Curse

Rambo' · Jan 13, 2008, 03:08 PM // 15:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeesuss89

I've read all of Gaile's posts FYI. What do you want to know exactly??? How many times I've been there??? 11+. I base this on how many gemsets I acquired, but I cannot tell you precisely how many times we failed. Maybe 3-4 I don't know, this was roughly 2 months ago.

If thats the case, then you don't have a leg to stand on in my opinion.

Its clear you knew what you were doing and were doing so to personally gain.

Thats it for me, I'm out.

jeesuss89 · Jan 13, 2008, 03:15 PM // 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo'

If thats the case, then you don't have a leg to stand on in my opinion.

Its clear you knew what you were doing and were doing so to personally gain.

Thats it for me, I'm out.

Just to let you know, I'm still standing darling ( I assume you are female because of the little girl in your avatar ). Thank you for participating in the flaming, and thank you for leaving to allow us to discuss this in a civil manner. And yes, I knew that enjoying playing Guild Wars would be a personal gain for me, as I knew I was playing it. Der.

Cya.

Aera Lure · Jan 13, 2008, 03:35 PM // 15:35

Bottom line too is, at the end of the day, MMOs all run under one big rule: they can terminate a player's account at any time for any reason. Its a given, unfortunately, and we all sign on to that idea otherwise they wont let us play. Its true of course even for pay to play MMOs - we have no rights at all over our characters or accounts.

All of the discussion in this topic is very nice. Anet was very lenient imho and opened themselves up to conversation on the topic by themselves not following the golden rule to the letter and allowing some leniency and trying to explain it. There is no legal ground for a player to stand on. None. Even if this was a ban for which no one could find a plausible reason. I'd stop trying to look at it legally, unless you want first to try and revisit MMO's usage of EULAs and the language therein for future MMOs, not one you are currently playing and have already agreed to.

jeesuss89 · Jan 13, 2008, 03:40 PM // 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aera Lure

Bottom line too is, at the end of the day, MMOs all run under one big rule: they can terminate a player's account at any time for any reason. Its a given, unfortunately, and we all sign on to that idea otherwise they wont let us play. Its true of course even for pay to play MMOs - we have no rights at all over our characters or accounts.

All of the discussion in this topic is very nice. Anet was very lenient imho and opened themselves up to conversation on the topic by themselves not following the golden rule to the letter and allowing some leniency and trying to explain it. There is no legal ground for a player to stand on. None. Even if this was a ban for which no one could find a plausible reason. I'd stop trying to look at it legally, unless you want first to try and revisit MMO's usage of EULAs and the language therein for future MMOs, not one you are currently playing and have already agreed to.

Yes that is very true. I think that the point that the 117 is getting at here is that they want to access they're accounts back, even though we understand it is under A-net's discretion. All we want to do is play the game again, I don't believe that is too much to ask. I'm sure at least 116 more people would agree with me, even though your point is very valid.

Messy · Jan 13, 2008, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Wow had to catch up on the last 20 pages, and basically same thing: twist words, split hairs...

What I still don't get is how is it 1 trip to Mallyx involved 3 trips to the outpost. If I was invited to one of these trips, I would be invited to the Party leader's GH. From there we would go to the forbidden outpost when the party leader hit the "leave guild hall" button. I land in the outpost. 1 visit. Somebody clicks "enter mission". Once you are done... either because you killed Mallyx, or you got powend.... yo /resign and go back to post. I'm thinking this is where it gets tricky....
a) IF you went back in it would still be 1 visit= 1 attempt
b) IF you needed to go back to your GH to unload... then the 1 visit from after you resigned + 1 visit of going back there = 2 visits /1 attempt....

the PROBLEM is, if it was scenario B... WHY DID YOU GO BACK TO YOUR GH????

a) you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
b) you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
c) Maybe you needed to clear inventory and there was NO merchant in post
d) ALL of the above.

either that... or you were a Ferry bringing people in there.

otherwise, the 3 visits per actual mission does not add up.

Commander Ryker · Jan 13, 2008, 04:07 PM // 16:07

I'm reposting this to remind everyone of the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inde

Okay, my brain is about to explode. From the misinformation, the repeated questions that I can find on every 5 pages of this thread, and from those who just like to do +1 posts when they could bring a conversation to PM's. I'm not sure how much longer to persist with this thread. Despite having numerous people ask for it's closure, both mods and users, it's starting to go around in circles. Everything someone needs to know from Anet is on the first page of this thread.

Everything contained in this thread is being read, tested or explained by Anet as evidence from several posts from Gaile Gray. I understand the communities frustration and yes... from some of you, betrayal and outrage. But banging our heads to try to make the other side see our point is not doing anything but contributing to the over 500 deleted posts in this thread. Not to mention countless edits. That's 1 in every 4 posts being deleted. This is a massive amount of effort over the last several days to assure that the community has a voice. That you can express your displeasure, your acceptance or your support of what ArenaNet did.

I wish that there could be some resolution for everyone... both banned, those that think it unfair, friends of those who were banned, those who have been hurt or ridiculed for this, or those simply striving to make the other side hear and understand their point of view.

But there's no end to this in sight. I think all view points have been represented in this thread. I wish there were a better way to handle this, to let those who were banned get their stories and points to ArenaNet directly for consideration but that method has been provided whether you like the answer or not... go through support.

The question of this being a hack or a bug or an oversight by Anet is not going to be resolved nor will it change ArenaNet's mind. They have seen the steps some of you have posted to contribute toward your ban or that of a friend. I have seen the arguements, the flames and the frustration.

From this point forward this thread will become strictly monitored. Any one-liner... ANY ONE LINER... will be deleted. Anymore reference to this being a QQ thread will be deleted. Any reposting of what you said 30 pages ago, will be deleted. Any analogies will be deleted. Any insult/flame or flamebait will be deleted. Any post about lawsuits/libel/defamation will be deleted. These rules are subject to change.

Try to stay on topic. Try to express your views by really posting and thinking of your responses. Stop the back-and-forth bickering and conversation mode. If we can continue with this thread in a resonable manner with an honest debate with the information we have then I'll keep it open. Any new stories from those who were banned who would like to come forward to express their viewpoint are welcome. We'll see how this goes.

high priestess anya · Jan 13, 2008, 04:07 PM // 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by flubber

being there in and of itself IS the wrong doing. that is what some of you just don't seem to get the gist of. I'm surprised that you few are even getting the benefit of the doubt.

to the few that suggest that anet wipes the characters and hands out a temp ban..
the smart players already dumped the junk on their alts, or they used their alts to begin with.

some people, like me, who dont aim to scam the game dont have alt accounts. and going to the affected area is a minor wrong, its the actual profiteering that is causing the bans, gaile said so herself, the ban was to stabalise the "in game economy" which doesnt involve me as i gained naught from this.get off your high horse judge dredd this is beyond you

Aera Lure · Jan 13, 2008, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeesuss89

Yes that is very true. I think that the point that the 117 is getting at here is that they want to access they're accounts back, even though we understand it is under A-net's discretion. All we want to do is play the game again, I don't believe that is too much to ask. I'm sure at least 116 more people would agree with me, even though your point is very valid.

Well, that I do understand, of course. My reply regarding legality was aimed more at that course of discussion, which is utterly pointless. Claiming one's innocence and making your case with Support, is of course not. Neither is an attempt, as this topic intended, to share your views on the matter.

Truly sorry you were wrapped up in all this. I'll say the same for any of the other 117. I have to be honest though, I dont really have sympathy for those who used it to any advantage. Its not for me to judge who among those 117 did, if any, or all, and therein lies the subjectivity of the topic, and the difficulties around which trying to keep it from a "one side vs the other" sort of affair.

I suppose the only thing I have to add to the topic outside of my reply to the legality issues argument, was that simply Gaile's reply outlining their detailing of where they set the ban bar seemed more than fair to me. Truly. Anyone who knows the value of Mallyx drops, knew something was wrong when partaking of the activity in discussion here, well and beyond any "normal" in game "exploit", hidden outpost and all, and I question anyone who'd continue to make use of it.

That said, I hope those that are innocent, if any, get their due. If the logs said you were there more than a few times and killed Mallyx a couple times, then you know if you're innocent or not. And so does Anet. Simple enough. I dont think there is any point at all in trying to either look at the so-called legality or to try and wordsmith one's way out of a ban. That part of the whole thing is pretty darned straightforward.

Beyond that, looking at an appeal of a permaban. Gaile laid the groundwork for about where the bar stands for appeals. If you feel you are under that bar, she leaves the door open for an appeal. If you are over the bar, she doesnt.

If its turned over to a court of public opinion, ie this topic, then I support Anet. As for an appeal of punishment? I have had a few friends in game permabanned for what seems to me less than this whole affair. I watched some of them retire and others get new accounts and are playing again now. Its harsh, but the permaban wasnt lifted for them, so I surely wouldnt "vote" to lift it for any of the 117 who demonstratably met that bar and got the ban.

Messy · Jan 13, 2008, 04:23 PM // 16:23

Gaile said....
"We eliminated the exploit with a build today. We also conducted a detailed investigation into who accessed this exploit and other hidden outposts. As a result of this investigation, we permanently banned 117 players late Wednesday night, Pacific time, and we will ban more accounts as appropriate as we review additional logs gathered after the initial bans." HERE

and considering this....

it seems to me...

* maybe some of these 117 really got caught up in an exploit that had obviously been going on for a while, although... if you went in there more than 4 times....

* It sounds like they are going to go after the *other* 500, or 383. Personally, I hope they do. If you are going to ban people that abused this exploit, go after all of them. Once they are done reviewing these 117, If I were one of the remaining *unbanned visitors* I would be pretty restless.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT....
Don't buy, accept free gifts.... nothing that is GEM/ Mallyx related for the time being. It may be coming from one of these guys, and you might end up being accused of being an accessory.

Aum · Jan 13, 2008, 04:24 PM // 16:24

Philosophically, setting the bar at a specific number implies some hueristic being applied that says this number is equivalent to this much monetary gain and economic impact by a player.

If bans are blanket it doesn't matter. But if bans are based on some hueristic, which appears to be weighed heavily toward usage more than monetary gain, what of the player who made little or nothing off of this regardless of the number or runs?

Because someone who made the maximum number of runs under the hueristic could easily have pocketed 80k+ from gem sets and more from selling Mallyx weapons.

high priestess anya · Jan 13, 2008, 04:26 PM // 16:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiden Arcana

If they have the proof, screw the general public, show the people it affects, not the people on their high horses with pitchforks ready to crucify us for a mere ferry bug.

im oneof the banned myself and to be honest...,this isnt "mere" at all this is a dire case, would have destroyed the game economy if left untouched for longer
but i will say this...although duncan exploit inst as proffitable it STILL COMES UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY and IS STILL THE SAME CRIME just lesser in seriousness. so taking that into account, people exploiting the duncan bug should recieve a minor penalty themsleves.
anyone who doesnt agree with my statement is surely here fishing for flame and to damn the condemned...

Aera Lure · Jan 13, 2008, 04:28 PM // 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dont Mess WithMe

Gaile said....
"We eliminated the exploit with a build today. We also conducted a detailed investigation into who accessed this exploit and other hidden outposts. As a result of this investigation, we permanently banned 117 players late Wednesday night, Pacific time, and we will ban more accounts as appropriate as we review additional logs gathered after the initial bans." HERE

and considering this....

it seems to me...

* maybe some of these 117 really got caught up in an exploit that had obviously been going on for a while, although... if you went in there more than 4 times....

* It sounds like they are going to go after the *other* 500, or 383. Personally, I hope they do. If you are going to ban people that abused this exploit, go after all of them. Once they are done reviewing these 117, If I were one of the remaining *unbanned visitors* I would be pretty restless.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT....
Don't buy, accept free gifts.... nothing that is GEM/ Mallyx related for the time being. It may be coming from one of these guys, and you might end up being accused of being an accessory.

Six... months? A little late in realizing this, arent we Anet?

I too seriously hope they go after whoever and however many others were involved in regular infractions. I had no idea it had been going on THAT long, and so many people (the 500 quoted in that chat screen was just someone's guess I imagine - could be 250 or it could be 1000).

Antheus · Jan 13, 2008, 04:30 PM // 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dont Mess WithMe

and considering this....

It's a scam from Anet. The image is clearly photoshopped!!11

We all know the only people who got unfairly banned are noobs who went to DoA for the first time and didn't know better.

Lies. Calamity. For horsemen of the apocalypse. Will the madness ever end.

Hear the voices of the innocent and ignorant.

Aera Lure · Jan 13, 2008, 04:31 PM // 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aum

Philosophically, setting the bar at a specific number implies some hueristic being applied that says this number is equivalent to this much monetary gain and economic impact by a player.

If bans are blanket it doesn't matter. But if bans are based on some hueristic, which appears to be weighed heavily toward usage more than monetary gain, what of the player who made little or nothing off of this regardless of the number or runs?

Because someone who made the maximum number of runs under the hueristic could easily have pocketed 80k+ from gem sets and more from selling Mallyx weapons.

No.. they didnt set the bar at monetary value. Had they wished to do that, drops are in the logs too. They set the number at intent to make use of the activity to advantage. Whether they did or not in actuality is moot. If you rob a bank and fail to get what you sought, you still robbed a bank.

high priestess anya · Jan 13, 2008, 04:45 PM // 16:45

qouting all people backing the ban:
regardless, this is a major violation of the eula
55 bot farm
duncan
dock ferry
LA & kaineng ferry botting
are all similar offenses but are not as serious. no punishment for these? ok i understand the work involved, but if you want to uphold the law then these are also violations but not as serious. im sure 99% of the people here have broke the EULA.... make your own conclusions

gone · Jan 13, 2008, 04:53 PM // 16:53

@ anya then you must also agree that even using the 'bug' makes you accountable for your actions, deserving a ban. in this case a perma-ban.

you can't pick and choose what you agree to in the eula.

Aera Lure · Jan 13, 2008, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by high priestess anya

qouting all people backing the ban:
regardless, this is a major violation of the eula
55 bot farm
duncan
dock ferry
LA & kaineng ferry botting
are all similar offenses but are not as serious. no punishment for these? ok i understand the work involved, but if you want to uphold the law then these are also violations but not as serious. im sure 99% of the people here have broke the EULA.... make your own conclusions

Humbug. 99% of us breaking the EULA my ***.

55 solo builds have been around in the game since day one, and have, of course, been nerfed. 55 bot farming is of course breaking the EULA, since botting is breaking the EULA, but the real issue here is Anet doesnt have the manpower to constantly fight it. Doesnt make it less of an offense, just makes it less policed. Note it also doesnt make anyone who used a 55 build to farm an exploiter or someone who has broken the EULA, so what is you point here, anyway?

Ferry botting. Same thing as above as regards 55 botting. You mention botting again. Yes, botting breaks the EULA and should be banned. Want to go to work at Anet for free and police it? Your point?

Duncan and ferrying without bots get added to a long list of things like the gear trick. Something that is simply in game and Anet can and could (and has in the past many times) released a build that removed the activity if they wished. Its called a mistake in or oversight in coding and rest assured, no game is without them.

Its QUITE a bit different to make use of the game client to open up a restricted area to manipulate and hidden outpost to take advantage of the drops of a high end boss for repeated gain, and high end gain at that. There is no relationship between this and the examples you cite.

Katakalysm · Jan 13, 2008, 05:00 PM // 17:00

I know the guy who found this, and dragged all us in. I know what we did was wrong, but STRAIGHT permaban is weird, even from Anet.

high priestess anya · Jan 13, 2008, 05:00 PM // 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aera Lure

Humbug. 99% of us breaking the EULA my ***.

55 solo builds have been around in the game since day one, and have, of course, been nerfed. 55 bot farming is of course breaking the EULA, since botting is breaking the EULA, but the real issue here is Anet doesnt have the manpower to constantly fight it. Doesnt make it less of an offense, just makes it less policed. Note it also doesnt make anyone who used a 55 build to farm an exploiter or someone who has broken the EULA, so what is you point here, anyway?

Ferry botting. Same thing as above as regards 55 botting. You mention botting again. Yes, botting breaks the EULA and should be banned. Want to go to work at Anet for free and police it? Your point?

Duncan and ferrying without bots get added to a long list of things like the gear trick. Something that is simply in game and Anet can and could (and has in the past many times) released a build that removed the activity if they wished. Its called a mistake in or oversight in coding and rest assured, no game is without them.

Its QUITE a bit different to make use of the game client to open up a restricted area to manipulate and hidden outpost to take advantage of the drops of a high end boss for repeated gain, and high end gain at that. There is no relationship between this and the examples you cite.

what? whats the point? they break eula.... they are all subject to punishment also. ok they dont have the man power. but its these breaches of user agreement which made these 117 think it may be ok to exploit mallyx. wrong i know but you cant punish one without the other.counter argue all you want.
they cant punish one without the other...no matter the seriousness. if you do wrong you get punished to my knowledge...
ethics morals and the law all stand by what i say.
all of the "minor offenses" still are profiteeering and exploits. get off my back and let me help these guys

high priestess anya · Jan 13, 2008, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by flubber

@ anya then you must also agree that even using the 'bug' makes you accountable for your actions, deserving a ban. in this case a perma-ban.

you can't pick and choose what you agree to in the eula.

note: all the people who exploited duncan bla bla and the all the other stuff. whats your view of them being unpunished? they break the eula also...
whatever punishment i get i am happy with, i have no plans to play gw again. all my friends where amongst the 117.
but if you want to pick at my case then scroll back a few pages to the meaning of "exploit".
to exploit is to gain something by doing something you shouldnt.key word there being gain.ok i went to the place, anet will judge me as they see fit. stop trying to boost your guru rank...