These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nessa Aldeen
First Among Equals
#61 - 2013-02-12 11:21:59 UTC
Looking at the forum post on eve uni, your ceo is assuming too much. Talking to people and befriending them online does NOT necessitate the fact that 'John' is innocent. He was a botter. Period. Just so you claim John is 100% innocent because his conduct seems clean does not mean he did not do these 'pixel crimes'. He bloody hell did.

To do those things is downright impossible without using them. You claim that he is innocent bla bla bla but everything in EVE leaves a massive electronic paper trail. Are we suppose to take the word of your CEO and assume that CCP was in the wrong just because of hearsay and 'good behaviour'? That's akin to looking at your neighbour and thinking 'oh wow, he was a nice dude no way he murdered those people" but the neighbour actually did because the police knew it.

On your second assertion that you have a right to know just because he donated illegal liquidated assets to EVE-uni sets a downright dangerous precedent. YOU being eve-uni does NOT make you any MORE special than any other corp or alliance demanding answers to something that is between the account holder and CCP. He biomassed himself and went back to make more gold in some damn generic MMO fantasy, good riddance. CCP had done the right thing by giving you escalation and coming back to tell you that the isk is indeed illegal and confiscating it. If you think have a right to know how CCP detects these things, then I too demand the same privileges.
Thur Barbek
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2013-02-12 11:22:03 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:

3) The only authority higher than the Director of Security for these complaints is the Executive Producer and then the CEO. This is a higher level of escalation than the Customer Service arm and IA automatically looks at our work.

you don't see a potential conflict of interest in IA being part of a team it is tasked to investigate?


So you want *Internal Affairs* to be handled by an *external* party... Roll Where do you people come from.
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#63 - 2013-02-12 11:22:44 UTC
Mai Khumm wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.


With this games interesting.......history, do you REALLY blame half the allegations made. I mean, all of them, not just in this thread.


While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-02-12 11:22:48 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
There are a number of things wrong with the assertions being made in other forums, which is a topic I'm sure the author of these posts is familiar with because we discussed them prior to his rather selective reporting of the incident. Here's the facts as we need be concerned from an eve perspective:

1) John was botting. That is not even close to in dispute.
2) We committed an error in not removing the isk before it got to EVE-U. However we did rectify this problem and our logs show that it was discussed and approved prior to either them receiving the isk or petitioning. We apologized to EVE-U however the petition was escalated as high as it could be and the decision remained. We cannot typically share this information with them as it's really none of their business.
3) The only authority higher than the Director of Security for these complaints is the Executive Producer and then the CEO. This is a higher level of escalation than the Customer Service arm and IA automatically looks at our work. I'm not sure why we feel we should be able to escalate higher than the highest reasonable authority but the fact is that this team operates with significant oversight. We believe the issue here to be more that this particular CSM feels he isn't in the loop, something which is quite frankly the only proper way to do business in a unit that handles secrets.

Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.



Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?

http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#65 - 2013-02-12 11:25:25 UTC
Wescro wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
There are a number of things wrong with the assertions being made in other forums, which is a topic I'm sure the author of these posts is familiar with because we discussed them prior to his rather selective reporting of the incident. Here's the facts as we need be concerned from an eve perspective:

1) John was botting. That is not even close to in dispute.
2) We committed an error in not removing the isk before it got to EVE-U. However we did rectify this problem and our logs show that it was discussed and approved prior to either them receiving the isk or petitioning. We apologized to EVE-U however the petition was escalated as high as it could be and the decision remained. We cannot typically share this information with them as it's really none of their business.
3) The only authority higher than the Director of Security for these complaints is the Executive Producer and then the CEO. This is a higher level of escalation than the Customer Service arm and IA automatically looks at our work. I'm not sure why we feel we should be able to escalate higher than the highest reasonable authority but the fact is that this team operates with significant oversight. We believe the issue here to be more that this particular CSM feels he isn't in the loop, something which is quite frankly the only proper way to do business in a unit that handles secrets.

Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.



Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?


I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant when it can be used. Aside from showing you logs which include private communications and trade secrets I'm not sure how this could be done. This is why we're in this position in the first place. 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.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Thur Barbek
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2013-02-12 11:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Thur Barbek
Wescro wrote:

Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?


CCP Sreegs already said they knew 100% that john was botting. I don't get why deciding to punish him would be an "arbitrary" decision.

edit: Your just mad that you lost out on 300b
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-02-12 11:27:04 UTC
Le Badass wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:

It was allowing him to update 30 market order per minute for up to 20 minutes per day. No person can do that unassisted. His ban was justified as he was basically botting.


Good point...
The only defense to this is to say that at least, John didn't seem fully aware that he fell into this category, as he apparently voluntarily provided CCP with the source code and program descriptions of his programs.
Doesn't make it ok, though.
Too bad E-Uni couldn't have the ISK to do good with. Maybe next time.


There is no defense as everyone has access to the EULA. Ignorance is not a valid defense & CCP have both the right & responsibility to remove ill-gotten goods from the game.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Lovely Dumplings
My Little Pony Appreciation Corporation
#68 - 2013-02-12 11:27:39 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
There are a number of things wrong with the assertions being made in other forums, which is a topic I'm sure the author of these posts is familiar with because we discussed them prior to his rather selective reporting of the incident. Here's the facts as we need be concerned from an eve perspective:

1) John was botting. That is not even close to in dispute.



Stopped reading there, good enough for me. We should be encouraging CCP to take care of more bots, TBH. As I'm seeing the argument:

1. "John" did something grey area that CCP defined as botting, and passed the bot smell test (30 updates a minute, geeze)
2. "john" liquidated his dirty assets, handed to EUNI.
3. EUNI duders mad coz CCP confiscated dirty ISK


Props on EUNI for doing due diligence and keeping that ISK separate. Props for security team for weeding out another botter.

www.minerbumping.com
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2013-02-12 11:27:39 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Only in a creepy shadow world where nobody in our chain can be trusted. In this case none of us would be employable by anyone so while it might make for interesting eve news tinfoil fodder it really doesn't have much basis in reality.

I wonder how all the unemployable sobs working at corporations that see the need to have Internal Affairs/Internal Investigations report directly to the board (as is standard practice to prevent management from influencing their work) got their jobs...

.
Orbital Dyke
Doomheim
#70 - 2013-02-12 11:28:09 UTC
It seems that john was a well known player rather than a corp-less disposable botting alt

Its possible that from the very start of this escapade the CCP Representative(s) handling this case have ultimately got it wrong

CCP 1 EVE-U 0

Gratz
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-02-12 11:28:17 UTC
Thur Barbek wrote:
Wescro wrote:

Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?


CCP Sreegs already said they knew 100% that john was botting. I don't get why deciding to punish him would be an "arbitrary" decision.


Because that would require having faith in CCPs assertion that they are 100% sure, which I don't have a problem with, just that it'd be nice to have additional assurance.

I will go and edit my OP now to tone down the accusations, I feel they were exaggerated.

http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#72 - 2013-02-12 11:29:05 UTC
Thur Barbek wrote:
Wescro wrote:

Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?


CCP Sreegs already said they knew 100% that john was botting. I don't get why deciding to punish him would be an "arbitrary" decision.


I think this situation really cuts to the core of actual misconduct. In this case we're actually being asked to treat EVE-U differently, which would by nature be misconduct. Our actions in this regard show exactly the opposite.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Dante Uisen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-02-12 11:29:27 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
Vera Algaert wrote:
I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.


*snipped, see CCP Sreeg's reply below* - CCP Eterne
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#74 - 2013-02-12 11:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Orbital Dyke wrote:
It seems that john was a well known player rather than a corp-less disposable botting alt

Its possible that from the very start of this escapade the CCP Representative(s) handling this case have ultimately got it wrong


Except for the whole fact that John was botting. I personally don't care how well respected in the community someone is or which alliance they're from, if they get caught breaking the rules they should be punished in the same way as anyone else would.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#75 - 2013-02-12 11:32:57 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Mai Khumm wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.


With this games interesting.......history, do you REALLY blame half the allegations made. I mean, all of them, not just in this thread.


While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.

I meant ever, with everything, not just that one time 7 years ago.

There's alot of them that crop up, mainly in the "Tinfoil hat community" which is unfairly treated btw...
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#76 - 2013-02-12 11:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Eterne
Dante Uisen wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.


*snipped an explanation of how to use the IGB to potentially bot the market* - CCP Eterne



I would not recommend anyone do this and I'd ask that you not tell our players what you consider to be legal. The EULA does a decent enough job of that and is contrary to your statement.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#77 - 2013-02-12 11:34:41 UTC
Mai Khumm wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Mai Khumm wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Frankly we're a bit disturbed by the allegations made here given that the person in question waited until they exhausted every resource possible prior to posting this then lamented the lack of an escalation path. Not getting the answer you like isn't a lack of an escalation path and never will be.


With this games interesting.......history, do you REALLY blame half the allegations made. I mean, all of them, not just in this thread.


While I'm not trying to slide things under a rug, yes basing an allegation against my team on a single act of misconduct 7 years ago is pretty insane.

I meant ever, with everything, not just that one time 7 years ago.

There's alot of them that crop up, mainly in the "Tinfoil hat community" which is unfairly treated btw...


The only allegation that I can recall with any substance was that one. Whether the paranoid conspiracy theory community has had a separate trial process and decided other crazy batshit insane garbage was true I can't attest to as I don't subscribe to that mailing list and instead deal in the realm of fact.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2013-02-12 11:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Thur Barbek wrote:
Wescro wrote:

Thank you for responding substantively instead of closing the thread. I'm sure everyone here wants to see the right thing done. In this situation it's your word against the players. Is there anyway the playerbase can be given assurance that the process is not arbitrary besides simply asking us to have faith in CCP?


CCP Sreegs already said they knew 100% that john was botting. I don't get why deciding to punish him would be an "arbitrary" decision.


I think this situation really cuts to the core of actual misconduct. In this case we're actually being asked to treat EVE-U differently, which would by nature be misconduct. Our actions in this regard show exactly the opposite.

the actual misconduct as far as I can tell was not removing John's isk while he was banned (which also allowed E UNI to get their hopes up) - being warned by the ban that his botting had become unfeasible he could have easily RMTed all his ISK before you managed to confiscate it.

.
Orbital Dyke
Doomheim
#79 - 2013-02-12 11:35:25 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Orbital Dyke wrote:
It seems that john was a well known player rather than a corp-less disposable botting alt

Its possible that from the very start of this escapade the CCP Representative(s) handling this case have ultimately got it wrong


Except for the whole fact that John was botting. I personally don't care how well respected in the community someone is, if they get caught breaking the rules they should be punished in the same way as anyone else would.


He wasnt botting CCP interpreted his actions as botting because they didnt understand what he was actually doing in theory 'attack what you dont understand' in this case
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#80 - 2013-02-12 11:37:21 UTC
Orbital Dyke wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Orbital Dyke wrote:
It seems that john was a well known player rather than a corp-less disposable botting alt

Its possible that from the very start of this escapade the CCP Representative(s) handling this case have ultimately got it wrong


Except for the whole fact that John was botting. I personally don't care how well respected in the community someone is, if they get caught breaking the rules they should be punished in the same way as anyone else would.


He wasnt botting CCP interpreted his actions as botting because they didnt understand what he was actually doing in theory 'attack what you dont understand' in this case


I'm pretty sure we define botting.

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