These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Callie Cross
Tax Code
#741 - 2013-02-13 00:56:15 UTC
Liang Nuren 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, 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



If Kelduum really thought he was botting and the money was from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he didn't think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.
stoicfaux
#742 - 2013-02-13 00:56:22 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
I've worked on internal investigations for over a decade. I have never reported to anyone more senior than a CIO. Legal and HR typically owned the investigations. I must not understand corporate structure internet forums.


FTFY. Big smile

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#743 - 2013-02-13 00:56:49 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
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.

Track record of thousands of banned botters with very, very few false hits. Yeah, that's nothing.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#744 - 2013-02-13 00:57:25 UTC
Through actions today I think a couple of things are becoming clear:

Eve University is, at the very least, in the "grey" area when it comes to botting and its detection and punishment unless the corporation makes a statement to the contrary we can only take their leaders ACTIONS and not empty words as a message of where that corporation stands.

Kelduum needs to step down form the CSM immediately. He has tried to abuse his power as a CSM and that is completely against what the spirit of service on the CSM is supposed to be about.


The Eve community is smart enough to see through the shell game being played by Kelduum and his supporters.

Why dont those attempting to argue this away realize how silly they look and how obvious it is to everyone else?

Kelduum, do the honorable thing and step down. If For nothing else, at least for the reputation of Eve University.

Such a fall from grace....

[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]
Moneta Curran
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#745 - 2013-02-13 00:57:54 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:
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.


Let's not drag religion into this!
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#746 - 2013-02-13 00:58:12 UTC
Terraferma K10 wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
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.


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.


It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#747 - 2013-02-13 00:58:29 UTC
Callie Cross wrote:

If Kelduum really thought he was botting and the money was from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he didn't think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Hmmm.....

Callie Cross wrote:

If Kelduum really thought he wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he did think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Right. That's exactly correct now.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#748 - 2013-02-13 01:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Aren Madigan wrote:
It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.


I can say objectively that detecting botting in a game is generally very easy. I'm honestly surprised that CCP is as "lenient" as they are. Even my bosses are way more lenient than me. I'd personally just ban them all.

-Liang

Ed: I should say, that when you detect botting you're generally highly sure that it's botting. Detecting it in the first place can be difficult.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Shamon Hussad
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#749 - 2013-02-13 01:01:20 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Callie Cross wrote:

If Kelduum really thought he was botting and the money was from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he didn't think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Hmmm.....

Callie Cross wrote:

If Kelduum really thought he wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he did think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Right. That's exactly correct now.

-Liang

Wow, troll of the year award, no one can be that stupid. The sentence you changed it to doesn't even make sense to the context. Of course he would petition it if he thought John wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#750 - 2013-02-13 01:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Callie Cross wrote:

If Kelduum really thought he was botting and the money was from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he didn't think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Hmmm.....

Callie Cross wrote:

If Kelduum really thought he wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he did think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Right. That's exactly correct now.

-Liang

Wow, troll of the year award, no one can be that stupid. The sentence you changed it to doesn't even make sense to the context. Of course he would petition it if he thought John wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting.


It's called covering your own backside, he obviously had some suspicions or he wouldn't have A: firewalled the donation and B: petitioned CCP on it's legality. Covering himself is the only sensible move he made in this whole thing, bitching about it on the E-UNI forums was where the descent into madness started.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#751 - 2013-02-13 01:08:39 UTC
Callie Cross wrote:
If Kelduum really thought he was botting and the money was from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he didn't think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.


Petitioning large cash influxes is the smart thing to do if you have any question about the legitimacy of said cash. Otherwise you risk being put into a deep red wallet or getting banned.

As you said, Kelduum isn't an idiot. He petitioned the ISK to protect himself.

Trying to hide a large cash influx from CCP because you think is dirty is:
1) Impossible (or near enough to, especially when it comes in the form of a direct ISK donation)
2) Idiotic if you want to avoid being banned.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#752 - 2013-02-13 01:11:38 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.


I can say objectively that detecting botting in a game is generally very easy. I'm honestly surprised that CCP is as "lenient" as they are. Even my bosses are way more lenient than me. I'd personally just ban them all.

-Liang

Its easy to detect them. Its not easy to detect them with 0% rate on false positives. In theory, every bot ever can be detected at a 100% rate, but along with it, there's very high odds you'll also hit legitimate users at some point and hey, its happened. It'll continue to happen. Sometimes things get misfiled, sometimes its near impossible to spot the misfiling. Now if its progressed to this, I don't think CCP is purposely being malicious. There's a good chance they're in the right unless something along the lines of the guy insulted someone that pulled something petty in retaliation and wasn't caught, which isn't hard to happen either, just ideally very very rare. Now I'd think ideally, given how strongly he's being defended, there's a reason that he was believed innocent, despite you wanting to twist the topic around to say something it doesn't, which further makes me curious just what he was using.
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#753 - 2013-02-13 01:11:50 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Aren Madigan wrote:
It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.


I can say objectively that detecting botting in a game is generally very easy. I'm honestly surprised that CCP is as "lenient" as they are. Even my bosses are way more lenient than me. I'd personally just ban them all.

-Liang

Ed: I should say, that when you detect botting you're generally highly sure that it's botting. Detecting it in the first place can be difficult.


From what I've seen of your posting you're not objective in the least. You make your decision, in this case, based on no proof other than the ban and confiscation, and do not entertain the possibility that on their own they are not proof of anything other than an action taken by CCP. I bet you're the type of person who upon seeing someone shot in the street praises the Lord for smiting what must have been an evil person.

I can respect Sreegs position being unable to divulge anything about their processes. On the other hand, I'm also quite disturbed that there isn't an official and well documented means to rebut both the CCP security teams accusations and actions. That there isn't an official process that the accused can participate to the extent of providing additional facts about one's own case means the process is very susceptible impropriety and abuse. In it's current state it does nothing to alleviate the public's fears of misconduct or mistake.

Don't ban me, bro!
Kathern Aurilen
#754 - 2013-02-13 01:14:31 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
But who is watching you while you watch the watchers....who are watching us watch you? Gawd Damn it felt good to type that for some reason. Also friends don't let friends post drunk.
Or pee in the pool

No cuts, no butts, no coconuts!

Forum alt, unskilled in the ways of pewpew!
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#755 - 2013-02-13 01:14:58 UTC
Aren Madigan wrote:


It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.


Sorry, thats not the way this works. CCP says he was botting, and they don't disclose the method they use to detect you. If you need more proof than "We say so" from CCP perhaps you're giving your money to the wrong company because literally you will never get a more definitive answer than "we said so" from them.

Also your boss knew the money was dirty, or at least had a strong suspicion. You know how I know? Because when we used to run a renter lot we petitioned every dime received because we suspected them of botting and if you DONT petition it you put the rest of your wallet at risk. If he didn't think there was a possibility that the money was dirty he wouldn't have bothered.....but thats not what happened.

The end result is that EVE Uni has made a collective ass of itself for no apparent reason and continues to make it worse by screaming at the game company that they want everything from proof that he was botting to being let in on the entire detection process to a damn apology (which you are in no way deserving of).

Your CEO and CSM member has used his position to try and box CCP into a corner and extort him and if it wasn't the end of his term there would probably be demands that he step down for abusing his power and position for personal gain.

Needless to say, it would behoove him not to run again, because if he does I know a good man of us will drag him through the mud for what he's done here with this.

On the up side at least theres a lot of other groups out there teaching newbies so we can quietly sit and watch yours die off because you decided to back the wrong dog in a fight and support botting and go after the team dedicated to removing them from the game.

Good job.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#756 - 2013-02-13 01:16:31 UTC
One obvious rationale for petitioning to discover if ISK you received was illegitimate or not is that the level of risk presented by using that ISK and finding out later that it was illegitimate is immense. Thus if I was to receive a sum of ISK or assets worth more than my annual space income, I would certainly petition it before spending a single cent. So the rational explanation is risk management.

A more cynical view would be that someone was hoping a GM would make a mistake, tell K that the ISK was legitimate, and thus provide some level of guarantee that the ISK wouldn't be taken away later.

Even being exposed to large sums of money or power can be enough to corrupt a person. I would not be surprised to find that K was acting in the cynical scenario: after all for many capsuleers a windfall of 300B ISK is like winning the lotto. Who wouldn't be looking for some way to "win" in this scenario?

"Please Daddy CCP, I know this money is dirty, but couldn't I keep just a small fraction of it? Even the smell of this much money would keep E-U well funded for a year!"

"No son, dirty money is dirty money, and you don't want your life smelling of dirty money."

"You are so mean! I'm telling Mum on you!"

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#757 - 2013-02-13 01:17:50 UTC
Shamon Hussad wrote:
Wow, troll of the year award, no one can be that stupid. The sentence you changed it to doesn't even make sense to the context. Of course he would petition it if he thought John wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting.


No, he wouldn't. The truth is that "John" wrote a program to accelerate his trades and he was banned for botting. Kelduum knew this, and endorsed this behavior (P4,5 from his OP). Then the guy liquidated his ISK and gave it all to the University and Kelduum filed a petition(P15). He even went so far as to note how it would fund University programs (P33) for a long time and how if he didn't get some of the ISK it would show CCP had it in for the University (P33). This is nothing short of attempting to hold his position as a CSM member and his influence over a large quantity of noob accounts as ransom for some part of the ISK (P17, P33, etc).

The widespread support for Kelduum's actions in the Ivy League forums seems to me combined with widespread support for "John"'s form of marketeering seems to me to directly support the conclusion that Kelduum and Eve University directly support and endorse botting.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#758 - 2013-02-13 01:17:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Aren Madigan wrote:
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.

Name one good debate where one side had all the data and relevant information collated and the other side had nothing but sophistic arguments and unfounded aspersions on the authorities collecting the data?

Not that this was a debate to begin with so much as Kelduum getting mad that one of his E-UNI botter friends got caught.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#759 - 2013-02-13 01:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Aren Madigan wrote:
Now I'd think ideally, given how strongly he's being defended, there's a reason that he was believed innocent, despite you wanting to twist the topic around to say something it doesn't, which further makes me curious just what he was using.


He's being defended so strongly because your CEO put you into a position that required it to stop you all from looking like infantile morons.

He was botting, you're not going to get told how.


Move on and let it pass, don't worry about how he was botting, figuring that out will result in other EVE Uni mongoloids trying the same thing simply based off the money he was making and will result in more bans.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#760 - 2013-02-13 01:18:56 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
One obvious rationale for petitioning to discover if ISK you received was illegitimate or not is that the level of risk presented by using that ISK and finding out later that it was illegitimate is immense. Thus if I was to receive a sum of ISK or assets worth more than my annual space income, I would certainly petition it before spending a single cent. So the rational explanation is risk management.

A more cynical view would be that someone was hoping a GM would make a mistake, tell K that the ISK was legitimate, and thus provide some level of guarantee that the ISK wouldn't be taken away later.

Even being exposed to large sums of money or power can be enough to corrupt a person. I would not be surprised to find that K was acting in the cynical scenario: after all for many capsuleers a windfall of 300B ISK is like winning the lotto. Who wouldn't be looking for some way to "win" in this scenario?

"Please Daddy CCP, I know this money is dirty, but couldn't I keep just a small fraction of it? Even the smell of this much money would keep E-U well funded for a year!"

"No son, dirty money is dirty money, and you don't want your life smelling of dirty money."

"You are so mean! I'm telling Mum on you!"


This might make sense if Kelduum didn't start his OP by telling us about how the guy was botting-but-not-botting-really. It's most certainly in the second category.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.