Taking bets

[Gary]

[quote=Zh|l] 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. QUOTE]


Can we have these questions answered. The first one in particular hasnot been answered... If the planets in question wont be compensated, then why not?

[Wishmaster]

Originally Posted by 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

and how can u interpret my posts like that?

I m just saying that there has to be a reason why mhs reopened them. Dont judge without having proofs.

U r the kinda of guy I ll teach my children not to be like.. to judge before u know all facts.
To sterotype a group of people and class em all wihtout knowing em good enough to do so.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

Quote from FAQs in manual:

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

Thats hardly guidelines to whats acceptable though is it and what the punishments are. Its bascially as I said "make it up as you go along". And as the FAQ in manual does clearly state ingteraction is allowed as long as its not too much, theres no indication of what too much is though. And its where the problems all stem from as theres so many conflicting cases. There needs to be some actual guidelines in place so that then teh MH are all roughly on the same page. OFC they can still use a bit of common sense in cases but its not going to see the decisions differ by anything that thats major.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

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.

More clearly than what? Previous rounds? That is true, but the EULA is massively subjective. First, I never have understood why the EULA contained the rules rather than a reference to a rules guide. EULAs intenitonally made to be vague, broad and open to interpretation, and legally that makes sense. Having developed software in the past I have been around and around with the lawyers on whats in the EULA. But we are not talking strictly about the use of software here, which is what a EULA is intended for, we are talking a about a game system, which need far far less subjectivity than a EULA does. I don't consider the EULA clear on this point at all, by definition EULA are overly subjective.

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.

Then clearly in this case the rule was broken. Period end of discussion. Again, the way the EULA is written puts the MH crew in some tough situations. And I don't see how using two accounts from the same IP can be considered minor, when the whole thrust of point 2 is MH's MUST be notified or it is breaking the rules.

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

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.

This exactly proves my point from my earlier post. That have practically no usefulness as a guide for punishment.

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

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.

Then alert them, give them 12 to 24 hours to respond and then make a decision. If they are cheating then they would be utter fools to continue doing so. If they did continue to cheat then you bolster your case and make closing them less subjective. If they have a good explanation then no harm is done to them.

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

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).

THis is what I meant in my previous post. This is so wide open to interpretation that even minor and legitimate influences can create a bad situation.

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

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 ;-)

Why? That only makes sense if the person is found not have broken any rules. In that case there is no reason to paint them in a bad light. However, if they have been found to have broken the rules, no matter how slight, they should be outted, including their offense and punishment.

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

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.

ON this point I agree 100%. Which is why MH team must codify and make less subjective the rules, infraction guides, the process and the punishment. As long as it is SO subjective and so cloaked in secrecy then MHs will continue to get pounded in the public. Make you own jobs less difficult by making it clear to the players what is considered cheating, what the varying degrees of severity are and what punishments will be used in what cases. Punishments can still be a range of options, but it should be a narrowly defined range and the range needs to get more narrow and more severe as the infraction increases in severity or frequency.

All that said, I don't think any infraction of the rules should require deletion of an account. Some things are simple mistake and minor misdeeds. You don't get the death penalty for speeding, but you shouldnt get a citation for attempted rape either.


P.S. I went back and read Lunar_lamps post containing the EULA. That proves my point exactly, it is far to open to interpretation, by both MH and players, to be used as a standard on which game play is judged. In fact my interpretation of the EULA would have forced me to close someone using the two accounts from the same IP (without notification they were doing so) immediately and not reopened it. Do I think that is just? Probably not, but it potentially breaks so many areas of the EULA, I can't see any other option.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by wakey

Thats hardly guidelines to whats acceptable though is it and what the punishments are. Its bascially as I said "make it up as you go along". And as the FAQ in manual does clearly state ingteraction is allowed as long as its not too much, theres no indication of what too much is though. And its where the problems all stem from as theres so many conflicting cases. There needs to be some actual guidelines in place so that then teh MH are all roughly on the same page. OFC they can still use a bit of common sense in cases but its not going to see the decisions differ by anything that thats major.

BINGO!! He is exactly right.

Those that are accusing some of us crying because it is Dragons/LDK/Exilition are flat out wrong. Personally I don't give a rats *ss who it is. The point is from day to day the whole process is all over the board.

[Lunar_Lamp]

I think you have misunderstood what I meant by being subjective - probably my fault.

What I mean is this:

Interactions, for example, can be a wide range of things - ranging from minor ( e.g. performing a JGP for someone once) to major (habitually defending someone). If we believe that the interaction was so minor, and so infrequent, we will let it pass - though will often warn a planet. Yes, we do warn, and we do invite people onto IRC to explain themselves BEFORE closure at times.


Also, in response to someone's earlier post - it is only interactions from the same IP that are disallowed.

[Lunar_Lamp]

Also:

There needs to be some actual guidelines in place so that then teh MH are all roughly on the same page.

We habitually review each other's cases, ask for other's opinions and interpretations of data. We agree pretty much every time.

[Lunar_Lamp]

Those that are accusing some of us crying because it is Dragons/LDK/Exilition are flat out round. Personally I don't give a rats *ss who it is. The point is from day to day the whole process is all over the board.

I really hope you are not insinuating that we are biased towards any alliance in any manner. In fact, it is not uncommon for us to not know that we have closed a large planet unless we specifically check.


(sorry for spammage)

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

I think you have misunderstood what I meant by being subjective - probably my fault.

What I mean is this:

Interactions, for example, can be a wide range of things - ranging from minor ( e.g. performing a JGP for someone once) to major (habitually defending someone). If we believe that the interaction was so minor, and so infrequent, we will let it pass - though will often warn a planet. Yes, we do warn, and we do invite people onto IRC to explain themselves BEFORE closure at times.


Also, in response to someone's earlier post - it is only interactions from the same IP that are disallowed.

Great! But you have to admit that none of that is clear in the EULA and certainly not clear in the case at hand.

Additionlly, I previously referred to my wife and I pelting Kal with questions on the topic of two users from same household. In that discussion it was made clear to us, crystal clear, that doing a JPG could get us closed as quickly as defending each other. Not to mention the concept of repeated defenses (habitual as you say) was not even considered a possibility, as we were lead to beleive we would be closed long before that. My point? You clearly consider JPG minor, it was described to us as major, so It isn't even clear among the PATeam what constitute cheating and what the punishments are. How on earth can it be clear to 2500 plus players? There are potentially as many interpretations of the rulesas their are players.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

Also:



We habitually review each other's cases, ask for other's opinions and interpretations of data. We agree pretty much every time.

The community sees evidence to the contrary. See my above post. Besides, you guys agreeing is only half the issue. The player community understading and seeing the system is just is the other half.

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

I really hope you are not insinuating that we are biased towards any alliance in any manner. In fact, it is not uncommon for us to not know that we have closed a large planet unless we specifically check.


(sorry for spammage)

NO Lunar. The are some posters here saying the only reason people are upset about this is that EXilition is a top alliance, and we want ot see them punished to knock them down so that others can move up. That is complete nonsense. I beleive it is their way of deflecting attention away from the fact that some people broke the rules.

My comment had nothing to do with the motivation of the MH, or with the MH at all for that matter.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

Also:

We habitually review each other's cases, ask for other's opinions and interpretations of data. We agree pretty much every time.

Its one thing to agree with each other decisions, its another thing to be working from the same page. In any team its not uncommon for other team members to agree with something another team member says if theres seems to be some valid resoning behind it.. This doesnt mean you agree or iits your interpritation of the rules just that you see their point and decide you trust their judgement enough to give them the benifit of the doubt.

The team however are clearly all working from a differnt page as your comments on the issues differ and as we keep saying thats where the confusion is. One document says one thing, another say another and every MH or PATeam member says something else. No-one is clear what we are and arent allowed to do and we are all playing by differnt sets of rules due to that. The situation needs a SINGLE clarification and that has to then be stuck to so pubishment is consistant

[Conall]

I feel the need to add something here. I was reading another post in this forum that appears to be some what tangent to this thread. A comment was made something to the effect of striving toward catching all cheaters even if it hurts the innocent or let a few cheaters go rather than hurt the innocent. The post also alluded to the opinion of the majority would lean toward catching all cheaters even if the innocent are hurt.

I won't even attempt to speak for others let alone the majority in my post, my opinions are my opinions alone. Those that choose to agree or disagree with me are capable of saying so themselves, or if they choose, do like wise quietly.

I don't think we should make a policy to catch all cheaters at all cost. Hurting 20 innocents to catch the one guilty is probably more egregious than letting 20 cheaters go.

My objectives are simple:
Push for creation of a set of rules that are clear and concise. That define exactly what is considered cheating, exactly what level and offense rises too, exactly the process by which a player is judged and exactly what penalties go with what offense. The EULA is far too vague on this topic.

TO have the rules interpreted and applied as evenly and justly as humanly possible. Not letting cheaters go free, but not squashing the truly innocent in the pursuit of cheaters.

My objective is not to get anyone associated with the case in question here deleted; I don’t believe deletion need be the punishment for all offenses. Nor is it to damage any particular alliance. However, if the infractions warrant it then both should occur.

I am not here to hammer or belittle the MH’s. In fact I don’t envy their job nor do I think they do a poor job at it on whole. I do believe they have such a vague set of guidelines that I don’t know how they do there job without more outcry from the community, unless of course the high level of secrecy keeps the community in the dark and thus quite far more often.

[Rinoa]

what if two planets from same ip (ie brothers bf/gf etc) are in same alliance, then are they allowed to defend attack together etc?

[Conall]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

what if two planets from same ip (ie brothers bf/gf etc) are in same alliance, then are they allowed to defend attack together etc?

NO Rinoa - in fact my wife and I were in the same alliance and we were told it was in our best interest not to even go on the same raids as each other. The closest we came to interaction was her defending galaxy mates of mine that were in the same alliances as both of us.

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Conall

NO Rinoa - in fact my wife and I were in the same alliance and we were told it was in our best interest not to even go on the same raids as each other. The closest we came to interaction was her defending galaxy mates of mine that were in the same alliances as both of us.

And thats how it should be, if not everybody would have as many brothers and sisters as ldk.

[DrunkenViking]

I had prepared a looong post about how i feel to post here, but decided not to, since most probably anything i came up with has been said already or will be said in the future.

I'll just stick with this comment:
Anyone breaking the rules should be closed - no matter how serious.
If you log into another account for a scan, you're cheating just as much as if you're logging in to someone elses account to send def.

I dont give a flying **** about what alliance theese ppl comes from, just close them.

[Tomkat]

Hey guys I just had a botstopper question that was:

"Will your planet be closed if you are caught cheating?"

I wrote "no", and apparently that's wrong?

[noah02]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Hey guys I just had a botstopper question that was:

"Will your planet be closed if you are caught cheating?"

I wrote "no", and apparently that's wrong?

lol i like your style :P