To punish or not to punish exploiters

Should MA punish these yog horror exploiters? (That was exploitable for 2 years).


  • Total voters
    174

San

Stalker
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Posts
2,385
Location
That freaking cold place (in RL)
Society
OldTimers
Avatar Name
Sandal San Tolk
How about 75% tt return no matter what gear or how many peds u cycle, u just pay for what u did in a past with every day 75% tt returns ;)
Do you even know what you're saying? This would give ammunition to all those who suspect MA can and does manipulate individual players' returns. They'd be dead at the next audit.

I really wonder about people... and then I don't, seeing where the world is headed. Totally drunk with hypermorality, but lost their compass at the same time.
 

Evey

Stalker
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Posts
1,887
Society
ROUA
Avatar Name
Evey Eve Everglades
1 year or mayhem events ban + 2 years prevent of using the mayhem token trader.
 

morfoc

Alpha
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Posts
536
Location
France / Romania
Society
AF-RFC
Avatar Name
MORFOC AS SERBAN
withdrawing money impossible for several years. already a minimum punishment suitable.
if MA tracks these people's transactions they can block any fake trade attempts
 

mastermesh

Mutated
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Posts
15,043
Location
Billy Bar
Society
the Ministry
Avatar Name
Maria Mesh
withdrawing money impossible for several years. already a minimum punishment suitable.
if MA tracks these people's transactions they can block any fake trade attempts
now there's an interesting idea... how about a variation... let them keep all of the items won unfairly, however, make ALL of them soul bound so they cannot be TTed or sold on auction, in shop, or via p2p trade.
 

Mercury

Marauder
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Posts
6,643
Location
Michigan, USA
Society
Dark Templar
Avatar Name
Jenna "Star" Mercury
I don’t see any voting options for beheading, public stoning, or hanging them in the market square...

I have some thoughts on this all but will post them when not on a mobile device. I just read up on the Yog issue as I’ve been busy with my new addition to the family and avoiding coronavirus. I’m not sure if anger, disappointment, or disgust adequately describe my feelings to know I may have been cheated out of prizes for years. I am certainly not surprised though as there always seems to be some “bug” that I learn later cost me placement positions. Year after year I have my excitement shadowed by an unintended feature. It has driven me out of truly competing now. I loved and love Entropia but I can not enjoy competing knowing it often is not a truly fair competition. I’ll save my post for my own thread and follow up stream.

I would say to all; do not become outraged, request change in a unified voice.
 

bard119

Alpha
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Posts
656
Society
Callidus
Avatar Name
Goatts
After reading the MindArk response to the incident, I am more appalled at the apathy of the support ticket responder to do something at the time the bug was reported, and the length of time it took them to fix the bug. We all know how support cases can be handled by canned responses without actually taking the time to read the support case. How about taking the time to train the support ticket responder to respond to the support ticket thoroughly by forwarding it to someone who can fix it? How about a 'don't use the pet for X' instead of the usual support case canned response? Sometimes I read the response to my ticket, and think 'did you even read what I wrote?'

I imagine if someone reported the incident after reading their response was thinking 'well I sent the support case, MA didn't say not to use it or make any effort to fix it, so it must be OK!' I would be all for letting the punishment fit the crime, but I can't say I would permaban someone for something which was allowed to go on for so long without any effort to fix the bug, especially if the support case response didn't make any indication that it wasn't allowed. Imagine a game where every player is given a big red button to push, with instructions not to push the button. You know a large percentage of players are going to push the button anyway. :rolleyes: This isn't the first bug, and it won't be the last. If we really want something done, we need a higher quality of handling support cases.
 

theunicate

Guardian
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Posts
321
Funniest part of all is " (incl. alt accs). " , its like casual friday to have alt . it seems :cool:
 

Spawn

Slayer
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Posts
7,793
Location
The Netherlands
Society
The Ministry
Avatar Name
Storm Spawn Bootcamp
Can we get off the "they didn't know what they were doing" bullshit already. You're using a mining buff in an instance that has no mining. The pet is despawned when you enter the instance. The chain of events for that pet to be spawned and the mining buff to be active are all very deliberate. There was no "accidents" so lets just stop with the crap and call it what it is.
I am sure the cheaters know what it is. But I also have a pet out, always, to train it. It doesn't matter if it has a mining buff or a speedup buff or whatever buff. I simply train it.
Not that I was in any instance, but I can imagine other people who do compete to also train their pets, whenever, wherever.
So I would only punish the cheaters that actually got a higher than normal score and not everyone who had a yog active, because it's impossible to know if they were training the pet or were aware that it had different buffs than intended (Mindark's fault).

But I guess it's simple, all people without a high score, no punishment, and those that did get a high score, should feel the Payn.
 

Boo Who You

Dominant
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Posts
492
Location
United Kingdom
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Boo Who You
I am sure the cheaters know what it is. But I also have a pet out, always, to train it. It doesn't matter if it has a mining buff or a speedup buff or whatever buff. I simply train it.
Not that I was in any instance, but I can imagine other people who do compete to also train their pets, whenever, wherever.
So I would only punish the cheaters that actually got a higher than normal score and not everyone who had a yog active, because it's impossible to know if they were training the pet or were aware that it had different buffs than intended (Mindark's fault).

But I guess it's simple, all people without a high score, no punishment, and those that did get a high score, should feel the Payn.
To clarify though (lets see if I can get my thoughts out clearly)...

When you're leveling your pet, do you:
- Leave any buff other than the focus energy active?
- When you have all of your pet buffs unlock, do you still actively continue to level your pet? Other than passive leveling by just having it spawned for situations such as running faster, auto-loot or mining?
- Do you leave a high metabolic rate buff active when it's not useable (example, with the Yog, it eats a ton of food per hr. Why have this pet spawned, and this buff active if you're not mining. It's easy to turn on and off and if you want to level your pet, you would be 1) using the focus buff 2) using no buffs.

I can understand what you're saying for players outside of a mayhem instance. However, one of the easiest ways I think to track down people exploiting the bug would be to see who/how many times a pet was traded during mayhem events. Seeing as how there are limited number of these in game, I think you could snag a few low hanging fruit just using this method.

#inb4myfriendwaslevelingmypet
 

Captain Jack

Elite
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
3,182
Society
Freelancer
To clarify though (lets see if I can get my thoughts out clearly)...

When you're leveling your pet, do you:
- Leave any buff other than the focus energy active?
- When you have all of your pet buffs unlock, do you still actively continue to level your pet? Other than passive leveling by just having it spawned for situations such as running faster, auto-loot or mining?
- Do you leave a high metabolic rate buff active when it's not useable (example, with the Yog, it eats a ton of food per hr. Why have this pet spawned, and this buff active if you're not mining. It's easy to turn on and off and if you want to level your pet, you would be 1) using the focus buff 2) using no buffs.

I can understand what you're saying for players outside of a mayhem instance. However, one of the easiest ways I think to track down people exploiting the bug would be to see who/how many times a pet was traded during mayhem events. Seeing as how there are limited number of these in game, I think you could snag a few low hanging fruit just using this method.

#inb4myfriendwaslevelingmypet
Another component nobody seems to be mentioning...

Pets metabolic rate increases incrementally as they get to a higher level. The increase in metabolic rate is not reflected by an increase in buffs. Consequently it is highly counter productive to continue intentionally leveling a pet after it's highest buffs have been unlocked.
 

anonimity

Prowler
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Posts
1,423
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Kayla Mystique Sinclair
We could argue and debate this forever, i voted 6 month ban, longer depending on the severity. Maybe we should just draw a line under this, make an example of the hateful 12 with 6 month ban and get on with playing the game.
I think a lot of you are missing something big here.. If you think it is only "12" people who knew and used this bug you are sorely mistaken. The only reason "12" people got reset, is because the event was less than 24 hours old and many people had not even posted scores yet. I guarantee the number of resets we would have seen, had we waited till say, Jun 24th to reveal the bug would have far exceeded "12" ...
 

Lefty

Stalker
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Posts
1,672
Location
Billy's Spaceship Afterworld
Society
Calypso Rescue Team
Avatar Name
Medb Lefty Lucy
Yes, ban for one year.
 

MrFatBoy

Old
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Posts
84
Avatar Name
Davie Fatboy Bronx
why so many options all you needed was to have one choice:

- slap on the wrist

not one choice you put up is a real punishment - oh wow 2 years one of their alts cant cheat to win another uber item to sell - lol really

Why you so afraid to ask for real punishment? I usually like your threads and replies but seriously these options should make any true player and depositor want to scream bloody murder.

perma ban, take their shit. sell it and give it back to the people that paid for the game to survive (no i am not one that deserves even a single pec) even after that they will likely still have profited anyway - this was going on for a long time it seems and i doubt they left all that $ in game - unless they are really stupid.
 

Sub-Zero

Elite
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Posts
2,967
Location
Sweden
Society
Guess Who
Avatar Name
Sub-Zero The Killer
why so many options all you needed was to have one choice:

- slap on the wrist

not one choice you put up is a real punishment - oh wow 2 years one of their alts cant cheat to win another uber item to sell - lol really

Why you so afraid to ask for real punishment? I usually like your threads and replies but seriously these options should make any true player and depositor want to scream bloody murder.

perma ban, take their shit. sell it and give it back to the people that paid for the game to survive (no i am not one that deserves even a single pec) even after that they will likely still have profited anyway - this was going on for a long time it seems and i doubt they left all that $ in game - unless they are really stupid.
Lesser punishments should in theory lead to higher chance of probability that MA would act on one of them. Like at the bare minimum I expected they'd at least disqualify the exploiters from this years Merry Mayhem.

However, looks like even with such "slap on the wrist" punishments, they chose to do nothing instead. :yup:
 

TheOneOmega

Stalker
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
2,498
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Marie TheOne Omega
I do not know the details of the exploit in question, so I'll refrain from voting. However, I'll contribute my general thoughts on the matter.

1) Exploitation is first and foremost a failure in game development. The object of an exploit is a programming bug. Properly speaking, if we say that a player "exploited a wall," we actually mean, i.e., that they "exploited a bug which allows players to glitch through the wall." Thus the game developers should take primary responsibility for the incident. Obviously bugs are not fully avoidable, and I think it makes sense for game developers to impose restrictions on exploiting bugs as a failsafe measure. My disagreement with the sentiment of the plurality in this thread is that it suggests a degree of punishment that shifts the primary responsibility for the incident onto the player. An exploiting player should be held responsible for their actions, but MindArk should take the primary responsibility for the overarching incident.

2) We need to be less sloppy with the classification of exploits. Remember that bugs are the objects of exploits. It should always be possible to identify what programming bug(s) is being exploited when we attempt to make such a classification; an "exploit that doesn't exploit anything in particular" should not be considered an exploit. That the developers have decreed, for example, certain identical uses of a VTOL as exploits when hunting but not when mining or vice-versa, without any reference to (or plan to correct) an underlying bug, is more or less a category error used to shift responsibility for the outcomes of players' game play decisions from the game designer to the player. Of course, developers have the authority to unilaterally determine what is and isn't an exploit in their own game, with or without respect to sensible categories, but as a community we should take these declarations to be anomalous and of limited use for further extrapolation, and encourage MindArk to adhere to a more consistent rule framework.
 

Raffaele Meiers

Stalker
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Posts
2,202
Society
Trigger Happy
Avatar Name
Rafaele Meiersos Rocko
now there's an interesting idea... how about a variation... let them keep all of the items won unfairly, however, make ALL of them soul bound so they cannot be TTed or sold on auction, in shop, or via p2p trade.
Yes! The only way to hit them is where it hurts them the most. They are here to leech money and withdraw it. So best way is they cant withdraw Money they won with their cheats. As soon as they know they will not be able to withdraw their illegaly earned peds they will stop to use this service and never come back which is a big win for this Project.
 

Raffaele Meiers

Stalker
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Posts
2,202
Society
Trigger Happy
Avatar Name
Rafaele Meiersos Rocko
I do not know the details of the exploit in question, so I'll refrain from voting. However, I'll contribute my general thoughts on the matter.

1) Exploitation is first and foremost a failure in game development. The object of an exploit is a programming bug. Properly speaking, if we say that a player "exploited a wall," we actually mean, i.e., that they "exploited a bug which allows players to glitch through the wall." Thus the game developers should take primary responsibility for the incident. Obviously bugs are not fully avoidable, and I think it makes sense for game developers to impose restrictions on exploiting bugs as a failsafe measure. My disagreement with the sentiment of the plurality in this thread is that it suggests a degree of punishment that shifts the primary responsibility for the incident onto the player. An exploiting player should be held responsible for their actions, but MindArk should take the primary responsibility for the overarching incident.

2) We need to be less sloppy with the classification of exploits. Remember that bugs are the objects of exploits. It should always be possible to identify what programming bug(s) is being exploited when we attempt to make such a classification; an "exploit that doesn't exploit anything in particular" should not be considered an exploit. That the developers have decreed, for example, certain identical uses of a VTOL as exploits when hunting but not when mining or vice-versa, without any reference to (or plan to correct) an underlying bug, is more or less a category error used to shift responsibility for the outcomes of players' game play decisions from the game designer to the player. Of course, developers have the authority to unilaterally determine what is and isn't an exploit in their own game, with or without respect to sensible categories, but as a community we should take these declarations to be anomalous and of limited use for further extrapolation, and encourage MindArk to adhere to a more consistent rule framework.
To 1) So Gun Producers should be punished that they incorporated no safety feature that it cant be used to kill a person? If MA made a bug that a item can be used to gain a advantage it should not have and you abuse it you have to suffer the consequences. If you use your knife not to slice bread but to kill a person it is your behavoir who made the knife a killing weapon and if MA mad a error while programming and you abused this bug it is not MA's fault you cheated as it was not the fault of the knife producer that the person was killed it is not MA's fault that you abused the Bug to cheat others out of their possible gains from an event to earn them illegaly by using a Bug.
 

Rave

Stalker
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Posts
2,393
Location
Florida
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
RP Rave Prospector
Why is "drawn and quartered" not an option?
 

Xavier Target

Old Alpha
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Posts
742
Location
Under the I-96 overpass getting free wifi from Pan
Avatar Name
Xavier Target Technosplurg
no opinion, MA can do what it wants and I will respond accordingly, its saving me money actually, so I'm cool with it. As I was actually considering participating in mayhem which would of required more depositing than I normally would do, but thanks to the exploit reports on PCF, I was demotivated and didn't bother participating in mayhem...$ saved....(which I then spent on lotto tickets I hadn't bought since covid started) Unfortunately I didn't win, but they say lotto $ goes to the schools, so in a round about way the exploits are helping fund schools, so for the children keep the xploits coming...
 

MarcusLucius

Prowler
Joined
Nov 26, 2006
Posts
1,299
Location
Austria
Society
░▒▓ IRIDIUM ░▒▓
Avatar Name
Marcus Luma Lucius
guys. dont forget its REAL MONEY the exploiters feed on. its YOUR MONEY.
why should i even consider one of the presented options (sorry sub-zero).
i mean ppl get permabanned for using aimbots in other games (which dont even have money involved). so why the holy fuck not here.

permaban them.
 

TheOneOmega

Stalker
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
2,498
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Marie TheOne Omega
To 1) So Gun Producers should be punished that they incorporated no safety feature that it cant be used to kill a person?...If you use your knife not to slice bread but to kill a person it is your behavoir who made the knife a killing weapon...it was not the fault of the knife producer that the person was killed
I agree without hesitation. When I said I'd contribute my "general" thoughts on the matter, I didn't mean I would draw conclusions as general as the silly notion that "all producers are responsible for all unplanned actions carried out using their products," which is the degree of generality you'd need to assume in order to posit the gun and knife scenarios as counterexamples to my first point. Rather, I meant that I would respond to Entropia exploits in general, as opposed to the "Yog Horror" exploit in particular. It is the nature of game exploits (though not unplanned actions in general) that a necessary condition of their happening is one or more failures of the game's developers (though not producers in general) to instantiate their design intentions.

My conclusion was that exploiters should indeed face penalties, only that they shouldn't be unduly harsh in duration (I would add additional qualifiers if being thorough, such as the degree of certitude of guilt appropriate for issuing them), differing from your conclusion primarily by degree. Thus the fact that your alleged counterexample uses murder, an evil quite different in degree to anything that was on the table, further strains its applicability.
 

jetsina

Stalker
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,564
1) Exploitation is first and foremost a failure in game development. The object of an exploit is a programming bug. Properly speaking, if we say that a player "exploited a wall," we actually mean, i.e., that they "exploited a bug which allows players to glitch through the wall." ...

2) We need to be less sloppy with the classification of exploits. ... for example, certain identical uses of a VTOL as exploits when hunting but not when mining or vice-versa, without any reference to (or plan to correct) an underlying bug...
Right at the end of the quoted bit, it's not even a bug as far as I'm concerned. Mobs not attacking VTOLs is intended. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe if you actively engage(d) a mob then it can attack your vtol too.
Anyway, the main part of the post is spot on, and I wish more people would support this standpoint. Features can sometimes be used to unintented advantage, such as Thorifoid helmets combined with taking damage and then entering lootable pvp in a non-lootable state, but it is then up to MA to change the feature in some way so that an undesirable combination is no longer possible. Yes, MA can deem it an exploit, but WE should not happily accept that classification from MA, as is it not making use of a bug. If we sloppily accept this, then we sloppily accept consequences too!
 

Raffaele Meiers

Stalker
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Posts
2,202
Society
Trigger Happy
Avatar Name
Rafaele Meiersos Rocko
I agree without hesitation. When I said I'd contribute my "general" thoughts on the matter, I didn't mean I would draw conclusions as general as the silly notion that "all producers are responsible for all unplanned actions carried out using their products," which is the degree of generality you'd need to assume in order to posit the gun and knife scenarios as counterexamples to my first point. Rather, I meant that I would respond to Entropia exploits in general, as opposed to the "Yog Horror" exploit in particular. It is the nature of game exploits (though not unplanned actions in general) that a necessary condition of their happening is one or more failures of the game's developers (though not producers in general) to instantiate their design intentions.

My conclusion was that exploiters should indeed face penalties, only that they shouldn't be unduly harsh in duration (I would add additional qualifiers if being thorough, such as the degree of certitude of guilt appropriate for issuing them), differing from your conclusion primarily by degree. Thus the fact that your alleged counterexample uses murder, an evil quite different in degree to anything that was on the table, further strains its applicability.
OK then lets take not a murder but a bug in Apache or another webserver software and somone abuses it to gain access to the password database. Do you think the judge would say OK because the developer made a error you are not guilty of illegaly access the password database and download the CC Infos and abuse it?

Like in real live the punishment should include the taking of all illegaly gained advantages like winnings in Events they had by abusing the system. Or do you think the thief of the CC infos would keep the illegaly earned money from using CC's of others he gained access to by his stealing of the Infos though abusing the Bug in the Software? In real live he would even face a prison sentence and a monetary fine.
 

TheOneOmega

Stalker
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
2,498
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Marie TheOne Omega
OK then lets take not a murder but a bug in Apache or another webserver software and somone abuses it to gain access to the password database. Do you think the judge would say OK because the developer made a error you are not guilty of illegaly access the password database and download the CC Infos and abuse it?
I could just paste my prior response here with slight modification and it would still do the job. If my reasoning had taken a form such as

1) All producers are responsible for all unplanned actions carried out using their products
2) MindArk is a producer
3) Entropia exploits are unplanned actions carried out on Entropia, one of MindArk's products
____
∴ MindArk is responsible for Entropia exploits

or

1) All software producers are responsible for all unplanned actions carried out using their software
2) MindArk is a software producer
3) Entropia exploits are unplanned actions carried out on Entropia, MindArk's software
____
∴ MindArk is responsible for Entropia exploits

then your alleged counterexamples would have at least face value relevance to the key first premise, but I never proposed such far reaching, universally quantified statements as part of my case. Rather, I drew from the nature of video game exploits directly, and so my case would be unfazed by responsibility being distributed unilaterally to the hacker in your credit card database example.

But ironically, responsibility distribution isn't unilateral even in your inapplicable database example (in your inapplicable murder example, it was). If something like a credit card database or a cryptocurrency wallet is hacked, it is indeed a moral failure on the part of the hacker, but it's hard to deny that it is also a failure on the part of the security provider, whose value proposition is, at least in part, cybersecurity. In fact, I would argue that the failure of the security provider to fulfill their responsibility to their customers is the bigger story here; it hardly surprises me that someone out there is trying to break into a database, but it is much more alarming when poor security allows them to succeed.

I suspect the reason you failed to recognize this counterproductivity of your example is that you've grossly misunderstood my conclusion. Your questions "Do you think the judge would say OK because the developer made a error you are not guilty of illegaly access the password database and download the CC Infos and abuse it?" and "Do you think the thief of the CC infos would keep the illegaly earned money from using CC's of others he gained access to by his stealing of the Infos though abusing the Bug in the Software?" portray my conclusion to be that MindArk should take sole responsibility for exploitation, and never take any corrective action against players, but both of my posts explicitly reject this approach. I merely conclude that MindArk should take primary responsibility; they should be more concerned with fixing the game to align players' actions with their design intentions than dishing out mass penalties of an unduly harsh nature to achieve those intentions through fear and coercion, but I would not deny that players are responsible for adhering to the rules of the game, or that there are conditions under which issuing certain penalties for exploiting the game is appropriate. I think MindArk has historically done a reasonably good job (at least a better job than the player base under the present, information-cascade-shaped, conditions of opinion formation and aggregation) of deciding when they have sufficient conditions and confidence to issue penalties without creating greater concerns for fairness than they fix in doing so.
 

TheOneOmega

Stalker
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
2,498
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Marie TheOne Omega
Right at the end of the quoted bit, it's not even a bug as far as I'm concerned. Mobs not attacking VTOLs is intended. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe if you actively engage(d) a mob then it can attack your vtol too.
Anyway, the main part of the post is spot on, and I wish more people would support this standpoint. Features can sometimes be used to unintented advantage, such as Thorifoid helmets combined with taking damage and then entering lootable pvp in a non-lootable state, but it is then up to MA to change the feature in some way so that an undesirable combination is no longer possible. Yes, MA can deem it an exploit, but WE should not happily accept that classification from MA, as is it not making use of a bug. If we sloppily accept this, then we sloppily accept consequences too!
I sometimes wonder how many years it will be until we're debating whether hunting for markup is an exploit.
 

jetsina

Stalker
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,564
I sometimes wonder how many years it will be until we're debating whether hunting for markup is an exploit.
lol, ok, let me free you from that then :)
Knowledge of the underlying mechanics of when something will drop (aka waves) is a clear exploit, surely? And that is how some people hunt for markup. Debate please in 500 words or less! ;)

Anyway, I think I mis-read your point 2) a bit and badly quoted you. You were actually saying MA weren't referencing any bug - and without that they shouldn't be calling something an exploit, especially to say that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
I thus appear to agree with you - no bug = no exploit, as your point 1) defines - just use of a function to do something they don't like.
Sorry for any confusion and error on my part there!
Edit: even if you weren't complaining, but agreeing with me about the second paragraph quoted ;), I still goofed at my end - soz!
 

TheOneOmega

Stalker
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Posts
2,498
Society
Freelancer
Avatar Name
Marie TheOne Omega
lol, ok, let me free you from that then :)
Knowledge of the underlying mechanics of when something will drop (aka waves) is a clear exploit, surely? And that is how some people hunt for markup. Debate please in 500 words or less! ;)

Anyway, I think I mis-read your point 2) a bit and badly quoted you. You were actually saying MA weren't referencing any bug - and without that they shouldn't be calling something an exploit, especially to say that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.
I thus appear to agree with you - no bug = no exploit, as your point 1) defines - just use of a function to do something they don't like.
Sorry for any confusion and error on my part there!
Edit: even if you weren't complaining, but agreeing with me about the second paragraph quoted ;), I still goofed at my end - soz!
Nah, it's all good :)

And to clarify on my end, by "until we're debating," I meant the forum community as a whole, not you and I, or anyone in particular.
 

Raffaele Meiers

Stalker
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Posts
2,202
Society
Trigger Happy
Avatar Name
Rafaele Meiersos Rocko
@TheOneOmega

Is there a difference in exploiting, abusing anything between real live and a RCE like EU and therfore you can do things in a RCE without beeing punished that in real live you would be punished for? Is this what you mean.

Still what have all this the blame is to be with MA Development have to do with a Person who knowingly uses something not in the intended way to gain a not so intended advantage over other participants, do you think they should keep their gains they had gained by using this exploit?

my conclusion to be that MindArk should take sole responsibility for exploitation
So everyone can do anything and exploit everything because it is MA fault anyway and because it is MA's fault they should be punished and not the one who abuses the exploit?
 

~ Cirrus ~

Old Alpha
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Posts
915
I haven't read everything, but I see you're discussing what is an exploit and what is not.

But I don't think that's even a question...
It was a question a few thousand years ago, but it's not anymore, because it was answered by 'inventing' a simple thing: RULES.

That's what rules are for, to define what is allowed and what is not.

IRL we have laws.
And for EU we have the ToU.

It seems to me that what is said in this ToU, is that possible exploits must be immediately reported when they are discovered, and in no case exploited.

So the problem is that MA does not enforce its own rules.

Anyway I think this ToU is made by lawyers, not really to protect the customers/players, but to protect MA in the first place.
 

jetsina

Stalker
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Posts
1,564
Your questions ... portray my conclusion to be that MindArk should take sole responsibility for exploitation, and never take any corrective action against players, but both of my posts explicitly reject this approach.
That's a fuller quote of what you quoted above, Raffaele (my bold). I think you should be able to answer your own question with a 'no', if you take that in mind.
 
Top