These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bayushi Tamago
Sect of the Crimson Eisa
#281 - 2012-03-27 17:41:01 UTC
Honestly, I'd like Bot IDing to be easier. I'm not about to go out and start bot hunting if it gets enabled, however, for those who actually still participate in Hulkageddon to solely explode bots, being able to see who is a bot by doing a showinfo on the char will make events like that less about just blowing up pubbies for tears and more about what it started as.
zzzczyzoznzoz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#282 - 2012-03-27 17:43:53 UTC
"What would you, the player, stand to benefit from being able to identify which characters had ever been caught botting"

simple can keep em out of corp
also go out bot hunting to put a dent in there isk machine
Sin Pew
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#283 - 2012-03-27 17:47:24 UTC
Henry Haphorn wrote:
Sin Pew wrote:
Sreeg, please, discuss it with CCP lawyers, flagging bots adds in-game content only accessible through breaking EULA.
That would simply void the EULA part covering automation, thus endorsing and allowing botting. You don't want that, do you?
Besides, I prefer CCP focuses on maintaining and debugging existing code, than adding useless pieces of code to further maintain and debug.


That makes no sense at all. In real life, we have judges in the United States that force thieves to stand in public in front of a store and wear a sign that says "I stole from [insert store name here]". Perfectly legal and the lawyers were not able to overturn that decision because the majority of the people in those communities saw no problem with the "name and shame" policy. Good luck trying to convince a lawyer to have CCP litigated over a "name and shame" policy if the majority of the players here support it.


EULA is a contract, not a law, breaking part of a contract voids the contract, you're the one making no sense at all.

Many people here suggest "flag them so we can shoot them down". Then we get 2 options:
- never log in with that character again -> no bot-flagged shooting for players.
- voluntary self-flagging, like pirates -> encourages players to get caught botting to obtain the flag, and don't say no one will have that kind of ideas and no corp would ever be built to gather bot-flagged players and find a way of having fun through it.

So you're saying we should encourage botting and force botters to log with a flagged account so you can pop their virtual spaceship?

I'd rather see the EULA strictly followed and bot accounts banned, than possibly attract more people in botting. Even if they maintain the EULA as-is, it will motivate some people to break the EULA for that purpose and goes against the whole idea of prohibiting botting.

[i]"haiku are easy, But sometimes they don't make sense, Refrigerator."[/i]
Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
#284 - 2012-03-27 18:00:39 UTC
Name and shame is, in my opinion, based on the flawed principle that we, somehow, can control how another individual chooses to feel

By naming and shaming you are assuming the victim will choose to feel ashamed. How can we be sure they will?. They are already breaking the rules. Do inmates feel ashamed of their crimes?

Most of us are raised in a culture that conditions us to choose certain feelings based on actions from 3rd parties (parents making you feel guilty for getting bad grades, proud for good grades, you choose to feel angry when insulted, etc), but the bottom line is that no one can control how you choose to feel.

Live long and prosper Bear
Sin Pew
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#285 - 2012-03-27 18:05:29 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
"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?"

Make it an API key flag, for recruiters, I don't see any other option that wouldn't lead to more botting, emo-rage and whinning.

[i]"haiku are easy, But sometimes they don't make sense, Refrigerator."[/i]
Henry Haphorn
Killer Yankee
#286 - 2012-03-27 18:11:21 UTC
Killer Gandry wrote:
Henry Haphorn wrote:

That makes no sense at all. In real life, we have judges in the United States that force thieves to stand in public in front of a store and wear a sign that says "I stole from [insert store name here]". Perfectly legal and the lawyers were not able to overturn that decision because the majority of the people in those communities saw no problem with the "name and shame" policy. Good luck trying to convince a lawyer to have CCP litigated over a "name and shame" policy if the majority of the players here support it.


Contrary to popular believes EVE is NOT the United States.

The only thing what would come from making public who got caught botting is a witchhunt.

Regardless we call ourselves a civilised world nowadays we are not.
The pitchfork and torch mentality is everpresent (and specially in the EVE world) and it won't do any good for EVE as a game to encourage that.

The flag showing up for people who can accept recruits in a corporation would be sufficient. And only when people apply to a corporation.
A corporation is entitled to know if someone who applies has been caught and punished before for breaking the EULA/ToS.



That part should be a good start. If the bot persists after that, then the flag should be open for all to see.

But overall, a stealth mechanic should be put in place that I feel is the best option and it's something that will negatively impact the ISK-making machine of bot users without them realizing it:

Add a filter into the market options that all allow legitimate buyers and sellers to ignore all flagged bots as potential clients and vendors (those on the other side of the transaction). This will force them to use the contracts to sell or buy. But let's face it, most people don't trust those contracts and the fact that someone is trying to sell minerals through such a method might be a flag of its own kind of like how you would notice a contract claiming to have a Navy Issue Ibis. It makes it pretty obvious.

Adapt or Die
Ris Dnalor
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#287 - 2012-03-27 19:09:01 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
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?


You'd be putting a bullseye on their ship / pod, and for every botter that was shot, you could say that a non-botter industrial player may have been spared the same fate :)

It's true, to a point, that they may have a harder time joining some corps / alliances, but I doubt it would affect anyone's non-botting gameplay because of alts.

To address your concern with regards to allowing some fashion for them to become non-botting eve citizens again, I understand that you'd prefer them to continue paying for their accounts and adapt to an acceptable play style vs. losing revenue. It makes sense.

Personally instead of temporary bans, I say you should allow them to continue playing, add a page to the bounty board that lists all known botters. When you catch someone botting, give them permanent GCC for a week, and put their names on the list ( to the right of their name will be a permanent locator showing people who might want to hunt this person, what system they are in ). You wouldn't need to provide a bounty, just their character name and location.

This lets them play, keeps them from botting for a week, and forces them to get a new character / account, or try to do something else. Perhaps they'll find the social interaction with all the people that are hunting them interesting enough that they'll become bored with botting and having noone to interact with...

just a thought.... and certainly it would provide some new pvp content as well ;)


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961

EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody

  • Qolde
gfldex
#288 - 2012-03-27 19:23:01 UTC
Sin Pew wrote:
EULA is a contract, not a law, breaking part of a contract voids the contract, you're the one making no sense at all.


Not here in germany. It's treated as a statement of intend. If the judge takes the case it's a go.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
MadMuppet
Critical Mass Inc
#289 - 2012-03-27 19:24:50 UTC  |  Edited by: MadMuppet
"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?"

The benefit to knowing people with an illicit (EULA-based) history would be knowing who could get your account in trouble should they try to, intentionally or not, get you involved in their activities. If you are running a salvage operation behind someone how is using a bot or you are running the Orca collecting dropped cans from the guy you ‘thought’ was at the keyboard you might want to know who you were dealing with.

IMO That is the answer to the question. Anything else is just rage against the player in the name of a ‘name and shame’ system. Some botters have reformed, some haven’t. The unreformed should be punished further, but should a ‘scarlet letter’ system be implemented I would make two recommendations:
1. Only apply it to accounts going forward, not retroactively. Give the player a chance to reform. Otherwise you turn the punishment in to a death sentence.
2. The ‘scarlet letter’ should be removable after a penalty is paid of 12 Plex equivalent (market average cost based on highest buy orders in four major trade hubs, calculated randomly every 1-30 days) and a minimum of 30 days of display on the ACCOUNT. You create an isk sink as well as a potential for a chance to reform. You could also potentially put more PLEX in to the system to increase supply. (the penalty would be around 6 billion isk at this time, so a player could buy 12 Plex and sell them and then buy off his letter to CONCORD or whoever collects the tax (CCP)).

This message brought to you by Experience(tm). When common sense fails you, experience will come to the rescue. Experience(tm) from the makers of CONCORD.

"If you are part of the problem, you will be nerfed." -MadMuppet
Kallian Ardessa
#290 - 2012-03-27 20:12:09 UTC
TL;DR:
Scarlet letters are unnecessary and lower the value of gameplay for those who can be reformed, while not effectively disincentivising botters who cannot be reformed.

I've been doing some thinking about this. I admit that when I was relatively new to Eve I engaged in macro mining and some botting. I was 17 and more than a little thick-headed (I didn't know that the Eve economy was player driven). It didn't even occur to me that what I was doing was wrong. I never got caught, but once I wizened up a little, I understood why it was wrong, and I have never involved myself in any type of botting or macro-ing since. I am firmly opposed to botting, and believe that detecting and punishing botters is important. I also have the perspective, however, of a rehabilitated botter.

There are two types of botters: those who can be rehabilitated and those who cannot.

Those who cannot be rehabilitated will bot for as long as it's profitable, and they wouldn't care about a scarlet letter that only recruiters can see--they probably have all their botting accounts in a personal corp (they're clearly not playing Eve for the social aspect). They *would* care about a scarlet letter which everyone can see, because that makes them permanent gank targets, and unless they find an unpopulated system to mine in, that cuts into their profits severely. They cannot be rehabilitated, and a publicly visible scarlet letter would effectively kick these (bad) guys from the game.

However, all that means is that they would just make another account and start again. So effectively dealing with these guys still relies on improving detection, taking away ill-gained assets, and banning accounts.

Botters who *can* be rehabilitated really only need a slap on the wrist to set them straight. A temporary ban on the account and seizure of ill-gained assets is a pretty jarring slap on the wrist. Given Sreegs' data on recidivism rates, I'd say that this first offense "slap on the wrist" is an effective method of reforming botters.

If, however, I had been caught and branded a botter for all to see, I would have straight-up quit Eve. Being unable to go about my business without being ganked by every person at every opportunity would make the game unplayable. Perhaps I would eventually have made a new account, but it's possible that the experience would have soured the game for me.

If Sreegs and his team focus on increasing detection and banning multiple-offense botters, then corporations don't have much of anything to fear from a reformed botter joining--they're reformed. Some corps might not allow any branded person into the corp. For a reformed botter that lowers the satisfaction of playing the game, and doesn't do anything to deter future botting. After all, the less of a foothold they have in legitimate gaming, the less they have to lose by botting again. (plus being unresponsive in corp chat whilst your toon is obviously active is a pretty dead give-away that you're botting)

If a botter is reformed, let them play Eve without caveats or restrictions (other than locked character transfers--that's definitely a good mechanism to keep). If a botter isn't reformed, detect them, punish them--ban them.
Public Relation
Outer Space Relic Seekers
#291 - 2012-03-27 20:18:54 UTC
EVE is all about the community. Adding this would add more control over botting to the community. But it must be done wisely.

- First strike comes with a warning of a Skarlet letter
- Second strike comes with a warning of a Ban

If you inform the botter that he is about to get "tagged", then it is up to him to avoid it.

So yes for a Scarlet letter but with a prior notice. If the notice does make the botter a better citizen then to bad for him.
Zleon Leigh
#292 - 2012-03-27 20:21:17 UTC
Thought just hit me - surely this wasn't a honey pot thread....TwistedBig smile

Incarna - Newest business example of mismanaged capital. CCP - Continuing to gank independent PI producers every day

PvP's latest  incentive program ** Unified Inventory **  'Cause you gotta kill something after trying to use it
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#293 - 2012-03-27 20:24:56 UTC
BeanBagKing wrote:


I have no idea what they use to ban, and neither do you, since CCP has repeatedly told us that they won't tell us what they use to detect botters as this would make it easier for botters to circumvent detection.


What they use is pretty much known. Just not the details about the patterns / algorythms per se.


BeanBagKing wrote:

There's false positives in the real world all the time. Someone perfectly innocent may be convicted of a crime. It sucks, but it doesn't mean that we dismiss the idea of punishing crimes because someone innocent may be thrown in jail. We do the very best we can (I hope) to avoid this, make sure we have all the evidence, make sure there's a fair trial, and make repremands if a mistake is made. CCP is perfectly capable of doing the same.


I have yet to see *1* CCP reprimand or apology. If they state 1% are false positives then you'd expect *something* to be written / told / leaked to 3rd party websites, no?


BeanBagKing wrote:

The initial ban only lasts a day, and of course you can open a petition about it.


They upped it to 14 days. Again, search the forums for more info. If you are an average Joe with 3 accounts you just lost $15 + $7.5 just because. If you had jobs running or a POS to refuel or to guard (low sec), you lose it all. Have yet to see a single proof that CCP refunds these losses.


BeanBagKing wrote:

Oh trust me, I already considered this EXACT scenario (and I love it). Name gathering/publishing already happens in other ways (evewho.com lists players in a corp with a great deal of accuracy, aiding war deccers). This is a pretty good example of CCP not publishing the data themselves, but putting the tools into the hands of the players.


Yeah and 2 days late, an enemy alliance aligned website will disclose all those names... too bad they'll add a couple from their enemies.

10 seconds later some punk starts some 100 pages threadnought about how alliance XYZ who always claimed to be bot free were corrupted and whatever.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
c4 t
Cosmic Psychedelics
#294 - 2012-03-27 20:32:31 UTC
First off, I would like to thank you for Sreegs for making this thread. I've enjoyed reading it so far.

Something that comes to my mind is how bots are used. Take highsec mining bots. I would say that a good percentage of these accounts exist simply to fund their "mains" with plexes, extra ships to explode, more capital for whatever enterprise they may be involved in. The people who have these bots may not even be associated with high sec at all.

Branding accounts such as this wouldn't really do anything to discourage people like this. And it would be time consuming and dangerous to label accounts "associated" with the botting account, as cheaters, or whatever.
Blatant Forum Alt
Doomheim
#295 - 2012-03-27 21:18:41 UTC
On the subject of botting, has a certain drama queen who may or may not be called 'TheWis' been banned for having 22 botting alts yet?
Alain Kinsella
#296 - 2012-03-27 21:42:29 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

If anything, put a public mark on the botters who engaged in RMT (the professional ones, those that hurt).


This I could get behind, but he's already stated those are instant permaban anyway...

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#297 - 2012-03-27 21:45:49 UTC
Sreegs, are you 100 percent confident in the Bot identification process?

For example, recently a couple of Dominix pilots were accused of botting. When in the face of it, they were using sentry drones over a long (AFK) period. An in-game "automation" in my own opinion.

Just think of the scenario if you name an innocent player?

So, I will be saying no.

On the other hand, a repeat offender now banned? Oh yes. Particular if it seems related to several players of the same corp/alliance. Such infection needs to be cut out at the source.
tolptila Parsons
Perkone
Caldari State
#298 - 2012-03-27 21:53:41 UTC
Name and shame its would benefit the eve community a lot and would stop botters in corps and stop whole corps botting
Janos Saal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#299 - 2012-03-27 21:55:16 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:
Sreegs, I'd like to put my support behind the scarlet letter idea.

Why? Because it feels like Eve. No other reason.

In Eve's fictional background, AI research is strictly frowned upon due to its tendency to spontaneously assert sentience, mutilate its creators, and fly off to nowhere. It stands to reason that CONCORD would look very un-kindly upon attempting to automate not a simple drone, but a fully functional and tactically terrifying capsuleer warship. As such, CONCORD flags these individuals who irresponsibly surrender their ship controls to crude AI, and flags them for capsuleer termination in the name of maximum efficiency.


I'm just quoting this because I don't read the fiction but the idea of player consequences and being true to eve needs to be a factor and I'm just going to namesearch what I quoted later.

Make it so that every time somebody is caught botting they recieve CONCORD sanctions, and thereafter recieve reduced bounties for rats killed. Caught once: bounty rewards reduced by 33% for x amount of time as a punishment for tampering with AI. Caught twice: bounties reduced by 66%. Caught thrice: biomass. Fits with the fiction, doesn't stray into any public naming and shaming issues.

EVE is dead
Plus 1
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#300 - 2012-03-27 21:55:48 UTC
I'd prefer not having them in the game at all.