This is not an EVE University bitch post. This is about an action that CCP has taken (legitimate or not) that is quite disconcerting and that I think deserves wider dissemination into the community.
I make no assumptions on whether "John" was (or was not) doing anything wrong. Though, some people expressed the belief that there was no legitimate way to make the number of market order changes that he was making in the time he says he was making them (with or without custom-built webpages.)
It does seem odd that the ISK was not confiscated while "John" was active, and that it was only confiscated after he had quit and biomassed. Perhaps CCP took that as the act of a guilty person?
Team Security. Headed by CCP Sreegs (I believe.) They apparently have no higher authority within CCP. There is no escalation beyond them. Perhaps because nobody in CCP understands what it is they do, the "bosses" rely on their analysis, and assume that analysis is perfect? As Robert Pilarczyk wrote on Twitter: "Who watches the watchmen?"
Here is Kelduum's post:
Note: The below assumes innocence until proof of guilt, however I have no reason to assume that the actions of an outstanding member of the community like “John” here would make this up and then proceed to leave in the way he did. If anyone in CCP wishes to contact me regarding this, they can find my contact details and the relevant petition information fairly easily.
At the end of last month, one of our members left EVE, and later biomassed his character. I’m not going to mention his name out of respect for him and instead I will refer to him as “John”, as I know he wouldn’t want to be remember for this. Those of you who know who he was, will remember him as one of our most helpful members, making literally hundreds of wiki edits, hours upon hours of time explaining things on Mumble, and helping new players. In short, he was the model E-UNI member, always willing to share his knowledge to help others, and one of the few members I instantly awarded the Graduate title and medal.
It transpires that “John” had been temporarily banned from EVE as CCPs ‘Team Security’ had identified his actions as ‘suspect’ - he was a station trader, and a very good one at that, playing trade markets in EVE like a professional, using the common tools available, as well as custom built tools, but never automating anything to do with the EVE client himself - the closest he ever got was probably to create custom in-game-browser pages to streamline his workflow, meaning he would log into an alt, and update around 30 orders a minute for 10-20 minutes at a time.
Apparently this was enough to make it look like he was using some form of bot, which resulted in a 14 day ban on all of his accounts for “macro usage”. “John” then submitted a petition, questioning the ban, and providing the source code the the custom programs he created, as well as an outline on how they operated, and after 12 days was provided nothing in return other than a stock reply.
His request to escalate the petition was denied, and he was asked not to petition again. No ISK or assets were removed at this time, and it was stated that the ban was the first step of their 3-strike policy.
He then proceeded to liquidate his assets, and talked to one of the E-UNI directors, stating that: “If [CCP] convey a message that they want to punish success and disregard earnest amount of efforts a player put in this game, then I guess EVE is not the game for me... Sorry I won't be completing the articles I promised or update the wiki, I had great things planned out and many unfinished projects EvE-related, but I'm not motivated to finish them anymore. It's been very fun, good times flying with all you guys. E-UNI is great and has been great help for me... I loved the game, my chars are around 30M sp so it was a hard decision to make, but it has been made.”
He then transferred the remains of his ISK and assets to EVE University, left corp and then biomassed his character.
At 23:18:43 on January 17th, there was a corp donation of 317,732,017,621.60 ISK from “John”.
Yes. Three hundred and seventeen billion. That can buy a lot of skillbooks. Its enough to kick-start a market in a smallish region or run any number of E-UNI projects indefinitely or, at current market values, buy 600 PLEX.
Suffice to say we were surprised at the amount, and took actions to partition the ISK away somewhere safe, transferring the bulk of it to an alt corp.
We then immediately petitioned CCP to check the validity of such a large amount of ISK. Obviously we wanted to make sure it wasn’t the result of RMT, or anything else like that which would end up with the ISK being removed later on down the line, leaving E-UNI with a negative ISK balance.
Note: The EULA prevents a GM’s responses from being posted publicly, so I will only be able to [post my side of the communication]:
E-UNI Director Petition wrote:Eight days later, we had a response, thanking us for bringing it to CCPs attention, and explaining that due to the ISK being related to a security matter, it has been confiscated.
EVE University received a donation of over 317 billion isk this week [...] I have transferred the bulk of that ISK to this character [...].
Due to the size of the transfer, I wanted to double check that the isk was all legal, and not due to some illicit activity. The ISK will remain on this character and not be touched until we hear back from you.
We do not usually receive donations of this size, and would rather be safe then sorry. Thank you very much for your time.
We responded, with the obvious question:
E-UNI Director Petition wrote:At time of writing, no response has been received.
I appreciate your time spent checking this for us. Not to be ungrateful, but are you absolutely sure that all of the ISK was illegitimate? There isn't some fraction that is legitimate that we could keep?
I filed a separate petition to be absolutely sure, wanting to confirm the reason behind the ISK removal:
Kelduum’s Petition wrote:The response, some days later, confirmed the removal of the ISK, and stated that it came from “illegitimate activities” and was therefore a security matter. I responded.
Hi,
Can I get a confirmation that a total of 317,732,017,621.60 ISK was removed due to a 'security matter' related to a now Ex-member of EVE University, who had been temp-banned for apparent market botting?
I understand that you may not be able to confirm some of this, however I want to ensure that the actions being claimed are correct.
Kelduum’s Petition wrote:Twenty four hours later, a response came stating that none of this can be discussed with a third party, despite it being myself who received the ISK (under the E-UNI organization) and therefore not wholly related to a third party.
Thank you for the confirmation.
I'm lead to believe that “John” was temporarily banned for something akin to using a market bot, however he professed his innocence. Obviously this is for you to decide, and hes now biomassed his character, so this isn't going to change.
While in E-UNI, he was an upstanding member, editing our wiki and posting well, as well as both attending and teaching classes. basically a good member of the community.
He was also the guy you would ask about market trading, and we'd often see him around chatting on voice comms.
I can see that you may have assumed he was botting (whether he was or not I can't dispute as I have no proof either way) - however I'm wondering why the ISK was left with him at that time, and then later removed?
Not to mention that it's a sizable amount of ISK to remove from the economy and game.
It was also mentioned that a donation like this would have eventually been investigated anyway, although it is unclear how long that would have taken.
At this point I was curious under what reason the ISK had been left with “John”, only to be removed when he donated it elsewhere and deleted his characters. Surely if CCP’s processes include temporary bans before removing any ill-gotten gains, they would not then remove the ISK later on unless the actions continued.
Kelduum’s Petition wrote:The response, two days later, was that these matters cannot be discussed at all, and the petition was closed without me having a chance to reply and ask for it to be escalated and looked at by someone else.
I understand its not something you can discuss as it involves a third party, and I'm not even able to have the third party ask any more as he has cancelled his accounts and biomassed his characters.
Hypothetically however, if a player was temp-banned for some time due to botting-like activity, would the ISK not have been investigated and cleared at that point when that player was temp-banned?
I filed a second petition under a different category, asking for the previous one to be reopened and escalated - at this point I was about removal of the ISK without any clear reasoning of doing so, other than “it came from someone who had been temp-banned” and looking to communicate with someone else about this in an attempt to get something other than canned responses.
The petition was answered by the same CCP member, with another canned response, stating that there is no escalation for security matters and that they operate separately from customer support, the matter had been brought to the attention of their Director of Security, and to respond if I have any questions or concerns.
And then, its no longer about the ISK.
I started to become quite worried. The dialogue at this point suggests that the security team are operating with no oversight at all, and implies that there is no auditing or checks and balances for their actions, especially as there is no recourse for anyone who wishes to dispute their claims.
My response (edited to remove items which may be under NDA) was:
Kelduum’s Petition wrote:Today, six days later, the response comes that the CCP representative is not worried about how this would look to anyone, and stands by the claim that the ISK was obtained illegitimately, despite claims and information suggesting otherwise.
My concerns are as follows:
1. The player where it originated quit quite publicly after returning from his ban, and biomassed his character as he felt he was unfairly 'punished for being too good' (paraphrasing). This is common knowledge in the corporation, and he was both an "Enabler" and "Instigator" to use CCP Seagull's terms.
2. It is also known within management that he donated all his ISK to the corporation before he left, and that there was a lot of it, in the region of hundreds of billions.
3. It seems unusual that the whole balance was removed rather than a portion which, for example, had been purchased via RMT or similar methods. However, removal under this way would have left a negative balance anyway.
4. Those same management players have been asking the same questions I have - if he was already punished, why was the ISK not removed at that time, rather than 1 week later, after we enquired as to its validity?
5. It's only a matter of time before the player-base find out about this, and it is going to raise more questions. Not removing the ISK at the time suggests that it was obtained legally, and that instead "CCP doesn't want E-UNI to have the money" for some reason.
No answers at all to my concerns. No escalation path. No way of querying the reasons why the ISK was disappeared after being left alone for 3 weeks and then donated after all of “Johns” characters were deleted, and no recourse at all.
All my attempts so far have been either ignored, blocked or referred back to the same location.
So, the security team are in charge of everything to do with security, and will happily remove ISK from players, with no form of recourse or escalation path in the event of a false positive - which its suggested they have never had one, likely as they apparently don’t allow anyone to dispute their actions.
And, they will apparently also take ISK from someone who received it if the sender was claimed to have been involved in something illegitimate. Again, no proof or information need be provided as they are infallible.
So, go out, and be successful in EVE. Just don’t be so successful that CCP decide you’re being too good at EVE, and then decide to tell you you can’t play in the sandbox that particular way any more, even if you weren't aware you had been doing anything wrong.
Decide for yourself if there's anything wrong with this picture.

Obvious question: Who is "John". I checked all the names I remebered from E-uni but none of them biomassed. But I'm very bad at names...
ReplyDeleteI have no idea. I checked a couple names, but came up short. I'm sure if one wanted to head into a Uni channel and ask, it could be found out in short order.
DeleteJust a brief DIY breakdown of how he probably did it:
ReplyDelete- Market price data: https://eve-market-data-relay.readthedocs.org/en/latest/
- Updating orders @2s/order: would probably require multiple clients, but single-isk adjustments are easy: http://eveinfo.net/wiki/ind~4787.htm#Use_The_Scroll_Wheel
- Avoiding the "update order" timer: http://eveinfo.net/wiki/ind~4787.htm#Split_Buy.2FSell_Orders
With a little bit of effort and some smart client switching, I can see how you could hit this invisible "bot ceiling".
If John is innocent, it should have been easy to establish. Just Fraps an order update session to prove that a human could do it in that amount of time. Simple. As. That.
ReplyDeleteA little bit hard to do while all his accounts are banned. If he wasn't automating then he wouldn't have been expecting a ban so wouldn't have frapsed in advance. CCP could also make the argument that just because you can record yourself doing it once, potentially after a number of attempts and in ideal circumstances, that wouldn't be evidence that that was the process used every time.
DeleteExcept that the story makes clear that he sent in his code and other evidence. That's the point in time he should have done it.
DeleteYep. Anyone hand-wringing could settle the argument by FRAPsing such a session.
DeletePics or it can't happen.
Isn't Kelduum a CSM? One would think he'd have other communication channels available to him besides simple petitions... even if it's for nothing more than a "please tell me wtf?"
ReplyDeleteSeems fishy indeed. Given the accountability issues CCP devs have had in the past, I'd think there would be 8 million layers of oversight to EVERYthing any of them does.
He is CSM.
DeleteBut maybe it is to his credit that he's not trying to use his contacts into CCP to resolve the issue.
Just because you know people at CCP, or are on the CSM, doesn't mean you get to skip the line when you have an issue. Still have to make a petition. I don't know *exactly* how, but IA plays into this as a part of why you don't get to jump the chain. If it came out that certain players got preferential treatment from CCP in matter like this, the PR nightmare would be akin to what we saw with T20.
DeleteKelduum was inquiring into an issue between CCP and another player (John), which is considered privileged information. Being on the CSM does not give him the right to such information.
DeleteAnd, attempting to "use his contacts into CCP to resolve the issue" would have been extremely foolish. If an CCP employee were to provide such assistance and/or information, he/she could be fired, for violating company policies regarding privileged information. In addition, Kelduum would also be at risk for a perma-ban.
TBH, since real world markets are run by automatated software, why is this illegal in Eve markets?
ReplyDeleteEve is a game. Bots make the game unfun for those actually playing. Simple enough?
DeleteThis is probably the best thing that ever happened to "John".
ReplyDeleteI suspect something is missing from this story, particularly on John's part. The removal of 317B 3 weeks after the ban does seem suspect, however, it's also possible that much of it was tied up in non-isk assets at the time of the ban and was liquidated afterwards and then donated to E-UNI, who knows. The security team may also have not made a full decision on what to do about his assets at the time of the ban, and until they decide on these things, they can leave assets in place until the decision is made. This doesn't look like an RMT issue, those are a little more cut and dry.
ReplyDelete30 market updates per minute is more than someone clicking a mouse is capable of doing and requires outside help from some sort of automation, whether it's a script, igb webpage, bot etc. Doesn't matter how much of a nice guy John was, or how helpful he was with their wiki page or teaching new players the ropes. Looks like he danced around the rules and got slapped for it.
Unfortunately, CCP very rarely divulges what a player does to get a ban (it has happened a couple of times) and unless they do in this case, we'll be left wondering. Usually when they do enlighten the populace, you find out that "John's" story has left out several key facts.
"meaning he would log into an alt, and update around 30 orders a minute for 10-20 minutes at a time"
ReplyDeleteThat's one every 2 seconds. Jesus christ.
He wrote a script to perform a sequence of actions that a human player wouldn't be able to do (especially when you consider those actions are intelligent; i.e. will refer to price indices in some way).
Ban deserved. There's not even a grey area here.
That E-Uni happened to hold the ISK at the time it was confirmed to be illegitimate is neither here nor there, and Kelduum trying to whip up a scandal about it is awful behaviour.
There is a grey area here, and the ban wasn't deserved.
Delete"He wrote a script to perform a sequence of actions that a human player wouldn't be able to do "
Scripts that upload market data to web accumulators are currently legal. They perform a sequence of actions faster than a human could do, as part of scanning and uploading this data. By your standards, these sites would be illegal, but they're currently ok with CCP. This generates the grey area that you are pretending doesn't exist. 2 seconds is long enough to read the old price and the new suggested price, decide you like that price, and hit submit. Therefore, this speed is not necessarily botting, without a specific rule that makes some action in that chain illegal. It's really not that complicated of an idea, the idea that CCP should be required to paint a bright line: this is legal, this is illegal. They refuse to do that, and I know that if I am personally dinged for crossing a line that they refused to make bright enough to see, I'll quit as well. Even reading a few more stories like this one would probably be enough to get me to quit. If fighting bots, and by extension EVE's existence, effectively requires this sort of secrecy and paranoia, then perhaps EVE's existence isn't justified.
You arguing that people shouldn't even discuss this issue is awful behavior, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
@Rammstein - you are incorrect. There is no grey area here.
DeleteEULA violations are not specific to bots, but to any software, scripts, macros, etc. which give you an unfair advantage, as determined by CCP. Updating 30 orders per minute is clearly an unfair advantage, since a program/script is obviously doing much of the work that would ordinarily need to be done manually in-game.
John used a program/script to earn at least 300B ISK, which he had to recognize as being somewhat more than any player without his program/script could earn in-game. He did not make this program/script publicly available to all players (unlike EVE Central). And, he obviously did not think to check first with CCP *prior* to using the program/script, to determine if it would be considered an EULA violation.
As a result, he got hit with a temp ban and the ISK was confiscated. All per CCP standard policy, so arguing ignorance is no defense.
As for the confidentiality factor, this is also part of the EULA. Making details of an investigation public can compromise the RL identity of the player, as well as the specific methods that CCP uses to identify possible cheaters. Indulging the public's idle curiosity is not a valid reason to compromise confidentiality.
Since John is supposedly no longer playing the game, however, he is no longer subject to the EULA and can make public any discussion between himself and CCP. The fact that he has not done so indicates that he is indeed most likely at fault, and simply ragequit, as many cheaters who get caught tend to do.
Thats crap. The CSM was created to put a check on things like this - and have a line of communication that bypassed the petition system.
ReplyDeleteThe CSM needs to get involved here.
The CSM has no responsibility nor authority to get involved in an issue between a specific player and CCP.
DeleteI think a lot of commenters are actually slightly missing the point Kelduum is making.
ReplyDeleteThe point is not if John was a botter or not, that's not only impossible to establish it's irrelevant.
The point is that if the CCP security decides someone is a botter there is no higher authority. They will not give straight answers, they will not argument their reasons. They are not treating players like the clients we are.
Purely that stance made this "john" quit. That's a problem. Whether he was or wasn't a botter is irrelevant. From Kelduums account he played open book with CCP, told them what he was doing and even gave them the code to his scripts so they could decide over it.
At that time CCP could have discussed things with him, probably even informed him that it might take some time to reach a decision and possible penalty, and be civil about it.
Instead they chose to send him a canned message and temp-ban him.
I do not blame John for his reaction, and I am pretty disappointed in CCP over this. We are the customers, if we can't be civil about EULA disputes then CCP is not treating us with the respect we deserve as customers.
Well, somebody has to be at the top of that chain, no? The entire reason why there's a security team is so they can make those decisions in a final manner, and other people at CCP won't have to be bothered with it. In fact, that's why any team is created, like, ever. They have a role. They fulfill it. If they were then told that they had to go and see that the case was investigated by somebody else, there would be no point in having the team in the first place. Somebody has to make a final decision, and in this case, that's the security team.
DeleteAnd at the end of the day, this isn't the government. Trying to elevate it to this level of "Oh, that's unfair, we need more appeals!" or whatever, is kind of absurd. Call me when the president of your country is unilaterally accusing you of a crime, based on secret evidence, and handing down a punishment with no oversight. Then I'll be on your side. But this is a video game. CCP is under no obligation to give you an appeals structure on par with the exhaustive appeals structure of a modern judicial system in the real world. And they're also under no obligation to share with you, or the rest of the player base, the private details of a matter concerning another individual's account.
"Well, somebody has to be at the top of that chain, no? "
DeleteCaptain Obvious strikes again. P.s. You missed the point.
"
And at the end of the day, this isn't the government. Trying to elevate it to this level of "Oh, that's unfair, we need more appeals!" or whatever, is kind of absurd. "
What's absurd is that you spent more words writing about your view of how this issue isn't worth writing about, than the person you replied to used to write about the actual issue. What a nutjob you are.
A lot of people are making really broad assumptions based on hearsay when it comes to this issue. First off, they instinctively believe everything that allegedly happened to "John" according to him, i.e. that he was punished with no feedback at all, and wasn't given the time of day to appeal the verdict of the security team. Of course, this wouldn't be the only case in existence of a person falling down on the wrong side of a rule acting like they were treated unjustly, and like they "don't understand" what they did wrong, in order to drum up public sympathy.
DeleteThis is why I refuse to take the subject seriously, because at the end of the day, we're talking about a game here, not something of any enduring significance or importance. And moreover, we're never going to know anything more concrete than this, because CCP as a matter of policy isn't going to divulge any information about the case of "John." All we're going on, in prattling on about it, is "John"'s word, and what Kelduum has had to say about it. And all I really see is Kelduum asking for information pertaining to a matter that is not really any of his business, getting stonewalled by CCP, and acting all surprised about it. Because, why? He's somehow entitled to information about other peoples' private account matters? It's not "suspicious," or an example of "evasion," that CCP would decline to discuss such matters with another player. Yes, not even one who fashions himself as some great leader in the game.
I don't see what the hoo-haa is about, the complaint _was_ escalated, all the way to the director of security, who determined that the ISK was gained unfairly, end of case. Nobody gets an infinite number of appeals, when you are found guilty by the highest court in the land, that's your lot.
ReplyDeleteAs for late confiscation, well, after 3 extra weeks of investigation following the initial temp-ban strike, it would seem the evidence only got stronger.
The cloak and dagger approach of the security team on many issues does them no favours. Whilst I can see them not wanting to 'give clues' on how to bot or exploit, I think that have the ballance completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhere a technique is used which is not 'botting' or is significantly different to what has come before, a PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT in the dev blogs explaining that this is now illegal should be made, simillar to the dominix farming complex exploit post. It is simply not fair to not know the rules and constantly run the risk of being banned for simply being creative about how you play the game.
If a person is guilty then it is only right to explain, in detail, WHY they are guilty. What they specifically did that was wrong (if for no other reason then to allow them to change their behavior) should be disclosed in pain staking detail.
Simillarly, once the money changed hands and became the property of Kelduum as director of eve uni, explainations for the confiscation of isk should have been devulged in simillar detail to him on request.
There is no cloak and no dagger. This is mostly about player confidentiality.
DeletePublicly releasing information about an investigation can inadvertently reveal the RL identity of a player - the consequences for which CCP is not legally willing to accept.
Keep in mind that Team Security has access to all player account information, including RL data. This information is discretely used to help identify RMTers and track down other EULA violations. Obviously, access to this data is necessary, otherwise it would be a simple matter for a banned player to simply create a new account and go on doing bad things.
Now, also consider that during a heated conversation with a CCP rep that a player (or the rep) might say something that would provide a clue to his/her RL identity. For example, referring to being a member of the US armed services, or even asking the rep to contact the player via a mobile number or email address. CCP isn't going to be able to filter conversations, such that any and all identity clues are guaranteed to be removed.
It is simply safer and more practical to treat all player conversations as company confidential, as well as any investigations into a specific player's activities.
And, indulging the public's idle curiosity is not a valid reason to compromise confidentiality.
I was disappointed they named him 'John'. Yeah, yeah I know John Doe but it would have been cooler if they named him The Market Enforcer or The Zillion Dollar Man.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness though it is a little worrying.
In-game RP rationale: He's "The Broker" of Empyrean Age fame... problem solved. ;-)
DeleteIn other news, I wonder if any of the CCP departments are hiring for the position of Political Officer...
a few things:
ReplyDeletea) its quite obvious that the ISK gained by activities that violate the EULA can't be kept, i don't see why anyone expected any other outcome.
b) updating 30 orders a minute, thats 1 order every two seconds. thats about the time the sell/buy order windows need to pop up and that you need to confirm them, it wont allow you to look at the price and determine the new one. there is no "ingame-website" you could make that would allow you to do it at that rate. even if you create a software that gives you all current prices right next to a link linking to the item you need more than 2 seconds. Keeping that rate up for 10 to 20 minutes? Right.
c) All that the EVE Uni guy has, and seems to want to see is the way his Friend explained it to him, that does not mean CCP hasn't got more / better information on this subject. Not releasing those Information to him is totally legit - hell, too much information on what CCP can actually detect would just make it harder for them to detect bot-using scumbags.
d) Security (not only with ccp) is a department which needs to operate under quite alot freedom, otherwise they can't do their job. However, they still report to management, and if you feel that petitions aren't handled right CCP has a (sub)-department (of Security) for that: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Internal_affairs This is where the eve-uni guy should have complained. Not on his Forums, not in Public, and not through the extend of the blogosphere.
so frankly: stop proxy whining, this is disgusting.
I don't care either way ... but Internal Affairs is the security team. So there is no bypassing the security team, because the Internal Affairs department is the Security department.
DeleteThere's two possible narratives here; one is that "John" was innocent and was just an exceptional player who created some legitimate tools to help him play at his best. CCP decided that his best was too exceptional to be human and refused to listen when he told them otherwise, which disheartened him and persuaded him to quit the game and generously donate all his things to EVE uni. That's the narrative "John" and Kelduum both support.
ReplyDeleteThe other is that "John" was automating some or all of his market trading, using illegal automation to process orders faster than humanly possible. CCP caught him doing so and handed down a temp ban, "John" saw the writing on the wall for all the ISK he'd amassed using his automation and decided he didn't want to rebuild from scratch manually when the money was confiscated, so he liquidated his assets and gave them to EVE uni either in the hope some/all didn't get confiscated or to spark drama like this (perhaps because Kelduum is on the CSM), then quit the game. That's presumably the narrative that CCP supports.
I have no idea which is the case; frankly the only ones who know for sure are "John" himself and (hopefully) Team Security. I'm just pointing out that we can write a narrative that explains the actions involved whether or not "John" was innocent.
The only part that really concerns me is that the account went through its 14 day ban without whatever investigation was needed to determine if the ISK was legitimate or not, and that said ISK was then confiscated from a separate entity apparently after that investigation. I can understand the (unstated) reasoning for that where the ISK in question was a lump sum and sent to an organisation the banned character had ties to - they could have done so to avoid its confiscation intending to reclaim it with an alt they'd concealed from Team Security, for example. On the other hand I have to wonder how far down the chain ISK could go before Team Security would no longer confiscate it after their investigation - if I liquidate a lot of assets myself and it turns out that most of them went to someone who gained the ISK illegimately, can it be confiscated from me? If so, can I appeal that and get the ISK back? What if I've spent the ISK myself? Do I get negwalleted, or does it disappear from the wallet of whoever now holds it?
More to the point, if the ISK was illegitimate why was the account allowed to keep it through the ban period (and how could a ban be handed down for automation if CCP were unsure if the ISK the account held was illegitimate or not, or if the investigation hadn't finished?) rather than have the ISK confiscated from them while under review? Why was the account holder able to pass this suspect ISK on in the first place?
Team Security does track transfers of illegitimately gained ISK and assets. This only makes sense, since otherwise a cheater could easily transfer the ISK/assets to another player/corp on a regular basis, to avoid possible confiscation.
DeleteThe ISK/assets may be confiscated during an investigation, if CCP believes that someone might deliberately obfuscate the investigation by transferring the ISK/assets - particularly if the transferee is likely to make matters worse by distributing it to many other players, such as would happen with EVE Uni. In this particular case, Team Security's actions are logical and correct, to avoid potentially more confiscations down the line, affecting a lot more players.
Inappropriate confiscation of ISK/assets can be petitioned. CCP Sreegs has said so. If matters are resolved in your favor, then the confiscated ISK/assets will be returned.
As stated above, any seemingly preemptive confiscation is simply to avoid an escalation of confiscations, due to distribution of any illegitimately gained ISK/assets to other players. CCP merely wants to minimize the number of players who might be adversely affected.
But you said it yourself; "The ISK/assets may be confiscated during an investigation". Without any insider knowledge, we must assume that an investigation was carried out into "John"'s account that resulted in him getting a 14 day ban. At the end of that ban, he still had all his ISK - the ISK was passed on to another player organization before being confiscated from them again as part of/the result of an investigation. The fact that these were separate events is what concerns me.
DeleteEither A) "John" was banned without a full and complete investigation, which was still ongoing throughout the ban (hence why his ISK wasn't confiscated yet) and concluded after he had quit the game (hence why the ISK was taken from EVE Uni). Obviously the idea that Team Security can hand down a 2 week ban plus the associated penalties for botting without a full and conclusive investigation should be a concern for everyone.
Or, B) "John" was banned after a full and complete investigation that determined he was using automation, but that investigation somehow failed to determine that the vast amount of ISK on his accounts was illegitimate as it had been made by way of automation. It took that ISK showing up as large transfers to EVE Uni and from them to the alt corp, plus it being re-petitioned by EVE Uni, to remind Team Security of this overlooked detail, and then they reacted by confiscating it. Obviously the idea that Team Security can operate in such a shoddy manner should be a concern for everyone.
Given that the ban was for automation for making ISK rather than, say, RMT selling the ISK I can't really see any other explanation for how he could be banned, keep his ISK and then have the ISK confiscated later.
This isn't a surprise.
ReplyDeleteCCP hire a goon as head of Team Security FFS! It's like hiring an alcoholic to run a brewery. It stinks!
It's a bent as a nine-pound note.
Kelduum's repeated requests for clarification strike me as willfully stupid. Okay, sure, confirm once that yes, the entire amount was bot-generated or otherwise illegitimate, but goddammit, CCP is not going to revisit the question because a third party asks again (nicely, it must be admitted).
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Kelduum, you *are* a third party from the only perspective that matters: you didn't generate the 317 billion; that was done by John's use of resources for which CCP bears responsibility.
I won't quite say shut up and take it, Kelduum. You escalated all you reasonably could, and then some, but CCP's logging and examination thereof is information which third parties don't have. If CCP's analysis and conclusions were wrong, we will never know.
We can rage-post and make CCP feel some heat, but to a fifth party it doesn't look any more mature than the alleged botter's rage-quitting.
One botter gone - worthless
ReplyDeleteSeeing kelduum's professional tears - Priceless
:)