Curse

vaxmor · Jan 14, 2008, 01:01 AM // 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

If you ban my account, then all 4 of my alts, you will loose any and ALL of my and all of my friends consumership

I still dont see what the problem is - 4 accounts owned by someone who broke the EULA by running spl0itz got banned. . .this is a GOOD thing.

why? beause 4 less accounts running spl0itz in GW = GOOD.

It is good because it protects the integrity of the game, and it removes 'undesireable' (aka people who break EULA by running spl0itz which allows them to accumulate phat l00t faster than people who play fair and dont cheat) people from the playing population.

Mac Sidewinder · Jan 14, 2008, 01:02 AM // 01:02

Refund money for a banned account? No. Someone breaks the rules then demands a refund? Thats laughable at best.

The notion that stripping ones character of all goods will pay back what was done isn't taking into effect any trading or passing off of the goods that might have been already accomplished. Especially if there are alt accounts held by that person.

Persh · Jan 14, 2008, 01:03 AM // 01:03

my friend got banned for someone hacking his account and exploiting on it.
suck it up, at least these 117 actually did the thing they got banned for

here's how it should be:
if you went to the outpost, no matter how many times, but didnt kill mallyx, no ban
but if you did go to the outpost and you did go kill mallyx, you should be banned because you abused an ingame exploit.

@above, literally*

Creeping Carl · Jan 14, 2008, 01:07 AM // 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey

I would love to see what you would say if you were in our position. Since your personality is just wonderful already. What if you did 2 runs, decided something was fishy, and still got banned. And you got 3 emails from Support saying that your account is terminated, and you will never see it again. How would you react?

Hey, as long as there is evidence to prove something, I am inclined to believe it. I asked for evidence, not flames. But thanks anyway.

I HAVE been in your position. TWICE. I got my account false banned twice for botting. So what did I do? I sent in reports and stated some facts and pointed out a few things for them to look at that proved that I wasnt botting. And I got my account back both times with them saying that they made a mistake.

I NEVER went and placed the blame on others. I didnt make excuses. I didnt try to twist words. I didnt use the "Well someone else did this and didnt get banned" excuse. I didnt lie. I was truly innocent so all I needed to do was provide facts. I didnt do any of the BS you and the accused are doing.

I HAVE been in your shoes. But seeing all the posts you and others have provided doesnt convince me much that you're innocent. Just a bunch of guilties trying to weasel out of a ban.

Puritans Aid · Jan 14, 2008, 01:09 AM // 01:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaxmor

I still dont see what the problem is - 4 accounts owned by someone who broke the EULA by running spl0itz got banned. . .this is a GOOD thing.

why? beause 4 less accounts running spl0itz in GW = GOOD.

It is good because it protects the integrity of the game, and it removes 'undesireable' (aka people who break EULA by running spl0itz which allows them to accumulate phat l00t faster than people who play fair and dont cheat) people from the playing population.

again I dont "run spolits" I assume you mean exploit, I dont and I didnt.

Exploit (computer security)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Exploit.

An exploit (from the same word in the French language, meaning "achievement", or "accomplishment") is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that take advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behavior to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerized). This frequently includes such things as gaining control of a computer system or allowing privilege escalation or a denial of service attack.

Exploit (online gaming)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers.

What is or is not considered an exploit varies between games and developers. The EULA (End-User License Agreement) typically states what type of gameplay is not acceptable. Thus, some developers may consider AFK gameplay to be an exploit, while others may not.

By either term I didnt do it.. Theres 3 other defs. there but either way, EITHER guild wars is calling us all hackers, which we are not, or they are saying we made personal gains, which some/alot who were banned didnt.

Again, EULAS.. did you read it before you bought it? Doesnt matter. if you wasted your money, your screwed because of hte EULA,

When my company debates pay raises, etc, they look to the biggest company in the same feild, and try to come close to what they did.

Its logic, so you dont loose all your workers to that othe rcompany.

Here its logic, so you dont loose all your consumers, to the other games.

PURITAN

Jake_Steel · Jan 14, 2008, 01:10 AM // 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

If EULAS don't get fixed, to help people in the gaming community have some amount of rights, than it literally is as I said before EULA=scam

The concept of the EULA is not broken, they exist on almost every level of software available today. For the record, WOW's EULA is comparable (almost identical) to GW's EULA in every respect.

Inde · Jan 14, 2008, 01:18 AM // 01:18

Stay on topic.

makosi · Jan 14, 2008, 01:23 AM // 01:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake_Steel

The concept of the EULA is not broken, they exist on almost every level of software available today. For the record, WOW's EULA is comparable (almost identical) to GW's EULA in every respect.

I haven't seen the WoW EULA but I suspected it would be very similar to GW's. An EULA is legally binding contract which protects the company on so many levels that they are immune to almost any legal threats. The GW EULA is paragraphs upon paragraphs of exclusion clauses and general protective, preventative measures to avoid the costs of legal disputes and retain the organisation's reputation.

Objectively, the 117 crew were wrong and know that they have no means of legally reclaiming access to their accounts.

Subjectively, the 117 crew are playing the sympathy card as a second resort whereas much of the remainder of the community are counteracting them with their own views.

As a result we have about a 100 pages of viewpoints going back and forth with no real end in sight. It should be between NCSoft support and the affected 117.

Messy · Jan 14, 2008, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

The whole point is, I didnt "do a bad against A NET"... Sorry, mate. I was in a town, and used it to farm 1 armbrace, which I could easily have afforded to buy already via legal farming, the TOWN called EBON CITADEL OF MALLYX, and I DIDNT KNOW IT WASNT A PART OF THE GAME.

1 armbrace= 15 gem sets= 15 runs... maybe = 45 stops in post.
Very interesting that you realize you could have afforded that armbrace Via LEGAL farming yet you chose to go the illegal route.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

Here its logic, so you dont loose all your consumers, to the other games.

not ALL your consumers by a long shot. You guys are a mere 0.00litllebit of the players, and the rest of us that play clean, follow the rules, are not going anywhere anytime soon.

It's really hard to have any sympathy for players like you.

Valderis · Jan 14, 2008, 01:26 AM // 01:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineEnvoy

Here's my interpretion to what the thread is talking about at the moment:

1. There's one guy who is trying to get Anet to test his method to access this forbidden town without using a hack, so that the amount of punishment to some of the 117 people can be lifted or decreased.

2. People are now debating whether it is appropriate to have permanent bann as a universal punishment to all the 117 people, as there is a significant difference between the number of abuses each person conducted.

What annoys me about this thread is that people are continue trying to flame Anet and telling us that they are going to WoW. First of all, flaming Anet will not help anyone, and it will not make the current situation go any faster. Secondly, for god's sake, this is a Guild Wars forum, and this is a thread about an exploit in a game called Guild Wars, quit talking about World of Warcraft.

Saying "now that I can't get on Guild Wars.. I'm going to WoW" is just plain silly. If we wanted to play WoW.. we would have done so. No.. we chose Guild Wars. It is our passion for that game that makes us persist.

We can be suppressed through the official channels. It is in this community forum we can have our voices heard. For those that like to flame us, continue.. it shows what kind of person you are. I have been civil here, even though this whole situation is extremely stressful. It is my hope therefore that this community is educated about the whole situation. It is also my hope that Anet reconsiders our tickets.. not just as some number.. but as people, and as customers.

Puritans Aid · Jan 14, 2008, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

I haven't seen the WoW EULA but I suspected it would be very similar to GW's. An EULA is legally binding contract which protects the company on so many levels that they are immune to almost any legal threats. The GW EULA is paragraphs upon paragraphs of exclusion clauses and general protective, preventative measures to avoid the costs of legal disputes and retain the organisation's reputation.

Objectively, the 117 crew were wrong and know that they have no means of legally reclaiming access to their accounts.

Subjectively, the 117 crew are playing the sympathy card as a second resort whereas much of the remainder of the community are counteracting them with their own views.

As a result we have about a 100 pages of viewpoints going back and forth with no real end in sight. It should be between NCSoft support and the affected 117.

If only A NET would listen instead of terminating accounts without talking to us. MANY MANY ACCOUNTS were banned that DID NOT exploit in any way shape or form. via wiki pedia deffinitions.

IE aparently a net has made a mistake.

My account, and other people who were mapped htere 1 time, are banned, then upon requesting a fair hearing via ticket support, didnt get one, but got an automated response, that everyone got, saying, YOUR ACOUNT HAS BEEN TERMINATED.

Then gaile gray comes ON HERE and says that all who sent in tickets would be reviewed and get to state their cases individually.

This is a lie, and should be pointed out to the GW community.

Please close this thread at 117 pages. It would be right.

truzo 117 · Jan 14, 2008, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaxmor

I still dont see what the problem is - 4 accounts owned by someone who broke the EULA by running spl0itz got banned. . .this is a GOOD thing.

why? beause 4 less accounts running spl0itz in GW = GOOD.

It is good because it protects the integrity of the game, and it removes 'undesireable' (aka people who break EULA by running spl0itz which allows them to accumulate phat l00t faster than people who play fair and dont cheat) people from the playing population.

4 less wont make and differance at all. just of the top of my head check out ele's in shing jea. zos shivros channel (n/mo) and Altrum ruins (mo/me) you stand in each town for 2 mins (six mins total) you will see 200+ bots and thats only 3 towns in Factions. they rack up more gold in 15 mins than the 117 people did doing mallyx. and the 117 people didnt use bots its all manual just like farming yourself

Antheus · Jan 14, 2008, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by makosi

I haven't seen the WoW EULA but I suspected it would be very similar to GW's. An EULA is legally binding contract which protects the company on so many levels that they are immune to almost any legal threats. The GW EULA is paragraphs upon paragraphs of exclusion clauses and general protective, preventative measures to avoid the costs of legal disputes and retain the organisation's reputation.

They have long ago established a reputation as a company that isn't afraid to let loose the dogs of war, ahem, legal department. They are unique in that respect, since no other gaming company is so protective of their property, or willing to show it.

They have so much experience with this, that they long ago realized that it's not viable to reason. But if anyone wants, they'll gladly see them in court. Any time, any place.

Vilaptca · Jan 14, 2008, 01:29 AM // 01:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dont Mess WithMe

And yet another player who seems to be putting their foot in their mouth.

Let me get this right....
1- your friend's account got hacked
2- they used his hacked account to abuse this exploit.
3- I'm gonna guess that while hacked, he never tried to log in.
4- The hacker got tired of farming, and let the account go .
5- Since the hacker NEVER changed the password.... you friend was able to log back on and didn't notice anything (cause you know, the hacker didn't take anything, so your friend didn't put in a support ticket)
6- Your friend got banned and had NO idea why.

/fairytale ends

like really? this is a bit insulting. Was it his baby brother that hacked it??

Actually, I think you just read into that WAAAY too much. Accounts get banned a lot when they are stolen and used to sell gold and such. Which is probably what he meant. I don't see any indication in that post that his friend claimed to have been hacked and that the hacker exploited this outpost.

Maybe try rereading the post. I think you'll see what I mean....

Puritans Aid · Jan 14, 2008, 01:32 AM // 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antheus

They have long ago established a reputation as a company that isn't afraid to let loose the dogs of war, ahem, legal department. They are unique in that respect, since no other gaming company is so protective of their property, or willing to show it.

They have so much experience with this, that they long ago realized that it's not viable to reason. But if anyone wants, they'll gladly see them in court. Any time, any place.

And its GREAT! you know why!
THEY CATCH AND PROSECUTE THE HACKERS.

They DO NOT however, ban people how were screwed because of a GLITCH THEY MADE in the game. they roll back, and go on.

This point, I have been making over and over, is somehow being missed.

The glitch is inguild wars, was in guild wars supposedly its fixe.d

THey KNOW ITS A GLITCH, or they WOULDNT have put a fix in.

IE they lie by saying its a hack.

Thanks
Puritan.

high priestess anya · Jan 14, 2008, 01:33 AM // 01:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

If only A NET would listen instead of terminating accounts without talking to us. MANY MANY ACCOUNTS were banned that DID NOT exploit in any way shape or form. via wiki pedia deffinitions.

IE aparently a net has made a mistake.

My account, and other people who were mapped htere 1 time, are banned, then upon requesting a fair hearing via ticket support, didnt get one, but got an automated response, that everyone got, saying, YOUR ACOUNT HAS BEEN TERMINATED.

Then gaile gray comes ON HERE and says that all who sent in tickets would be reviewed and get to state their cases individually.

This is a lie, and should be pointed out to the GW community.

Please close this thread at 117 pages. It would be right.

not to mention the fact that their investigation is an epic fail...they are judging us on how many times we where at mallyx citadel NOT the bugged area and NOT by accessing mallyx FROM the bugged area.
they say i was there 18 times...maybe 1 time from bugged area and 17 times from normal legit gameplay.
im waiting for there staff to send me my detailed report as of so far their investigation is going in the wrong direction and my guess is that they are GUESSING how many times people have exploited... all i here is even the people who pleaded guilty denying the amount of times anet has claimed they have been there..
INVESTIGATION = FAIL
epicly

one O one · Jan 14, 2008, 01:39 AM // 01:39

The Majority of "us"(the 117) wouldn't be/have gotten this upset about A Net closing off our access to our account(s) if when we tried to log into them the message read:

Your Account has been Implicated in a recent game exploit, your account access has been blocked until we can determind your involement in this exploit. ( code: 117).

This would have given A Net the time they needed to gather their infomation before permonant banned or termination of these account(s).

Jake_Steel · Jan 14, 2008, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puritans Aid

And its GREAT! you know why!
THEY CATCH AND PROSECUTE THE HACKERS.

They DO NOT however, ban people how were screwed because of a GLITCH THEY MADE in the game. they roll back, and go on.

This point, I have been making over and over, is somehow being missed.

The glitch is inguild wars, was in guild wars supposedly its fixe.d

THey KNOW ITS A GLITCH, or they WOULDNT have put a fix in.

IE they lie by saying its a hack.

Thanks
Puritan.

Just because they fixed an error in their code doesn't mean it was a glitch they created. When something is hacked a software company also has to fix the code to prevent future hacking.

It's just as easy to believe that Anet is telling the truth and others are not.

Messy · Jan 14, 2008, 01:44 AM // 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vilaptca

Actually, I think you just read into that WAAAY too much. Accounts get banned a lot when they are stolen and used to sell gold and such. Which is probably what he meant. I don't see any indication in that post that his friend claimed to have been hacked and that the hacker exploited this outpost.

Maybe try rereading the post. I think you'll see what I mean....

Hmmm this is what he said....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Persh

my friend got banned for someone hacking his account and exploiting on it.

maybe a different exploit?? still... they hacked it, I'm guessing didn't change the password, exploited on his account, stopped, when the friend went to log on his account he didn't get a Wrong Password error, he got a You have been banned for using an exploit error.

Seriously, when your account is hacked, [and I have a friend that had this problem, he put a support ticket, eventually got it back minus a whole lot of stuff] you either know it and put in a support ticket, and once they know the account had been hacked, I doubt they would also be banned for whatever illicit activities took place while hacked. If he didn't notice it had been hacked, the hacker never changed the password, to ensure the original owner could log back in when he was done exploiting.

This exploit or not, it just seems to me the excuses get more and more creative by the minute.

Cuthroat Dibbler · Jan 14, 2008, 01:44 AM // 01:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by one O one

The Majority of "us"(the 117) wouldn't be/have gotten this upset about A Net closing off our access to our account(s) if when we tried to log into them the message read:

Your Account has been Implicated in a recent game exploit, your account access has been blocked until we can determind your involement in this exploit. ( code: 117).

This would have given A Net the time they needed to gather their infomation before permonant banned or termination of these account(s).

Thats a crock and you know it. This "fallout" always happens when someone recieves a ban. It seems to go with the territory. And judging by many of the "117's" post and responses, was inevitable regardless of 'how' any ban was implemented.

The reasoning behind many of the 117's posts is weakening as the thread progresses. Some have clearly realised its pointless to argue and defend what has been shown to be an indefensible position and have left, leaving a few very "vocal" people who clearly dont have the same capacity of understanding as those that have decided to leave gracefully.