Curse

Aiden Arcana · Jan 12, 2008, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Should we leave every bots unbanned because we cannot ban them all?

No because as a company Bots are great for you. Ban an account, the person whom botted his account sold the gold before hand makes $80. buys a new campaign after his bot was banned ($$ in your company's pocket). I see a win-win, THATS why you don't ban all the bots.

high priestess anya · Jan 12, 2008, 11:13 PM // 23:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhapsody Shadow

why were people banned for this but not exploits like the slave's dungeon or ferrying to the end of nightfall? Surly everyone should be treated the same.

i agree..
some of my friends were banned even thou they reported this bug.ANET's justice system is surely questionable.

FeroxC · Jan 12, 2008, 11:15 PM // 23:15

Keep up the good work Gaile ! and don't buy this "I was ignorant" excuse. These people are experianced DoA farmers and knew exactly what they were doing when they milked this exploit.

Drop of Fear · Jan 12, 2008, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by high priestess anya

i agree..
some of my friends were banned even thou they reported this bug.ANET's justice system is surely questionable.

err... reporting an exploit doesnt give u the antiban-shield meaning u can keep abusing it. ask your friends the whole story

myrealnameismatt · Jan 12, 2008, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

If you get stopped by a policeman for speeding, do you wonder "How did you miss the guy ahead of me, driving 10 MPH faster?" I think it's human nature, but the answer is clear: "Because I got caught, and he didn't."

In the larger sense, would we ever presume to tell the police department or the criminal justice system, "You didn't catch (or convict) that criminal, therefore you should not try to catch (or prosecute) any criminals?" No, because that's not the way things work. And yes, we're not talking "real life crimes" in this forum, but I'm hoping an analogy will be helpful. Game issues: Should we not block [this poor name] because [that other poor name] hasn't yet been caught? Should we leave every bots unbanned because we cannot ban them all?

I am not here to debate "that other thing" or "those other players." Other players have made it clear why some issues are larger than others, or why they are handled differently. I do understand the question, but I feel it's off the topic at hand. I came here to give you information about the Mallyx exploit, and to assure you that while we realize that we cannot catch everyone who behaves badly, nor every player whose actions can have a negative effect on other players or the game as a whole, we're not going to stop dealing with those whom we do catch, and we are going to continue trying to handle each issue to the best of our ability.

Gaile - If you were to have commited a crime, got caught and it was up in court then the law would be set by precident. I am not claiming that I didn't do anything wrong, just that our punishment was disproportinate to the offence. I understand that a-net does not have the resources to police such a massive world and i'm sure that if you had the resources to hand to hand out punishment to anyone who did anything wrong, then it would be done. For some of us that play for long periods of time, finding bugs in the game is almost like a sport and adds enjoyment - if we didn't find something to do with our time you would have to spend large amounts of money creating new game content to keep us hooked.

Gaile Gray · Jan 12, 2008, 11:16 PM // 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

No because as a company Bots are great for you. Ban an account, the person whom botted his account sold the gold before hand makes $80. buys a new campaign after his bot was banned ($$ in your company's pocket). I see a win-win, THATS why you don't ban all the bots.

The inevitable "Bot" comments. Let me say this again, as I've said it before: It costs us more to ban an account than we make in profit for selling a copy of the game. Hard to grasp, I know, but Support personnel are involved, sometimes at multiple levels. We don't "auto-ban" anyone, so there's the time to pull logs, review the parameters, check chat logs, appraise trade histories, and more. Bots are not a profit center for us.

Banned was Erin · Jan 12, 2008, 11:17 PM // 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Reviews were made before the bans were placed. How do I know? I was involved in the reviews. I have the spreadsheet. Subject closed.

If reviews were made, then you would know that all 117 of us were not hackers. That also means that you committed an open act of libel by knowingly calling us hackers when your logs showed this to be false. It would be greatly appreciated if you would step up and admit you lied to the general public by labeling us all hackers. Your reviews, if any were indeed conducted, would show this to be completely false. Subject Closed.

Da Tru Legend · Jan 12, 2008, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

No because as a company Bots are great for you. Ban an account, the person whom botted his account sold the gold before hand makes $80. buys a new campaign after his bot was banned ($$ in your company's pocket). I see a win-win, THATS why you don't ban all the bots.

Uhh, by that logic, they would try to ban ALL bots so that the person has to buy the campaign immediately and thus more often as he's getting banned more often. So whether through moral values or your cynical vision of the corporate world, they would try to ban bots as quickly as possible either way. The only reason they don't is because it is simply impossible to ban every single bot as there are way too many.

TheGreatPie · Jan 12, 2008, 11:19 PM // 23:19

Quote:

The inevitable "Bot" comments. Let me say this again, as I've said it before: It costs us more to ban an account than we make in profit for selling a copy of the game. Hard to grasp, I know, but Support personnel are involved, sometimes at multiple levels. We don't "auto-ban" anyone, so there's the time to pull logs, review the parameters, check chat logs, appraise trade histories, and more. Bots are not a profit center for us.

hmmm how much does it cost to ban someone in a free game that you already got your money? i'm curious because these bots do more damage that all of the 117 combined

Lord Sojar · Jan 12, 2008, 11:20 PM // 23:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

The inevitable "Bot" comments. Let me say this again, as I've said it before: It costs us more to ban an account than we make in profit for selling a copy of the game. Hard to grasp, I know, but Support personnel are involved, sometimes at multiple levels. We don't "auto-ban" anyone, so there's the time to pull logs, review the parameters, check chat logs, appraise trade histories, and more. Bots are not a profit center for us.

Gaile, I recommend you leave this thread as quickly as humanly possible. It is quite clear at this point that these people are only going to continue to point the finger and call you unjust, unfair, etc. Your wasting time and energy on these petty 117 complete losers. I am sure there are many better issues to cover that actually mean something to more people. God willing, they will eventually shut up and go away.

Puritans Aid · Jan 12, 2008, 11:20 PM // 23:20

Gaile, the thing is there is real world issues here. For one, IF someone really did HACK the game, IE your server, or whatever, thats ILLEGAL, and they should be found and made to pay for all of our banned accounts, and jailed for illegally hacking a game.

Due to the digital signature act, I signed a legal agreement with A NET, and my play nc account says my account was terminated. I didnt breach the agreement, but now you guys have, if my account truely is terminated. In this case, DO i have a legal case against you, as I have proof that I didn't Breech this agreement, and now by terminating my account A NET has?

PM me if you cant post it here, because I really need to know.

Thanks.
puritan

Chicken Ftw · Jan 12, 2008, 11:21 PM // 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned was Erin

If reviews were made, then you would know that all 117 of us were not hackers. That also means that you committed an open act of libel by knowingly calling us hackers when your logs showed this to be false. It would be greatly appreciated if you would step up and admit you lied to the general public by labeling us all hackers. Your reviews, if any were indeed conducted, would show this to be completely false. Subject Closed.

You should work on your reading before you post.

Quote:

An exploit was recently discovered in Guild Wars that allowed client-hackers to travel to a hidden outpost. From that outpost, they could travel directly into the room containing Mallyx, the final boss in the Domain of Anguish.

This hidden outpost existed strictly for testing purposes and was never accessible through normal play. Only by hacking the client, or partying with someone who had done so, could a player access that outpost

You were not all labelled as hackers. Nobody was directly named a hacker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

some blah blah about having a case

No, you have no case. You were found guilty of exploiting, which is against the EULA, and banned. It's entirely within Anet's right to ban anyone they deem guilty.

Full Metal X · Jan 12, 2008, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

Gaile, I recommend you leave this thread as quickly as humanly possible. It is quite clear at this point that these self centered bastard children are only going to continue to point the finger and call you unjust, unfair, etc. Your wasting time and energy on these petty 117 complete losers. I am sure there are many better issues to cover that actually mean something to more people. God willing, they will eventually shut up and go away.

They could go away if some MORE ban sticks were thrown around, *cough* guru forums. As most of the 117 that have posted in this thread have just complained and whined and added nothing to the disscusion other than excuses.

Phaern Majes · Jan 12, 2008, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGreatPie

hmmm how much does it cost to ban someone in a free game that you already got your money? i'm curious because these bots do more damage that all of the 117 combined

It costs them profit when they release their next product. If you ban someone especially from a free game, then you safely assume that person is going to avoid your future products. Not to mention all the people that person then convinces your products are crap. So while the cost may not be immediate it is there.

Dr Strangelove · Jan 12, 2008, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Metal X

They could go away if some MORE ban sticks were thrown around, *cough* guru forums. As most of the 117 that have posted in this thread have just complained and whined and added nothing to the disscusion other than excuses.

They have added entertainment, which is worth its weight in gemsets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

Took me some time to think about this one, But i figured it out. The banned people tell others not to play GW's because they don't know there ass from there ears. Then those tell others. So it all snowballs from here. Thats how it costs you money.

That interested me too, but I took it to mean paying all the people to review bans costs more than the price of a single game.

Exx The Necro · Jan 12, 2008, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Full Metal X

Ever think they may be cracking down on exploiters? I mean this case was small enough that they could ban the people and be done with it, a public example if you will. To prove that they aren't the crap anymore. After the duping incodent I guess you could say it was an eye opener. The ferrying exploit on the other hand was FAR to big to ban everyone involved, so they used this incodent as it was much smaller and easier to contain. You may feel that this is unfair to you because you may have thought you were doing something you had done in the past (exploit) and hadn't got in trouble, well tough luck. Life isn't fair, and ANET doesnt have to be fair either they are taking steps to make the community better. So keep up the good work ANET.

Sure, punish people for using exploits, by all means. But what if Anet at least posted they were going to crack down more severly on people instead of just going off the deep end over one incident and permabanning a bunch of people. Give these people a 72 hour ban (except so called hacker) and a warning, if they do it again then they need to be banned. But last time I looked, this isnt Iraq were the powers that be (Anet in this case) can just randomly punish a few people for something the masses have all done.

Trub · Jan 12, 2008, 11:23 PM // 23:23

LOL..they going to squeal now..../fleeeeeeeeeeeee
Keep sending tickets in...quit digging yourselves in deeper.
Gaile is older than 14 for goodness sakes.
She is not impressed with your attempts to dance around the obvious facts that most of the 117 (if not ALL) exploited an area that was off limits to the public!
No, I am not flaming, trolling, ect.
Think of this as a gentle slap in the face to get your thought back on track of the 'Mallyx exploit'!!
Not bots, duncan..blah..blah..blah.

Gaile Gray · Jan 12, 2008, 11:24 PM // 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banned was Erin

If reviews were made, then you would know that all 117 of us were not hackers. That also means that you committed an open act of libel by knowingly calling us hackers when your logs showed this to be false. It would be greatly appreciated if you would step up and admit you lied to the general public by labeling us all hackers. Your reviews, if any were indeed conducted, would show this to be completely false. Subject Closed.

No one has been named by ArenaNet. No one has been connected with this issue except by self-admission. No one has called anyone a hacker. ArenaNet has stated that this exploit was made possible by the use of a hack. That is true.

I am stepping away from this forum. It's the weekend, there's no testing or appeal reviews taking place, and I've given an excessive number of hours to this issue outside of the normal workdays in trying to respond to threads that are only getting more and more inflammatory, preposterous, and insulting.

Forgive me (or don't

) and do feel free to talk amongst yourselves, but I am signing out for a while.

Drop of Fear · Jan 12, 2008, 11:24 PM // 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGreatPie

hmmm how much does it cost to ban someone in a free game that you already got your money? i'm curious because these bots do more damage that all of the 117 combined

there are real people working in the mighty "a.net ban department of death". people who are payed to follow the game and trying to keep the environment under control.
don't forget that out of the 20-40$ retailers and ncsoft makes with each sold boxed copy, only a tiny % goes to the actual developers of the game, u'd be surprised to hear how small a.net's slice of that cake is.
therefore banning bots obliging them to buy new accounts might not cover the salaries of the ban department of death employees.

**cosyfiep** · Jan 12, 2008, 11:25 PM // 23:25

to use gaile's example...you get caught for speeding, however you are punished by death the same as someone who killed some one....
I agree that there does need to be some action taken, just that the action taken was a little severe on the part of many of the 'exploiters'.
These need to be reviewed to find out who did the hacking (though it was said that in order to do that they would need to go back MONTHS to find out who started the whole thing, and they dont want to spend the time or money to do it, so in all likelihood the original 'hacker'--if there was indeed one, is laughing his head off since he will never be prosecuted having done the deed many many moons ago), and who just went along for the ride (and fun fact-in japan if you get into a car with a drunk and let him drive, and you get pulled over EVERYONE in the car gets a ticket, glad I dont live there any longer)......
Punishing the exploiters is necessary, giving them a death sentence is a bit extreme....

and since I am not without guilt (yes I took a run once) I will not cast any stones at the accused. (but good luck on the appeals)