|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3476
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Leaving it as it is (between the offender and CCP) makes sense. Naming and shaming accomplishes nothing. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3483
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Scarlet Letters should be implemented, but not visible to all players.
These should only be visible to corp CEOs when a pilot has put in an application to the corporation. Something along the lines of a notice that the applicant has had strikes against their account for botting.
This allows conscientious CEOs to turn away players with whom they seek to prevent their corporation members from exchanging ISK with. I say this because botters tend to be notorious for a certain type of transaction which is not allowed. I don't think any CEO would want potentially dirty ISK being passed directly from a "marked" botter to their corp members through trades, contracts, or what have you. There's also the possibility that one player's knowledge of botting could easily be shared to others (I think, Darius, you are familiar with a certain Space Captain Schettino who crashed his corporation into the rocks by spreading knowledge of botting).
Lying about your intentions ("Oh I'm not joining this WH corp to clean out the hangars") is one thing, but being able to lie about actions taken against your account is another.
TL;DR - Strikes not visible to everyone, only CEO/Directors of corps when a player with strikes against their account applies to that corporation. This allows them to make smart decisions and not accept players they would not otherwise.
This is a better idea - it implies consent, rather than ridiculous and unnecessary crucifixion of idiots who decided that trying out an anomaly macro WAS A GREAT IDEA. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3483
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Sreegs wrote:Being familiar with how things work you know I'd just make a corp and publish the info using some really cool API app. :(
I agree with the spirit but the devil is in the implementation.
I don't get it - who would shotgun apply to every corp in sight if their account was flagged for botting? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3484
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:As a CEO, I'd much rather have a Corp Thief tag if we're gonna have any at all.
Absolutely not. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3487
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Revii Lagoon wrote:Terrible idea, most bots operate in 0.0 anyways so it would do nothing.
Didn't the security presentation show that most bots were in hisec? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3530
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
Razin wrote:Besides the fact that such a thing would be somewhat immersion breaking, I really couldn't care less about knowing if someone had been caught botting. All I want is Delayed Local so that the players have a chance to self-police in 0.0 at the very least. Why isn't this getting done??
technical solutions to social problems never work "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
|
|
|