Curse

Ashius · May 30, 2010, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeKnowMo

If you're caught cheating on an exam you get the same penalty as everybody else. It doesn't matter if you copied 20 answers or 1 or were merely 'curious.'

To all the claims of speculation, I'm just stating what I've seen as a result of action taken against other players I know. And to your analogy, I can see this having no end as both our analogies are feasible in this situation, so I will agree to disagree :P Although in retaliation I'll say that this situation is unlike an exam, as the ones who copied the 20 answers really don't care, and have the resourses to sit the exam again and likely get away with it.

BoxOfCox · May 30, 2010, 06:26 PM // 18:26

It's incredible that some people are so naive as to believe that Anet, the same company that inevitably screws up something every time a new update is made, is suddenly competent enough to ban 3,700+ players without making a single mistake.

cormac ap dunn · May 30, 2010, 07:22 PM // 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

The responses are from people who were already planning on buying GW2. Nothing gained; much lost.

Your correct on the Nothing gained, not sure we lost much. Would I want to play GW2 with someone who would cheat? Would you really want to play GW2 with someone who would in a format that YOU enjoyed?

What I have seen from the people who were involved in this is, the majority are upset, not because they were caught, but because they believe someone else was responsible for their actions, or worse that they were justified in their actions because nobody stopped them sooner...

I quoted Gaile earlier, i noticed the post went largely unnoticed because people were flaming each other rather then actually staying on the topic, so I'll post a part of it that i think is exceptionally relevant

"All cases are being reviewed. Every single one. Not every account holder is getting that response. Those who have a legitimate appeal are being handled individually and would get a different response. However, those people are very, very few in number. Consider that more than 3,700 accounts were closed. Many of those people will appeal, although they know full well they are guilty. Many others will appeal because they don't feel they were guilty, but they were. The appeals of people who were caught dead-to-rights fill up the queues and delay responses to people who have other issues or who may have a legitimate reason for an appeal. It is not reasonable to expect that support agents will sit down and pen a personal response to each person. The response that you've seen contains all the pertinent information in a clear, concise, and informative form. Trying to write a different letter to hundreds of people is an unnecessary waste of time and it risks possibly leaving out some information, as well, or opening the door to the sorts of strange fan forum speculations we're familiar with, like "Why did that say 'definitely' and that other one say 'positively'? I suspect a conspiracy of some sort!"
So, if someone gets that response, then that response is appropriate to the situation. It is not a brush off. It does not indicate that the team is not reading the tickets. It does not mean that a single appeal has been ignored, or that the circumstances that lead to the block were not carefully reviewed. The detailed and informative response is sent after a review, after verification of the block, and after the decision that the particular response is the best way to give each person the most accurate and complete representation of the situation. It is only sent to those to whom it applies; it is only sent when it is appropriate.
As to the "My dog ate my homework" errr... sorry... let's call it the "My roommate downloaded a bad program that somehow I used 10,000 times on my account" excuse. Each of us is responsible for our account. For keeping it safe. For not using cheat programs. We're similarly responsible for the integrity of our computer. It's just nearly unbelievable that someone was banned because "some other evil person" downloaded and used an unacceptable program on his or her computer. I doubt that such a situation applies to even one of the people with a terminated account, but we included that information to make it clear that "I didn't know it was on my system" is not an acceptable excuse. And I'm sure it's crystal clear why that can't be accepted as an adequate defense. -- Gaile 05:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)"

What more do people want to hear? If you used a 3rd party program that went against the criteria that they used for finding and banning, you are guilty. If you feel you have been wrongly accused these appeals should be made to Anet support after the Holiday weekend. This is coming from an Anet staffer.

Trolling forums accomplishes one thing, it makes YOU feel better. It won't get your account back, it isn't even a step in getting your account back.

Emunator · May 30, 2010, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by cormac ap dunn

What more do people want to hear? If you used a 3rd party program that went against the criteria that they used for finding and banning, you are guilty. If you feel you have been wrongly accused these appeals should be made to Anet support after the Holiday weekend. This is coming from an Anet staffer.

Trolling forums accomplishes one thing, it makes YOU feel better. It won't get your account back, it isn't even a step in getting your account back.

I agree with you on this.

But it seems to some people that a-net actually isnt looking into stuff.
And the timing just before this Holliday weekend could have been better.
They know that guilty and non guilty people will contact them after such a ban wave.

In this thread my ticket and mail from Gaile are up for reading.
I have good faith that they will look into it after this weekend since they did help me out before.
But it probably means it will take at least a week or longer before i can get on again for the second time.

And i wrote that ticket with the full understanding that they keep logs and they should be able to verify my claims.
I also know that there are people that complain just to complain.

Bottem line those responses seem autmatic for me, i get the feeling no-one actually looked into it untill i mailed Gaile.
Now i know it's not being looked into because of the weekend and i can only hope to get my account back.

Well i will keep you guys posted if something new turns up.

cormac ap dunn · May 30, 2010, 08:11 PM // 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emunator

I agree with you on this.

But it seems to some people that a-net actually isnt looking into stuff.
And the timing just before this Holliday weekend could have been better.
They know that guilty and non guilty people will contact them after such a ban wave.

In this thread my ticket and mail from Gaile are up for reading.
I have good faith that they will look into it after this weekend since they did help me out before.
But it probably means it will take at least a week or longer before i can get on again for the second time.

And i wrote that ticket with the full understanding that they keep logs and they should be able to verify my claims.
I also know that there are people that complain just to complain.

Bottem line those responses seem autmatic for me, i get the feeling no-one actually looked into it untill i mailed Gaile.
Now i know it's not being looked into because of the weekend and i can only hope to get my account back.

Well i will keep you guys posted if something new turns up.

I'm sure that when this has died down a bit you're case will be looked at. I know being without your account sucks, but at this point its better then never getting it back. And as I'm sure you saw Gaile explain, the responses are a bit generic, but they are practical. 3700 accounts means it takes time to go through, what we are all sure , is a lot of guilty people clogging the system for the innocent. Wish you the best of luck with support, hopefully it will all turn out for the better.

shoyon456 · May 30, 2010, 08:27 PM // 20:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

The responses are from people who were already planning on buying GW2. Nothing gained; much lost.

Wrong. I celebrate Anet for the bannings, but I'm still not buying GW2 for a host of other reasons. One of which is that there will not be scythes or polearms in GW2, but that is for another discussion.

As to emailing support, I believe they really went over their logs with a lot of review and checking, hence they are certain that well over 95% of their bannings are warranted. It doesn't mean there hasn't been a single error in bannings, but it does mean that the margin of error is probably very low. Combine the low margin of error with the number of people here that have admitted botting yet are still emailing support begging for their accounts back, and you can understand the "uniform response." I highly doubt Anet would make this grandiose ban sweep without having their i's dotted and their t's crossed.

Ka Tet · May 30, 2010, 08:35 PM // 20:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by shoyon456

hence they are certain that well over 95% of their bannings are warranted. It doesn't mean there hasn't been a single error in bannings, but it does mean that the margin of error is probably very low. Combine the low margin of error with the number of people here that have admitted botting yet are still emailing support begging for their accounts back, and you can understand the "uniform response."

I highly doubt Anet would make this grandiose ban sweep without having their i's dotted and their t's crossed.

In a mass banning, even just a 5% rate of error adds up quickly.

Based on your own estimate, 5% of the i's weren't dotted and 5% of the t's weren't crossed.

BoxOfCox · May 30, 2010, 09:24 PM // 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by cormac ap dunn

I don't think anyone here remotely believes they didn't make any mistakes, but that everyone on a public forum is telling the truth? now THAT would be naive.

QFT that

I don't doubt that there are people lying about botting in order to try and save their own ass. I still stand by my original point though.

mlandry · May 30, 2010, 10:32 PM // 22:32

I really hate how everyone is so self-entitled in this community.
"I only botted a few times out of curiosity! I don't deserve to get banned!"
"I never botted! Well, I mean, except that one time!"

You broke the EULA and got banned. Even texmod has huge warnings on it on the wiki site that they ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOU USING IT!

I'm not sure what you were expecting it but stop trying to paint ANet as the one that broke the rules here. Did they mess up? Odds are that there are a dozen or so people that got wrongfully banned. I strongly doubt that there are hundreds though.

People that commit a crime and then try to banalize it are just annoying. Remind me of stoners.
"I only had x amount of weed on me! Arrest the real criminals!".
"I was only going 20 miles over the speed limit! Don't you have a serial killer to catch?!"

You break the EULA and get caught, you pay the price. No exceptions.

Lord Sojar · May 31, 2010, 09:24 AM // 09:24

They don't need to double check. The nature of KSMod, Guild Wars Multi-Client, and TEXMod would not trigger the checks they were running.

This isn't a trial, it's an Inquisition, and you have been found guilty of high treason, punishable by a permanent ban to your account; it will not be lifted or further investigated if it met the criteria of the Inquisition. To debate this is to be a liar on top of being a cheater. This is one instance in which GW Support is actually doing their job by ignoring you/passing you off. You are banned, forever.

ANET has stated you are welcomed to make a new account and start from scratch, which I believe they shouldn't give you the opportunity to do. Either take the opportunity to start fresh, or go away to another game and cheat there. You will find little sympathy from other legitimate players who are glad to see you gone.

TL;DR version: The methods used to detect the bots are 100% accurate. You were banned if you were botting using the method they used for detection. There is no other method of reproducing the criteria they used to detect these bots. If you were banned, you were 100% guilty. No room for interpretation or debate. Guilty forever, not until proven anything. GUILTY. Empirical evidence doesn't lie.

This isn't a personal attack on the OP or any other botter, but rather a simple truth. You can't lie your way out of this, because the methods these bots used left empirical data to analyze and make a black and white call on. If you try and email support claiming innocence, you trying to argue that 1+1=2 isn't true. Numbers do NOT lie, and you are lying if you even try to oppose this ban.

Quote:

2. How can ArenaNet and NCSoft be so absolutely sure (as evidenced by Martin Kerstein's responses quoted above, and again, the automated support replies) that, in a case of three thousand seven hundred bans, there can not be any margin of error?

Because in this realm of detection, it's all a game of simple "if" statements. The packet manipulation and dll injection methods these bots used leave a difference. You simply create a search algorithm that looks for those differences, compared to what normally would happen. There is no possible way that anything other than these botting methods could cause these results. That isn't the way computers work. It's either a 1 or a 0 in the realm of software, and suffice to say, if they found a 1 where a zero should have been, guess what? Bye bye.

There is NO margin of error in this type of investigation. Any claim you try to make is a lie.

Your ISP can't cause these results, your modem can't cause these results, your computer can't cause these results, KSMod can't cause these results, TexMod can't cause these results, and Guild Wars Multi-Client/X2 can't cause these results. So... what does that leave? 3rd party programs that are strictly forbidden by the EULA/ToS, that explicitly states you will have your account terminated if you use them. So.... that happened. I fail to see the issue here....

Faer · May 31, 2010, 10:05 AM // 10:05

If what you said was correct Rahja, then there would be no legitimate appeals at all. However, according to NCSoft (through Gaile, as posted on her wiki page and quoted in this thread a few times), that's not the case.

So either you are wrong, or the infallible NCSoft is wrong. Quite a little problem, isn't it.

Lord Sojar · May 31, 2010, 10:09 AM // 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theocrat

If what you said was correct Rahja, then there would be no legitimate appeals at all. However, according to NCSoft (through Gaile, as posted on her wiki page and quoted in this thread a few times), that's not the case.

So either you are wrong, or the infallible NCSoft is wrong. Quite a little problem, isn't it.

If their detection system is using the parameters they should be using, it is indeed infallible. This isn't something that can be debated. There is no wiggle room with purely empirical evidence. If there were legitimate appeals, it was merely a bookkeeping issue, not a detection issue. If what I assume they are doing is true, then only programs that are explicitly disallowed by the EULA/ToS should be creating the result they are flagging. Any other approach would be stupid.

I'd chalk up any truly legitimate appeals to human error in regards to recording and issuing the bans, not the detection. In this case, the best course of action would be to contact Gaile herself, as she is the end all be all of this. If she finds it was human error, then so be it. However, if you botted, even if for an instant, do not appeal this, as you are wasting support's time.

Ashius · May 31, 2010, 10:19 AM // 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

If their detection system is using the parameters they should be using, it is indeed infallible. This isn't something that can be debated. There is no wiggle room with purely empirical evidence. If there were legitimate appeals, it was merely a bookkeeping issue, not a detection issue. If what I assume they are doing is true, then only programs that are explicitly disallowed by the EULA/ToS should be creating the result they are flagging. Any other approach would be stupid.

I'd chalk up any truly legitimate appeals to human error in regards to recording and issuing the bans, not the detection. In this case, the best course of action would be to contact Gaile herself, as she is the end all be all of this. If she finds it was human error, then so be it. However, if you botted, even if for an instant, do not appeal this, as you are wasting support's time.

If they did use these 'unfailable' methods of detection, there would be no botters left unbanned. But this is not the case.

Faer · May 31, 2010, 10:22 AM // 10:22

Human error is exactly the problem. The entire system behind the bans could not have been a set of 1s and 0s. Somewhere at HQ, a team of humans were sitting at desks working on this. And at some point, as confirmed by Gaile's statements, those humans made some mistakes. It is this human margin of error that is being questioned here. I don't think anyone of intelligence is really questioning if there were any flaws in their super duper secret mega method of detecting evil people (in short: LOL CHEK 4 DLL JEKSHUNN GUIZE).

byteme! · May 31, 2010, 10:38 AM // 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashius

If they did use these 'unfailable' methods of detection, there would be no botters left unbanned. But this is not the case.

I don't think you understand the situation.

Ashius · May 31, 2010, 10:42 AM // 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by byteme!

I don't think you understand the situation.

Enlighten me.

makosi · May 31, 2010, 10:46 AM // 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

Would you play GW1 with me? Would you find your experience somehow tarnished by the fact that I ran a raptor bot? What complaints would you lay against me, aside from that I'm not that good of a monk?

When people run raptor bots it does tarnish the experience of other genuine payers because it dilutes the effects of the legitimate individual's farming efforts.

Suppose I spend five hours one weekend farming grog and another person runs ten bot accounts doing the same task, but for the full 60 hours (since bots aren't restricted by the need to sleep, eat, go places etc.), Mr. Botterson has accumulated 600 hours worth of grog - 120 times what I made.

It also reduces the value of the grog so that I will struggle to sell on Monday. Not to mention the value of unidentified golds, weapon mods, dyes and scrolls. The whole thing is frustrating and demoralizing.

It's the same story with Fort Aspenwood where I saw a handful of bots over a long period of time when I was trying to max the Luxon title. I was in the midst of the battle and giving it my best efforts while this bot would perform the same sequence of movements in the Luxon base, which contributed nothing and took away many potential wins from the real players.

I'm not a sadist but I can't help feeling slightly warm and fuzzy on the inside knowing that these greedy people will not be hindering my play experience any longer.

Lord Sojar · May 31, 2010, 10:52 AM // 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theocrat

Human error is exactly the problem. The entire system behind the bans could not have been a set of 1s and 0s. Somewhere at HQ, a team of humans were sitting at desks working on this. And at some point, as confirmed by Gaile's statements, those humans made some mistakes. It is this human margin of error that is being questioned here. I don't think anyone of intelligence is really questioning if there were any flaws in their super duper secret mega method of detecting evil people (in short: LOL CHEK 4 DLL JEKSHUNN GUIZE).

When you send in a ticket, they will check the data. They just aren't mentioning that. If their double check comes to the same conclusion as the original ban reason, you stay banned, and they send you those automated emails.

If we are going to reference Gaile here, I can play that game too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile

You are at least the second person who's mentioned PaketFaker and said you felt its use was acceptable because "it's just like TexMod." I don't know that. The support team doesn't know that. And unless you're a programmer who can read and analyze source code, you probably don't know that either. TexMod (in its original, unaltered form) is allowed because it gives no gameplay advantage. I can speculate that the other program is not totally benign, and that something in it gives advantage to the user. I do not know that, though, I truly am just speculating. If the use of PaketFaker caused your account to be blocked, then that's just another reason why we make it clear we do not give a thumbs up to third-party programs. Only a few third-party programs have been shown to pose no negative risks to the user, and even those must remain in their original form to be risk free. No one knows how many times a benign program is altered to be bad. In the end verification of a program's integrity rests with the user

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile

The whole process that was used in this investigation was developed by and analyzed and reviewed many times by a number of incredibly astute individuals. The chances of a "false positive" are, they tell me, pretty much non-existent. Having said that, your appeal is on file and if there is anything more to tell you about your situation, someone will get in touch via the ticket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile

I'm sorry that your account was terminated. But as you will have read, we terminated more than 3,700 account today and I don't have the bandwidth to research individual appeals. We know the bans were placed appropriately and that each account that was banned in this sweep was indeed involved in the use of a third-party program. Having said that, you are welcome to submit an appeal to support. Sorry that I cannot assist directly but I'm sure you understand there's just 1 of me and there are a lot of accounts involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile

I have looked at the ticket. I don't see that there is anything I can do to assist. The means of detecting bot use is very reliable and I cannot overrule those findings. If there is any additional information you want the team to consider, please pass it along to them in the ticket.

So... care to point out to me where she mentioned these "false positives"? I certainly am not seeing them... Computer error rate is about 25,000 to 75,000 failures per billion hours of operation. Unless ANET/NSSoft have the WORST LUCK IN HISTORY, I'd say this is a cut and dry issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Living Il

rahja the thief, shut the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO up u have no idea what you are talking about.

My PhD (and nearly second degree in Electronic Computer Engineering) argues with you...

UMAD?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashius

Enlighten me.

The people they banned were targeted with specific irrelgular values produced by specific types of 3rd party programs returned versus normal values returned under normal circumstances or programs that do not have the functionality these 'bots' processed.

Other bots likely do exist, and will continue to exist until such a time that an infallible method of detection can be used in a manner akin to that used on May 26th, 2010. Until such a time, we will just need to be patient.

Gill Halendt · May 31, 2010, 10:54 AM // 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theocrat

Human error is exactly the problem.

What Rahja is saying is that the computerized detector is infallible. And I have no problems believing it's pretty much so.

Quote:

If there were legitimate appeals, it was merely a bookkeeping issue, not a detection issue.

[...]

I'd chalk up any truly legitimate appeals to human error in regards to recording and issuing the bans, not the detection.

The detector itself doesn't automatically ban anyone tough. This is where "human errors" might have happened.

Lord Sojar · May 31, 2010, 11:00 AM // 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gill Halendt

What Rahja is saying is that the computerized detector is infallible. And I have no problems believing it's pretty much so.

The detector itself doesn't automatically ban anyone tough. This is where "human errors" might have happened.

Bingo, and the likelihood of said "bookkeeping errors" would likely be no more than 1 in every 250 (and that's being extremely generous to the guilty here...). So by that math, that means out of the 3,700 accounts there were banned, ~15 were banned by mistake. That number is likely even fewer. How many threads have we had thus far in Riverside claiming innocence? Oh, more than 15? More than 30? Yep. That's what we call lying kids!

Frankly, some of you are acting like this is quantum mechanics... it isn't, this is general relativity in the realm of comparison. This is a simple situation with an even simpler solution. If you don't understand the methods of computer aided algorithms, then you probably shouldn't try to claim there could or couldn't be inaccuracies.