How Far Can Inno Push on Pushing?

[DeletedUser16026]

You seem to be operating under some screwed up logic. Rules by definition need to be defined otherwise they are not rules and merely guidelines. As far as the only players needing to know the rules are ones wanting to abuse them is quite disrespectful to players wanting to ensure they are playing within the rules now and in the future.

They need to be defined to a point where the unwanted behavior is clear, not to a point where it is easy to skip around the rule. Though what you're quoting is regarding how decisions are made, which has nothing to do with the rules themselves but would imply giving away information on how the support team handles matters.

We have seen time and time again the CM Team and moderators supporting one another to the end even in the face of mounting opinion to the contrary of what they are defending.

You would not see a case of disagreement because that's a matter that would be handled internally. It has happened and could keep happening in the future.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

You would not see a case of disagreement because that's a matter that would be handled internally. It has happened and could keep happening in the future.

Are you implying that moderators or members of the CM team responses in the forum are not ones they believe in?

 

[DeletedUser16026]

Are you implying that moderators or members of the CM team responses in the forum are not ones they believe in?

I am stating that by escalating a matter when you're not pleased with how a ticket/appeal was handled, you would not simply get a repeat of what was already said. You'll get someone new who will review the case and if needed will adjust the initial response given by the previous supporter.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

I am stating that by escalating a matter when you're not pleased with how a ticket/appeal was handled, you would not simply get a repeat of what was already said. You'll get someone new who will review the case and if needed will adjust the initial response given by the previous supporter.

Missing the point of my original post that the behaviour observed in the forum of moderators and CM team sticking together no matter what in the face of mounting opinion would give concern that the same would be true during an appeal process. As you say most of us will never know for sure as it is all kept hush hush and posts deleted from the forum should they decide to voice their concerns with the process and evidence that has led to their being banned.

 

[DeletedUser97349]

I'll preface this by saying I'm still a member of US support, so not in effect an 'ex mod', however...

With all due respect to the opinions of the ex moderators you refer to, cases of GB pushing are not something which new mods can do. They are not given training on this until some time after joining the team, and whilst they may have had this, typically pushes are more often handled by senior mods.

Regarding the players who have been banned and had GBs deleted due to 'neighbours' donating, I'm afraid you must allow that you are going only by what you are told. On the other side of support you see a different story, and players may often feel embarrassed at being caught and so be economical with the truth as to their relationships with the pushing accounts.

Rule #1 of dealing with a push is that it is not punished if there is no evidence that the receiver of the FP is aware that they are being pushed. That does not mean that such cases will be permitted to continue if the FP transfers are very unbalanced or appear suspicious, however no GBs will be removed unless intent can be established.

To establish intent, the details and activity of the accounts are analysed with regard to their relationships with each other. The precise method of this cannot be revealed, as it would compromise our detection tools. However a ban should not be imposed unless the moderator dealing with the case is sure that there has been a rule breach.

I understand that you feel it seems harsh to ban first and appeal after, however the ban is imposed because a rule breach has occurred, and in such cases the rule breach is supported by hard evidence from our tools. If we are not sure, there should be no ban. So saying that we should allow the appeal before the ban is akin to saying we should allow the court case before the arrest. The 'sentence' is not final until after the appeal, nor is GB deletion ever carried out before an appeal.

I'm not saying mistakes never happen; this is as unrealistic in real life as it is here, however this is the rule by which cases are dealt with.

 

[DeletedUser99445]

If you cant follow the logic of this reasoning then I suggest you go away and think about it for a while.

well of course I can follow the logic (so I won't go away at this point) but as always you ignore what's written as its not what you're looking for and so you persist. Good for you but why not take some of your advice about going away and thinking about it.
The answers will stay the same for sure so there won't be any point in returning to this.
We've all read the explanations (from CCM) and it's fairly obvious that this will remain as it is for the foreseeable future and beyond.
You don't accept their answers
You demand Better answers and don't get them
Yeah I get it, your struggling to find a safe way to bend the rules or cheat or just looking for an argument or extremely paranoid about being banned or Trying to Champion something that can't be or you just have to have everything in life explained in finite detail or whatever.
You asked a question and then demanded more details. The answer was NO, you can't have anymore details and that is that.
You weren't assured that this would be dealt with or any other promise to explain the rules. They made it clear that that is all the info you are allowed.
Sometimes our parents say NO, Sometimes our Friends say NO, Sometimes the Law says NO, Sometimes our Partners say NO.
It's a shame but in life and in game life, we don't always get what we want.
Have a Hug from Me.

Now I will go away and Not give it any more thought at all.

 

[DeletedUser]

Public written rules under which decisions are made are not available for any rule, so there's no reason why it should be an issue for this rule unless of course someone needs those instructions in order to more easily abuse that rule. You're even ignoring all the information you've been given, such as the most common instances of this rule being violated, what's reviewed to establish a violation, and every other response you've been given.

We cannot "teach" someone how to avoid being in violation of a game rule. It should be fairly clear why that's not possible.

Its the clarity of your assessments of rule breaking in regard to FP/Goods swaps that need defining properly, which you have repeatedly refused to do, that I am asking for an answer on.

You've been given a response regarding FPs/Goods swaps --- the rule itself tells you that's okay if it's balanced, because it tells you it's NOT okay if those trades are unbalanced. It's not okay for one player to reap the benefits of the trade. So simple logic here tells you that 500 fps for 10 goods is not okay and if that happens multiple times it will be a violation. If your trades are fairly balanced, there is nothing to worry about. Think in terms of diamond values if that helps you, as someone mentioned above.

The diamond comparison is NOT the thing thats important in assessing what is "fair" and what is not. The parameter is "what is considered FAIR by BOTH parties involved in the agreement" and not something thats trying to apply an unwritten rule on the subject from outside that agreement. The problem is just made worse by the "if that happens multiple times it will be a violation" part of your answer because although the agreement may be acceptable to the people concerned, the fact that it happens more than once puts them at risk. All such agreements are done voluntarily and benefit both p[layers concerned in different ways.

ie: Player A gets FPs for his GB whilst Player B gets the goods he needs for a tech unlock or a GB.

the problem as seen by the Mods would be that Player B gets a trade of for example 500 TE Goods in exchange for 500 BA Goods in the process and would therefore show up as a blatantly "unfair transaction" and should this happen more than once it shows as a trend.

I am NOT looking (as Gate2 posted which is INSULTING) for a way to cheat or evade the Rules on this but instead am looking for some sort of definition as to "how many times such a trade would be allowed under the (as Thanatos posted) guidelines we are being offered.

There is nothing evasive here.

Yours answers have been evasive from the start.

If you go back and read through the thread you'll see you've been given answers to everything, just not the precise answers you're looking for which you cannot have.

more evasion !!!!!

Shelob

 

[DeletedUser16026]

The diamond comparison is NOT the thing thats important in assessing what is "fair" and what is not. The parameter is "what is considered FAIR by BOTH parties involved in the agreement" and not something thats trying to apply an unwritten rule on the subject from outside that agreement.

Except with that logic there's no point in having this rule because you're letting everyone decide what they feel is fair. You might think that sounds nice but it doesn't work for the general balance in the game --- there's a reason restrictions such as the 2:1/1:2 trading ratio exist.

I am NOT looking (as Gate2 posted which is INSULTING) for a way to cheat or evade the Rules on this but instead am looking for some sort of definition as to "how many times such a trade would be allowed under the (as Thanatos posted) guidelines we are being offered.

I believe I have said from the very start that it is not possible to have such guidelines --- if someone tells you a violation is if 5 such trades occur, you can stick to 4 trades (this is just an example) and thus still abuse the rule while avoid being in violation. It doesn't matter what your particular goal is, someone is going to abuse the info.

 

[mrbeef]

But surely the aim is to eliminate the breaking of rules; so even if someone knows the rules and teeters on the edge of breaking them that has to be a better option than someone breaking them and being punished afterwards.

By the logic presented here it would be better to have 100 players banned for breaking the rules as opposed to 100 players who come CLOSE to breaking the rules.

Back to speed limits - if the limit is 100 and lots are speeding along at 99 (and that is deemed not acceptable) - then lower it to 95 - then those will have to speed along at 94 in order to be compliant....and the aim of reducing rule/law breakers will be achieved!

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Back to speed limits - if the limit is 100 and lots are speeding along at 99 (and that is deemed not acceptable) - then lower it to 95 - then those will have to speed along at 94 in order to be compliant....and the aim of reducing rule/law breakers will be achieved!

That is the problem: there is no simple "limit", there are many factors that must be used to determine if someone is pushing or not. Tell me how you expect the rules to look if you want exact details for them. If you outline all the topics that are needed then it would make a very long rule that would look very complex.

 

[DeletedUser]

Except with that logic there's no point in having this rule because you're letting everyone decide what they feel is fair. You might think that sounds nice but it doesn't work for the general balance in the game --- there's a reason restrictions such as the 2:1/1:2 trading ratio exist.


I believe I have said from the very start that it is not possible to have such guidelines --- if someone tells you a violation is if 5 such trades occur, you can stick to 4 trades (this is just an example) and thus still abuse the rule while avoid being in violation. It doesn't matter what your particular goal is, someone is going to abuse the info.

How on earth, praytell, can we avoid breaking a Rule that doesnt currently exist ?????????

 

[DeletedUser2989]

ie: Player A gets FPs for his GB whilst Player B gets the goods he needs for a tech unlock or a GB.

the problem as seen by the Mods would be that Player B gets a trade of for example 500 TE Goods in exchange for 500 BA Goods in the process and would therefore show up as a blatantly "unfair transaction" and should this happen more than once it shows as a trend.

I am NOT looking (as Gate2 posted which is INSULTING) for a way to cheat or evade the Rules on this but instead am looking for some sort of definition as to "how many times such a trade would be allowed under the (as Thanatos posted) guidelines we are being offered.

Your example assumes that only single parts of Player A's and Player B's accounts are looked at (assuming that a Mod would only look at the trades and ignore everything else) and Darkstar has already said this is not the case.

Then which factor are taken in consideration? I think that's the answer most of us want

Everything. The accounts are reviewed in full capacity. See Tankovy's post for a better idea.

So regarding the following part of your post

Its the clarity of your assessments of rule breaking in regard to FP/Goods swaps that need defining properly, which you have repeatedly refused to do, that I am asking for an answer on.

Thus the moderators assessments of rule breaking involves them looking at many aspects of the account, aspects such as "What are all the interactions between these players", "What is their log in behavior like" and anything else that may be related to resource exchanges/pushing behavior (referring to my post in the Darkstar quote for a basic idea of a few of these aspects). I know that saying "They look at everything" isn't specific on what Moderators will look at when assessing rule breaches but at the same time it tells you the answer "Nothing should be overlooked when considering the fairness or balance of exchanges between players".

What it tells me at the very least is that if moderators were to look at my account (as well as someone else that is assumed to be either pushing or being pushed by me) that they'll take into account any and all resource transfers to and from my account over the last couple of weeks or months (whatever time frame is appropriate...). If you're concerned that this means they may see a slight bias towards you benefiting rather than others (or others benefit more than you) then another of my posts has advice on adjusting your exchanges to improve that balance (basically just look into profiting a bit less or more if things feel unbalanced). However I doubt that "minor" differences between players profiting will get picked up, I'm pretty sure Darkstar mentioned it's the obvious unbalanced exchanges (or "major" differences) that grab attention. At what point does the profit line between players cross from "minor" to "major"? I'm not sure, but it really doesn't matter as I should be striving to minimize the profit in order to have fair and balanced resource exchanges with fellow players. I shouldn't be looking to maximize the profit to the point that I'm taking all of someones resources for no cost to me or to the point that I'm giving all mine away and getting nothing.

I hope that helps, I can't think of anything more I can say that would help.

*Note I edited Darkstar's quote by adding a link to my post to make things easier
**A summary of balanced resource trading:
Same resource trades (FP for FP, Good for Good) = basically try to make them as close to 1:1 as possible, in terms of FP donations consider both the rewards back for placing 1st-5th as well as return donations.
Differet resource trades (FP for Good) = Try using the diamond value of the respective resources.
***Contact support for a more specific review of your exchanges or if you have concerns that someone else is donating a lot and not getting a fair return.

 

[DeletedUser]

@Tankovy..... Your posts have been VERY helpful as was Starzaan's last post and I thank you both for them. The one thing I would point out tho Tankovy is that the value of Goods vs Diamonds is somewhat out of sync with that of FPs but from my analysis it would appear that a FAIR ratio in a Goods/FP deal would be..... 5 Goods = 1 FP..... am I wrong in my maths ?? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I am concerned I am NOT in breach of any Rules, and have no wish to be, so I have now done as DarkStar has suggested multiple times, and have raised a Support Ticket to have my account reviewed in full on Dinegu and Fel Dranghyr since I am STILL concerned.

SHELOB

 

[DeletedUser7719]

@Tankovy..... Your posts have been VERY helpful as was Starzaan's last post and I thank you both for them. The one thing I would point out tho Tankovy is that the value of Goods vs Diamonds is somewhat out of sync with that of FPs but from my analysis it would appear that a FAIR ratio in a Goods/FP deal would be..... 5 Goods = 1 FP..... am I wrong in my maths ?? Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

BA-PE goods cost 5 diamonds a piece and ME-and-above goods cost 10, so 5 goods for 1FP for ME and above, and 10 goods for 1FP for any trades below would reflect the diamond cost.

 

[DeletedUser]

BA-PE goods cost 5 diamonds a piece and ME-and-above goods cost 10, so 5 goods for 1FP for ME and above, and 10 goods for 1FP for any trades below would reflect the diamond cost.

Thanks for that..... I may have unwittingly ripped off a Guildie .... will have to see about compensating for it although since I was giving TE Goods I am not so sure. Could you clarify it a bit for me please ?

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Thanks for that..... I may have unwittingly ripped off a Guildie .... will have to see about compensating for it although since I was giving TE Goods I am not so sure. Could you clarify it a bit for me please ?

Each TE good cost 10 diamonds, and one FP cost 50 diamonds, so using diamonds as the comparison, if you want 100FP, you would pay the guildie 500 TE goods. Note I personally wouldn't use diamonds to compare things; I just feel like it doesn't make sense that 500 PME goods is the same as 500 TE goods (or that a BP is worth 4FPs)

 

[DeletedUser5180]

I've read it and don't understand why it would put it to bed. Just reminded me how Remorce didn't have any respect for players. To quote him



Wasn't Remorce AKA BlackSmith the Community Manager? Great way to talk about FoE customers.

good point mate

he was an arrogant so and so with no respect for the players who ultimately paid his wages

a very unlikeable person in my eyes

 

[DeletedUser]

Each TE good cost 10 diamonds, and one FP cost 50 diamonds, so using diamonds as the comparison, if you want 100FP, you would pay the guildie 500 TE goods. Note I personally wouldn't use diamonds to compare things; I just feel like it doesn't make sense that 500 PME goods is the same as 500 TE goods (or that a BP is worth 4FPs)

Thats why I was asking for clarification as I am of pretty much the same opinion as you apparently are.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Going off the simple Diamonds = Diamonds for FP and goods swaps is tricky as byeordie said due to many different age goods costing the same. Because if you were to look at the whole transaction:

10 BA + 2 FP's = 20 PE goods would be unfair as it'd be 150 = 100 (thus the person gaining the FP's would be profiting).

But surly the age of the goods should be considered in their "value", thus why I suggested earlier that such trades need to consider BA goods as worthless and also consider the value of lower age goods to be some fraction of the higher age good involved. So I'd say the following examples would be fair ratios:

10 BA + 2 FP's = 20 PE goods
5 BA + 2 FP's = 10 TE goods
10 PE + 2 FP's = 15 TE goods

In saying that you wouldn't have to stick strictly to that ratio set and could easily get away with changing the ratios slightly.

 

[DeletedUser]

Going off the simple Diamonds = Diamonds for FP and goods swaps is tricky as byeordie said due to many different age goods costing the same. Because if you were to look at the whole transaction:

10 BA + 2 FP's = 20 PE goods would be unfair as it'd be 150 = 100 (thus the person gaining the FP's would be profiting).

But surly the age of the goods should be considered in their "value", thus why I suggested earlier that such trades need to consider BA goods as worthless and also consider the value of lower age goods to be some fraction of the higher age good involved. So I'd say the following examples would be fair ratios:

10 BA + 2 FP's = 20 PE goods
5 BA + 2 FP's = 10 TE goods
10 PE + 2 FP's = 15 TE goods

In saying that you wouldn't have to stick strictly to that ratio set and could easily get away with changing the ratios slightly.

Sorry Tankovy..... the ratios that most of us apply are purely Goods vs FPs so the way you have done it wouldnt apply. Also the way the trades are usually conducted is that its BA Goods vs [whatever age] so that the lower age players who NEED the Goods (usually for a high age GB) can afford the trades in the first place. This way also allows the lower age player to continue with his research and tech unlock as normal.