Taking bets

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

dont listen to rumours. the ones saying 30 were closed are quite, quite wrong.
As for the XP, i havent altered that as they didnt get xp from what they broke the rules for.

Tbh I dont care whether it was 10, 30 or 100.

if someone cheats, bends the rules, abuses bugs or whatever they should be closed.

The only thing I can conclude from this is that either the MH-team doesn´t have the balls to stand up to their own findings, or the evidence that you are able to get is not conclusive enough.,

but this lameass attempt at "punishing" people is ridiculous and the only losers here are the players who play by the rules.

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Phil^

dont listen to rumours. the ones saying 30 were closed are quite, quite wrong.
As for the XP, i havent altered that as they didnt get xp from what they broke the rules for.

so however they cheated didnt actually contribute to attacks or defence which in effect gives xp?

[Phil^]

interesting suggestion helix, i`ll consider it for adding to the range of punishments admins can do.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Phil^

If a planet who has already been closed cheats again

Cheats again? So you reopened someone who cheated. Thought you only did that to people you thought, but couldn't prove cheated.

[Neferti]

I know the details of one (well, two) of these reopened cases, with a punishment. Seems to me that it was pretty reasonable. However I will not go into any details.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Neferti

I know the details of one (well, two) of these reopened cases, with a punishment. Seems to me that it was pretty reasonable. However I will not go into any details.

I assume you know one side of the story in these cases since PA-teams are not allowed to divulge any details in regards to specific cases.

[Phil^]

probably does. closed planets have a habit of broadcasting the things said to them in a pm with the rest of their alliance :/

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

probably does. closed planets have a habit of broadcasting the things said to them in a pm with the rest of their alliance :/

I assume they only refer the things beneficial to them. But then again that is how they spread what to say to you guys in order to get off the hook.

You still have not responded to my question though.

Do they get the lenient sentence, because your evidence is not tight enough or because you guys can´t take a firm stance against cheating ?

[Phil^]

its because theyve explained some of the evidence satisfactorally , but not all of it.
Theyve done something wrong - but not enough any longer for a closure - so we cap roids/fleet.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

its because theyve explained some of the evidence satisfactorally , but not all of it.
Theyve done something wrong - but not enough any longer for a closure - so we cap roids/fleet.

Oh my. So basically if you break the rules somewhat and can explain some of it, you get off cheap ? Either you are guilty or you are not guilty. You can´t be a little guilty.

You are setting a very dangerous precedence here, and I for one am absolutely disgusted by this.

[Phil^]

its hardly getting off cheap.
all previously closed planets are watched, and if theres even the slightest hint of wrongdoing again, its a closure again without chance to be reopened.
Its a very fine line to walk between punishing people adequately, and catering for the possibility of innocence.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

its hardly getting off cheap.
all previously closed planets are watched, and if theres even the slightest hint of wrongdoing again, its a closure again without chance to be reopened.
Its a very fine line to walk between punishing people adequately, and catering for the possibility of innocence.

What I am reading here, is that they did something wrong, but you are unable to prove it.

Is that correct ?

[Phil^]

not quite. Theyve done something wrong, but explained parts of it.
Because of that theres still some things left unexplained but not enough in my view to justify leaving them closed.

If you disagree with the choices i have made, feel free to contact biffy and say so.
I stand by my decisions.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

not quite. Theyve done something wrong, but explained parts of it.
Because of that theres still some things left unexplained but not enough in my view to justify leaving them closed.

If you disagree with the choices i have made, feel free to contact biffy and say so.
I stand by my decisions.

so sorry Phil. This is nothing personal, but you keep saying they did something wrong. But are getting away with it.

Too bad about the people who has been affected by these wrongdoers actions.

And yes, I will send an email to biffy about this.

[Phil^]

they`re hardly getting away with it if they lose a substantial chunk of their fleet and roids.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Phil^

they`re hardly getting away with it if they lose a substantial chunk of their fleet and roids.

I think what people are peeved off about is that they can still continue playing the game when they should be deleted. If the cheating planet attacked or defended then that is a cheating planet interacting with others. That cheating planet had an unfair advantage.

Are you progressing through the logs of every planet that has been under attack from the cheaters and compensating them for losses?

Are you progressing through logs of where these cheaters defended and compensating the attackers for a wasted night of attacking where they could have gained roids if not for the cheating planet.

Nomatter what you say, a planet that cheats has cheated. Especially when certain players already have a rep for such cheating.

I dont think the punishment of taking a few roids/ships is enough. I bet they couldnt even mine all of their roids anyway. 30% is just one uncovered attack. If you need a punishment that isnt deletion, just reset the planet to a starter state.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

they`re hardly getting away with it if they lose a substantial chunk of their fleet and roids.

To me it is a very lenient punishment. In order to get rid of cheating, there has to be a swift and hard punishment. This is neither.

Cheating = Deletion is the only way to show, that it is not accepted. You make the penalty of getting caught worth the risk of trying to pull it off.

[NitinA]

If a planet cheats, close them. There's quite a few things wrong with this thread.

surely its better to give them a slap on the wrist so they don;t do it again - regardless of whether they were cheating or not.

When I respond to this quote by Kal, I speak for quite a lot of the players of Planetarion when I say *THAT* is the wrong attitude to have. Cheating is CLEARLY against the EULA, and failure to enforce the eula ("reguardless of weather they were cheating or not") is a failure on the part of PA Team. Why should you be able to unfairly punish the innocent by telling them two members of a household can't play togother if they interact, but then slap the wrist of someone who violated the rules.

Sounds like you talk a lot in your anti-cheating speechs, but don't really enforce it. PA Team, at this point, is making me sick. I expect any players found cheating (1up, Exhilition, WP, or even a member of a smaller alliance of 10 members) to be closed, and punished as according to the EULA--which doesn't say anything about being slapped on the wrist as punishment).

I think Zhil said it all : "I think what people are peeved off about is that they can still continue playing the game when they should be deleted."

-Nitin

[Wishmaster]

take into consideration that in pia its allowed to have 2 people play from same ip.

many in exi are rl m8s - and used to checking from each other places.... ( think many can confirm this seing as they got shared irc nicks etc etc..)

personally I had almost forgotten about the rule..and I d might be closed myself if I had gotten incs while at school , seing as I got a m8 there playing pa. Just pure luck that I didnt get incs while I was at school, as I d be closed aswell then - since he would def me. And also I payed his account, so all would think I d cheat.


I think the punishment is harsh enough tbh, and I just smile when I c all their enemies jumping on the bandwagon to get em all closed. Its not the pa community which wants them deleted, but those who fight them atm.

[Phil^]

It is the attitude i have imposed on all the hunters during my time multihunting.
Remember there are people who have paid to play this game, I have no intention of running the multihunters like some sort of third reich where everyone is guilty before given a chance to explain themselves and the only way to get reopened, if ever is with a pound of flesh.

If you think that the attitude i have chosen is not suitable for multihunters, then you should take it up with biffy ( [email protected] ) who is my only superior in this matter.
I have no problem with reclosing everyone thats been opened if i am told to do it but i stand by the choices i have made during the runup , and conclusion of this whole saga.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I think the punishment is harsh enough tbh, and I just smile when I c all their enemies jumping on the bandwagon to get em all closed. Its not the pa community which wants them deleted, but those who fight them atm.

This has nothing to do with enemies wanting them closed. This has something to do with people breaking rules and getting away cheaply with it. Tbh I don´t care at all what alliance they are, but I want people who cheats closed -> deleted.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

It is the attitude i have imposed on all the hunters during my time multihunting.
Remember there are people who have paid to play this game, I have no intention of running the multihunters like some sort of third reich where everyone is guilty before given a chance to explain themselves and the only way to get reopened, if ever is with a pound of flesh.

If you think that the attitude i have chosen is not suitable for multihunters, then you should take it up with biffy ( [email protected] ) who is my only superior in this matter.
I have no problem with reclosing everyone thats been opened if i am told to do it.

1st off a lot of people that has ALSO paid for their accounts have been hurt by their actions.

2ndly nowhere have we asked for closures and deletions of innocent planets. You have yourself stated numerous times, that if they cheat AGAIN they will be closed and deleted. We are saying that they should be closed the FIRST TIME THEY ARE CAUGHT.

Don´t make up silly assumptions on very clear posts.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Desse

1st off a lot of people that has ALSO paid for their accounts have been hurt by their actions.

2ndly nowhere have we asked for closures and deletions of innocent planets. You have yourself stated numerous times, that if they cheat AGAIN they will be closed and deleted. We are saying that they should be closed the FIRST TIME THEY ARE CAUGHT.

Don´t make up silly assumptions on very clear posts.

hurt by their actions?

afaik what has happened is following:

some entered wrong info when they signed up. THAT gotta hurt for others!

Some checked while at m8s place. Instead of going home to check / launch.

its not like the actions done has hurt anyone.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

take into consideration that in pia its allowed to have 2 people play from same ip.

many in exi are rl m8s - and used to checking from each other places.... ( think many can confirm this seing as they got shared irc nicks etc etc..)

personally I had almost forgotten about the rule..and I d might be closed myself if I had gotten incs while at school , seing as I got a m8 there playing pa. Just pure luck that I didnt get incs while I was at school, as I d be closed aswell then - since he would def me. And also I payed his account, so all would think I d cheat.


I think the punishment is harsh enough tbh, and I just smile when I c all their enemies jumping on the bandwagon to get em all closed. Its not the pa community which wants them deleted, but those who fight them atm.

that's completely freakin rediculous..... hell, maybe I'll go rob a bank, but since I have an account there, maybe I won't spend 20 years in the Federal Pen.....

you say ppl are jumping on the bandwagon, your a bunch of known cheaters, cheating in a game that doesnt allow cheating, for christ sake, get a grip......

if they are sharing accounts, close their asses, very simple....everyone knows you have to apply for an exception at the beginning of a round, even n00bs know that...if you didn't that's your fault, not the PA crew's, or the PA communities fault....if you broke the rules you should be closed, thats what the EULA says, screw smacking ppl on the wrist, like was said before, has the PA crew compensated all the planets that were effected by the account sharing?

[Aryn]

desse.. come on.. ease up a little. it's not like they're letting planets cheat 10 times before deleting them. if they deleted immediately without allowing the planet to explain some things then they could quite possibly be deleting innocent planets. if you or your friend was deleted cause of a little mistake you or they made and you weren't allowed to explain it to the MH's i think you'd have a different tone.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

that's completely freakin rediculous..... hell, maybe I'll go rob a bank, but since I have an account there, maybe I won't spend 20 years in the Federal Pen.....

you say ppl are jumping on the bandwagon, your a bunch of known cheaters, cheating in a game that doesnt allow cheating, for christ sake, get a grip......

if they are sharing accounts, close their asses, very simple....everyone knows you have to apply for an exception at the beginning of a round, even n00bs know that...if you didn't that's your fault, not the PA crew's, or the PA communities fault....if you broke the rules you should be closed, thats what the EULA says, screw smacking ppl on the wrist, like was said before, has the PA crew compensated all the planets that were effected by the account sharing?

has sharing been proven?

NO.

using same ip is not the same. As account sharing means that u have to share login details - something which hasnt been done in this case.

I for one dont read through users agreement b4 I sign up to a game.. I just push accept ^^

[Tis]

It was mentioned that 1ups were closed, i know of two. When they came to me, my first impression was 'dear god, how stupid can you be?'. After what they'd managed to do, i couldnt see the admins having any choice but to delete them, even if they were ultimately innocent. I was perfectly ready to take appropriate actions on 1ups side.

But. Now theyve been reopened. Why the hell should 1up self police, and enforce the rules on our friends, when we have less proof than the pa-team, and they clearly dont give a shit? If you spend all this time building evidence, close a bunch, then reopen them all within twelve hours with nothing more than a slap on the wrist at most, why the heck do you even bother?

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

hurt by their actions?

afaik what has happened is following:

some entered wrong info when they signed up. THAT gotta hurt for others!

Some checked while at m8s place. Instead of going home to check / launch.

its not like the actions done has hurt anyone.

Or had their mates check, while they were at school.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Desse

Or had their mates check, while they were at school.

innocent till proven guilty.

So - they never shared. pisses me of when people dont know what they talk about.

[Conall]

Let’s recap!

Some number of players, between 1 and 30, rumored to be from a particular alliance, cursorily acknowledge to be Exilition (formerly Dragons/LDK), have been accused of, and possibly caught, cheating to some level. Those same players have some degree of explanation that leads PATeam to question the veracity of their own decision to close said planets in the first place. Said planets are reopened and all but one is punished to some degree.

Wow! That’s crystal clear.

Can anyone wonder why PATeam catches so much flack and conspiracy theories run rampant I this community?

The problem is not if these planets should or should not have been close in the first place or deleted in the end.

The problems are:
1. There are a set of rules established for this game, some of those rules are known to the community and some are not. Or at least some interpretations to those rules are not publicly known.
2. The guidelines of infractions of those rules are not publicly known.
3. The guidelines for punishment are not known.
4. Action is taken against members of the community prior to confronting the individuals, insuring that they look guilty in the public eye regardless of the facts.
5. Then, if some varying degree of reasonable explanation can be made, they are “unpunished” or at least partially so. But if it cannot be proven that someone cheated they can still be punished, just not as severely.
6. And in the end those individuals and what they did, the evidence or their punishment are not made public.

The entire process is burdened with such secrecy that it puts the PATeam in the position to be accused many things not the least of which are favoritism, ineptitude, and corruption. Worst of all their own actions are the reason that these impressions can exist, even though they are likely untrue.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I for one dont read through users agreement b4 I sign up to a game.. I just push accept ^^

This is not a valid excuse. When you click accept, you are accepting the fact you have read the agreement. You can't claim "I never do that." You singed a contactual agreement, if you are too stupid to read before your sign then dont come complaining to me or any other person who HAS read the user agreement. I know it's the 'in thing' to be lazy, but when you're caught out - its your fault, noone elses.

I wouldnt be leniant on you, you failed to comprehend basic english.

[Neferti]

Originally Posted by Desse

I assume you know one side of the story in these cases since PA-teams are not allowed to divulge any details in regards to specific cases.

Technically correct. He (the person who was closed) told me why he was closed.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

This is not a valid excuse. When you click accept, you are accepting the fact you have read the agreement. You can't claim "I never do that." You singed a contactual agreement, if you are too stupid to read before your sign then dont come complaining to me or any other person who HAS read the user agreement. I know it's the 'in thing' to be lazy, but when you're caught out - its your fault, noone elses.

I wouldnt be leniant on you, you failed to comprehend basic english.

And I d accept the punishemnt given.

But - I didnt cheat imo - I just broke the agreement.

Like u can breake ur nations laws - but u dont have to be killed if u drive on red.

Different punishment should be given to different law breakes.

[Tis]

how else would you define cheating, except as breaking the agreement?

[Neferti]

Originally Posted by Zh|l

This is not a valid excuse. When you click accept, you are accepting the fact you have read the agreement. You can't claim "I never do that." You singed a contactual agreement, if you are too stupid to read before your sign then dont come complaining to me or any other person who HAS read the user agreement. I know it's the 'in thing' to be lazy, but when you're caught out - its your fault, noone elses.

I wouldnt be leniant on you, you failed to comprehend basic english.

That much I do agree with. Though I think he signed it as well... not sure why he'd want to singe his computer to be honest...

If you do accept these EULAs without reading them, then it is on your own head... on the other hand, a lot of EULAs are truly complete bollocks, I heard in the news recently that the government is looking into doing something about curbing excessively draconian EULAs.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Tis

how else would you define cheating, except as breaking the agreement?

well, if I was offencive to someone in game - I would break the users agreement, but I wouldnt cheat .

agree?

ofc cheating is breaking users agreement, but not ALL breaks of it is cheating. imo.

[lokken]

What might be happening is that we aren't talking about case closed cases of cheating as we have in the past where you are either cheating and deleted, or not cheating conclusively and remain untouched.

Phil^ might well be talking about cases that the admins would like to close (e.g. a case that I was taking to Phil^ for a long time last round), but evidence is inconclusive to delete: in which case, a penalty to reopen seems moderately reasonable, because it's better to dish out some penalty rather than let someone dodgy get off scot free; if they get closed again, then they're under fair warning and have every right to expect deletion. In that scenario i'd presume Jolt are looking to cover their backs re people wanting their £10 back. In this scenario, something is clearly better than nothing.

The question is are we talking about black and white, or whether there's some grey area in the middle that allows Phil^ greater discretion over a number of cases that previously got away scot free.

[Dune]

Im sorry to interrupt, but if the alliances have a cheater inside and we have proof of the actual incident, isnt it an idea to just kick the player out of the ally?

You then show the rest of community that your alliance dont want to play with a cheater and he/she would get in alot of trouble if kicked out of his/her alliance.

But then again, i dont think many of the allies have balls to do such things. Its an alternative punishment though

This is just my opinion. you may disagree if you want

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Dune

Im sorry to interrupt, but if the alliances have a cheater inside and we have proof of the actual incident, isnt it an idea to just kick the player out of the ally?

You then show the rest of community that your alliance dont want to play with a cheater and he/she would get in alot of trouble if kicked out of his/her alliance.

But then again, i dont think many of the allies have balls to do such things. Its an alternative punishment though

This is just my opinion. you may disagree if you want

Alliances nowadays are like modern governments: they can take a lot of flak before they are forced to sack people.

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by Dune

Im sorry to interrupt, but if the alliances have a cheater inside and we have proof of the actual incident, isnt it an idea to just kick the player out of the ally?

You then show the rest of community that your alliance dont want to play with a cheater and he/she would get in alot of trouble if kicked out of his/her alliance.

But then again, i dont think many of the allies have balls to do such things. Its an alternative punishment though

This is just my opinion. you may disagree if you want

thing is that there is no evidence of cheating.

Should someone who get reopened be kicked from alliance?

[Dune]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

thing is that there is no evidence of cheating.

Should someone who get reopened be kicked from alliance?

Ofc if its not any real evidence it shouldnt be punished so hard.
But, IF the alliance know of any sort of cheating that havent been reported or they know the decision of re-opening a planet is wrong, they should report it / do a local punishment.

The main problem with these games is that someone always want to win no matter cost. And unfortunatly they hide the cheating pretty well too.
This is probably never going to change either, but if the community freeze out some of the cheaters
we may be able to get more fun out of a rnd.

My point is exactly the same as many others have posted in this thread. We have to follow the rules and those who wont, should get a severe punishment.

ps: everyone should know the rules, as we promise to read them before signing up to this game.

[Lunar_Lamp]

1. There are a set of rules established for this game, some of those rules are known to the community and some are not. Or at least some interpretations to those rules are not publicly known.
2. The guidelines of infractions of those rules are not publicly known.
3. The guidelines for punishment are not known.
4. Action is taken against members of the community prior to confronting the individuals, insuring that they look guilty in the public eye regardless of the facts.
5. Then, if some varying degree of reasonable explanation can be made, they are “unpunished” or at least partially so. But if it cannot be proven that someone cheated they can still be punished, just not as severely.
6. And in the end those individuals and what they did, the evidence or their punishment are not made public.

1 - This was addressed with the revised EULA, which stated more clearly the rules in regards multi-accounts and farming, in amongst other things. If more clarity is required, I would personally love to aid people, as I hate having to close people for cheating. Let me know, and 2 weeks tommorrow (i.e. after exams) I shall collate the response and try and propose an improvement, and make a clear and succinct guide.

2 - The guidelines for infractions are very simple really. Each player is allowed to access 1 account, and 1 account only. If more than 1 account is to be played from a single IP (e.g. brothers playing at home), then the multihunters MUST be notified so they can add an exception. These 2 accounts are then not allowed to interact in any way, though minor and VERY rare examples MAY be ignored at the multihunters discretion.

3 - Punishments are meted out depending on the severity of the breach of the EULA, with serious cases (multiing, account sharing) being closed upon discovery.

4 - I understand your point here, and conceed partially. However, if I believe someone is cheating, I wish to stop them doing so instantly - we only close when we have sufficient evidence to convince us that cheating is occuring. Also, the only way to detect if a planet is closed is to scan it - so it's not usually a very large proportion of the community that would find out about a closure particularly rapidly. Invalid closures are usually compensated.

5 - If someone can fully explain the data we have indicating their cheating, and we believe they are telling the truth and have not cheated - we open their account. However, 99.9% of accounts when closed can have a reason for staying closed if we so wish no matter what is said (for example, false information). If an account has a partial explanation like "forgetting" to apply for an exemption we MAY open (depending upon severity of effect), and punish the player (again, depending upon the severity of the effect of their EULA breach).

6 - All cases investigated by the multi-hunters are kept confidential between us and the interested party. If they wish to publish what they were closed for, we will not stop them - though we will correct any innaccuracies if we notice they are lieing ;-)


At the end of the day, multihunting is, I'm afraid a rather subjective job at times. It consumes vast amounts of time, and we don't get paid. We aim to do the best we possibly can, and someone like Phil^ has poured literally hundreds of hours probably into developing the tools we use, and is constantly developing them.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

2 - The guidelines for infractions are very simple really. Each player is allowed to access 1 account, and 1 account only. If more than 1 account is to be played from a single IP (e.g. brothers playing at home), then the multihunters MUST be notified so they can add an exception. These 2 accounts are then not allowed to interact in any way, though minor and VERY rare examples MAY be ignored at the multihunters discretion..

Thats complete and utter bullshit and you know it. We have already established in this thread that there are no guidelines whatsoever on infractions and their punishment. And your once again proving that by again giving a different version of whats acceptable. All the documentation clearly states that interaction is allowed between these account as long as its not excessive and its not connected to cheating. Yet every single person on PAteam or MH team gives a differernt interpritation of this, some stating no interaction, some stating it depends on the type.

This lack of guidelines which in turn seems to carry over to the action taken when theres deemed to be an infringment are the root problem to all this. It shouldnt matter which person is handling a case everyone should get the same treatment but that doesnt happen and it leaves the whole community unsure about whats acceptable and whats not and ultimatly it just makes the whole MH process a complete and utter joke as theres no consistancy.

Sort out guidelines to follow, make sure they are as clear cut as possible, make sure they are followed by the letter of the law and make it clear what these guidelines are to the community and things like this become much less of an issue because its easier to be fairer

[Lunar_Lamp]

Quote from FAQs in manual:

7. I have family members / flatmates / workmates playing from my computer or a computer on a home/work network, what should i do?
You should email [email protected] , informing us. Ensure you include your coordinates and your Userid ( not Username ) which can be found on your preferences page. This way an exception can be added beside the relevent planet(s) in the database for multihunters to take into account in any investigation. You should include your co-ordinates, user ID and Email address to help us add an exception to your planets as soon as possible. You must also avoid interaction between the accounts as much as possible. If the accounts interact too much, not even an exception will stop them being closed.

Interaction is classed as :
Attacking or Defending planets with each other
Attacking or Defending each other
note - this INCLUDES one planet launching on a target the other is attacking/defending in order to Jumpgate Probe it.
The occasional interaction can be , and often is overlooked, however REPEATED interactions can and will get you closed.
It is entirely up to admin discretion if the interaction is overlooked or not.

So, as I said previously, it states there it is up to the discretion of the multihunter.


Now, let's check the EULA

18. Cheating
This section presents the rules for playing the actual Game.

18.1. Farming:
Farming is illegal. The definitions of farming are, but are not limited to:
(a) Attacking a target with his/her consent to get his/her asteroids/ships
(b) Defending against someone who is attacking with their consent to steal
their ships.
(c) Abusing game features in order to gain excessive XP (e.g. roid farming)
(d) Doing either a, b or c by using multi-planets

18.2. Multiple Accounts/Account Sharing:
Multi-ing and Account sharing is not allowed. The definitions are, but are
not limited to:
(a) A multi is a player who owns more than 1 planet.
(b) If you create another Account and intend to still play the original
Account, you are a multi.
(c) If you create another Account and use the old Account as a farm, you are
a multi and a farmer.
(d) If there is more than one user actively playing Planetarion from your IP
address, for example a friend or relative, this is fine. However, you must
register for an exception to be placed on your account to avoid being closed.
[email protected].
(e) Account sharing is when one player has control over more than one
Account during one round (i.e. has control over an Account that is not
theirs). This control could be via password sharing or via any form of
Trojan or Trojan like program.

18.6. Consequences of actions which are not allowed
(a) Any such actions will result in a warning or closure (1) of your Account
depending on the case.
(b) If your Account is closed you will be sent an automated message briefly
stating the reason for the closure. If you wish to appeal against the
closure contact the multihunter team in #multihunters. Upon completion of
this appeal the decision to close the Account will be reviewed and one of a
number of actions may result including but not limited to re-opening,
deletion or other various punitive measures (2).
(c) Accounts are automatically deleted and will be unrecoverable after 10
days of closure.
(d) An Admin does not need concrete evidence of an offence in order to
punish you, he/she just needs to have significant evidence to convince a
normal person that an offence has been committed ¿ evidence is deemed to be
anything logged by the Planetarion game server ¿ IRC logs cannot be used as
evidence, but can be used to add context to a case.

(1) Account closure means it will not be possible to log into the account,
fleets and covert operations cannot be directed at a closed Account. Upon
closing all outgoing fleets will be automatically recalled, closed Accounts
keep ticking (gaining resources, auto adjusting stealth/alert levels, etc)
with the rest of the universe.
(2) Various punitive measures imply that the punishment is completely at the
discretion of the Admins, it can vary from small score/ship/asteroid losses
to full account closures depending on the situation.

18.7. Evidence of Cheating
(a) Use of proxies and anonymizers.
(b) All interaction between accounts in the presence of other evidence
(c) More than one account using the same IP
(d) Any logged Account behaviour which appears to demonstrate a form of
farming.
(e) Shared registration information or preferences options from accounts in
the presence of other evidence.
(f) False signup information will result in immediate closure.
(g) Potential evidence of cheating does not always mean your Account will be
closed, if you feel you are doing something which may be regarded as
cheating please register to be considered for an exception by emailing
[email protected].

I think that is pretty clear really when it comes down to it. If we think you are cheating, we take action.

[Wishmaster]

I got a question.

I got m8s playing pa going to same school as me.

We check at school from same ip...

Wanted to know if it is possible for us to def eachother when we r at home - and then do not share same ip.

Or is it so that if 2 have logged in from same ip once - they r NEVER allowed to def/attack with eachother again.

[Shoshuro]

I thought jolt was very strict regarding cheating and had given direct orders to PAteam on how to punish people (even if they are paying). For example i play CS in jolt servers all the time and when they bust a cheater they broadcast global the steam id of the user banned (Also prompt players to report cheaters to their channel/forums).

I don't really understand why you make an exception for some known scumbags. I mean are 40-50 paid accounts really so important for jolt revenue? (Income from PA for jolt is to buy a cola or something - not big/important).

[furssie]

Ok. I just logged on my account, The anti-bot question asks:

Will your planet be closed if you are caught cheating? I answered "NO"

Then the login page appears again.

Whyso?

I firmly believe my answer is right based on what ive been hearing lately.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

And I d accept the punishemnt given.

But - I didnt cheat imo - I just broke the agreement.

Like u can breake ur nations laws - but u dont have to be killed if u drive on red.

Different punishment should be given to different law breakes.

and thats exactly the differense between players and cheaters.

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by Wishmaster

I got a question.

I got m8s playing pa going to same school as me.

We check at school from same ip...

Wanted to know if it is possible for us to def eachother when we r at home - and then do not share same ip.

Or is it so that if 2 have logged in from same ip once - they r NEVER allowed to def/attack with eachother again.

Would it be crass for me to say that since you are ex LDk the answer should be... pre-emtivly close the lot of you.

Or should I jump on the infinite forgiveness bandwagon I wonder?

[aNgRyDuCk]

Wishmaster, in reading all of your posts, I see one thing, you are ok with cheating as long as you don't get caught, and you either call it something else, or have some lame ass excuse as to why it's ok....

impressive.... perfect example of what I'll teach my children not to be