EVE General Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

40 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

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

Jump to first DEV post
Author
The Initiative.
#41 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:04
Andski wrote:
Now let's be honest, if that thread was about somebody in TEST or Goonswarm the community's reaction would have been "lol botter." Let's not pretend otherwise. The fact that this guy is in an ~honourable~ corp based in hisec seems to indicate, to some, that he plays within the rules, when for all we know he's been running a market bot the whole time and is just trying to start drama in response to being punished appropriately.

"But hurr they didn't remove the ISK until he sent it to E-UNI!"

The ISK wasn't there when he was banned - he liquidated his assets after the suspension period was over.

Quote:
He then proceeded to liquidate his assets, and talked to one of the E-UNI directors


So yes, it's completely within reason that this guy is a botter and he's just being a babby about being handed the same punishment that everyone gets for botting, with an exception perhaps being that his gains from botting were not removed. Seriously, try updating 30 orders in a minute even with some fancy IGB page that says what price to set them to.


Andski you know very well that bots only exist in nullsec.

Shame on you!
Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras  Mangala Solaris  Mike Azariah  Steve Ronuken
James Arget  Xander Phoena  Sugar Kyle  corbexx  mynnna  progodlegend  Psychotic Monk  Jayne Fillion
Gallente Federation
#42 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:05
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
If he created what was effectively his own UI, CCP is foolish to ban someone for improving on the pile of **** they've created. Games like WoW and TSW have allowed user created UI's, and benefited massively from their players efforts, to this day I don't understand why CCP wastes massive amounts of developer time making small UI tweaks their players could do for them.

The market UI is a prime example, I mean seriously, how many of you have actually gone through and updated a few hundred orders? It's a tedious pain in the ass, and for no good reason. CCP needs to either allow market bots (just like the real world), or fix the UI so there isn't such an incentive to use them. And I say that completely regardless of whether the case discussed in the OP involves botting or not.

yes allow us to modify EVE UI's (basically client modification) and you have a free card to create exploitable UI's and whatnot.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote]
ain't that right
Goonswarm Federation
#43 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:06
Wescro wrote:
Maybe my impression is incorrect here, but I was imagining his "in-game browser script" to not be very different from how EVE-Central calculates profitable trade items for haulers. The reason I say that is arbitrary is because if you stretch it, simply opening a notepad and writing down "buy x units of y" could be considered

Quote:
...patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency...


Now if he was automating keypresses and clicks, then I guess we can all agree it was wrong. But simply using a third party script that doesn't interact with the client, aka doesn't play the game for him, that should be ok.


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.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com
#44 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:09
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.

"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
Goonswarm Federation
#45 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:10
Vera Algaert wrote:
my point is that you get a "slow down, you have to wait x seconds before you are allowed to modify another order" popup if you modify too many orders in a short timeframe.


It's entirely possible that his only "crime" was doing ~naughty~ things to get around that limitation! In which case he actually got off easy because those ~naughty~ things generally award you a permaban.

edit: aaand I missed sreegs' post
Twitter: @EVEAndski

TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. 
Goonswarm Federation
#46 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:10
Wescro wrote:
Vera Algaert wrote:
I'm very sure that you can't modify 30 orders within a minute - whether with macros or by hand.


I bet you can, under the right circumstances (not Jita). Go to "my orders"

Double-click - 0.13 seconds
Roll mousewheel up/down once - 0.10 seconds
Press enter - 0.15 seconds
Move mouse to next order - 0.68 seconds

Use the remaining one second to account for UI delay and develop arthritis.


I find it ironic that a New Order member who hates botters is trying to justify the actions of a botter.
This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal & proud member of the popular gay hookup site, somethingawful.com
Caldari State
#47 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:11  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
CCP Sreegs wrote:
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.



I don't think escalation is the issue here, rather the fact that you don't explain your actions (up til now). Making any action seem suspicious.
In after the lock :P  
- CCP Falcon
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
#48 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:12
Hey, CCP, if you need a higher level than your CEO, just escalate it to me.
Caldari State
#49 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:13
Grimpak wrote:
Nemo deBlanc wrote:
If he created what was effectively his own UI, CCP is foolish to ban someone for improving on the pile of **** they've created. Games like WoW and TSW have allowed user created UI's, and benefited massively from their players efforts, to this day I don't understand why CCP wastes massive amounts of developer time making small UI tweaks their players could do for them.

The market UI is a prime example, I mean seriously, how many of you have actually gone through and updated a few hundred orders? It's a tedious pain in the ass, and for no good reason. CCP needs to either allow market bots (just like the real world), or fix the UI so there isn't such an incentive to use them. And I say that completely regardless of whether the case discussed in the OP involves botting or not.

yes allow us to modify EVE UI's (basically client modification) and you have a free card to create exploitable UI's and whatnot.


Is there a UI in existence that isn't exploitable? If so, I haven't seen it. A text and image based UI using fixed points certainly isn't one in my eyes.
#50 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:13  |  Edited by: CCP Sreegs
Nyla Skin wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:
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.



I don't think escalation is the issue here, rather the fact that you don't explain your actions. Making any action seem suspicious.


The fact is that we did insofar as we could being that we were dealing with a third party. This party wanted to be treated specially rather than like a normal customer and we simply do not operate that way.

:Edit: to state that escalation isn't the issue in a topic titled quite hilariously dramatically "Who watches the watchers" is a bit of a misstep IMO
"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
#51 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:13
CCP Sreegs, not the hero we want, but the hero we need.
#52 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:16
Abrazzar wrote:
Hey, CCP, if you need a higher level than your CEO, just escalate it to me.

To the Icelandic Elf Council?
Nyan
Minmatar Republic
#53 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:17
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.
Caldari State
#54 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:17
CCP Sreegs wrote:

The fact is that we did insofar as we could being that we were dealing with a third party. This party wanted to be treated specially rather than like a normal customer and we simply do not operate that way.

:Edit: to state that escalation isn't the issue in a topic titled quite hilariously dramatically "Who watches the watchers" is a bit of a misstep IMO


My issue is precisely your policy of not discussing moderation with other parties. You can claim that you are merely operating within that policy which is all nice and dandy and true, but I think that policy is wrong in the first place.

Ugh, I have spoken. I will now leave.
In after the lock :P  
- CCP Falcon
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Minmatar Republic
#55 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:18
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?
Margin of Silence
#56 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:18  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
I don't really see it

kelduum tries to talk to a gm but i don't think the gm should be required to tell kelduum anything. kelduum has nothing to do with the suspect player or his market practices. the only thing kelduum has to do with this is that his corp was sent some isk.

am i missing something?

e: Whoa, third page already
#57 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:19
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.
*insert witty saying here*
#58 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:19
Mallak Azaria wrote:


I find it ironic that a New Order member who hates botters is trying to justify the actions of a botter.


Well I define botting more narrowly than simply being able to out-perform others.

I'm going to have to eat my words now in light of what CCP Screegs has revealed.
[url]http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/[/url]
#59 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:19
Nyla Skin wrote:
CCP Sreegs wrote:

The fact is that we did insofar as we could being that we were dealing with a third party. This party wanted to be treated specially rather than like a normal customer and we simply do not operate that way.

:Edit: to state that escalation isn't the issue in a topic titled quite hilariously dramatically "Who watches the watchers" is a bit of a misstep IMO


My issue is precisely your policy of not discussing moderation with other parties. You can claim that you are merely operating within that policy which is all nice and dandy and true, but I think that policy is wrong in the first place.

Ugh, I have spoken. I will now leave.


At this juncture I can merely disagree with you given the nature of our work. I'm sorry sincerely for that though.
"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
#60 Posted: 2013.02.12 11:21
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?


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.

In reality I'm the one who watches the watchers.
"Sreegs has juuust edged out Soundwave as my favourite dev." - Meita Way 2012
40 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump