Jump to content

Guilt by association?


Blink
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've mentioned that TKR should have cooled down for 3 days before making a more planned approach to this. The lynch mob is possibly not helping; if I were Alex I would be very pissed off that users first demanded that Alex ban cheaters and go to more severe punishment, then the users demanded that Alex unban someone who seemed to have been related.

I 100% support Blink being unbanned, although reinstating his nation is only something I wouldn't mind. It's just that trying to organize a mass pressure campaign instead of going through alliance leaders or others with special relations with Alex first is dangerous, and could ensure that Blink is banned.

tl;dr, let backchannel people work on this. The mass campaign is likely to make Alex think: "I've been pushed around enough, now it's time to put my foot down".

 

===

 

Publicly, as far as we understand, Alex is moving houses right now and busy as f-. I think Alex, rationally, would unban Blink at the very least, but don't make him irrational.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Blink said:

Eventually Alex will present the information to me which led to the ban, but so far he hasn't said one word to me. 

If you haven't already, you need to post in ban appeals. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/135-ban-appeals/

The mods very lightly gloss over the IC sections unless someone reports a post. Alex may not even read this thread.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

If you haven't already, you need to post in ban appeals. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/135-ban-appeals/

The mods very lightly gloss over the IC sections unless someone reports a post. Alex may not even read this thread.

Thanks I've posted but I also read that game bans can't be appealed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

There is a lot to unpack here. 

1- The point of verification was never to deal with issues like these. It was meant to deal with rule breaking like multi'ing, shuffling resources for one player, declaring on the same target, etc. Doing things like timed actions aren't covered by verification. To say that the system has been undermined by @Alex doing something that isn't related to the area of jurisdiction the system possesses is a bit ridiculous.

2- It is exactly because this was how this played out that I'm holding out further. He was reluctant to ban nations until he uncovered more evidence even when there was community pressure (a heck of a lot, at that) to do so; why would he suddenly ban someone that no one was asking for a ban of? It is because Sheepy has historically been known to be slow with administering bans and the lenient punishment that came before that makes me believe there is something more.

1- On the post in the announcement thread he literally said 'Additionally, a potential pooball multi https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=116741 which was a member of TKR was banned.' which was my reasoning for that comment. Potential pooball multi seems to tick one of those boxes if i'm not mistaken.

2- fair enough with this, I do think that if someone is a suspect a temporary ban is fair enough but a proper statement was necessary as it wasn't blatant cheating like pooball and its not like Blink is just another 'multi,' he's been a gov member in a major alliance, was on p&w before pooball and is fairly well known in the community. I guess you are right though about the quick ban thing, but let's see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dio Brando said:

Honestly, I'm not sure whether you're messing, but considering your post history I'm leaning towards that not being true. Be silent. You have nothing of value to contribute, but that is par for the course, so I won't belabour the point.

I was 100% serious when I said the fair thing would be ban everyone. :P

Although seriously, the innocent should be unbanned if we want to be fair & keep the game going...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

You don't know whether Blink and pooball are even close at all, so there's my 2 cents. 

You're right, I can't observe their real-life behavior. However, we do know that pooball was willing to share his exploited resources/funds with his brother. What are the odds he's all for sharing the spoils of his exploit, but is 100% adamant about keeping his own brother in the dark about how he got the resources/funds?

1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Although seriously, the innocent should be unbanned if we want to be fair & keep the game going...

I don't believe anyone innocent was banned.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 7

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
Just now, CandyShi said:

Let's make an analogy. For this analogy, let's say pooball and blink are close enough to give gifts to each other.

If you stole something from Wal-mart and gave it to your friend as a gift, would you really tell them that you stole it when you give them the gift? 

Of course Blink might be complacent in all this as well, but you may as well look at it from both sides. 

Well you're making the exact same argument pooball made. It was a third player who deleted when all of this came to light who was running the exploit, but he was working intimately with pooball and Ar Gd. Pooball claims he did not know that the funds came from an exploit, he was getting "stolen gifts" and he didn't know they were stolen.

Do you think I should unban pooball and Ar Gd as well?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex said:

You're right, I can't observe their real-life behavior. However, we do know that pooball was willing to share his exploited resources/funds with his brother. What are the odds he's all for sharing the spoils of his exploit, but is 100% adamant about keeping his own brother in the dark about how he got the resources/funds?

I don't believe anyone innocent was banned.

I liked your cautious approach of avoiding innocents potentially being unfairly punished over banning people because you think they might have cheated. Those who disagreed were the loudest, but you should be sure.

If somebody I introduce to the game eventually does something I would never agree with gets me banned; that makes me think it’s best not to play with people I know outside the game into these simulators; since I’m only in full control of my own actions. So don’t like the precedent if somebody you know IRL plays and ever cheats; both get banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to ban anyone who received any money from Nova, you might as well ban all of nova, all recent members of Nova, and likely much of TF also. Since Nova participated in chaos operations using the stolen money, if you'd like to be really safe I recommend banning all of chaos as well.

 

Oh wait, that's ridiculous? I know it is.

Your verification procedure is awful, I will not sugarcoat it. I couldn't do it, nobody with any sight impairments could do it, and not going to lie, anybody who for very legitimate reasons doesn't want to share a personal picture with someone they don't know couldn't do it. I'm very willing to set up a voice chat with Alex, Blink and Pooball if all parties wish to prove that they're not the same person should you want that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, PDunny said:

The fact that you're basing this on "odds" instead of facts is pretty clear to me that there is no evidence for it and instead the banhammer is just being flung. No offense, I respect your right to do it as you wish but I think that almost everyone who knows Blink would not believe that they would be associated with something like this. 

Even if you think that Blink was not cheating at all and 100% unaware of the huge exploit that his brother was running in the same game they play, he still received the illicit funds and resources while the two nations were not Verified which is a violation of the game rules and a bannable offense anyway.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 4

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Even if you think that Blink was not cheating at all and 100% unaware of the huge exploit that his brother was running in the same game they play, he still received the illicit funds and resources while the two nations were not Verified which is a violation of the game rules and a bannable offense anyway.

If not sure, wiping his funds and bringing back his nation might be more even handed for what was likely a mistake? Unless he got billions, doubt he was in on it

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

Even if you think that Blink was not cheating at all and 100% unaware of the huge exploit that his brother was running in the same game they play, he still received the illicit funds and resources while the two nations were not Verified which is a violation of the game rules and a bannable offense anyway.

Put another way, some verified / non-verified players play in the same alliance. The alliance bank becomes extremely ambiguous as cheating; i.e, if both players bank into the alliance bank, and the alliance distributes aid to both of them, is that cheating? In some cases, I know verified players end up being in different alliances to avoid this grey area.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alex said:

Even if you think that Blink was not cheating at all and 100% unaware of the huge exploit that his brother was running in the same game they play, he still received the illicit funds and resources while the two nations were not Verified which is a violation of the game rules and a bannable offense anyway.

Do you believe them to be the same person and they are just funneling money between themselves or is this just an excuse that you can make to make it feel better fro the community?

 

It may have been a violation of the rules for that to occur but it is something that could easily be forgotten to do. I would like to imagine that in 99.999% of other scenarios it would be forgiven and the ban lifted if they were to prove themselves as non-multis. 

Edited by PDunny
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's stop right there. Ignoring the "Blink knew what Pooball was up to" tangent...

  1. Pooball and Blink had not been verified for a long period of time
  2. Blink received funds from Pooball while unverified.
  3. The Game Rules explicitly read: "Using Alliance Banks to evade trade restrictions imposed on nations on the same network is a bannable offense."
  4. Knowing this, they were in violation of the rules regardless.

What seems to be the problem with this? For people who were so ready to espouse the ideals of 'not bending to mob mentality', there is a massive disconnect between what they want, and what they're doing. Complaining about moderation is fine, bringing up issues is encouraged, defending people you know is understandable, but issuing ultimatums at any given time is not

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dio Brando said:

Okay, let's stop right there. Ignoring the "Blink knew what Pooball was up to" tangent...

  1. Pooball and Blink had not been verified for a long period of time
  2. Blink received funds from Pooball while unverified.
  3. The Game Rules explicitly read: "Using Alliance Banks to evade trade restrictions imposed on nations on the same network is a bannable offense."
  4. Knowing this, they were in violation of the rules regardless.

What seems to be the problem with this? For people who were so ready to espouse the ideals of 'not bending to mob mentality', there is a massive disconnect between what they want, and what they're doing. Complaining about moderation is fine, bringing up issues is encouraged, defending people you know is understandable, but issuing ultimatums at any given time is not

For element 3, I notice that it's an ambiguous case, as with the two people in the same alliance both banking into the alliance and receiving aid from the alliance. We've clearly shown that the funds received by Blink were a loan granted by Nova Riata, not necessarily Poo, and Blink doesn't seem to have known that the majority of NR bank's money was Poo's cheatcoin.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Inst said:

For element 3, I notice that it's an ambiguous case, as with the two people in the same alliance both banking into the alliance and receiving aid from the alliance. We've clearly shown that the funds received by Blink were a loan granted by Nova Riata, not necessarily Poo, and Blink doesn't seem to have known that the majority of NR bank's money was Poo's cheatcoin.

If it was put through a middle-man, it remains almost the same deal, really. I'm not particularly bothered by this given the circumstances. The problem with Blink claiming he didn't know (which stands against reasonable inference) is that it depends on his word (why would you admit you cheated?).

Just now, namukara said:

How do you know that Pooball had anything to do with the granting of the loan? He might have known nothing about it before seing the bank log.

Blink showed me a screenshot where-in he was asking for Pooball to send him money.

 

Edited by Dio Brando
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dio Brando said:

If it was put through a middle-man, it remains almost the same deal, really. 

How do you know that Pooball had anything to do with the granting of the loan? He might have known nothing about it before seing the bank log.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, namukara said:

How do you know that Pooball had anything to do with the granting of the loan? He might have known nothing about it before seing the bank log.

We've shown that Poo was asked to grant the loan by Blink in the screenshot given.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.