CCP Sreegs wrote:That is untrue and as I elaborated in every single case we've found where someone was flagged for RMT who shouldn't have been, they were doing something else they shouldn't have been. Not so much a false positive as a positive for the wrong activity.
It may be mincing words a bit but there's a very big difference from my perspective as these aren't really innocents getting caught in the crossfire.
I have refrained from commenting or arguing with you on the forums, thus far, because I seriously respect you for this undertaking. You are doing a good thing and have to contend with a legion of idiots while doing so. Props.
However, the response time we are seeing on certain things is a little disconcerting, and it is what motivated corestwo to post. In the case that corestwo is posting about, it took us nearly a month to get any sort of response despite repeated petitions and e-mails to your security@ e-mail address. Having to wait for such a long period of time without even a "we are looking at this" e-mail,
while you are posting about the low false positive rate on the forums -- I'm sure you can see how these events make me sad. Nevertheless I have tried to be patient, but now it has been a month since the original bannings.
Also, I know of at least one person who was unbanned a week ago and who had all of his accounts compensated with 14 days of game time for the false positive ban. You declined to provide an explanation for the false positive to this person, but I can only surmise that you considered him innocent rather than in the "was doing something shady" category.
I'm trying to say this nicely because I genuinely want your efforts to be successful and I respect what you have done so far. This is why I haven't been harassing you about hypotheticals like the previous devblog thread. But the case I'm talking about is almost a textbook example of a false positive and so far it isn't being handled very well. Right now we have 200 billion ISK in assets (belonging to around 20-25 real people who invested in the bond) that are sitting unusable and have been for a month. In light of that situation, continuing to read posts about "no false positives" and "doing something else they shouldn't have been" at this point is aggravating. It is especially aggravating because there is no way the lost income from that 200B in assets will be compensated fairly by CCP if the person IS unbanned -- it is just gone, and there is no way for you to fairly rectify the consequences of a false positive of this magnitude.
Like I said. I don't have any desire to start an Internet slapfight or rake you over the coals on this stuff since I think you're doing a pretty good job at a great thing. But yeah -- there are still issues, and for me they aren't just hypotheticals.
Ranger 1 wrote:In all fairness, if your internet "friend" actually was doing something in violation of the EULA (botting, RMT, or otherwise) are you really sure they would admit it to you...
I have access to the API data of the banned accounts that were mentioned by corestwo so I could go check if I really wanted to. But yes, in this case I am sure.