Can anyone here refute the hypothesis that the positive isk delta spikes could be a result of bot sourced isk/value being transferred to inactive wallet/bank accounts (invisible in isk delta), that upon re-activation, to refinance new bot-networks to replace banned ones, and to re-stock RMT stores, causing said sudden positive active isk delta even after months of deep negative active isk delta?
You are asking people to prove a negative here.
That’s not how it works.
I’m not asking to prove a negative.
Asking for a hypothesis to be disproven, is not asking to prove a negative.
Its asking for proof to show it to be false.
Proving a negative is another, separate unscientific issue (and impossible).
I’m asking to refute this hypothesis. (A hypothesis is never a negative).
1 Like
It could have been on those inactives all along.
Why would any businessman put all his eggs in the same basket?
What you suggest is foreknowledge and that implies collusion. Which at this point can’t be proven.
Except if CCP has infact not followed the paper trail and bothered confiscating/sinking bot earned isk/value from where it was transferred to.
You ask for an exception. I provided one.
1 Like
Asking to refute it is asking to prove a negative. Because you are asking us to prove that it is wrong, thus to prove a negative.
The onus is on you to prove the hypothesis is correct and that no alternative explanation is possible. Which so far you have not even come close to starting on.
1 Like
Valid, and I agree with it.
But the conclusion would then be as I stated above.
That CCP has not confiscated isk/value from botting, and instead just banned bots.
If CCP really banned them, then they’ll also have followed the money and figured out what the RMTers are doing and banned those inactive accounts as well, or at least would have taken all the money.
If you look at new structure / blueprint introductions and wars and other campaigns, instead of botters being banned, I’m sure the data will line up nicely.
I dont have to prove no other alternative explanation is possible, only that mine is.
I have done so.
Hence I ask you to refute it as a possibility, or provide another of your own that is more valid than mine.
That is not proving a negative.
Can anyone here refute the hypothesis that the positive isk delta spikes could be a result of bot sourced isk/value being transferred to inactive wallet/bank accounts (invisible in isk delta), that upon re-activation, to refinance new bot-networks to replace banned ones, and to re-stock RMT stores, causing said sudden positive active isk delta even after months of deep negative active isk delta?
We dont know that they have.
We dont know that CCP has bothered to trace down the isk/value transfers as earned by the accounts they banned. For all we know, they just banned the offending account, and that was that, even if that account had generated trillions in isk over years that it sent to another account.
Note: In CCPs new rules/policy, they have not said even one word regarding confiscation of assets/value earned pre-ban.
Since we lack data, we have to resort to Occam’s Razor.
Given that we know there are only two persons on the CCP Security team, and both have limited time, given the fact they banned 1800 accounts in January, I think it can viably be held as likely that they do not have the time/resources to investigate what isk/value that banned account generated during botting, nor where it went, for purposes of confiscation.
And that is just for ONE MONTH.
Now consider this as applied to bot/RMT operations that have demonstrably run for years. without detection of CCP intervention.
Now consider their new policy slaps them on the hand with a puny 3 day suspension, compared to 30 days before.
If they wont even suspend them for 30 days as before, its hardly plausible that they will bother to investigate where that bot account sent isk/value before that puny 3 day ban.
"About one third of the affected accounts received permanent bans as repeat offenders, while the rest was temporarily banned on first offense. "
Pulled without proper quotation credit. Its there read it again.
Not 1800 permabans. It doesn’t say any or all had currency removed. It does make sense it would be but it doesn’t say it.
1 Like
Right.
So 1200 of those botting accounts now, after 3 days, can extract their SP, transfer assets/isk/characters, and start the same ■■■■ all over again.
Only sp if what was said elsewhere holds true. I don’t recall where it was said on these forums.
edit: I meant only sp would remain since its isn’t blocked by an extractor lock.
I’m not willing to make the leap considering there are too many other factors in play. It could be as you say and equally not. That makes the simplest truth a possible non truth.
I think you confuse that with Dark Engraver and I pointing out to CCP Guard that after a 3 day suspension, botters will stripmine their account and start anew on a new one.
CCP Guard asked what I would think if there was an extractor lock on 1st offenders.
I replied by asking when that would begin and how long it would last.
I also asked him if CCP is confiscating isk/value generated by that bot account, no matter where it went.
Its not a "“thing” yet. He raised it as a hypothetical.
Fair enough.
But all the pieces fit.
It makes sense that the positive delta spikes are a result of activation of accounts that have been a funnel for bot earned isk/value. It makes sense that they activate inorder to finance a new bot network and re-stock their RMT store.
Thats why Im asking others to refute this hypothesis or provide another more plausible explanation for those positive delta spikes.
Test this hypothesis.
I think the simplest truth is this. You will never know and nor will the reasons be given as to why it won’t be known.
That isnt truth. Its your speculation.
This is happening, now.
Resigning oneself to not knowing the future is no excuse not to influence it, now.
The future is informed by the present, and the present by the past.
Arguing with Salvos is ALWAYS a bad idea. He does not argue in good faith. He decides his conclusions before examining data, and will deliberately refuse to even acknowledge the existence of conclusions that are not his own.
Posting in yet another in a long list of threads Salvos has ruined.
1 Like
Ive examined the data in OP, and posted relevant to it.
Reported for inappropriate posting.
Tired of your ad hominem derailment.
1 Like
Report me or not, I don’t particularly care if you abuse a system and moderators time. You’re the one who ruins every thread you post in through dishonest diatribes. Including (on topic) this one.
1 Like