EVE Search - [Issue] Official List of Bannable Offences

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Official List of Bannable Offences

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Orogaldeo Amarr Extreme Solutions Frontal Impact	Posted - 2008.12.25 11:29:00 - [31] Originally by: Grustar Edited by: Grustar on 25/12/2008 02:49:47 Edited by: Grustar on 25/12/2008 02:48:58 So... when someone does something that isn't on an "official" list you are opening the door for folks to exploit things not on that list and give them the ability to go "Well, it's not on the official list, so it must be allowed!" No support here, I can see something like this doing much more harm than good, at least as currently suggested. what kind of twisted argument are you exposing? the list is for the sole purpose of listing the current exploits and official bannable offences, it doesn't says "if something is not on the list you're free to do it". If you're doing something that isn't contemplated on the list, it doesn't mean it couldn't be a bannable offence. For God Sake, if you're flying 50 AU/s with your ship and fitting multiple MWDs right now, that's an exploit, it's not hard to recognize, it only takes few brain cells... ________________________________
Karath Piki	Posted - 2008.12.25 13:54:00 - [32] Originally by: Grustar Edited by: Grustar on 25/12/2008 02:49:47 Edited by: Grustar on 25/12/2008 02:48:58 So... when someone does something that isn't on an "official" list you are opening the door for folks to exploit things not on that list and give them the ability to go "Well, it's not on the official list, so it must be allowed!" No support here, I can see something like this doing much more harm than good, at least as currently suggested. Not to mention, we aren't allowed to discuss what is or is not an exploit on the forums. Which means about the only way to get a written list has to be elsewhere on the website. I would strongly suggest that this makes it perfect for the CSM to push with CCP, because as players we're prohibited from explaining what is or is not an exploit with people who want to know if x is allowed. And from that "unofficial list" (locked within hours) even in that there was confusion over what was an exploit and what was not.
Grustar	Posted - 2008.12.25 14:28:00 - [33] Edited by: Grustar on 25/12/2008 14:33:19 Oops, drunk posting for the lose :( lol, excuse my post and thanks for not flaming too bad. The only reason I really noticed this is someone flew through a system in game last night and posted the link so I visited it and read it in only a half logical state. At the time I read the suggestion more as "if you don't see it on the list, it's ok to do" instead of as a list of currently known issues defined as exploits by CCP.
Kaijusan gallach minig Corp New Eve Mining manufacturing Organisation	Posted - 2008.12.25 15:18:00 - [34] This will never pass because it would just throw more light on Dev alliances (which of course we cant have now can we)and their "playstyle" nevertheless, in the hopes of a miracle I fully support
Myrhial Arkenath Ghost Festival	Posted - 2008.12.25 16:15:00 - [35] Can only see good things come from this. Diary of a pod pilot
Orogaldeo Amarr Extreme Solutions Frontal Impact	Posted - 2008.12.27 12:56:00 - [36] Still Needed, you know. ________________________________
TimGascoigne The Graduates Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.12.27 14:54:00 - [37] this is a good idea
FunzzeR Counter Errorist Unit	Posted - 2008.12.27 17:29:00 - [38]
WhiteGhostBear Furs of New Eden	Posted - 2008.12.30 17:28:00 - [39] It can suck to be punished for breakings the rules when you don't know what the rules are. Granted, I don't see this as ever being a problem for a majority of people, but even so - having exploits be common knowledge is a Good Thing. Let me bring in an example from my own past experiences. I used to be the server administrator for a sizable Half-Life based gaming group, 50+ players. We ran TFC, CS, and Natural Selection servers, plus one or two random obscure mods that I would switch around every few weeks. Very popular servers, almost always full, so we would get every type of player. All long time members of the group had the ability to kick and ban players that broke the rules. One of the rules was, obviously, no cheating / exploiting bugs / using 1337 h4x. The problem was that a lot of my guys weren't always sure if something was an exploit or not. How can you tell an aimbot from someone who is just a good shot, for example? Some people would get banned because they were so good that people thought they must be cheating. Other people who were cheating weren't banned, because nobody was really sure if that player was really using and exploit. So what I did is I found some of these exploits, learned how to use them, and I held an Exploit Training Night. I showed everyone some of the exploits and, since they were able to see and experience the Real Thing, they were able to better identify real cheating afterwards. It was very helpful, and the number of unbanning requests on our forums dropped dramatically. Having a list here in Eve would serve the same purpose. I believe that having this kind of information publically available will result in less cheating overall, since people are more likely to be caught if other people know, instead of just suspect, that something is an exploit. It will also help prevent people from unknowingly using an exploit, when they really think they're just being clever.
Squirrrel Squirrrel Industries	Posted - 2008.12.30 19:39:00 - [40] I'm all for this idea. That said, this has been brought up multiple times and it won't happen as the ambiguity allows the GM's to be carefree with their warnings and bans / responses to petitions. Let's not forget that the "player guide" was also supposedly written by a third party and contains entries that CCP themselves didn't know were there. That cannot be taken as the bible of what is allowed either.
shuckstar Hauling hogs	Posted - 2008.12.30 20:25:00 - [41]
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.12.30 21:09:00 - [42] Originally by: Orogaldeo what kind of twisted argument are you exposing? the list is for the sole purpose of listing the current exploits and official bannable offences, it doesn't says "if something is not on the list you're free to do it". If you're doing something that isn't contemplated on the list, it doesn't mean it couldn't be a bannable offence. For God Sake, if you're flying 50 AU/s with your ship and fitting multiple MWDs right now, that's an exploit, it's not hard to recognize, it only takes few brain cells... I don't find his questioning twisted at all. In many cases, within business at least, it is common not to list offenses at the micro level because doing so can lead to the defense that the item you committed was not listed as bad and is therefore good. In many cases I agree though in this one I think there's a middle ground. I do see it as pretty much a gigantic waste of time for CCP to be trying to compile every possible potential exploit. I also see however that there are times when periodic announcements of specific exploits are made. I believe what could work in this scenario would be for them to organize all those in one place so that a list is formed of all announced exploits, and updated if it's suddenly declared not an exploit. This would provide both clarity and accountability. They could also provide instructions near the exploit in question on how to report it. Cynoing inside of POS shields is one example that's flip-flopped and still occurs. POS bowling being another. If what I've stated above meshes with the intent of the OP I'd be happy to sponsor such an item. Originally by: Iroku Mata Darius is time to STFU and make your GSM place free for someone who got the humildity to have the job you claim and failled!
Laechyd Eldgorn Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.12.31 13:16:00 - [43] There should be a list of KNOWN EXISTING exploits, however it should be made clear that you can be punished for doing something else too. Clearly there's countless number of other undiscovered exploits too. I can understand where this is coming from, some people might think they cannot be punished if something wasn't listed as an exploit. This shouldn't be case, ever. Exploits are usually something you take advantage on in secret, so it would be pretty difficult for GM's/devs to list them all, specifically. Some people seem to think if there's an exploit and devs haven't done anything about it yet, it's their right to exploit it until it's fixed. Rules about this kind of things should be made clear too.
thesonarnet 0ccam's Razor UNLeashed Legion	Posted - 2009.01.04 11:23:00 - [44] pro
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.01.05 00:49:00 - [45] Considering the eve wiki is in the process of being created and fleshed out, I see no reason for someone not to start up a known exploit page on there. If CCP doesn't like it they always have veto power on it and can remove it. Personally, I don't think it's necessary for the CSM to look at this considering that avenue is available, but if it came down to it, I'd probably support the idea of listing known exploits and the link to the relevant EULA section. ---------------------- My Blog
Gnomes Rock	Posted - 2009.01.05 13:28:00 - [46] Edited by: Gnomes Rock on 05/01/2009 13:28:22 Originally by: Omber Zombie Considering the eve wiki is in the process of being created and fleshed out, I see no reason for someone not to start up a known exploit page on there. If CCP doesn't like it they always have veto power on it and can remove it. Personally, I don't think it's necessary for the CSM to look at this considering that avenue is available, but if it came down to it, I'd probably support the idea of listing known exploits and the link to the relevant EULA section. It would get removed from the wiki on grounds that discussing/mentioning exploits is not allowed.
Hesod Adee KDS Navy	Posted - 2009.01.05 20:51:00 - [47] Originally by: Omber Zombie Considering the eve wiki is in the process of being created and fleshed out, I see no reason for someone not to start up a known exploit page on there. If CCP doesn't like it they always have veto power on it and can remove it. Personally, I don't think it's necessary for the CSM to look at this considering that avenue is available, but if it came down to it, I'd probably support the idea of listing known exploits and the link to the relevant EULA section. Bring it up just to make sure we have CCPs permission to make the list. ---------------------------------------------- I support skill queues
Motaka	Posted - 2009.01.06 03:29:00 - [48] yup. _______________________________________________ Motaka ~ DirtyHarry ~ Original F-E Material
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.01.06 05:19:00 - [49] Originally by: Hesod Adee Bring it up just to make sure we have CCPs permission to make the list. i think we're going to be talking to the GM's when we get to iceland, so I'll slip it into the conversation after I have plied them with alcohol ---------------------- My Blog
Astria Tiphareth 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2009.01.10 12:04:00 - [50] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 10/01/2009 12:04:43 Originally by: Hesod Adee Yet CCP does tell us when things will be considered an exploit. For example, I remember an announcement saying that entering FW complexes with ships other than what the gate allows is an exploit. But I can't find that announcement again, meaning I don't have any proof to someone who doesn't believe me. All we are asking if for CCP to put all of those in the same location so that we can refer people to it. If the code gets changed to prevent an exploit, leaving it listed as an exploit covers people who find another way to do it, and anyone who wants to exploit can't be sure which exploits will work. I have to agree with that. It needn't be proactive ('here's a list of all the exploits') but rather when they make announcements that indicate specific activities are an exploit, it should be logged in some suitable easily found place (like say, the new official wiki). It makes life a lot easier when you can explain to new players that a given activity is most definitely not allowed and point them to official info on it. On that subject - said list really ought to get a forum area equivalent to the Info Portal or part of it where questions can be raised about precise wording. I've seen announcements of exploits that left a lot to the interpretation of what was said - nothing worse than ambiguous law that can't be clarified. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
SilverSwann	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:39:00 - [51] ideal proposition. i do not know if has been mentioned yet but i also propose a three strikes system for certian offences mild ones allow three occurances bfore serious action is taken. of course after the first offence some action will need to be taken just milder for low end offences.
Annatar The Galactic Empire Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:16:00 - [52] Originally by: SilverSwann ideal proposition. i do not know if has been mentioned yet but i also propose a three strikes system for certian offences mild ones allow three occurances bfore serious action is taken. of course after the first offence some action will need to be taken just milder for low end offences. I am not entrirely sure, but i think that is already common with EULA violation along GM's. Its like you get a warning for bad personal smacktalk in local if reportet, or a small ban like 7-14 days for the second/third Issue. However real exploits resulting into an permanent ban. imho,i only know its Case based. -------------------------------------------- Never argue with an Idoit, they will drag you down to their Level and beat you with experience.
Antaeras	Posted - 2009.01.14 01:41:00 - [53] Support. And yes we do need CCP's blessing before making a list, eg. the example thread was locked for being a discussion of exploits.
Luzz Bightyear The PeacekeeperZ	Posted - 2009.01.14 07:02:00 - [54] Edited by: Luzz Bightyear on 14/01/2009 07:02:39 CCP don't allow discussion about exploits because they can't be assed to fix them. +Support ------------------ Hi-ho, hi-ho, It's off to lowsec we go, With a sh*t fit 'sprey, and T1 drones, Hi-ho, hi-ho hi-ho hi-ho. - Anon
StarStryder Zero-Hour	Posted - 2009.01.14 16:53:00 - [55] Originally by: Hesod Adee The current system allows people to say that they thought something was just clever gameplay for some things declared an exploit because they never saw the announcement. But if a page of known exploits exists, CCP can also alter the EULA to require people to read it, thus preventing the ignorance argument. Not really far because you read the EULA so infrequently. And, especially at the start, the mechanic s that the exploits apply to may not be familiar to you if you've not done them in game. Hardly far to expect you to remember a list of exploits that are meaningless to you.
StarStryder Zero-Hour	Posted - 2009.01.14 16:56:00 - [56] Originally by: Orogaldeo Originally by: Grustar If you're doing something that isn't contemplated on the list, it doesn't mean it couldn't be a bannable offence. For God Sake, if you're flying 50 AU/s with your ship and fitting multiple MWDs right now, that's an exploit, it's not hard to recognize, it only takes few brain cells... This is the big problem with how exploits are currently handled. Fitting multiple MWDs may be a obvious exploit to you and me but why should a newbie know better? That's the fine line the GMs have to walk before banning someone. Having a "New Exploit Listed" notification appear in the client that opens a window listing the current one and all previously listed exploits would encourage to people to read the list.
Antaeras	Posted - 2009.01.15 21:36:00 - [57] Ah, this is not the first thread asking for this. So I guess this one will be similarly ignored.
Igetpaid	Posted - 2009.01.15 22:13:00 - [58] Supported
Dark Fairy	Posted - 2009.01.17 02:45:00 - [59] im sure ccp has a list for the gm's just let us have a lok at it too.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.