Taking bets

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Kal

of course it might only be an excuse, thats why they should have asked for an exception - in this scenario there were only a copple of interactions and hence if there was cheating there was virtually no gain hence a small punnishment for not registering for an exception is warrented. had they been interacting lots on the same ip for a long period of time they would need a better excuse to avoid being left closed.

we have to keep a balence otherwise we would close far to many innocent players

Wrong Answer!

My wife did not play this round because the policy was so draconian toward the same IP. She and I sat there last round and pelted you with questions to the point you were getting ticked off. And the answer was the same every time - "no exceptions for interaction." So as a result, we didn't scan for each other, go on the same alliance raids or any other interaction, let alone defend each other. This round she decided that it takes too much fun out of the game to have to monitor our every move so closely that she isn't playing, and NOW you are giving interaction exceptions to what has been described by many as an alliance of chronic cheaters. I don’t know Dragons and only vaguely remember LDK – they came about during my hiatus. But if one tenth of what people say is true then they have no room for error.

Enforce the rules evenly or get rid of them. The only people remotely happy about this type reaction would be a group of cheaters.

And how do you expect PA will be described when players are talking to other people? I hear two conversations.
The CHEATER: “Oh, PA is great they let you get away with cheating, no problem man. Here is how you need to do it…….”
The NON CHEATER: “PA? I wouldn't bother, the game is full of cheaters and the company doesn't really care as long as they get their money. In fact they probably love the ones that sign up for multiple paid accounts. Don’t waste your time or money.”

I wouldn’t want either one of those conversation to be had about my company. And frankly PA gets a bad enough rap in the game community without adding to it.

And before anyone goes off that the above comments are extreme- I won't argue that, but you know as well as I that is exactly what people will say. SO don't give them a reason to.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Helix

When I have asked for exceptions, and asked if I could still defend my brother I was told flat out no...

And its not like my top100 planet defending an allianceless bottom 500 planet would have benefitted me in any way shape or form either...it was just the fact that it is something your not supposed to do.

Thats where PATeam has problems they seem to have no clue on waht the process is on interaction and dealing with those deemed to be cheating. Your being told you cant interact at all, the manual says you can interact but not too much and Kal seems to think its a couple of interactions allowed unless its attack or defence in which case its probally immediate closure. Its just like individuals on PATeam are making the rules up as they go along and applying different standards to differnt people. its a shambles and the whole making it up as they go along seems to carry on when it comes to dealing with rule breakers.

We need some proper guidelines for what is ok on the interaction front, and whats the punishment for people breaking rules. Then these guidelines need to be adhered to no matter what happens

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Conall

The CHEATER: “Oh, PA is great they let you get away with cheating, no problem man. Here is how you need to do it…….”
The NON CHEATER: “PA? I wouldn't bother, the game is full of cheaters and the company doesn't really care as long as they get their money. In fact they probably love the ones that sign up for multiple paid accounts. Don’t waste your time or money.”

I wouldn’t want either one of those conversation to be had about my company. And frankly PA gets a bad enough rap in the game community without adding to it.

And before anyone goes off that the above comments are extreme- I won't argue that, but you know as well as I that is exactly what people will say. SO don't give them a reason to.

Amazingly, in the few minutes that it took to right this post, several such comments were made. Go figure.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Conall

Wrong Answer!

My wife did not play this round because the policy was so draconian toward the same IP. She and I sat there last round and pelted you with questions to the point you were getting ticked off. And the answer was the same every time - "no exceptions for interaction." So as a result, we didn't scan for each other, go on the same alliance raids or any other interaction, let alone defend each other. This round she decided that it takes too much fun out of the game to have to monitor our every move so closely that she isn't playing, and NOW you are giving interaction exceptions to what has been described by many as an alliance of chronic cheaters. I don’t know Dragons and only vaguely remember LDK – they came about during my hiatus. But if one tenth of what people say is true then they have no room for error.

Enforce the rules evenly or get rid of them. The only people remotely happy about this type reaction would be a group of cheaters.

And how do you expect PA will be described when players are talking to other people? I hear two conversations.
The CHEATER: “Oh, PA is great they let you get away with cheating, no problem man. Here is how you need to do it…….”
The NON CHEATER: “PA? I wouldn't bother, the game is full of cheaters and the company doesn't really care as long as they get their money. In fact they probably love the ones that sign up for multiple paid accounts. Don’t waste your time or money.”

I wouldn’t want either one of those conversation to be had about my company. And frankly PA gets a bad enough rap in the game community without adding to it.

And before anyone goes off that the above comments are extreme- I won't argue that, but you know as well as I that is exactly what people will say. SO don't give them a reason to.

I agree that the MH policies perhaps unfairly punnish the innocent, but at this time that is neccessary to firstly prevent cheating and secondly to restrict its effectiveness. once there is a formal exception handling system then it should make it easier for people such as you and your wife becuase you will not have to think about not breaking the exception as the game will prevent you from doing things.

It will also increase our ability to concentrate on real cheating as we will not have to chase up minor exception violations all of the time. quite often people are closed for violating an exception in a minor way simply as it gets them on ric where the rules can be explained to them, they would then be reopened assuming it didn;t become evident that they were actually cheating. Of course if they then violated the exception again then we would be less leniant.

I mean are people really suggesting we should close someone for launching one defence fleet to someone on the same IP - 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.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by wakey

Thats where PATeam has problems they seem to have no clue on waht the process is on interaction and dealing with those deemed to be cheating. Your being told you cant interact at all, the manual says you can interact but not too much and Kal seems to think its a couple of interactions allowed unless its attack or defence in which case its probally immediate closure. Its just like individuals on PATeam are making the rules up as they go along and applying different standards to differnt people. its a shambles and the whole making it up as they go along seems to carry on when it comes to dealing with rule breakers.

We need some proper guidelines for what is ok on the interaction front, and whats the punishment for people breaking rules. Then these guidelines need to be adhered to no matter what happens

well attacking someone on the same IP is obviosuly the worst posisble thing as that looks like multifarming.

the occasionaly defensive interaction is often overlooked as stated in the manual.

Also the majority of closures so far this round have been done by one person, so they should be fairly consistant in standard

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kal

I mean are people really suggesting we should close someone for launching one defence fleet to someone on the same IP - 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.

So basically, if I am away from the game for a couple of days, shall I give someone my details, so they can run my fleet if needed? I mean, its only once, not a closing offence, surely?

That attitude is appalling, and if thats the truth, you will soon have huge problems on your hands.

[SimbaX]

what an absolute crock. a cheat is a cheat is a cheat ------> Closed.
End of.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Hicks

If you cheat you should be deleted.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Hicks

if you cheat you should be deleted.

[lokken]

I think the community is reflecting a simple tradition of planetarion and an attitude of stopping cheating in whatever form, and I believe in this scenario (as you have been doing so with the stats and other things) you should listen to them.

I don't claim to be representative of everyone in AD, but i know that people who are worth their salt would expect the same.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Kal

well attacking someone on the same IP is obviosuly the worst posisble thing as that looks like multifarming.

the occasionaly defensive interaction is often overlooked as stated in the manual.

Also the majority of closures so far this round have been done by one person, so they should be fairly consistant in standard

A single attack is hardly evidence of multi farming though. Ok it maybe means you should keep an eye on the account but lets be honest how many of us havent attacked a friend, housemate or family member. The odd attack on them when they arent expecting it or dont even know its you is often amusing and doesnt mean your cheating. We are stuck in a situation where we are allowed interaction but have no real idea of what level of is allowed which is causing problems for the legitimate players. If your going to be vaugue on what we are allowed to do we would all be better off if you just ban interaction between two accounts on the same IP completly and take a zero tolerance appraoch on anyone who does.

[Helix]

Originally Posted by wakey

A single attack is hardly evidence of multi farming though.

How true...in rd11 I think it was, I had done something to piss my brother off (dont remember what) and so to get back at me, he waited til I went to bed, then he attacked me! How rude!! I would have been quite upset if I had been closed for that, but see I didn't let him land on me and get free roids + a boatload of XP, which would be something easily construed as a one time and done offense. (EDIT) not saying anyone has done that in these cases.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

So basically, if I am away from the game for a couple of days, shall I give someone my details, so they can run my fleet if needed? I mean, its only once, not a closing offence, surely?

That attitude is appalling, and if thats the truth, you will soon have huge problems on your hands.

just becuase people ahve the same IP doe snot mean they are cheats - they may not even know they have the same IP

[starbreeze]

EX has what.....60~ members?

Don't kill the game by trying to keep 60 customers happy by driving the rest away. That is not how you run a business...not if you want it to succeed

[Kal]

Originally Posted by wakey

A single attack is hardly evidence of multi farming though. Ok it maybe means you should keep an eye on the account but lets be honest how many of us havent attacked a friend, housemate or family member. The odd attack on them when they arent expecting it or dont even know its you is often amusing and doesnt mean your cheating. We are stuck in a situation where we are allowed interaction but have no real idea of what level of is allowed which is causing problems for the legitimate players. If your going to be vaugue on what we are allowed to do we would all be better off if you just ban interaction between two accounts on the same IP completly and take a zero tolerance appraoch on anyone who does.

well i agree with you wakey, but it seems everyone else here wants everyone in the universe closed and locked up for anythign that looks remotely like cheating.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kal

just becuase people ahve the same IP doe snot mean they are cheats - they may not even know they have the same IP

so why would they be punished?

If someone cheats, they have broken the rules and most be punished by closure and deletion.

If they havent cheated, do not punish them.

Anything otherwise is going to cause large scale cheating and/or public outrage.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kal

well i agree with you wakey, but it seems everyone else here wants everyone in the universe closed and locked up for anythign that looks remotely like cheating.

How very very wrong. See my above post.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by starbreeze

EX has what.....60~ members?

Don't kill the game by trying to keep 60 customers happy by driving the rest away. That is not how you run a business...not if you want it to succeed

members from [plenty of alliances were closed, and more form other alliances will be, we certianly are not trying to keep exilition happy, they are being treated exactly the same way as everyone else. the problem si everyone else would be happy if they were treated differently.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

so why would they be punished?

If someone cheats, they have broken the rules and most be punished by closure and deletion.

If they havent cheated, do not punish them.

Anything otherwise is going to cause large scale cheating and/or public outrage.

what do u define as cheating?

we close people for any sort of user agreement breash - be it multing, accoutn sharing, or an abusive fleet name etc. Often closing them for good is not the best answer for every offence. the idea about closure is that it will discourage people from violating the rules - but for some rules it is not neccessary to close people for the deterant to be there.

I do not know what theese people have or have not done. But I am confident that accross all closures the punnishments are reaosnably fair and consitant.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kal

what do u define as cheating?

we close people for any sort of user agreement breash - be it multing, accoutn sharing, or an abusive fleet name etc. Often closing them for good is not the best answer for every offence. the idea about closure is that it will discourage people from violating the rules - but for some rules it is not neccessary to close people for the deterant to be there.

I do not know what theese people have or have not done. But I am confident that accross all closures the punnishments are reaosnably fair and consitant.

So basically, if I cheat, but not on a large scale, I will not be deleted?

I will be afk for a few hours tomorrow, can someone babysit my account please? Its ok, we won't be deleted!

[Kal]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

So basically, if I cheat, but not on a large scale, I will not be deleted?

I will be afk for a few hours tomorrow, can someone babysit my account please? Its ok, we won't be deleted!

thats not what i said at all and you know it.

IF someone is proven to have commite done of the more serioius crimes they will be closed - that is farming, multiing, account sharing.

For lesser crimes there may be lesser punnishments

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Kal

I mean are people really suggesting we should close someone for launching one defence fleet to someone on the same IP - 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.

I am saying create an SOP, make it public and stick to it.

[Kal]

Originally Posted by Conall

I am saying create an SOP, make it public and stick to it.

i'm not against that but its not my department, phil^ is the man to nag about that.

[Wandows]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

So basically, if I am away from the game for a couple of days, shall I give someone my details, so they can run my fleet if needed? I mean, its only once, not a closing offence, surely?

That attitude is appalling, and if thats the truth, you will soon have huge problems on your hands.

i think the point is that its hard to show a clear difference between occasional login from another ip ( i mean.. most of us have logged in @ friends who were playing aswell) and proving it was obvious cheating. If the login's happen on a big scale and happen alot there is enough reason to assume its not fair play.

The problem is where to draw the line between decent playability and cheating. As no one likes to be restricted to one ip-adres for playing, since you (probably) want to be able to access the game any time and anywhere. And account sharing in that way is hard to prove, in that point of view its only fair to not punish "light" cheating to hard.

And with the huge history concerning this subject for the alliance in question, its always easy to judge without having seen any of the evidence found in the cases. Once a cheater doesn't nessicarely mean always a cheater, i think its only fair to give them the benefit of the doubt. I for one think the MH are doing a fair job and try to be fair in each case (shoot me for that if you wish :P). That they have made mistakes in the past has nothing to do with the new subjects, as we are all human and undoubtedly make mistakes.

And instead of always stating the obvious.. just play the game.. (known) cheaters are closed everyone round... but once it concerns groups of ppl that ppl were expected to cheat its suddenly big news and important to say they should have been closed cuz of their history...

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Kal

i'm not against that but its not my department, phil^ is the man to nag about that.

Agreed. Then maybe Phil^ needs to jump into this thread. Because at the moment you have a community that is getting more irate by the second. That doesn't benefit anyone.

And Phil^ why don't you go ahead create a SOP, make it public and stick to it?

I mean if there are exceptions to the exceptions, and we all know what they are, then we have less reason to believe that the rules are applied unevenly and arbitrarily.

[Helix]

Originally Posted by Wandows

And instead of always stating the obvious.. just play the game.. (known) cheaters are closed everyone round... but once it concerns groups of ppl that ppl were expected to cheat its suddenly big news and important to say they should have been closed cuz of their history...

Its not necessarily the fact that EXi was expected to cheat, it is the fact that a large number of them were closed at once. If 20 VsN were to be closed that would be a big deal as well.

[TeK]

My experiences with Phil have all gone pleasent. If he decided to punish them this way, then its for good reasons. Yes some might be upset with it, but Phil does all he can for this game and is a great guy. Just look at it this way, there known to now cheat by being reduced and this way they are closer watched and we can flame them.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Kal

its more that we arn;t completely evil - we are not going to close people for accidentally sending defence once - but if we tell people u can defend every so often then they will probably end up defendiing to much - its hard to define how little defence is acceptable and how much is not.

once we have a full in game exception handling system it will be designed so a limited amount of interaction is permitted but beyond that it will not be physically possible for the accounts to interact.

accidently sending defense? don't sit here and tell me that when someone defends a planet, it can be an accident, for christs sake, you have to enter the coords, the eta, and hit send.... how can that be an accident unless you enter the coords incorrectly, and what a coincidence that the incorrect coords happen to be your cousins.....unfreakinbelievable

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Wandows

And with the huge history concerning this subject for the alliance in question, its always easy to judge without having seen any of the evidence found in the cases. Once a cheater doesn't nessicarely mean always a cheater

ya, it does mean once a cheater, always a cheater, just like once your an alcaholic, or a thief, your always an alcaholic or a thief.....they've done it in the past, they cheat, everyone and their dog knows it.........they got questionable tactics or they wouldn't have been closed....if they are smarter than the PA crew and and be exonerated in the eyes of the PA crew by using some lame ass excuse, then hey, nothing we can do about it....Your expecting the PA crew to have some backbone and stick to their guns.... stay tuned....we'll see

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Kal

I agree that the MH policies perhaps unfairly punnish the innocent, but at this time that is neccessary to firstly prevent cheating and secondly to restrict its effectiveness.

I would go so far as to say that if this is an accurate representation of your "multi-hunter" policies, then those policies need to be revisited.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Conall

I am saying create an SOP, make it public and stick to it.

perfect solution imo....and it floors me as to why in 12 previous rounds of PA this has never happened.....it's not the same for everyone right now, as far as the punishment fitting the crime, and it never has been, many cases in the past prove that....it needs to be changed

[Squidly]

At a guess... I'd say it may have something to do with legal action // concrete, legitimate proof... *shrugs*

Although the MH policies are odd... PA crew are not morons... Can anyone here say that they currently have 1000+ people giving them $10 every ~5 months? Obviously something's going right... Thus, until there's a whole story given out..... none of us really have a valid argument.

[aNgRyDuCk]

a code of conduct should be available since round one....if you do this, you get this for ex....

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Hicks

Yet another reason I never want to play PA again, if you cheat you should be deleted.

Don't be silly Christopher, let's play next round and multi our asses off!
We'll only lose 30% if we're caught - win-win!

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

of course it might only be an excuse, thats why they should have asked for an exception - in this scenario there were only a copple of interactions and hence if there was cheating there was virtually no gain hence a small punnishment for not registering for an exception is warrented. had they been interacting lots on the same ip for a long period of time they would need a better excuse to avoid being left closed.

we have to keep a balence otherwise we would close far to many innocent players

The round has not been going for a long period of time. If the accounts then interracted, and you believed this was just not claiming an exception, then I am afraid you have gone soft. A couple of occasions so early in the round to me suggests that it is cheating. If you have login details for defence purposes, then you don't need to use them very often at all, only when you get in real trouble.

[Bashar]

Originally Posted by Kal

it might not be the same PC for a start, one of them could have brough his laptop for example. Some people also don't understand what an IP is. I'm not saying this is the case with Exilition, its just hypotheticals.

Also remember that its not hammered into the mind of new pa players so some people may be given the benefit of the doubt.

Some people might not know what multi-ing is.
Some people might not know what farming is.
Some people might not know what account sharing is.
Some people might not understand the EULA.

Surely nobody should ever be deleted.

[DeadMan]

Originally Posted by Kal

there are a variety of ways in which the eula can be breached, some are more serious than others so punnishments vary.

Exilition members were not the only people closed recently, several 1up and WP members have also been closed. We are working through all the alliances and taking action as is appropriate. Exilition just happened to be the first to be processed.

What WP members has been closed? I know of one, and he got opend again cos a mistake made by PA-Team.

Gimme names I wanna hear...

[Desse]

Originally Posted by lokken

I saw this and boggled.

This is shocking behaviour from PA team. If you cheat, you get deleted - there is no other punishment. There are people who have lost out due to their cheating, could lose out again and the only right way to right this is deletion. I think they should seriously reconsider and delete as this is the only way to get rid of cheats in game by catching and deleting them.

Cheaters should be deleted as soon as it clear, they cheated.

These slaps on the wrists are a disgrace to the players that are playing by the rules.

What about the XP gained from capping these roids ? Is that going to be deleted as well ?

or can they continue with their scores from that ?

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Kal

if they were deinftly cheating they would still be closed... just becuase the communtiy thinks all of exilition are cheaters does not mean they are.

So why have they been given these "lenient" punishments instead of closures ?

Because you are unsure of your own evidence ?

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Kal

i'm not against that but its not my department, phil^ is the man to nag about that.

Then why are you the one commenting on this issue ?

[Borg]

ok, so its happening again

all right, how about this system

deletions will be applied to people who have been proven to be cheating on a large scale

loss of all research in ship/mining/resource handling//waves and travel is applied to those who are found to be cheating but not sufficiently to warrent closure (eg A + B have different IP yet on 2 occaisions have used same IP to assist each other with def/scans/attacks), that would be far more punishment than losing %30 of your roids, after all, now you cant mine more than 50 roids, you cant replace ships that die, scan anybody, and you sure cant defend your alliance with no travel time reductions

be a lot more effective than a slap on the wrist, and if people know that these are the ONLY punishments going, then they sure as hell aint going to be keen to break no rules and suffer like that

[Phil^]

Planets who get reopened are done so for two reasons :
1) theyve explained the evidence against them to my satisfaction
2) theyve explained the evidence partially but not completely - to the point an admin thinks its possible what they are saying could be accurate.

in case #1 , they`re reopened without losses.
in case #2 , they`re reopened with losses determined by admins discretion.
in this case, a planet can lose roids, fleet etc. and will be watched for further signs of cheating.
If a planet who has already been closed cheats again, they dont get reopened.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Kal

if they were deinftly cheating they would still be closed... just becuase the communtiy thinks all of exilition are cheaters does not mean they are.

they just came from a round of pia with cheating cheating and cheating.

did your probability calculator break or something ?
Ive been checking out a few of the exil planets that were closed yesterday, and they appear to be "mysteriously" re-opened without any ship or roidcap.

Perhaps you should stop being so kind towards "new players"

[Phil^]

of those in exilition closed yesterday, only one was reopened without roid or fleet cap.

[noah02]

Pah we need there roids.

[Desse]

Originally Posted by Phil^

of those in exilition closed yesterday, only one was reopened without roid or fleet cap.

And what about the XP from their "gains" ?

[Treveler]

How many exil was actually closed? If rumours hold any truth to it, it seems strange that so many players in the same ally can get closed and come up with a decent explanation to the accusations. Did everybody have a friend/brother playing and defended eachother only once?

[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.

[Helix]

Originally Posted by Desse

And what about the XP from their "gains" ?

Exactly, I mentioned this on the first page. If somebody has been cheating, but not enough to warrant closure I believe they should lose all of their experience. Why? Well cause it isn't really experience playing planetarion if you haven't learned not to cheat yet. Once they have learned to stop cheating then they can truly earn experience in the game.

[Treveler]

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.

I’ve heard more like 15 and as rumours are the only source of info we have as you refuse to share any information, I will continue to listen to rumours and "judge" the admins anti-cheating work from that. I think its fair to say that you don’t impress anyone in this thread at least.