| Author | Priorities ? |
|---|
So , I just met another cheater in a battle that was reported months ago but still didn't get punished and happily continues to transfer massive gold amounts between his 6+ multichars.
Now can someone explain me why theres nothing done against these people at all ? not even against the very obvious cases where people transfer gold between chars like Neoptolemos1 Neoptolemos2 Neoptolemos3 etc. ?
I dont understand it because in the battle violations forum people get punished withing 1-2 days . so the mods/admins /whatever seem to have both , the power and the time to work through reports and add gold fees.
Is it really more important to punish people for nonsense like saying "noob" or "idiot" (stuff nobody cares about everywhere else in the internet and real life) instead of getting rid of cheaters ? |
| Different people, different jobs. |
Is it really more important to punish people for nonsense like saying "noob" or "idiot" (stuff nobody cares about everywhere else in the internet and real life) instead of getting rid of cheaters ?
very well said, and totally true. some people will never understand that calling someone an "idiot" when he/she actually _is_ an idiot is not an offense, it's a simple fact, helping the person in question to get to know him/herself better. |
| care to elaborate on that?...because it doesnt make any sense. the people who work on the battle violations forum have the tools they need to punish the cheaters as well . are they not allowed to do it ? why ? its far more important. |
| agree @ Georgia |
| unfortunately they don't have the tools they need to punish the cheaters |
| they can add gold fines to people , what else do they need ? sorry if i missed something |
The members of #591 LWM - Juries clan ( https://www.lordswm.com/clan_info.php?id=7591 ), are responsible for invistigating financial and/or multi character cheats. Unfortunately we do not have the power to directly apply fines/blocks ourselves and need to wait on admins (Arctic) to have time to read our reports and apply punishments.
During October/November we dealt with quite a number of cheats but unfortunately with all the updates/events/etc going on the admins have not been spending time recently keeping on top of this.
We were told that from 8th January this will start taking priority again so hopefully you will all start seeing more results again soon.
We have also asked for the authority to apply penalties directly to the more obvious and less complex cases but are still waiting to hear from admins whether this will be allowed. |
There are too many complaints. More than 70 pages are still in queue and haven't been processed yet. That's why it looked like the cheaters didn't get punished
I know that the 'juries' are working hard to help Arctic to solve the problem and they work by FIFO (First In First Out). Meaning they will process the oldest complaint first and moving to the newer one.
But if I may give you a suggestion. Can we have 1 jury to specially process the first page of CaA while the rest of the jury work in FIFO?
Why? It is for psychological effects. It gives impression that 'cheaters are being punished for what they did.
This will reduce the frustration of non-cheater players while at the same time (hopefully) can give a warning to those who cheat (or want to cheat) to stop cheating. |
#9
I know that the 'juries' are working hard to help Arctic to solve the problem and they work by FIFO (First In First Out). Meaning they will process the oldest complaint first and moving to the newer one.
This is not correct - each individual juries member has a different remit on which CaA posts to handle and in what order and we have an off-game system to ensure that duplications are not done.
The problem is that we have effectively been on hold since November while we wait for admins to catch up with us. |
#10
OK, thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear that.
But I hope the Juries+Arctic can consider my suggestion to have 1 Jury process the first page of CaA |
| 11 maybe they do that but since they have to wait month or 2 1st page slips in meantime |
Can we have 1 jury to specially process the first page of CaA
I think this will just entice people to bump their C&A topics. |
I think that we have to consider that this is a free game, that means that some guys do the job on their free time with no payment. They are real peoples like us with real lives, real jobs.
Yeah it's easy to whine, but we have understand that they are trying to do their best! And trust me I did a job like this some years ago. It's not easy!
Now we have 1 admin with power to block accounts, but we are all the time 800+ online. So 1 man trying to be "father" for 800 "kids" it's really hard.
I think the problem with cheaters will be solved. I have faith in the admins.
Keep up the good work guys!
Best regards,
Xata |
ah well thanks for the answer DEATHisNEAR :)
Its good to hear what the exact problem is and that you guys here still work on it.
@Xata : I'm not whining and and I'm not expecting a miracle . Just a few banned cheaters on the first pages from time to time ( especially the cases that take 30 seconds to figure out).
And I was wondering why the prosecution of terrible terrible noob and idiot sayers works so flawlessly while the cheater punishment doesnt.
Now I have an answer. I dont understand the reasoning behind those admin decicions and the different rights they give to their helpers, but theres nothing the people here can do about it I guess. |
I know that the 'juries' are working hard to help Arctic to solve the problem and they work by FIFO (First In First Out)
Totaly untrue. Im waiting more than 2 months for blocking one character and there are many much more recently cases already solved. |
|
Thanks again for the info :)
As I said I understand its not your fault and I hope you're going to get more authority . |
| As long as Artic and/or admin are the only people who can impose penalties for multis and illegal transfers, it doesn't matter how many people investigate, there will always be a bottleneck at Arctic/Admin. It's simply too much to do for such a small number of people. |
