5/3/2015 - Issues with Generated Money

[Lu Xun]

 

I'm not a fan of Confucius, or you're terrible logic in this thread. Don't get me started on morality, because all I have to say about that is that morality is a social construct. Not a reality. Thus we can say anything is immoral/moral, argue about it, and never get anywhere.

We don't depend on people to police themselves in this game. Which is why moderators exist. It's quite simple. If they cheat, they get reset/banned. That's incentive enough to keep people in line. This is also why we have jails in RL. We depend on punishments to control behavior everywhere on earth, be it online, the US, China, Saudi Arabia or even your workplace. That's how societies work and that's why punishments exist at all. You cannot rely on the human ego to keep itself in line. If we could, terms like punishment, selfishness, and government wouldn't even exist.



I always try to look at things from my opponents perspective, but your logic is complete !@#$. Whoever you are, you clearly don't know me as well as you think you do.

If you look at this from a Western perspective, also remember the Athenian legislator Draco, who lends his name to the adjective "draconian", and has thus been repudiated by the ages.

If you want to know something amusing, consider this. The Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker wrote a book called "The Better Angels of Our Nature". It explained how the incidence of violence declined over the years, as well as the cruelty of punishments have decreased correspondingly. You could claim it's a chicken and egg thing, but the reality is, punishments that are harsher than called for don't work, in fact, they push people to cover for each other over the perceived unfairness of the legal system, and well, what's the difference between being draw and quartered and being shot through the head? You're dead anyways; after a certain point returns diminish near zero.

 

 

 

Are you another "Pol Pot" multi?

 

Banning works just fine. If ban evader comes back, he gets banned again. Pretty !@#$ easy and simple. Ban evader may be able to come back now and again without getting caught, but do you realize how they do that? They do so by learning their mistakes and not repeating them. And if they do, BANHAMMER AGAIN!

 

I think this method is easily far more effective on any day of the week than simply forgiving people for blatantly breaking the rules. This is not anarchy, sir. There are rules, and punishments. We don't give people blow jobs for abusing exploits, K?

 

You are a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) player, are you not? Are you familiar with certain ban evaders who end up operating multi-schemes because they're already banned and if caught, the recipients of tech can claim that they didn't know, and that the ban evader just gets rebanned?

[LordRahl2]

Did you just quote wikipedia at me son?  lol

 

Ok:

 

Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard was praised as "realistic and gallant"

[Lu Xun]

 

 

. Ban evader may be able to come back now and again without getting caught, but do you realize how they do that? They do so by learning their mistakes and not repeating them. And if they do, BANHAMMER AGAIN!

Which is to say, how to cheat more effectively, and how to evade detection more effectively. I suggest that if you sincerely believe what you are saying, you should look for mentors to teach you how to cheat effectively because following this sort of policy will result in ban evaders devising ever more effective methods of cheating and PnW will be overrun by cheaters.

The first banning, hurts, basically, but once you've been banned the second banning is just "try again later".

[Fox Fire]

Steven Pinker wrote a book called "The Better Angels of Our Nature". It explained how the incidence of violence declined over the years, as well as the cruelty of punishments have decreased correspondingly.

Yeah. We have a term for that. It's called collective learning. Violence didn't decline because of a change in punishment. It declined because our species got smarter. Further more, there is absolutely zero unfairness in the way PaW is moderated. In fact, Sheepy is quite possibly one of the most lenient admins I've met. I mean, I was previously banned from this exact game..... And I'm back. 

 

You are a (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) player, are you not? Are you familiar with certain ban evaders who end up operating multi-schemes because they're already banned and if caught, the recipients of tech can claim that they didn't know, and that the ban evader just gets rebanned?

 

You're referring to DBDC. Yeah.... I can TOTALLY see how NOT banning people, but rather, threatening them with it, will solve that problem.....  :facepalm:

 

God.... Why am I arguing with you?

[Lu Xun]

@ LordRahl2:

I suggest you read this text and consider it.

 

http://www.spectacle.org/296/obscene.html

 

 

Justice Potter Stewart, who did not mean to be funny, said he could not define obscenity but "I know it when I see it." The Supreme Court flip-flopped for decades, continually redefining obscenity, until, in 1973, it settled on the so-called Miller standard, according to which obscenity is the subset of pornography which is prurient, patently offensive, and lacking in significant scientific, literary, artistic, or political ("SLAP") value. Therefore, obscenity is defined as a subset of something which cannot itself be defined. This definition, constantly in use in the more than twenty years since Miller, betrays a weakness in the rulebook, or rather, in the Supreme Court's implementation of the American version of the rulebook.

 

I am going down for a drink now, and perhaps I will be back.

[Nietzschelloo]

So is there a status update?

[Kadin]

[Lu Xun]

Yeah. We have a term for that. It's called collective learning. Violence didn't decline because of a change in punishment. It declined because our species got smarter. Further more, there is absolutely zero unfairness in the way PaW is moderated. In fact, Sheepy is quite possibly one of the most lenient admins I've met. I mean, I was previously banned from this exact game..... And I'm back. 

 

You're referring to DBDC. Yeah.... I can TOTALLY see how NOT banning people, but rather, threatening them with it, will solve that problem.....  :facepalm:

 

God.... Why am I arguing with you?

"Our species got smarter" -> Ehhh... so would you say that Aboriginals are dumber than White Australians? Aboriginals make up 2.3% of the Australian population, but make up 25% of the prison population. You posted against the "fuzz" in the General Discussion thread, are you going to claim that Aboriginals are dumber than White Australians?

 

And no, I'm not referring to DBDC. I was playing that game for more than 7 years and I know far more than the surface most people see. I am literally talking from experience, while you are talking from hearsay and supposition.

 

With regards to DBDC, though, the way I understand it is that DBDC donates too much money, and (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is considered dying, so Kevin Marks is reluctant to go through with the banning process, even though in all likelihood they are probably operating multis; they've been there long enough and they know how to. The problem cannot be solved by banning them, because Kevin cannot accept the financial hit, so other means need to be employed. I am not saying that they should be threatened, but I am not saying that anyone would be happy by banning them either,

Edited May 4, 2015 by Inst

[Lu Xun]

Thank you for the reminder, Estelle.

[seabasstion]

Its probably basic stuff for you sheepy but are you sure you have your data fields sanitized? Perhaps he is buying offers on the market and some form of Sql injection is being appended on the buy quantity field

[Fox Fire]

"Our species got smarter" -> Ehhh... so would you say that Aboriginals are dumber than White Australians? Aboriginals make up 2.3% of the Australian population, but make up 25% of the prison population. You posted against the "fuzz" in the General Discussion thread, are you going to claim that Aboriginals are dumber than White Australians?

 

umno.... wat?

 

And no, I'm not referring to DBDC. I was playing that game for more than 7 years and I know far more than the surface most people see. I am literally talking from experience, while you are talking from hearsay and supposition.

 

Yeah, I've been playing since 06 myself, so stuff your experience elitism, K?

 

With regards to DBDC, though, the way I understand it is that DBDC donates too much money, and (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is considered dying, so Kevin Marks is reluctant to go through with the banning process, even though in all likelihood they are probably operating multis; they've been there long enough and they know how to. The problem cannot be solved by banning them, because Kevin cannot accept the financial hit, so other means need to be employed. I am not saying that they should be threatened, but I am not saying that anyone would be happy by banning them either,

 

I'm pretty !@#$ing sure that Admin can afford to loose a handful of 20 or less people. I mean, people get banned from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) left and right. It's not dying because of DBDC and Admin has more than enough donations to not only keep the game running, but make decent amount of dough. DBDC are FAR from the only people who donate, and they certainy don't make up the majority, or even remotely close to the majority of donations in any way, shape or form.

 

[Lu Xun]

 

 

umno.... wat?

Your claim is that people are less violent because people are smarter now (arguable; political correctness dictates that people assume that anatomically modern humans are all equivalent in capability, but there's also the question of the Flynn effect). If people are less violent because they're smarter now, then would you claim that Aboriginals in Australia are dumber than White Australians because they end up in prison more often?

How about Maori in New Zealand, who have an increased rate of violence in part connected to their MAOA gene?

 

Yeah, I've been playing since 06 myself, so stuff your experience elitism, K?

 

That's true, I mean, I could mention a particular career but I don't like elitism in general.

 

 

I'm pretty !@#$ sure that Admin can afford to loose a handful of 20 or less people. I mean, people get banned from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) left and right. It's not dying because of DBDC and Admin has more than enough donations to not only keep the game running, but make decent amount of dough. DBDC are FAR from the only people who donate, and they certainy don't make up the majority, or even remotely close to the majority of donations in any way, shape or form.

 

Incorrect, because I did work towards decomposing donation directions by analysing the game database (picked up every day by copying and parsing the all nations display). DBDC-type players make up the vast majority of donors; new players make almost no donations per capita, while CubaQuerrida-type players are macrodonors.

Also, consider the case of King Brandon. Alyster is banned because he never donated. King Brandon used multis to buy donations, so he got covered under a different track than Alyster, letting King Brandon politely go into inactivity mode instead of getting banned.

 

The other thing I want to say is that I've been able to get intelligence from "sources", which I've since lost, and policy for a while was to try to avoid banning people to keep the game alive.

 

The point is this, a draconian policy ends up failing eventually because you cannot enforce policy. The worst thing is not letting cheaters off with a slap on the wrist, it's not catching them at all. So you end up in the scenario where there is a lot of, and possibly increasing cheating, in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but because of the reluctance-to-ban policy it's being discouraged only be security theater.

 

But okay. I will take Estelle's advice and stop feeding the trolls now. You can do whatever you want, I'm just The Kibitzer.

[Atzuya]

Well this thread certainly devolved real quick

 

Anyway, the 77 mil I got from Pol Pot is gone, though I didn't get my 1000 steel he bought with it back. I guess that's a good start for the recovery

[Lu Xun]

Also, pragmatically, consider this. The United States, with its tough on crime policy, has both the world's largest prison population on a per capita basis, as well as some of the highest crime rates in the first world, especially compared to Western European democracies. Texas has the death penalty, with a murder rate of .04 per 1000, while France has a murder rate of .01 per 1000, despite having a sizable Arab lumpenproletariat that it seems to be having trouble integrating. Generally, making a penalty harsher does not make it work, but w/e, I shouldn't have posted this, I said I was leaving.

[Fox Fire]

Your claim is that people are less violent because people are smarter now (arguable; political correctness dictates that people assume that anatomically modern humans are all equivalent in capability, but there's also the question of the Flynn effect). If people are less violent because they're smarter now, then would you claim that Aboriginals in Australia are dumber than White Australians because they end up in prison more often?

No. That's like asking me if black people are dumber because they end up in prison more.... Retarded !@#$ question... Collective learning is not specific to any race, species or even life form. In fact, collective learning is a fundamental to DNA itself. 

 

How about Maori in New Zealand, who have an increased rate of violence in part connected to their MAOA gene?

The MAOA gene is far, far more complex than you're implying and resides in (almost) all humans on earth.

 

Incorrect, because I did work towards decomposing donation directions by analysing the game database (picked up every day by copying and parsing the all nations display). DBDC-type players make up the vast majority of donors; new players make almost no donations per capita, while CubaQuerrida-type players are macrodonors.

 

Also, consider the case of King Brandon. Alyster is banned because he never donated. King Brandon used multis to buy donations, so he got covered under a different track than Alyster, letting King Brandon politely go into inactivity mode instead of getting banned.

 

The other thing I want to say is that I've been able to get intelligence from "sources", which I've since lost, and policy for a while was to try to avoid banning people to keep the game alive.

 

The point is this, a draconian policy ends up failing eventually because you cannot enforce policy. The worst thing is not letting cheaters off with a slap on the wrist, it's not catching them at all. So you end up in the scenario where there is a lot of, and possibly increasing cheating, in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but because of the reluctance-to-ban policy it's being discouraged only be security theater.

 

But okay. I will take Estelle's advice and stop feeding the trolls now. You can do whatever you want, I'm just The Kibitzer.

 

DBDC makes up an insignificant portion of donator nations..... I'm almost positive that more people in my own alliance donate in the same fashion than the entirety of DBDC. Do you realize there are about 9,000 players in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (last I checked)?

Also, did you seriously just throw me a complete 180 on what you were arguing? LMAO! I'm not trolling, I'm just destroying your backwards logic that has now somehow reversed itself....

Edited May 4, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Fox Fire]

Also, pragmatically, consider this. The United States, with its tough on crime policy, has both the world's largest prison population on a per capita basis, as well as some of the highest crime rates in the first world, especially compared to Western European democracies. Texas has the death penalty, with a murder rate of .04 per 1000, while France has a murder rate of .01 per 1000, despite having a sizable Arab lumpenproletariat that it seems to be having trouble integrating. Generally, making a penalty harsher does not make it work, but w/e, I shouldn't have posted this, I said I was leaving.

Since when is America "tough on crime" compared to most nations? I mean, we don't hang 8 year old girls here for getting raped, or execute singers for being in porn vids.... 

Texas is next door to a literal war zone. France is not. Also, when considering Frances outer lying territories, their homicide rate is FAR beyond ours. 

And IDK where you got those stats, but they are total !@#$. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

And in closing, I still don't know why I'm arguing with you. I suppose it's because your backwards logic annoys the !@#$ out of me.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Dalinar]

I see Inst hasn't changed

[Oblige]

So is there a status update?

 

SHEEPY HAS CONFIRMED THERE WILL NOT BE A ROLLBACK AND HE WILL BE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE MANUALLY!

[Fox Fire]

SHEEPY HAS CONFIRMED THERE WILL NOT BE A ROLLBACK AND HE WILL BE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE MANUALLY!

So the global war that just kicked off is going to disappoint a lot of people? LMAO!

[Lu Xun]

Dalinar: I think it's funny because you were probably ban-bait back in the day. Dalinar.

Foxfire: You know, you've more or less gone to a no-you type of argument and I'm outta here. I think I've stated my case clearly enough for outsiders, while you've mainly called me names. I won't be able to convince you of my point but others will make their decisions.

[Fox Fire]

Dalinar: I think it's funny because you were probably ban-bait back in the day. Dalinar.

 

Foxfire: You know, you've more or less gone to a no-you type of argument and I'm outta here. I think I've stated my case clearly enough for outsiders, while you've mainly called me names. I won't be able to convince you of my point but others will make their decisions.

I just called you on your bullshit. Nothing more. Carry on, lads.

[vonnorman]

Total restart lets all hit on equal ground and see how the game plays out

[Arthur James]

too late, he remove most of our resources to day unknown.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Arthur James

[SoS]

If the game gets rolled back. It will do no major damage other than buying some stuff back and also #BanPolPot2015

one less person saying the b-word

[Alex]

I'm happy to announce that this issue has been addressed.

 

First, the bugged money has been all but entirely removed from the game. I looked at all instances where it was generated, through trades, and followed it through expenditures, trades, and bank activity. I've removed cities that were purchased with exploit money, and removed the money sitting around in alliance banks and nation inventories. Things are close enough to normal that any extra market stimulation from inflated resource prices is pretty negligible.

 

Second, I've reset one offender and banned another. One player received an obscenely large amount of bugged money, though he did not generate it himself. For failing to report it, and attempting to use it, his nation was reset. The other player, the one who found the bug, and instead of reporting it abused it, has been banned and removed from the game.

 

Third, the bug has been found and fixed. I take full responsibility, as the game's programmer, for this vulnerability in the code. I will continue to revise and enhance the code behind the game to make sure that something like this does not happen again in the future.

 

Thank you for your patience and understanding as I got this matter resolved. The market is now back online, and things can go back to (more or less) normal.