For Shame, for SHAME!!! (in General)

NotSuitablForChildren [Yeeeaahh.................] December 20 2007 2:44 AM EST

As many of you have recently found out. I was first reset, then just fined for recent "exploits to the system". I will admit that what I said in chat did in fact come from my mouth, however they were over generalized. I was "bragging" in fact, and as construed they were definately punishable. However since speaking with my girlfriend she has assured me that she did not infact use any of my BA. She could not figure out the interface, and she was appalled at the reaction that came from me speaking about it. She even told me that what I said was untrue. This aside from my point. Apparently Mem has had some trouble with SNK4R as well. Apparently he changed the name of his FS/WTB thread header to "Mem's Drama Llama quitting sale". Why is this to be tolerated? Shouldn't the members of the CB community be left to their own business? As far as my fine I understand he was just doing his job, but when I come to find out that it is baseless, regardless of what I said in chat, it really ticks me off.

And still, regardless of what has traspired, I really don't have time to maintain my status in a clan, nor do I wish to reappear here so my FS/WTB thread is continued until I decide to end it, even if my gear/chars/money all get confiscated.

Shouldn't repeat multi offenders, and people whom exploit the store be punished more than the heresay (although it was personal) offenders of the community. I should say here that my 5+ years with the community has been (for the most part) enjoyed. Yet this has left a very sour taste in my mouth, and I have had enough. BTW I could have used a proxy system and had a very multitude of accounts to sell out with. I could have kept my mouth shut and told my GF to play my account every morning when I was not up. I could have exploited the store, and I could have done even worse. All I did was brag when I was drunk about how great I think my lady is, even if I did exaggerate. But I was always nice to people, I was always PG, and I always played the game fairly (even if I found was to use the system to my advantage, (ie. the CoBF in CB1)). Basically all I am saying is that this is not a Jonocracy, as some have supposed, but rather a hypocracy, as no one assumed. I really don't care what happens, I just hope that people take this to heart!!! Don't open your fool mouths when "exploiting the system". And by all means continue to exploit the system wherever possible if you have the time, which I do not. Elsewise, just have fun playing this creative, and fun game. Good Day.

BootyGod December 20 2007 3:00 AM EST

..... Umm...

Get over it. SNK obeyed the rules. Then, ON HIS OWN, gave you a second chance. This is a disgusting post.

And, regarding the drama thing, he fixed that himself, and he did it immediately.

You broke the rules. Clear cut. There was no question. And you were punished. OMG! RULES ARE ENFORCED!?

You owe SNK an apology, IF he is willing to take it.

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 20 2007 3:04 AM EST

Cmon man... you've completely lost perspective.

Sickone December 20 2007 3:13 AM EST

I can say I understand your reasons, but don't you think you're going a bit too far with it ?

Blarg December 20 2007 4:36 AM EST

"Shouldn't repeat multi offenders, and people whom exploit the store be punished more than the heresay (although it was personal) offenders of the community."

Who are these repeat multi offenders? With proper evidence and such all multi's will be brought to justice, but now doubt you already know that. People who exploit the store, now there is a case where it is easy to see the perpetrators. So why aren't they being punished? I believe it is because there is currently no official rule against such actions and therefore no official word from Jonathan no punishment. I do not believe that the admins are in a position to create their own rules.

Exploitation of the store is just as much of an exploitation of having two people use one account, but farewell, i wish you success in your future endeavors.

Flamey December 20 2007 4:53 AM EST

Stupid. I don't even see how it's a hypocrisy.

AbbathorX December 20 2007 6:09 AM EST

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not

If rules are rules, then all must be enforced, not just the ones that require no effort on anyones part, ie, looking through the store logs.

It is the very definition of hypocrisy. If one is so vehement about rule enforcement, then there should NEVER be an exploit that is so widely known and hasn't been corrected. This is what NSFC is saying, and according to those claims and the actual definition of the word, he would be right.

-Your local dictionary owner

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] December 20 2007 6:25 AM EST

I would just like to add a personal note to this situation.

Claire once logged onto my account for me, when I couldn't be here.

I was at the Donnington Festival, and needed Johnny's Mobile number he had CMed to me. Claire logged on, checked my CM, gave me the number. She didn't do anything involved with CB at all. No BA, no posting, no chat.

Technically, I've been responsible for Multi-ing. But my actions had no baring on the game, nor the reasons behind why we have a no Multi rule.

Spending BA, gaining any sort of in game advantage (however small) should be punished. Even if you admit to it. Leniencies for admitting to stuff, I'll leave in jon's hand. ;)

Using CB's social side, even if it's just letting a friend/significant other use chat to speak to people, probably shouldn't.

But that's very hard to enforce, consistantly and reliably.

Maybe the Admins are able to check, and see if (in both NSFC and my case) any BA was actually spent, or any purshcases/sales made. Any advantage gained. But should they have to?

In this case, a breach of the rules were admitted to, and it is puishable. But now it seems the admittance was in error, and nothing happened to gain an in game advantage.

Maybe the best way to move forward would be to check to see if any BA had been spent, and if not, rescind the fine.

But I wouldn't blame the admins for taking the actions they did.

Flamey December 20 2007 6:29 AM EST

Ab, the problem is Jon hasn't said anything. There are no set rules against what is happening.

AbbathorX December 20 2007 6:55 AM EST

So in the absence of word from on high, it's not a bug, it's a 'feature' . . .

Just wondering ;p

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 20 2007 7:19 AM EST

There is never any real way to even prove that someone from the same IP used BA but the owner of the account, so i think this rule is bunk in situations like this..... Hell, i could say I'm my girlfriend in chat and using my BA when it really me, you all saying i should be banned?

Mikel December 20 2007 7:48 AM EST

If you are stupid enough to say something like that in chat then..... you should suffer the consequences.

Seriously, you can't walk into a bank and say "gimme all of your money" even if you are clearly joking, they can have you arrested for it. Same principle applies here. You're GF went from spending ba the whole day down to 3-4 hours down to 30-40 ba down to none. If you're story didn't change so much then I might be more inclined to believe she didn't figure it out. However, I don't think the interface is so complex that she couldn't read and see the word "FIGHT" and not be smart enough to click on it.

Thanatos December 20 2007 7:53 AM EST

This is Double Talk

You said one thing happened.
Then when you did not get your way.
You say it did not happen.
No admin should have to figure that out, it is for soap opera's.

The rules against multi is clearly stated.

There is a past president against manipulating the store harder to find but it is there. I am not sure but I believe Ranger posted the link, thanks.

Clearly, there are a few still exploiting the store.
You are whining now.

What do you think will happen when the admin's do take action
against the continued abuse.
1 maybe a warning, no I do not think so. To many complaints
2 a fine, maybe
These first to were reason enuff for me to stop.

3 reset. They will whine a lot more that you. The longer they wait the more they will lose.

You made a mistake, get over it, and remember what you enjoyed about the time you spend on cb.

There are actions the admin's can take, but they should not have to deal with foolishness all the time

You owe an appoligy
And a Thank You

I will say it here, Thank You admin's for all the time you give to cb.

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 20 2007 8:06 AM EST

Mikel, that is exactly the point, you wouldnt know it was my girlfriend who was using BA unless i said it was her... this rule is bogus... If its impossible to weed out everybody, whats the point? Its not fair to everyone...

smallpau1 - Go Blues [Lower My Fees] December 20 2007 8:15 AM EST

But then your point will be its not fair to everybody else if they cant have anyone else sign into their account to use up their BA for them. I will never have to worry about this, but i still dont see the point to this rule anymore with the new BA regen times.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 20 2007 8:33 AM EST

even if the story hadn't changed which makes it hard to know what is really the story, you are basically saying this:

you devised a plan to cheat the system
you tried to implement it
you bragged about it in chat while intoxicated
you get punished
you claim it never really transpired (various stories at various times it would appear)
you now feel wronged
the admin handling this situation should have gleaned the truth even when you couldn't

regardless of what happened after the first 2, you should be treated as a cheater just based on those. who exactly is supposed to be the hypocrite again?

Ragatag December 20 2007 8:46 AM EST

Of course its not fair for everyone, when is it ever fair for everyone? You can try to be as fair as you can, but what else can you do in this situation?

Although Mikel's example was a little extreme he gets the point across, it happened, maybe it didn't, maybe NSFC was joking; because of these reasons it makes the "reset" punishment a little far out there. As a long time player and with a fairly decent history as a CB player im glad that SNK4R gave him more of a warning rather than a harsher punishment (the reset). I thought that was the perfect punishment for this incident.

Its unfortunate to see a player go with such a small incident, but its done; the rules still remain the same so hopefully someone doesn't make the same mistake again (even if the rules aren't clearly stated). But since there is a confusion, we should re-word the rules carefully.

Someone also mentioned that Jon hasn't said anything about this; thats because this is not a big issue at all, he got fined 1mil. Besides if you have an account just play it yourself its pretty simple. OK maybe the rules aren't very clear, still why bother trying to cheat the system; if you missed your BA, auction or whatever its your fault, too bad he had to tell the world (of CB).

He chose to leave, but decided to make a few of you pretty angry while doing so, but hey! he is leaving so whats the point of being angry?

Go buy a bunny (preferably a fluffy one), pet it a few times and be happy

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 20 2007 10:04 AM EST

We don't have any rules against the public promoting of bunny love? Clearly some of these people should not be bunny owners!

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 20 2007 10:08 AM EST

Very clever, Bast :)
And I think that NSFC has made way to much fuss over this.
I think SNK was completely right in what he did.
Just my personnel opinion.

AdminJonathan December 20 2007 10:28 AM EST

If you claim to be a multi, don't complain when the admins believe you. Whether or not you're exaggerating.

Is this not what happened?

QBsutekh137 December 20 2007 10:53 AM EST

I think (just my opinion) the issue is with the unenforceability of it -- I could have someone in my house sitting in for me any time, and unless I confessed that, no one would ever know. Same IP, an actual human heartbeat -- how could anyone ever know? Are supporterships going to soon be sold with fingerprint-ID "C" and "Enter" keys? *smile*

So, is that a valid, consistent rule?

I agree, a self-confession is pretty damning (and I think 1 million bucks is not too-onerous a fine for that). But at that point I am already into the realm of opinion and conjecture, because the rule is nebulous to start with and, as I said, unable to be enforced equitably (confession notwithstanding).

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 20 2007 11:00 AM EST

I still believe Jon when he says there is more than one way to skin a multi Sut... Enough so that I used that as my reasoning while explaining this situation my own GF (who is now playing).

QBsutekh137 December 20 2007 11:05 AM EST

Well, sure -- if we just assume that such situations indicate bona fide multis, then yeah -- that's pretty cut-and-dried.

However, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about having someone else play for me when I am in the house, whether it be out of inability, boisterousness, or just downright laziness. There is no way to catch me doing it if I don't confess it, and that seems a pretty good litmus test for me as far as a "bad" rule.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 20 2007 11:09 AM EST

Sut, how long does it take you to get through your BA? How long would it take a nonNovice novice to get through your BA? Would your chiquita miss more botchecks than you? Fight all the way down your fight list, before going back to the top, even if you most often stick to the top 8 people on it?

Nov is correct, for any notable pattern of cheating that doesn't involve two CB vets sharing a PC (and maybe even then, for I certainly don't pound my keyboard the way you do), a confession is not required. Though anyone dolt enough to confess in chat certainly merits the reset.

I would trust Nov with a bunny.

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 20 2007 11:13 AM EST

i think the rule is probably in place to prevent a todd/spydah-like collaboration from forming again. imagine two people from across the globe getting on during their daylight hours and never missing a single ba. the ip's would show regularly someone logging in from two different places halfway across the world on a daily basis.

this example would be easy to detect and what the rule is mainly there for i would guess. if others happen to admit to something that falls into that multi-category as well, then what is an admin to do?

i do see this as an excellent example of why black and white very specific rules should not exist. if the rule stated you cannot do this, well then does planning to do this and failing count?

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 20 2007 11:18 AM EST

It is also to prevent the unfair advantage of two people in the same household playing a single account.

If I charge my houseboy with whipping through the 4a.m. BA and all BA during my lift-n-tuck recuperation, and cane him if he doesn't, Jon is sanctioning abuse of domestics. This is a bad position for Jon to take and is unfair to all the rest of you, who can't afford a houseboy or a stout cane.

QBsutekh137 December 20 2007 11:22 AM EST

Bast, your first statement would actually be in support of ALLOWING someone else to help me, even if I confessed it (perhaps that was your point, I'm not sure...?). Managing two people and making sure botchecks don't get missed, stats get trained properly, etc. is MORE work than doing it alone at this point. I have 8 hours and 40 minutes between maxxed out 160s -- I have no need for anyone on the other side of the planet. And my iPhone plays the game smashingly when I am away from home -- I haven't missed substantial stretches of BA in months and months.

If I started aligning with my "chiquita" (my SO is not a banana, dear), I would have to actually snap out of my zombie-like playing mode and become more interactive. It would actually be more "effort", and probably more fun. And it would put no one else at a disadvantage.

In other words, bring Todd-Spydah back. My money would still be on Ranger. *smile*

QBsutekh137 December 20 2007 11:23 AM EST

That is exquisitely funny, Bast! More posts, please!

AdminG Beee December 20 2007 11:58 AM EST

I think this whole sorry episode has proven why it's not clever to play CB while under the influence.

Oh, wait a minute, nevermind...

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] December 20 2007 12:01 PM EST

friends don't let friends blend three sheets to the wind?

Lochnivar December 20 2007 12:14 PM EST

If I were Bast's houseboy and I also had an account would we both be considered multis?

I mean, clearly the precedent would indicate guilt on Bast's part but what of myself? Strictly speaking I suppose I would enjoy the advantage of less caning but is that a competitive advantage here in CB?

And yes, friends don't let friends Blend drunk
(European exception, for G_Beee, GL, et al : friends don't let friends Blend sober)

QBBarzooMonkey December 20 2007 2:46 PM EST

I don't have an opinion on the actual thread topic that I care to share, but I do wish to state that I would happily be Bast's houseboy, and can be trusted with the care and welfare of a bunny. :)

QBJohnnywas December 20 2007 3:06 PM EST

I was Bast's houseboy. Thankfully I could work across the Atlantic, otherwise the beatings would have been more severe.

QBRanger December 20 2007 3:09 PM EST

Bast does carry a long and big stick as you know.

QBJohnnywas December 20 2007 3:14 PM EST

I haven't been able to sit down since 1973.

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] December 20 2007 3:41 PM EST

if snk messed with mem's quiting sale thread then didn't he BREAK the Rules also?? Why don't we reset him for it or take away all his stuff, its honestly the same thing..

AdminQBnovice [Cult of the Valaraukar] December 20 2007 3:56 PM EST

Kefeck: The thread name was changed for about 5 minutes, during which Mem was busy calling Jon an idiot in chat... it's a wash.

Ulord[NK] December 20 2007 3:58 PM EST

I love this game and I hate the drama...

Kefeck, please let this thread die. Do not ask questions that you know the answer of. There is no need for more animosity and finger pointing. Whatever punishment doled out was done and over and we don't need more divisive comments like that. It's Christmas for crying out loud.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] December 20 2007 5:10 PM EST

Clearly Ulord should not be a domestic owner!

Kefeck [Demonic Serenity] December 21 2007 12:05 PM EST

Answer the question!!
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002J0T">For Shame, for SHAME!!!</a>