was botting. Cool.

Man your reading comprehension is off the charts.
Terraferma K10
Doomheim
#738 - 2013-02-13 00:54:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Terraferma K10
Aren Madigan wrote:
You have nothing (proof).


CCP Sreegs wrote:
It's easy to insinuate misconduct when you know we're in a position where we can't put our stuff on the table. It's also petty.
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#739 - 2013-02-13 00:54:53 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

CCP does, and that's all that matters.

For them and their actions. Not when forum posters try using it as a reason though.

You sound like you're making your opinion objective.


Name one good famous debate that was built on the foundation of "this person says so" with nothing to back it up.
Shamon Hussad
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#740 - 2013-02-13 00:55:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Sariah Kion wrote:
This why the defenders look like idiots.

Im sorry and I really dont mean to offend but you all sound so disingenuous when you say **** like this.

Its almost comical at this point.


But I seriously cannot see what he is talking about, since no one said he was botting until Sreegs came along

You mean besides Kelduum.

Uhh no, before Sreegs posted Kelduum only asked twice if it was in relation to apparently botting.