Question: Naming and Shaming -- Should it Continue?

Do you think MA should continue to publicly name avatars that are disqualified from a Mayhem/Event?


  • Total voters
    59

MsPudding

Elite
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Posts
2,766
Location
Salt Lake City, USA
Avatar Name
Rachel MsPudding Hawkins
Hey,

After seeing the results from this Easter Mayhem everyone in the game was made aware of those that were disqualified.

Here's exactly what MA had to say about those that were disqualified:

Several participants were disqualified and will not receive prizes due to suspicious activity and/or an impossibly low number of robot kills in relation to their posted event time. Disqualified participants are also banned from winning prizes in any future Mayhem events.
So the question is:

Q:Do you think MA should continue to publicly name avatars that are disqualified from a Mayhem/Event? Yes or No. Why?





My opinion, for anyone that cares :p

Yes, so long as we're made aware of what will get you disqualified and a very generalized explanation as to why someone was disqualified.

My argument in favor of implementing this in future events is that it would encourage players to play by the rules. Obviously MA needs to state what those rules are and what can get you banned -- so at least the general public is put on notice as to why they could get disqualified.

Then, if someone is disqualified, I think it's fair to state a general reason next to the person's name. I don't think it's necessary that we know every detail and server log from the person that was disqualified, but I think if you're going to go as far as to name someone publicly you owe it to that person to at least briefly explain why they got canned.

Other sports disqualify athletes all the time. They make headlines when this happens. This kind of practice strongly discourages those from thinking about participating in the risky measures. I don't think there's anything wrong with this. What the papers will do that was not done in Easter Mayhem is explain briefly why an athlete was disqualified. If someone is doping in a sport or using steroids when they shouldn't -- the news article will include this.

The way the current Mayhem was handled requires the players to place a lot of trust in those above. Which is fine if we're all made aware that's how it's going to be in the future. The consequence could be, however, that you get less people willing to participate for fear of getting arbitrarily disqualified.

This is not a post or rant about how MA is screwing everything up -- I really like the idea of disqualifying avatars if they're suspected for cheating. I definitely approve of more of this type of thing. I would just add that there needs to be a brief explanation attached, that's all. Something as simple as Avatar_XXX Disqualified for bug/exploits/suspicious activity or Avatar_XXX Disqualified for impossibly low number of robots killed

I realize a lot of people are angry at seeing their friend's name on the list of those disqualified -- and they have every right to be frustrated. I think at this point MA has far more information as to why someone was DQ'd than we do. Unfortunately, just because someone seems trustworthy in game doesn't equate to that person being trustworthy when they're alone and in an instance without anyone watching. Of course it's always possible that MA screwed up and an innocent person was DQ'd for the wrong reason.

This happens in our justice system all the time. That doesn't mean we just stop imprisoning people to avoid the one off person that gets dealt with unfairly.

We learn. We progress. We sharpen the rules over time. I'm hopeful that MA will improve the events more and more as they go on. I mean it was just a few months ago that the forums were crying out for justice to be had on those competing in Merry Mayhem -- nothing was done. Now MA does something and the riots ensue. Let's slow down, and wait to see what MA does. Perhaps they do nothing more for this Easter Mayhem, and so be it. But maybe they implement the rules a little differently for Halloween Mayhem. As long as the system is continually improving and MA is trying their hardest to listen to the player base and implement positive change, I'm happy.

Let's see what comes of it...
 

NPV

Banned
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Posts
661
Avatar Name
Naming Policy Violation
No.

Because they are idiots and they can't even fucking validate their claims.

Saying that you cheat on 20 hour run and dq because you killed mobs for 5 10 or 15 hours does not qualify as cheating.

Their cheat detection system works like this:

in 20 hours
player a killed 1500 mobs
player b killed 4000 mobs
player c killed 13200 mobs

a and b were cheating!!!!, let's post this!

Same shit with defense.
 

SirAzzah

Old Alpha
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Posts
756
Location
New York
Society
Payn-Inc.
Avatar Name
Sir Azzah Neu
I don’t think MA even knows how it was possible to “cheat” in defense. I think they just set some random parameters and some people just happened to fit it. They never said you had to kill mobs in defense, you just had to defend the interceptor which was possible just by taking aggro of the mobs.
I think MA would need a better cheat detection system before naming and shaming players and banning them from all future events.
Also, they should include annihilation participants that went afk for the last several hours due to time constraints since the rules don’t say you have to shoot 100% for 20 hours. It doesn’t affect me or anyone I know but it seems fair.
 

SirAzzah

Old Alpha
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Posts
756
Location
New York
Society
Payn-Inc.
Avatar Name
Sir Azzah Neu
And I’m not voting for now until there’s more elaboration why the players were disqualified.
 

K_rupT

Prowler
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Posts
1,078
Location
Eudoria
Avatar Name
KrupT KrupT RaveR
Didn’t vote yes or no considering they are probably alts so names wouldn’t matter
 

BigPimping

Dominant
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Posts
414
Yes they should name cheaters, its a good move and can definately prevent some people from trying to angleshoot in future events in a game where rep means a lot and is hard to rebuild but they have gotta be 100% sure before they name someone, id assume they have more than just generic combat log paramaters to work out who cheated here, this is the first time theyve taken a public/hard line on cheaters/exploiters so they must realise there is very little room for error on their part. I dont think they have to release info on how the people cheated or post proof (ofc they ahve to provide proof in support case to the individuals) a followup statement confirming they have reviewed each case and are 100% sure, beyond any reasonable doubt that the people cheated/exploited is enough for me.
 

LangeTobias

Elite
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Posts
3,736
Location
Gislaved
Avatar Name
Edgewise
Mayhem has really taken a turn for the worse... It sure is Mayhem...
 

LangeTobias

Elite
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Posts
3,736
Location
Gislaved
Avatar Name
Edgewise
I don’t think MA even knows how it was possible to “cheat” in defense. I think they just set some random parameters and some people just happened to fit it. They never said you had to kill mobs in defense, you just had to defend the interceptor which was possible just by taking aggro of the mobs.
I think MA would need a better cheat detection system before naming and shaming players and banning them from all future events.
Also, they should include annihilation participants that went afk for the last several hours due to time constraints since the rules don’t say you have to shoot 100% for 20 hours. It doesn’t affect me or anyone I know but it seems fair.

The bold part here affects me,

I shot for the most part in mayhem, avg. 200 kills per hour, but then my peds ran out. I had a great score, so I decided to wait the last hours to get my score posted.

Am I a cheater?
Because MA didn't even bother to post my name in cat 5 solo. I scored over 14000 points, but I ain't part of the results.

Shit really annoys me, no where did it say that I had to shoot for 100% during ALL hours... If it did I wouldn't even have bothered with the event and I won't bother at any future mayhem event.

Ridiculous and I am pissed off, not because the "amazing prize" which actually is a stinky price.. I am pissed off at the treatment of participants.
 

Oleg

Mutated
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
19,048
Location
Leeds, UK
Society
Rangers
Avatar Name
Oleg Oleg McMullery
Am I a cheater?
Because MA didn't even bother to post my name in cat 5 solo. I scored over 14000 points, but I ain't part of the results.
In your case I'm sure it must be some sort of error. If you were disqualified with what would have otherwise been a top 10 score, you would have been listed as DQed like others were. They clearly stated that no top 10 participants in annihilation were DQed.

It can only be that either you made a mistake and didn't get the score you thought you did, or didn't complete the 20 hours, or (probably more likely) that MA have screwed up and omitted you somehow.

People going on about people being disqualified for not shooting enough or for spending time afk need to read what MA actually said. Again, they said no top 10 participants in annihilation were DQed, and the bit about an usually low number of kills only applies to the defence categories.

Anyway, on-topic, yes I do think that disqualifications should be posted, but there needs to be some certainty that MA haven't made mistakes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 711

NPV

Banned
Joined
Apr 4, 2015
Posts
661
Avatar Name
Naming Policy Violation
MA haven't made mistakes.
That is true. I have never, since 2011, seen MA make a single mistake. Their software is flawless and business ventures a huge success.

Now translate that to their "ultimate tools of anticheating". Lovely!
 

BackBone

Dominant
Joined
May 16, 2006
Posts
489
Location
Portugal
Avatar Name
BackBone Angelina Praias
Are you really quoting only that part of Oleg's sentence?


That is true. I have never, since 2011, seen MA make a single mistake. Their software is flawless and business ventures a huge success.

Now translate that to their "ultimate tools of anticheating". Lovely!
 

jetsina

Stalker
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,699
Am I a cheater?
Not from what you have stated, no. Also why was your placing and DQ not mentioned by MA? They wrote: "We are happy to report that, after a thorough verification of event activity, all prize-winning participants in the Solo Annihilation division did not abuse any event or game mechanics in achieving their scores."
Well, the logic of that is that all who passed, passed. Instead, maybe they mean all who "appeared" to be prize-winners were verified and no abuse was found, i.e. nobody was disqualified by them.

So why aren't you placed if your score says you did? (I haven't checked).

I would think that a support case should, in your case, result in a check as to what went wrong, as opposed to saying you were DQ'ed and they won't discuss it. It's different from the other cases.

Generally I think MA should be on the ball and stop cheaters, yes, but instead of catching nobody they should not then start catching loads of innocent fish in their nets either. Six people in the first 2 cats is 30%. Cat five and above = 0%. Is this more about cheating or about the values they happened to use in their verification?
 

RickEngland

Elite
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Posts
4,245
Location
Essex England UK
Society
Jurai Blood
Avatar Name
Rickard Rick England
If MA make it clear that a lifetime event prize ban could be attributed to an avatar in the event rules before it starts (rather than after), then that should discourage cheating.

I think the current lifetime ban of winning prizes is somewhat extreme for those avatars involved, and probably the punishment should be graded.

It's a tricky situation as MA do disqualify players, yet some participants come back and continue to look for new avenues to gain an unfair advantage in the next event. So the message isn't working, and looks like MA have gone to the other end of the scale on this (as they're getting fedup of it all).

Rick
 

Captain Jack

Elite
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
3,261
Society
Freelancer
I don’t think MA even knows how it was possible to “cheat” in defense. I think they just set some random parameters and some people just happened to fit it. They never said you had to kill mobs in defense, you just had to defend the interceptor which was possible just by taking aggro of the mobs.
I think MA would need a better cheat detection system before naming and shaming players and banning them from all future events.
Also, they should include annihilation participants that went afk for the last several hours due to time constraints since the rules don’t say you have to shoot 100% for 20 hours. It doesn’t affect me or anyone I know but it seems fair.
I would agree with this. If MA was going to disqualify people for not killing the robots in defense it should have been specified in the rules ahead of time.
That being said, I also agree with your statement that we simply do not know what happened in the instance - and I think that players who have been named/shamed should have the right to have the evidence presented if they choose to do so, so that said players may defend their reputation if they feel what they did was not shameful.
 

711

Site Admin
Admin
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Posts
5,288
If MA make it clear that a lifetime event prize ban could be attributed to an avatar in the event rules before it starts (rather than after), then that should discourage cheating.
MindArk included very stringent warnings about abusing exploits or other unfair behavior in the official event rules on the Easter Mayhem Official Event Page:

Easter Mayhem Official Event Page said:
Rules & Notes

These events are intended for solo hunters. Any attempt at abusing team mechanics or any other Entropia Universe systems or features in order to gain an unfair advantage over other participants will be grounds for disqualification from the event, forfeiture of any prizes, and possible sanctions imposed on one’s Entropia Universe account.

Bypassing or attempting to bypass any of the event instance entry or item restrictions will be grounds for disqualification from the event, forfeiture of any prizes, and possible sanctions imposed on one’s Entropia Universe account.

All events are restricted to one avatar account per person. Anyone found using multiple accounts to gain an unfair advantage or to win prizes in multiple categories or divisions will forfeit all prizes and risk additional sanctions on their Entropia Universe account(s), including potential account termination.
 

MsPudding

Elite
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Posts
2,766
Location
Salt Lake City, USA
Avatar Name
Rachel MsPudding Hawkins
I would agree with this. If MA was going to disqualify people for not killing the robots in defense it should have been specified in the rules ahead of time.
That being said, I also agree with your statement that we simply do not know what happened in the instance - and I think that players who have been named/shamed should have the right to have the evidence presented if they choose to do so, so that said players may defend their reputation if they feel what they did was not shameful.
I agree with both you and Azzah. I'm totally fine with MA exposing the cheaters publicly, so long as we're made aware of what will get you disqualified in advance and they include a very generalized explanation as to why someone was disqualified.

In other words we gotta know that not killing enough robots will get you DQ'd going into it. Then when we don't kill enough robots and we get DQ'd, we'll know why.
 

RickEngland

Elite
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Posts
4,245
Location
Essex England UK
Society
Jurai Blood
Avatar Name
Rickard Rick England
Ok 711, the penny dropped. I wonder if it's alts then, MA have 'lifetime' banned from prizes. Which would make sense.

I'm not trying to defend anyone personally. I'm simply a point a shoot player, always have been. I'm just saying lifetime bans come with risks to MA as well if they mistakenly (with limited logs) label a 10 year good customer with a lifetime prize ban.

It's not like the game has tens of thousands of active players is it. Anyway have a good day.


Rick
 

aia

Marauder
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
6,049
I don't see this state that players must kill a certain percentage of mobs in order to maintain a valid placement.
What if, the "certain percentage" is the MA calculated percentage of mobs that should be killed in order to keep the transmitter in one piece, during normal circumstances?

Sure, there are hunters whos "percentage" is both lower and higher; but if someone kills 3 mobs and 97 mobs doesn't attack the transmitter but just stand there at all then there is something fishy going on.

There is a difference between the instances: In the normal instance, if you find a quiet corner you are free to kill as few or as many as you like. Your scores for event will just be lower. But in the defender instance, as I understand it, you don't really have a choice (if you follow the instructions for that instance).
 
Top