It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.

Hmmm.....



Right. That's exactly correct now.

-Liang

Wow, troll of the year award, no one can be that stupid. The sentence you changed it to doesn't even make sense to the context. Of course he would petition it if he thought John wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting.

If Kelduum really thought he was botting and the money was from botting, why would he petition it??? Hate Kelduum all you want, but dear god, the guy isn't stupid. Give him credit for that at least.

Clearly, he didn't think the ISK was dirty, or he wouldn't have risked it.

I can say objectively that detecting botting in a game is generally very easy. I'm honestly surprised that CCP is as "lenient" as they are. Even my bosses are way more lenient than me. I'd personally just ban them all.

-Liang

I can say objectively that detecting botting in a game is generally very easy. I'm honestly surprised that CCP is as "lenient" as they are. Even my bosses are way more lenient than me. I'd personally just ban them all.

-Liang

Ed: I should say, that when you detect botting you're generally highly sure that it's botting. Detecting it in the first place can be difficult.

But who is watching you while you watch the watchers....who are watching us watch you? Gawd Damn it felt good to type that for some reason. Also friends don't let friends post drunk.

It goes both ways though. You can't really defend them either without their "stuff on the table". Judging whether they were in the right or wrong in their action of if the guy was a botter is NOT possible subjectively for any of us.

Wow, troll of the year award, no one can be that stupid. The sentence you changed it to doesn't even make sense to the context. Of course he would petition it if he thought John wasn't botting and the money wasn't from botting.

Name one good famous debate that was built on the foundation of "this person says so" with nothing to back it up.

Now I'd think ideally, given how strongly he's being defended, there's a reason that he was believed innocent, despite you wanting to twist the topic around to say something it doesn't, which further makes me curious just what he was using.

One obvious rationale for petitioning to discover if ISK you received was illegitimate or not is that the level of risk presented by using that ISK and finding out later that it was illegitimate is immense. Thus if I was to receive a sum of ISK or assets worth more than my annual space income, I would certainly petition it before spending a single cent. So the rational explanation is risk management.

A more cynical view would be that someone was hoping a GM would make a mistake, tell K that the ISK was legitimate, and thus provide some level of guarantee that the ISK wouldn't be taken away later.

Even being exposed to large sums of money or power can be enough to corrupt a person. I would not be surprised to find that K was acting in the cynical scenario: after all for many capsuleers a windfall of 300B ISK is like winning the lotto. Who wouldn't be looking for some way to "win" in this scenario?

"Please Daddy CCP, I know this money is dirty, but couldn't I keep just a small fraction of it? Even the smell of this much money would keep E-U well funded for a year!"

"No son, dirty money is dirty money, and you don't want your life smelling of dirty money."

"You are so mean! I'm telling Mum on you!"

Sorry, thats not the way this works.

Its easy to detect them. Its not easy to detect them with 0% rate on false positives.

Name one good famous debate that was built on the foundation of "this person says so" with nothing to back it up.

Stopped reading right there. When you make an argument, you hold everyone to the same standards. Don't get to change the standards to match with your own views. I don't care how you want to wrap it up.

In it's current state it does nothing to alleviate the public's fears of misconduct or mistake.

On the other hand, I'm also quite disturbed that there isn't an official and well documented means to rebut both the CCP security teams accusations and actions. That there isn't an official process that the accused can participate to the extent of providing additional facts about one's own case means the process is very susceptible impropriety and abuse. In it's current state it does nothing to alleviate the public's fears of misconduct or mistake.

All you 'defenders' of 'John' seem to have missed the bit (Which Kelduum posted in his very first post on Eve Uni forums) that CCP asked 'John' for his programs, & John provided them, and CCP then made the call that he was botting with them.

Nigh on every single case that uses evidence in a court will appoint an expert witness whose sole job it is to tell the Judge and Jury what the evidence means, because as a lay-person they're unable to interpret the evidence. The judge/jury have little scope other than to accept what the expert witness says as proof.

Oh wait, I'm sorry, were you just aiming for petty rhetoric?

It's worth mentioning Sreegs isn't "making an argument" or "stating an opinion" he is reporting the result of an investigation.

To say otherwise is basically assuming he banned an innocent player and THIS IS ALL A HUGE CONSPIRACY GUYS!!!

Frankly, I have come to expect the latter from the posters in this thread.

No, the 100% no false positives part is easy. It's detecting them at all that's hard.

-Liang

At the end of the day CCP says the "John" was botting, that's proof enough for me and many others.

Our members do not exploit or otherwise violate the Eve Online EULA

For all members of EVE University and Ivy League, actions which breach the End User Licence Agreement (EULA) for Eve Online as set by CCP, are prohibited. Examples of these are account sharing and purchasing of ISK or in-game items for real money. Any member found to have engaged in any actions forbidden in the EULA will be immediately removed. In the event that a member has mistakenly breached the EULA, they are encouraged to petition CCP themselves via the normal channels to resolve the issue. Similarly, if a member has reason believe another player is violating the EULA, they are encouraged to petition them, and must not take any action in-game.

Or he didn't provide all of them, or CCP assumed he didn't provide all of them (which could be a rightful assumption depending on what they detected, or not). Swear, the simplest things sometimes.

And you just proved yourself wrong by one thing. They INTERPRET the evidence, they themselves don't provide the entire basis of the evidence. Their word can make a difference, but they have to back their words up with something. What the person did, or said, have the evidence itself to give context to. It isn't based PURELY on their word.