These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#61 - 2012-03-27 02:53:45 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS


Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening

The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp.


You may have spilt everything so to speak with your great feedback, but there's been other ideas I've heard and all I'm saying is that I don't want people to shy away because of it.

I can absolutely guarantee this as a thread where player opinion will find its way into a policy discussion internally so I want anything we can get.

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

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2012-03-27 02:53:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Gilbaron
name and shame wont help the problem

bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps

players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer

an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2012-03-27 02:54:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Jada Maroo wrote:
As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all.


Absolutely not. Don't assign hangar roles blindly and you won't have corp thieves to deal with.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Tcar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2012-03-27 02:54:29 UTC
Pedro Snachez wrote:
People who are caught and shamed are probably more likely to just quit than to try to "become a better person". That or biomass the character.


Good, quit, or roll up a new toon. Either way works for me. They can play wow or spend more of some sort of subscription money while training a new character.
Adunh Slavy
#65 - 2012-03-27 02:55:26 UTC
You have a point, Sreegs, about wanting to turn the player from bad to good, and would this instead make the player quit, which isn't good for any of us, if that player can be turned around.

What do we get out of it, some satisfaction for one, few people like the bots. We get a warm fuzzy "ccp hates bots too" from you guys, because now it is something we can see and "touch", and not some biannual dev blog of cold numbers and pretty graphs. We learn who we don't want to let into our corps and alliances, if they don't care enough about their own account, why they hell would they care about corp?

---

As I understand it, there is a three strike policy, 14 day ban, then something more nasty and then bye bye, banned. Perhaps the first instance does not tag one with the red letter, but the second one will. After a year is over or however long is deemed punishment, that letter is removed and the account goes back to only one strike committed, another year with out incident and they go back to zero strikes.

This way the player does get that second chance, CCP keeps a customer and life goes on. Once they're caught a second time they clearly don't care about their reputation and likely won't be turned around but they get one more chance to set things right.

One strike punishment should be enough for most people, if they're going to do it a second time with out the letter, chances are they'd do it with the letter too. But there might be one sliver of people that can be saved from the temptation if they can't be a secret cheat.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2012-03-27 02:55:32 UTC
Andski wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all.


Absolutely not.


Well surely Goons would never steal and would never receive such a tag so you needn't be worried.
Liam Mirren
#67 - 2012-03-27 02:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Naming and shaming has several upsides to us as players, here's a few:


- it shows us that you're taking this stuff serious, which as PR moves go is a good thing

- it might prevent people who are thinking about botting to actually do it, as a "nah, I didn't have time to play this week" to them sounds far better than "yeah, I'm on that list and got suspended" when talking to corp members

- the person who actually reported that player gets a form of positive confirmation that his efforts are being appreciated, it's kinda like bug reporting; if you get the feeling it's a fairly useless thing to do you just stop reporting as it's wasted effort.

- it may remove or reduce our nregative views on certain entities ("all russians RMT"), then again it may also reinforce them. At any rate we'll have a clearer view of who's doing what, if a large number of members from a certain corp/alliance get caught we then know we shouldn't join them.


While I understand the "all actions towards our customers are on a confidential basis" I'm fairly sure the vast majority of (non-botting) players would agree to a EULA change where it would state "but if you get caught botting or RMTing we'll hang you out to dry and mock you". APB started doing this a while back and it certainly helped would-be cheaters to reconsider.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.

Ohh Yeah
Seal Club Six
#68 - 2012-03-27 02:55:58 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:
Ohh Yeah wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
BUT LET'S NOT STOP HERE FOLKS


Where else would you envision seeing Scarlet Letters? I'm full of creativity and exceptionally thin semen this evening

The only thing I can think of (as seems to be the general consensus) is allowing CEOs to realize that a botter has applied to their corp.


You may have spilt everything so to speak with your great feedback, but there's been other ideas I've heard and all I'm saying is that I don't want people to shy away because of it.

I can absolutely guarantee this as a thread where player opinion will find its way into a policy discussion internally so I want anything we can get.



Ah, I gotcha. I thought you meant more applications for such a mechanism
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#69 - 2012-03-27 02:55:59 UTC
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.

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

CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#70 - 2012-03-27 02:57:02 UTC
Andski wrote:
Jada Maroo wrote:
As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all.


Absolutely not. Don't assign hangar roles blindly and you won't have corp thieves to deal with.


Yeah don't worry I don't see that happening any time soon. ( not my department)

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

Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-03-27 02:57:22 UTC
Revii Lagoon wrote:
Sisohiv wrote:

You will understand if people miss things on the tickertape forum.
If they are making Bot chars account locked, the motive for flagging them with stars is kind of not there.

Bot bann gets you -10.00 makes more sense.
I wouldn't even bann them. Just run Sec -10.00 and all 4 empires -10.00 on third offence.


Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.


Null bots are rare. I've done Null Mining Ops and 10/10 and there is no need to bot them. We could wipe a Plex belt in an hr or do a 10/10 in as much time. Everything is done in fleet out there. it's very efficient.
Revii Lagoon
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#72 - 2012-03-27 02:59:10 UTC
CCP Sreegs wrote:

Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.


Just because corps are structured differently doesn't mean that some would see a large benefit from having API information knowing if someone was a botter. In terms of corp recruitment process, unless a corp has a specific open door policy, such as EVE UNI or Red vs Blue, then most likely there will be some sort of interview before hand.

Restricting how info about someone who is flagged as a botter will only make it harder for the people who recruit. If after a long interview process they were to only find out on their actual application that they were a know botter, that would mean a lot of wasted effort on recruiters part because some may have a strict no-botting policy.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#73 - 2012-03-27 02:59:11 UTC
Revii Lagoon wrote:
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.


Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Ohh Yeah
Seal Club Six
#74 - 2012-03-27 03:00:19 UTC
Sisohiv wrote:

Null bots are rare..


How coy
Ohh Yeah
Seal Club Six
#75 - 2012-03-27 03:01:01 UTC
Andski wrote:
Revii Lagoon wrote:
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.


Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?



Proportionally, yes.

Doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of them in 0.0
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#76 - 2012-03-27 03:01:05 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
name and shame wont help the problem

bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps

players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer

an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots


While I love the mythology that people have that they can remain anonymous on the internet it's a falsehood over time. The idea that, especially given EVE and all of the numbers involved, we can actually focus on this and any other *example here norms* apply is pretty silly.

The margins on one hand are completely different and we allow PLEX. We've shown at least three times in the early days that we can focus and completely shut down a bot developer because the margins frankly aren't there.

If you think this is some world where someone doing a bad activity we care about can just magically vanish those dog days are pretty much over.

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

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-03-27 03:01:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
lol at fanfest they had a chart of bots by region

The Forge alone had more bots then all of nullsec rolled together

who knew that an automated killscript for anyone who attacks you would be prove to be an incentive to botters over lawless nullsec?

let me answer my own question: non-retards
Nambr1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-03-27 03:01:42 UTC
Gilbaron wrote:
name and shame wont help the problem

bots will move away from corporations and stay in npc corps

players behind the bots will get better at hiding their true identity, bot isk, sell for money, buy plex with money, sell plex for isk, really difficult for CCP to find their true identity if stuff like TOR and Virtual Machines is used to hide the true ID and details of the computer

an anonymous list (3 market bots in jita, 40 ratting bots in XXX, 50 mining bots in YYY were banned today, they lost a total of ZZZ isk and assets worth XXX isk since they were aquired via botting) of those in their first and second strike and a a public list of those characters permabanned might be a good idea to state clearly that CCP is actively fighting bots



Lot of them are already in nps corp or small one with + standings with main alliance/corp.
Revii Lagoon
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-03-27 03:02:06 UTC
Andski wrote:
Revii Lagoon wrote:
Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.


Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec?


Go to the drone regions before massive civil wars.....
CCP Sreegs
CCP Retirement Home
#80 - 2012-03-27 03:03:45 UTC
Revii Lagoon wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:

Every alliance isn't a mega-alliance and the structures can be different. I think you'll find that most corps are actually fairly small.


Just because corps are structured differently doesn't mean that some would see a large benefit from having API information knowing if someone was a botter. In terms of corp recruitment process, unless a corp has a specific open door policy, such as EVE UNI or Red vs Blue, then most likely there will be some sort of interview before hand.

Restricting how info about someone who is flagged as a botter will only make it harder for the people who recruit. If after a long interview process they were to only find out on their actual application that they were a know botter, that would mean a lot of wasted effort on recruiters part because some may have a strict no-botting policy.


I was referring more to your statement about whom was doing the recruiting. The rest makes perfect sense.

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