contact
June 18, 2019, 06:58:45 AM

Author Topic: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only  (Read 1594 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zafoquat

  • Member
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2010, 02:13:41 AM »
Quote from: "C121"
John Hunka, Jul 02 11:12 (EDT):

''Thank you for the report, and everything you say appears to be correct. For the time being, we have suspended this player's account for using scripts. ''



im sorry clicky.. this is extremely indicative

and as to my report on cheaters

if i mac in and a i see a high ranker same sol as a low ranker and both accounts HW star at the same times all the time..

i report it.. why not.... gotten quiet a few multiplayers (s) over that shit.. no harm if bfg looks in and sees they're legit.. they never even know they got ticketed.. its not like they just get (s) cause i ticket people.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
teaching small children about god is abusive

you condition your child to a fairy tale with no supporting evidence

you close their mind to free and balanced learning

grow up and act like a real parent


Quote from: \"Pton\"
So pretty much you hit all minorities with that one, and yes I know you meant it, from previous posts.

Offline Clicky

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2010, 04:12:52 AM »
Quote from: "Zafoquat"
Quote from: "C121"
im sorry clicky.. this is extremely indicative

It's extremely indicative of a canned CSR response and that is it.

Parse the response:

"everything you say appears to be correct"

Okay, what did "he" say.  Well, in a shortened version it was that a planet was generating more resources than it should and there was no activity on the seven other planets.  So?  That means nothing without a whole lot more information... namely an oracle scan or four of the receiving planet.  As I previously mentioned there is a ninth planet somewhere that isn't being observed.  The seven other planets being observed can't be script sending ships or they would show activity, which it has already been clearly stated that they were not.  The fleet either has to be coming form the ninth planet or they were sent on slow rides from the observed planets and the activity indicator has timed out.  Slow rides or the unobserved ninth planet would also explain why the ships don't appear to return to the parent observed planets. Either of these options would generate the observed results scripted or not.

So yes, the CSR statement could be entirely correct, as could be the stated observations of the OP... without any actual indication of cheating.

You still don't seem to accept that nothing the OP has posted anywhere is evidence in any manner of cheating and can easily be accomplished by normal in game activities.  I don't expect you to accept that since you just told us your threshold for reporting someone for cheating is having a (*) at the same time as another alliance member... never mind the fact that  the silly little (*)s are not even reliable indications of player activity.  For all you know you are reporting players who have had their systems probe swept.

Damn dude, I'm starting to wonder if you wear and "Internet Police" badge while playing.  Hell, you've already accused me of cheating in this thread and you clearly have no problem reporting people for cheating based on the flimsiest of evidence.  I would hate to see what would happen if an entire alliance arranged to log in at the same time for a mass raid... you just might report the whole darned thing as being a single account.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Zafoquat

  • Member
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2010, 04:22:33 AM »
=( see this is why i dont hold hands

you get drug off the deep end

youve now made up me not accepting the ops lack of proof.. despite me being able to pull direct quotes from this thread where i say the opposite.

and youve made up your own fictitious little story about the mods response...


after-the-fact the user in question even ADMITTED it.

you are just being combative for the sake of being inflammatory.

and if you couldnt debase your position anymore you sink to personal insults at the end =D

-edit.. ive got it..you misread things.. you misread my post about what i report for (with no attempt to dive into another tangent with you) so i assume youve also misread my posts where i explain the ops lack of proof is not required for the op to submit a ticket.. as this is also an integral element in my justifications for tickets.. i can see your overall problem in comprehension
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
teaching small children about god is abusive

you condition your child to a fairy tale with no supporting evidence

you close their mind to free and balanced learning

grow up and act like a real parent


Quote from: \"Pton\"
So pretty much you hit all minorities with that one, and yes I know you meant it, from previous posts.

Offline C121

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2010, 02:57:06 PM »
Quote from: "Clicky"
Quote from: "Zafoquat"
Quote from: "C121"
im sorry clicky.. this is extremely indicative

It's extremely indicative of a canned CSR response and that is it.

Parse the response:

"everything you say appears to be correct"

Okay, what did "he" say.  Well, in a shortened version it was that a planet was generating more resources than it should and there was no activity on the seven other planets.  So?  That means nothing without a whole lot more information... namely an oracle scan or four of the receiving planet.  As I previously mentioned there is a ninth planet somewhere that isn't being observed.  The seven other planets being observed can't be script sending ships or they would show activity, which it has already been clearly stated that they were not.  The fleet either has to be coming form the ninth planet or they were sent on slow rides from the observed planets and the activity indicator has timed out.  Slow rides or the unobserved ninth planet would also explain why the ships don't appear to return to the parent observed planets. Either of these options would generate the observed results scripted or not.

So yes, the CSR statement could be entirely correct, as could be the stated observations of the OP... without any actual indication of cheating.

You still don't seem to accept that nothing the OP has posted anywhere is evidence in any manner of cheating and can easily be accomplished by normal in game activities.  I don't expect you to accept that since you just told us your threshold for reporting someone for cheating is having a (*) at the same time as another alliance member... never mind the fact that  the silly little (*)s are not even reliable indications of player activity.  For all you know you are reporting players who have had their systems probe swept.

Damn dude, I'm starting to wonder if you wear and "Internet Police" badge while playing.  Hell, you've already accused me of cheating in this thread and you clearly have no problem reporting people for cheating based on the flimsiest of evidence.  I would hate to see what would happen if an entire alliance arranged to log in at the same time for a mass raid... you just might report the whole darned thing as being a single account.
HI Clicky,
First I would like to ask you :
How many simultaneous fleets you can operate at a time with only 1 free slot left after all the f/r saving?
is it 1 ?Or if I am wrong  please do  correct me.In this situation how many hercs can u send simultaneously to pour resources evry 1 hour into the stated above planet?
I dont know where would be  his ninth planet as it is not anywhere near our systems, else I would have filled the coords in my intell sheet.
assuming his last planet is noweher near 30 systems form the mentioned planet how LONG it takes a single haul of resources by hercs or atlases?IS IT MORE THAN 1 h to cross few adjacent systems ONE WAY only?yes it is, acording to his techs.therefore we have come to a conclusion he will be able to make 2 hauls or LESS to fit in the 3 h window of time.IF he is offline who has been launching his second HAUL?
tnx
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Clicky

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2010, 03:16:16 PM »
Quote from: "Zafoquat"
and if you couldnt debase your position anymore you sink to personal insults at the end =D

What?  Debase my position?  Me thinks you may be slave to the spell check here.

Quote from: "Zafoquat"
...where i explain the ops lack of proof is not required for the op to submit a ticket..

Double what?  That sentence doesn't even make sense.  Not like the previous one did either.

Look, I'm not saying that anything other than the ability to click an icon is required to submit a ticket.  That's bloody obvious given the tickets you admit to having submitted.  I'm saying you two guys are being jerks for reporting people as cheaters based on extraordinarily flimsy evidence that by your own admission is often tantamount to suspicious (*)s and nothing more.

If my dissection of the OPs report is so wrong and as you say "fictitious", show us, using the reports posted in the OP, how that activities observed can not be explained by normal in game activities.  Show us how the normal in game activities I stated can not possibly explain what was observed.  Justify for us how that report was anything other than a fishing expedition.

Look, before you do that get your cup of morning coffee then back to us.  And please, for the love of god, pick up some punctuation with the coffee.

Quote from: "C121"
How many simultaneous fleets you can operate at a time with only 1 free slot left after all the f/r saving?

How do you know how many fleet slots he had open?  Nothing in what you have posted indicates that you have any knowledge of how many fleet slots he has total (AI tech level not in evidence) nor that you have any knowledge of how many fleet slots are in use (no oracle report)

Unless you conveniently forgot to include that information, any arguments based on fleet slots are moot as they can not be substantiated.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Zafoquat

  • Member
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2010, 04:57:04 PM »
what are you talking about.. that sentence needs no punctuation to be read.. i am not missing any integral commas that would render my sentence unreadable.. your reading comprehension is in the toilet..

and debase.. yes.. that is properly used in that sentence....


ill draw it in crayon for you .


this is and has been my argument from the start.

you dont require proof to submit a ticket.

pretty simple position.. try responding to it and not some made up horseshit thats easier for you to respond to..

crap i guess you could have misread this ill add a bit more


the only proof in this entire thread is the response from bfg.. and it is to be considered corroborating evidence to the otherwise baseless accusations..

why because you require a burden of proof for us to consider the investigation system to be faulty within the context of this argument... whilst a user does not require this same burden of evidence to submit a ticket.. the bfg mods however do require and fulfill this requirement in their investigation process.. which I will vouch is not perfect.. but its error lies in missed cheaters.. not false positives on innocents as they err on the side of caution.. imo to a fault
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
teaching small children about god is abusive

you condition your child to a fairy tale with no supporting evidence

you close their mind to free and balanced learning

grow up and act like a real parent


Quote from: \"Pton\"
So pretty much you hit all minorities with that one, and yes I know you meant it, from previous posts.

Offline Commander Dominatrix

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2010, 06:04:04 PM »
Quote from: "C121"
''here i will send you first esp report and last one.IF u need more information I will gladly send more esp reports from inbetweeen those 2 reports.''
If you did all read this,most of the questions wudnt be asked.
I had 4 scans between first and last one.
He was accumulating resources more than his mine was able per hour. AS he is offline he wont be able with a single free slot to send 2-3 hercs simultaneously to make up the increased ammount of resources in the time of 2 hours.And to make things worse his bot used the same accumulated resources to build new poseidons.I saw the difference from the additional scans.
so I hope we can stop making up he has done this and that.BFG has had him checked up and suspended.
HEre is more evidence as per 5 mins ago:

''      Commander Dominatrix      re: hi      4 minutes ago
To: Commander 121
I was botting before... but I haven't even opened my macro program since i got back from my suspension, which I am almost sure that you were the one who reported me. ''
Good day,
DOMINATRIX
......
Commander 121 did catch me fair and square, I have since been suspended and have not used any programs (macroes, scripts, anything like that) in my Starfleet gaming since after my suspension has been lifted. I will not either, I'm not willing to risk losing my account over a few resources. However... It IS perfectly possible to do what I did perfectly legally... My program simply ran 11 fleets of the "Stop Hades Fleet" mission. It would not refresh the page and the game page would update itself (NOTE: update, not refresh). A person could do the same thing, sitting at home, watching a movie, and simply click the "Max" button and the "Start" button. It would have the exact same effect as the macro without using a macro. You can't determine whether or not someone is using a macro just from espionage reports. It is not 100% conclusive.
Good day.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Zafoquat

  • Member
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2010, 06:08:54 PM »
that is my point.. the idea that we need to have proof just to ticket is simply ridiculous.

ticketing is not paramount to a suspension.. nor is it in any way an abusive act against the person you ticket...

it is an integral part of their anti-cheating program...
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
teaching small children about god is abusive

you condition your child to a fairy tale with no supporting evidence

you close their mind to free and balanced learning

grow up and act like a real parent


Quote from: \"Pton\"
So pretty much you hit all minorities with that one, and yes I know you meant it, from previous posts.

Offline Clicky

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2010, 06:31:58 PM »
Quote
what are you talking about.. that sentence needs no punctuation to be read.. i am not missing any integral commas that would render my sentence unreadable.. your reading comprehension is in the toilet..
Lol.

Okay, yeah.  Sure.  That's certainly the pinnacle of grammatical composition there.  I guess I'll just have to accept that you are blind to that personal flaw too.

Hint: "What are you talking about?"

Quote from: "Zafoquat"
this is and has been my argument from the start.

you dont require proof to submit a ticket.

Oh boy.  First off, "I" don't require proof of anything, much less ticket submissions.  It would be mighty daft of me to place requirements on ticket submission since I have nothing at all to do with the process.  Perhaps you should choose another subject for that sentence.  Try, "a person" or "someone".  You will of course have to replace "don[']t" with "does not".  Then replace "require" with "need to meet any requirements of proof."

Final product: "A person does not need to meet any requirements of proof to submit a ticket."

Now that that is out of the way...

Show me where I said that proof was required would you?

For all the complaining you do about me supposedly lacking reading comprehension, you don't see to grasp that I've never stated that proof is required by BFG to submit a ticket.  Instead I'm castigating you personally for submitting tickets in fishing expeditions.  That BFG does not require proof for submitting tickets does not make it any less prudent for a person submitting a ticket to have more than a mere suspicion founded on shoddy evidence.

I at least can admit when I'm being a jerk (which is pretty much most of the time).  You should try it, you've already well established the requirements.

Hell, if I were BFG, I would block your email account.  A person who goes of fishing expeditions for suspensions is worse for their business model than the occasional actual cheater you may catch through blind luck.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Zafoquat

  • Member
  • Posts: 430
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2010, 06:49:38 PM »
youve changed your argument again from my sentence being unreadable to this most recent formal writing application of language.

if you were unable to read my post it was not due to my lack of punctuation.. and that sentence you originally quoted does not need any integral grammatical elements to be better understood... feel free to go back and do this song and dance about correcting my writing with that sentence.

by the way all i need to do is replace "you" with "one".. and guess what.. "you" can be used universally to mean "one" :O

so final product is exactly what i originally posted.. funing sweet aint it?


as to my misunderstanding you

fine.. im willing to accept i misinterpreted your position as having a purpose..

you are obviously just arbitrarily bitching about some lack of proof without any real intent for the system to change.. you just want to complain.

i was foolish enough to assume you wanted this perceived flaw to be changed.. hence my assumption you were of the position that you would want a burden of proof for tickets.. as this lack of proof is the essence of your complaint.

pardon me =(

you still dont know, nor have you asked.. rather continue to assume the conditions for my tickets.... yet here we go again by characterizing it as fishing (err phishing i do believe you mean) when we've never established my methodology for ticketing.


im done with your posts.. as the courtesy i show you of an all encomposing response is not being reciprocated through your cherry picking of my argument and your distractionary attempts to debase my argument through grammer

feel free to form an educated response and ill try and get back to you.




as it stands we have come to a few conclusions

1 this person was cheating

2 the person who ticketed did not have any proof they were only suspicious.

3 bfg investigated them and supplied the required burden of proof.

4. they were upset about the standard disciplinary practices for cheaters and started this thread.

5. over the course of this thread there has been ample complaints about his baseless ticketing in the beginning.. as well as a subsequent admission of guilt from the subject of the ticket.

6. i  then asserted that you dont require proof to file a ticket and that he was in the right to file it based solely on baseless suspicion... and that you and the others who have represented a similar position are off-topic for continuing your complaints without representation for the fault involved with the process.

7 you are others involved have been unable to logically represent your side of the argument

8. you've gone further to debase your own position with ad hominem fallacies
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
teaching small children about god is abusive

you condition your child to a fairy tale with no supporting evidence

you close their mind to free and balanced learning

grow up and act like a real parent


Quote from: \"Pton\"
So pretty much you hit all minorities with that one, and yes I know you meant it, from previous posts.

Offline Vallan

  • Member
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2010, 06:57:08 PM »
Fallacious argument?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
The accumulated filth of all their ore and crystal will foam up about their waists and all the commanders and red-shirts will look up and shout "Fleet-save!"... and I\'ll whisper "no."

Offline Hawkins

  • Member
  • Posts: 672
    • View Profile
Re: Admitted cheaters suspended for few days only
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2010, 07:55:50 PM »
Wow what a read. I think if someone is going to send a ticket in accusing someone of cheating they should either have proof and not just be suspicious about someone. But I know there are dickheads out there that need to feel like they are doing something productive so they report someone for fun. Every now and then you might be able to score a complaint on an actual cheater, but just think about all those tickets sent into BFG that they then have to take the time to investigate. Would it not be better for them to investigate less complaints that are false so that they can work on making SFC better for all. Also I think that for every accusation that is put in about someone cheating, the accused should be allowed to know who it was that accused them or at least the one's that BFG finds to be honest players and not cheaters. I know personally if I accuse someone of cheating and I am right or wrong about it, I don't care if they know it was me who put the report in. I refuse to put a ticket in unless I have proof, maybe not 100% proof as that would require a hack but proof none the less. Feel free to shoot this down and tell me how stupid I am for suggesting something like letting an accused know, after all you are probable a dickhead as it is.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 12:00:00 AM by Guest »
Hawkins, Former member and Leader of Hawkins\' Hellions
Assumption is the mother of all F@#$ ups.
Moons given: 7
Moons owned: Still 0

 

birthmark-ant