|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 26 post(s) |
Glyken Touchon
Independent Alchemists
   |
Posted - 2011.05.01 11:17:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Admiral Acronym
Originally by: Xylengra
I can think of two reasons why CCP would decline naming and shaming. One of those would be that they don't want the world to know just how bad the problem is. The other would be that they don't want the world to know how unable they are to get on top of it. Obviously, there might be more reasons, but I don't think that legal ramifications are really justifiable.
the reason CCP will not "name and shame" is simple. CCP wants to stop players from botting, not drive them from the game.
if a player is temp-banned for botting and CCP discloses the player's name, that character will forevermore be griefed by everyone he comes across. even if he decides to straighten up and play legit. if the character is transfered, the new owner will recieve the griefing. this will be enough to drive some players to other games, and cause CCP to lose the subscription fees.
this is also the same reason (i would assume) that many of the overly-harsh and extreme punishment suggestions have remained unaddressed.
some of you people (and i use that term lightly), need to start thinking about how your suggestions will effect CCP, instead of just how they will effect YOU.
another reason is the evidence threshold. To avoid any defamation issues, the bar is a lot higher than for an anonymous ban. "beyond reasonable doubt" vs "more likely than not".
|
Glyken Touchon
Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2011.05.06 23:32:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Carla Skord
So what can CCP do to break the "blue wall of silence" of "never report blues"?
isn't encouraging others to break the EULA itself a bannable offence?
|
Glyken Touchon
Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2011.05.14 10:42:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Rosewalker
If you tell me 3,000 botters were banned this month, I'm not sure about that. If you tell me 3,000 since Fanfest, that I can believe. Not only does it seem that concurrency is way down when I log in, but I ran some numbers based off of Eve-Offline stats as well. As of last Friday (6 May), the seven-day rolling average of peak concurrency was down 3,500 from 6 weeks previous (24 March). Something happened, especially on 10 April, and given the reactions I'm reading on the botting forums, botters are getting hit.
depends on what the normal monthly ban figures are like. If the normal monthly bannings are 2.5k, then 3k would not stand out so much.
|
Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2011.06.23 23:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Scott DTA
bump cause it was on page 61
61 pages in 3 days
you can tell that the mods disappeared for a while...
Any word on how the bots are coping with the new stuff?
______
When the forums asked CCP for transparency, we didn't mean the HUD... |
Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
|
Posted - 2011.07.04 11:17:00 -
[5]
Originally by: coolzero
Originally by: Glyken Touchon
Originally by: Scott DTA
bump cause it was on page 61
61 pages in 3 days
you can tell that the mods disappeared for a while...
Any word on how the bots are coping with the new stuff?
loooots of post have been made due to gold-ammo gate :P
death to all bots :D
I posted that on 23rd, before things really hit the fan. Heaven knows how far back Clixor et al had to go to retrieve it.
______
Tippia's analysis of NEX/Incarna |
|
|
| |
|