Curse

ubermancer · Sep 02, 2006, 06:40 AM // 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by sindex

In all actuality I disagree with the statement A-net is doing their job, because it seems clearly that they are not. First of all this is a crime; not a small one, but a pretty large crime in FRAUD. As a customer I can see the point of license agreement, to keep the program(s) (or product(s)) from being manipulated by the public or even stolen. The fact is how well does that agreement hold up, and if it does not bend towards manipulation of the customer (to otherwise benefit the company instead). A-net knows that what they are running an MMO and for that reason alone they should know, of what the customer goes through while establishing that online connection (i.e. Hackers, Software Viruses, Identity Theft, and etc). What they did to this particular customer sounds like an assumption by one individual, (a human being (flawed if you will)) seeing a particular pattern; then establishing it as breach in contract. Furthermore they did not only band this customer, but they stated that the customer is a liar and a thief. After which the customer goes to the public, and then actions are changed stating: even though your account was permanently band we are giving you a second chance, but if we see this breach in contract again you will be permanently band (no apology or reasons of). Now if this customer had certain specialists go through the computer and state that there was no evidence of these so called “third party programs” running in the background; and furthermore if there is evidence that “Guild Wars” was a key entity to bring in this third-party program into this customers computer (that there was a hack from their servers brought back to the customer) A-nets fully liable.

This brings me to what the customer now feels, two big emotions paranoia and anger. Some people will go the rout of forgiving A-net for its supposed mistake in their minds. However other people (and including myself) sees one thing, “being taken advantage of as a paying customer” (with a company dealing in Fraudulent Affairs); which will inevitably lead to one major setback to the company: “LAWSUIT(S).” This will also lead to people being wary of the game where people will lose their faith in the company. Finally bringing them to canceling out all together; of course when you have no customers, you have no product, and you have no company.

This opinion of mine does not reflect this customer thought(s) or feeling(s), but are my opinions alone.

Lawsuits, like the one pending against NC Soft for actively supporting botting (to the point of reprimanding employees who banned bots)?

Akhilleus · Sep 02, 2006, 07:15 AM // 07:15

when i was banned (wrongfully) it took spending 4 hours on the phone to customer support and eventually getting online with one of the people at the corporate office at NC-Soft to get my account back...
basically the response from the human-automated-response-systems (these morons couldnt zip their pants without help) was that once an account is banned nothing can be done since anet mods do such a fantastic job with researchign crap...
so, after 4 and a half hours i learn they banned me based off of a doctored screenshot sent in by someone who had actually scammed me. after 5 minutes of looking into the situation they realized that the so called "irrefutible evidence" they had was a load of malarky, and unbanned me.
wtf anet?...seriously, wtf?

wilderness · Sep 02, 2006, 09:38 AM // 09:38

Another day. Another empty inbox.

Apparently "We will unlock your account in 24 hours" means:

1. We'll make you a promise which we have no intention of honoring
2. We'll ignore you for a while.
3. We'll pass the matter between GMs who will spam repeated automated responses at you.
3. We'll 'unlock' a completely unrelated account that was never even banned.
4. We'll ignore you some more.

I really don't understand how they can make such a mess of this...

Gaile Gray · Sep 02, 2006, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubermancer

Lawsuits, like the one pending against NC Soft for actively supporting botting (to the point of reprimanding employees who banned bots)?

I know absolutely nothing about such a lawsuit, and I know that I receive emails daily with lists of banned bots for Guild Wars. Could you please provide specific information about this alleged lawsuit? Excuse my skepticism, but I've seen too many such statements that are nothing more than fabrication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eviance

Just like I am sure that Anet makes mistakes ...4000! to be exact...

Not even close to 4,000 were in error! Please, before posting spectacular facts, be sure they are, you know, factual.

Quote:

If they are going to ban everyone who looks like a bot then we are all eventually doomed at some point and time.

No, that is not true. There are nearly two dozen parameters to "earn" a ban. It's unfortunate that a few--and I use that term advisedly, a very few--will be banned incorrectly. The vast, vast majority will be banned as they should be, for botting or using bot programs.

Players beg us to "Do something about bots!" When we do, they then start hedging their bets saying things like "But never, ever take such action that may require a reversal." Can't have it both ways, sorry! We will address the concerns of individual players such as the OP, but on the other hand, if you want us to make a significant impact on the pernicious problem of botting, you must support us using a system that may, again on the rare occasions, require us to take that extra step and reverse an erroneous account closure. And please, no thinking individuals should say, "Even one banned in error is too many," which is something I have read in the past. Realisitically, we must take action, and that means that a few will be banned who should not be. It's a choice that we have to make, for otherwise, our hands are tied, and we cannot take the action that we all know needs to be taken to remove the bots. The parallel is: paralyzing a police force by telling them that if any arrested individuals are found innocent at trial, then all criminals must be left unarrested in the event that one is accused inaccurately. That way leads to madness.

There are checks. There are balances. I will see where we are with the OPs situation, and I would ask the broader community's support of our doing our level best to keep the game great for all of us, and confidence that we will remain responsive in those rare instances when an error is made.

johnmedgla · Sep 02, 2006, 08:09 PM // 20:09

Thankyou for your reply Gaile, it's nice to know you're at least aware of this. The final clause in your last sentece is, I believe, really the crux of this matter: "we will remain responsive in those rare instances when an error is made." To more than a few people, the response from various avenues of support in instances of mistaken bans has been anything but supportive or responsive - distinctly unhelpful and overbearing is a more accurate description - and I imagine that's why this issue is receiving more attention, and provoking stronger responses from the community than the actual number of mistaken bans actually warrants.

I appreciate that systems such as this cannot ever be made perfect, and in a very true sense no one at all, least of all yourself, is to blame for unfortunate situations such as this, but as the medium for communication between the developers/support people and the communuty at large, perhaps you could endeavour to impress upon your colleagues that basic public relations skills would be handy for anyone dealing with the public, especially those responsible for issues likely to elicit a strong response.

Well done for actually doing something about the botters - but perhaps try to be as conscientious in restoring incorrectly banned accounts. My own experience of this very issue, couple with any number of discussions on this exact issue here and on other forums suggest that the people dealing with this issue could perhaps word their warnings/summary ban notices/general communications with a tad more tact in a manner less likely to raise hackles and generally bewilder.

Thankyou for your patience.

Retribution X · Sep 02, 2006, 09:09 PM // 21:09

To the crux of the issue, Shit happens.

And that's about it.

Eviance · Sep 02, 2006, 10:14 PM // 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

Not even close to 4,000 were in error! Please, before posting spectacular facts, be sure they are, you know, factual.

.

Well sorry to have to requote your quote that was quoted way back when. So I read what you wrote wrong then? (or is that the other way around?)

Quote:

Just to reassure you: The account terminations took place, in a batch of about 4000, at approximately 12:30 PDT today. They are not ongoing. Nobody is going to lose an account by some ban bot (now that would be an irony! ) running amuck in the account server.

(I did give the link if you click on mistakes and if you go through all those quotes its in there burried somewhere - I would give the dirrect link but I hate being a member of multiple boards.) If I read it wrong then ok, but I'm just quoting what was quoted from you in the dev tracker.

Please note Gaile that I was not saying that all 4000 were a mistake although I think thats exactly how I made it sound (will edit). All I know is that you quoted that 4000 accounts were banned that day around 12:30. It only speaks of the 115 that were reinstated but it went on to talk about how so many more were still being reinstated and that it would be some time but within a couple of days it would all be sorted out. So that leads me to believe there were still a fair amount. (Mutual misunderstanding on both our faults for my typo =P)

The fact is that within a very short time a whole crapload of people were banned and at LEAST 115 were accidental/innocent. That's still not the best proof that its all sorted and figured out. I'm not saying that bannings shouldn't happen but saying someone looks like a bot without any real proof just seems... I don't know I would hate to get convicted of a crime I didn't do without any proof. That's just the way it stands in my eyes.
I'm not saying a temp ban on someones account that you think might be guilty is out of question, but that if it comes into question of innocent vs guilty at least go the extra mile to make sure you were correct in your ban in the first place.

Loviatar · Sep 02, 2006, 10:55 PM // 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eviance

I'm not saying a temp ban on someones account that you think might be guilty is out of question, but that if it comes into question of innocent vs guilty at least go the extra mile to make sure you were correct in your ban in the first place.

did you miss the critical tiny part of that thread where Gaile said the logs would be studied to find out what went wrong and make changes in what flags a bot alert so as many fewer false alerts are made as possible?

they are trying to fix things as best they can without a perfect way to be 100% all the time.

there will be further mistakes and hopefully each mistake will lead to a better anti bot system in the future.

we can only hope cant we?

Eviance · Sep 02, 2006, 11:02 PM // 23:02

aww hun I wasn't bitching at that point I was re-clearifying - it's been a long day did I fail? -_-

(I'm gonna go crawl in a hole somewhere and avoid posting till my brain is straight)

Loviatar · Sep 02, 2006, 11:06 PM // 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eviance

aww hun I wasn't bitching at that point I was re-clearifying - it's been a long day did I fail? -_-

(I'm gonna go crawl in a hole somewhere and avoid posting till my brain is straight)

hangs head

it was only a small part of it and easy to miss so i thought if you missed it you could know that they are making adjustments.

information not criticism was intended

Eviance · Sep 02, 2006, 11:26 PM // 23:26

LOL come on I am sure there is a hole for both of us somewhere. *hugs* no harm hun - its just been a REALLY long day for me (that and I still can't play GW cause of err7s) so I'm a bit testy -_- I just wanted to make sure that you too realized I hadn't missed it. (I think I am going to sleep before I kill my husband >_>) Laters!

wilderness · Sep 02, 2006, 11:30 PM // 23:30

Well, ty all for your responses/support.

And ty Gaile for your response/reasurrence. Not sure if you had anything to do with my account finally being unlocked this afternoon, if so, thank you greatly.

I just wish they had a better system in place for dealing with these situations. The way this was handled was hardly professional. While I do appreciate there must be a large amount of these cases at any one time, it was still a frustrating experience.

Also, I was never told exactly what it was that got me banned. Let's just hope I manage to avoid doing whatever it was from now on :/

sindex · Sep 02, 2006, 11:58 PM // 23:58

So I see the politics here; running with the whole idea of majority over minority. The little guy can be, stepped on without repercussions what so ever (stating “we don’t cater to individuals even if they are paying customers”). So if lets say, so many people get banned by A-net (a thousand or so) in six months, and about 2/3 are innocent (because they fit your so called “pattern”); that’s not going to lead to any repercussions what so ever? Unfortunately that blindness is going to land that company in the cross-hairs of so many Lawsuits (your head will spin).

**cosyfiep** · Sep 02, 2006, 11:59 PM // 23:59

.......and lets hope that the next person who gets the ax doesnt have to wait as long as you did, wilderness, to get it straightened out.
happy playing!

Immaculata Regina · Sep 03, 2006, 12:03 AM // 00:03

Congratulations on finally getting your account back.
I've been following this thread with some concern and I'm glad there seems to be a happy end after all. Now let's hope history won't repeat itself.

VitisVinifera · Sep 03, 2006, 01:24 AM // 01:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilderness

And ty Gaile for your response/reasurrence. Not sure if you had anything to do with my account finally being unlocked this afternoon, if so, thank you greatly. :/

I personally am VERY happy to hear this. I've followed this thread and just thought, if it could be you then it could be me. It just really sucks what you had to put up with to get it back. For all that they do owe you a personal (and public) apology. I have a feeling it was Gaile's intervention, because the rank and file of anerf support has been largely incompetent in a wide variety of matters.

Gaile Gray · Sep 03, 2006, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Let me just speak to the whole "wrongfully banned" issue. Yes, I pointed to this thread (from Germany, as I recall) and today, but our Support Team is the one that made the reinstatement and they should get full credit for that.

However...

As time moves on, and we ban people, we will always have a number who protest their innocence and claim that no, they were not a bot, they didn't know what a bot was, couldn't recall every putting the letters b, o and t together in a single word, and so forth.

And I joke, but it's true. We get protests, and we have to hold the line at some point. We have to say "Yes, you're claiming that you're not a bot, but dear heavens, the evidence is overwhelming. No human would play as you have." And we will look again at the 20+ parameters, and we will say "Well, sure, he/she is protesting, but there's just no way that that isn't a botting account."

In that instance, we'll hold tight. We'll say, and this is 100% true, that protests of innocence do not equal innocence. I read somewhere "Well, if they write to protest they obviously are not a bot!" Oh please, read that! "I protested that speeding ticket, obviously I was not going too fast!" We have people protest every day, and our good Support folk have to, as I said, hold the line so that the entire system does not crumble. They carefully review and yes, they occasionally reverse a decision, but never unthinkingly and never with trivial evidence.

So wilderness is back in his account, but I'm not going to--none of us are going to--bow and scrape and apologize to the community as a whole for taking action that is, ultimately, good for the game. Am I sorry that wilderness was blocked? Of course! Do I apologize for the process, or suggest that we amend it to the point where the parameters are so hard to hit that a thousand bots a day get by with their nefarious deeds? No. I don't think you want that, and I don't think wilderness wants that. Bot bannings are important and should be supported, as players should be supported and reinstated in the rare instances when they are inadventently caught in a bot sweep.

wilderness: Play on, and get better soon.

sindex · Sep 03, 2006, 02:08 AM // 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loviatar

your assumptions that most banned accounts are innocent rather than a few that get mixed in with a bunch of bots to start with.

secondly yout almost worshipful impression of lawsuits.

since NCsoft (Anets owner) has been doing online games for years with a standard policy where are all the lawsuits you speak of that should have popped up over the years?

You should have left out that "t" in "you" (just pulling your chain). Secondly you have to bring up the “Lawsuit” word if you are going to get anything done. I see way to many people sit back and let corporation walk all over them, because of them being passive aggressive. No one wants to take legal action, because (to them) it takes up way to much time and effort. Especially this generation basically stating, “you can hit me like piñata even though I pay you”. Third of all A-net has yet to ring in the big bucks in the past years, until now. It’s usually when the size of the company gets bigger; certain things follow (i.e. Greed, Fraud, Detachment from their consumers, and etc.). Look at EA games when they started out, they probably cared for public opinion, now look at them (they could care less for the people and care more for annual profits).

Listen I agree on the issue that it’s a small number of people being hit by this. However when the numbers start to increase, will they have the same customer satisfaction they had; as going into Guild Wars from the very beginning? We will have to see; but I just hope that certain people are not targeted, only by this so called “pattern” and relies there are innocent bystanders out there. Basically it boils down to that: "do they do learn from their mistakes?" Finally I do realize there are some rather evil people out there, which will take advantage of a good thing. I blame those people for causing the security issues to be enforced in the first place.

ubermancer · Sep 03, 2006, 08:01 AM // 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I know absolutely nothing about such a lawsuit, and I know that I receive emails daily with lists of banned bots for Guild Wars. Could you please provide specific information about this alleged lawsuit? Excuse my skepticism, but I've seen too many such statements that are nothing more than fabrication.

You, the PR voice of your company, knows nothing about a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT against your parent company? Excuse my disbelief, but that kinda seems like the sort of thing you should be aware of. Allow me to enlighten you:

http://www.player2player.net/index.p...article&sid=91

http://loudopinions.com/forums/index...=0&#entry34006

Heres a choice snippet:

Quote:

Lin states that when he started to work for the company last year, he banned every bot that was petitioned (when a players sees a bot, they have the ability to petition a GameMaster online to remove the bot) but was quickly told by the Head GameMaster (HGM) to cease with his activities. In the ensuing 9 months of his employment he was only able to terminate nine (9) accounts for botting (the process of running a bot in-game). He states that he received in excess of 2000 petitions related to botting from characters but was instructed to only investigate the petitions and not to terminate any accounts.

In Lin’s affidavit, he states “NC made it clear to me that they didn’t want to ban the bots because it would mean lost revenue for them. I think that the bots make up anywhere from 30 to 40% of the community. So banning the bots would result in a 40% decrease in revenue. Everybody knew this, and accepted it.”

tASE · Sep 03, 2006, 08:42 AM // 08:42

When i read the article about that lawsuit, i realised how much the people at the computer that hit "BAN" button on your account don't realise how much time and effort and TIME you have passed in the game, even if those are virtual objects, virtual money, virtual level, it's NOT virtual time, nor virtual MONEY that you spend on buying the game and playing it.

They should think twice when hitting that BAN or DELETE key, put themselfs in the place of the user thats going to login one morning and see that his account has been banned, all his time and efforts wasted, double, triple check the reasons, ESPCIALLY if it's eye-witness or third-party report of a breach, because those people can't be 100% sure, they can think hes using a bot because hes moving in particular manner (Select+Space on a NPC activates a trace route code commonly seen in bots, but is 100% legit, but still can be taken as being a bot code route) or have a personal grudge against that player (yeayea hey, everyone has them, you don't like how they talk, how they act, any reason can make you dislike them).

Sure there are those dirty people that download a 3rd application that are against the rules, but they should investigate more, instead of "/info" "/ban userid ####" or however they do it (example taken out of WoW GM command lines) to ban someone...damn it's late im going to bed