I have ban :(

[kickinyourface]

reset or ban...

[Shanks]

please reset or ban...
I promise not to do that again ok ^^
give-me chance

[originaljustin]

The rules don't look very specific regarding botting. The no botting rule should have a whole extra section making it so. For example: I don't have to respond to anyone in game if I don't want to since there is no rule stating you must respond to a GM or anyone. So basically the GMs constantly banning players isn't in the rules. There is no way to expose or prove that someone is actually botting without adding or having those specific rules.

[z0ro]

The rules don't look very specific regarding botting. The no botting rule should have a whole extra section making it so. For example: I don't have to respond to anyone in game if I don't want to since there is no rule stating you must respond to a GM or anyone. So basically the GMs constantly banning players isn't in the rules. There is no way to expose or prove that someone is actually botting without adding or having those specific rules.

True but it's not that hard to type "I'm not botting" to a GM when they ask you, doesn't take more than 10 seconds just to avoid the ban. We do want to get rid of botters

[Shanks]

Ok yes

[originaljustin]

The rules don't look very specific regarding botting. The no botting rule should have a whole extra section making it so. For example: I don't have to respond to anyone in game if I don't want to since there is no rule stating you must respond to a GM or anyone. So basically the GMs constantly banning players isn't in the rules. There is no way to expose or prove that someone is actually botting without adding or having those specific rules.

True but it's not that hard to type "I'm not botting" to a GM when they ask you, doesn't take more than 10 seconds just to avoid the ban. We do want to get rid of botters

That's not the point. The point is that these untrusted administrators are bypassing the societal order within the premise of the game by abusing a title not granted them to preserve that order and having no oath or bond in its exercise. The players do not have any obligation to even respond to anyone they don't want to, let alone to any anonymous and unusual person that threatens to ban just because of superstition. These persons should be the ones banned for harassment and defamation of character. Some players go to work during the day and discretely trust their account to a friend who may or may not be vocal because their relation in the arena is different and doesn't need to respond in the first person perspective.

The fact that he did not reply and was attacking is the reason why he was banned. It's our only method of bot detection, but it works. And don't try to fool them with a chat bot, not even super computers can pass the Turing Test. Also, GMs are not picked just out of the crowd, they are picked because they are good trustworthy players and members of the community. Here is the better question, can you prove he WASN'T botting?

-Sorry Vink, Katze, and Platyna, I just had to say this.

That is your bot test procedure, not ours. Your bot test procedure is more automated than whom you accused to be bots as well. Botting involves selling the title to property on a foreign exchange market like, EBAY. You should have more evidence of botting, this isn't a silent-auction to someone's sole for not responding to your debilitating offer.

[fate]

originaljustin,

That's not the point. The point is that these untrusted administrators are bypassing the societal order within the premise of the game by abusing a title not granted them to preserve that order and having no oath or bond in its exercise.

That title was granted to them by the relevant authorities. Why do you claim that the adminstrators are untrusted or did not have their powers "granted to them", nor are bound in any way? For example, the reason for why the GMs list their actions in the forums are precisely to allow them to be examined and validated by the general community. Vink's report in the above was an exemplary piece of GM work: concise, generous time-wise, and with explicit reference to the game rules and the actions that would be taken in case of violation. I have no idea what you mean by the `societal order within the premise of the game'; there is not and has never been any in-game GM recruiting process, to the best of my knowledge.

The players do not have any obligation to even respond to anyone they don't want to, let alone to any anonymous and unusual person that threatens to ban just because of superstition.

True. But the relevant authorities have no obligation to let anyone play on this server either-- there is absolutely no formal contract between the server administrators, developers, GMs, or players (this is NOT a commercial MMORPG, and if you are being forced to pay money to someone to play or signed a contract for that purpose, you have been tricked. If that is what's causing your confusion here, please make it clear so that steps can be taken to warn other players about this). Legally speaking, the game rules are an informal agreement, as is the idea that `GMs won't do nasty things to you unless you violate those game rules'. We just happen to take that informal agreement seriously.

These persons should be the ones banned for harassment and defamation of character. Some players go to work during the day and discretely trust their account to a friend who may or may not be vocal because their relation in the arena is different and doesn't need to respond in the first person perspective.

Vink's statements and actions were concise and explicit and left plenty of time to react. If you do trust your character to a friend, you might want to make sure that your friend will not violate the game rules and otherwise react `normally' to avoid being miscategorised as someone who does violate the game rules. (I am very curious as to why you would want to trust your account to a friend in the first place, though-- wouldn't it be more fun to have your friend play as a separate character so that you can play together?)

That is your bot test procedure, not ours. Your bot test procedure is more automated than whom you accused to be bots as well.

I'm not sure what `your' test procedure is, nor why it has anything to do with this discussion.

Botting involves selling the title to property on a foreign exchange market like, EBAY.

No. Botting is clearly defined by the game rules as any character activity while the player is away from the keyboard.

-- fate