Theft from SG.. Tale of Woe
By
ajax_cat,
Posted on: 2008-08-04 18:10 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(c) be enforceable by the GMs?
Discuss
[/ QUOTE ]
altho a change in the code of conduct would make it easyer for the suport team to hand out punishment or atleast help out in this situation it wouldnt make the problem go away what is realy needed is a complete overhawl of the permision system itself either by a bin by biun basis so that you set who canacess storage bins at what rank and if needs be lock one or two so only top ranks get them or by type of bin insp bins have one setting salvage another and enhancements something different again both these systems would give leaders greater control over access and greatly limit the chances for theifs to actuly do damage in the first place
[/ QUOTE ]
You are right, and this is in part why i mentioned point (c) above. We must remember that the game devs are those in charge of the base systems whereas the GMs are in charge of customer support, conduct etc. Whilst we have been receiving hints that bases will be getting love in the future, this may well be several months away. On the other hand, a revision of the code of conduct may well provide increased protection relatively sooner.
@Jaw Dropper - Toons of all levels so drop me a line!
Imaginary Inc.
Twitter me!
[ QUOTE ]
Taking a look at those, we can immediately see that @SneakyThief has already broken rule 1 straight away, so one has to ask; why DON'T NC take action against salvage thieves? It's a clear breach of the rules, after all...
[/ QUOTE ]
You cause me distress by quoting those rules.
/inane argument
I think the key part here is that the harassment, etc, was done "willingly". i.e. He was given the salvage and appropiate permissions, rather than giving a f-cluster or abusing any UI glitches. I've worked as a GM before, and this kind of distinction - no matter how tiny - can change how a ticket is dealt with.
[ QUOTE ]
1. While playing City of Heroes , you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.
<snip>
Taking a look at those, we can immediately see that @SneakyThief has already broken rule 1 straight away, so one has to ask; why DON'T NC take action against salvage thieves? It's a clear breach of the rules, after all...
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that if the thief is culpable, he would have fallen foul of the "defrauding" statement. But I'm not sure its as clear a breach as you may argue. Whilst certainly it seems (from the evidence provided by the OP) that he was deceived by the "thief" for the accused's personal gain, I'm not sure the deception was material to the removal of the salvage. It would need to be clearly shown that the OP would not have given access to the salvage without deception undertaken by the accused. If it can be shown that the "thief" received such SG priviledges due to deception, then it might be classed as fraud. Note: I am not a lawyer so this is all only in my understanding etc etc caveat caveat 
@Jaw Dropper - Toons of all levels so drop me a line!
Imaginary Inc.
Twitter me!
Although the rules of conduct have a connection to the original post I would be inclined to start another thread as people may still want to discuss their views on what happened with regards to the OP. Then again, this is probably what happens with all threads. 
I think it is sufficiently on topic for it seems that the OP did not receive any help either because the thief had not broken the rules of conduct or because the rules are unenforceable. This is therefore the natural progression of discussion. However if a mod disagrees I am of course happy to start a thread else where to discuss
@Jaw Dropper - Toons of all levels so drop me a line!
Imaginary Inc.
Twitter me!
Do I think @Sneaky_thieving_goit broke rule 1? Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
1. While playing City of Heroes , you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bolded the relevant bit.
The OP is clearly distressed by this. @Sneaky_thieving_goit seems to have done this on purpose, but that is beside the point - the OP is distressed, and it was by @Sneaky_thieving_goit's actions. Action should be taken. I don't care what that action is, as long as some is taken. I trust the GMs enough to suppose that on consideration they will do/have done so.
As for whether the OP should get his stuff back... in the interests of fairness, yes, but policy is that he won't, so I can understand the official stance. On the other hand, if the removed stuff can be taken away from @Sneaky_thieving_goit and given back to the OP, then that would be a VERY equitable result.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise 
; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.* KILLLLLL HIM
[ QUOTE ]
The OP is clearly distressed by this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Problem: how do you measure "distress" when it came about due to something the player originally consented to (in this case a salvage transfer)? It's easy to say and understand he's upset by these events, but how do you see things from a completely neutral, paid perspective?
A lot of players take part in things that could cause distress to others, but it's done with consent (swearing and "adult" topics in team chat immediatly spring to mind among other things). It's a bit of an iffy guideline to go by; if a punishment is handed out here, then it's a bit of an awkward precedent to set for other incidents.
[ QUOTE ]
Problem: how do you measure "distress" when it came about due to something the player originally consented to (in this case a salvage transfer)? It's easy to say and understand he's upset by these events, but how do you see things from a completely neutral, paid perspective?
A lot of players take part in things that could cause distress to others, but it's done with consent (swearing and "adult" topics in team chat immediatly spring to mind among other things). It's a bit of an iffy guideline to go by; if a punishment is handed out here, then it's a bit of an awkward precedent to set for other incidents.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did @Sneaky_thieving_goit tell the OP that he was going to clean out the storage and bug out of the SG? No. That's defrauding. He fraudulently gained access and permissions to a SG with the intent to strip it bare. Did @Sneaky_thieving_goit do it on purpose? Looks like it. Did @Sneaky_thieving_goit's actions cause distress to the OP? Yes.
In an arrangement like a SG, there is an implicit trust between the players, due to the primitive nature of the permissions we have for storage, and if someone abuses that trust, then they will undoubtedly cause distress to other players. The question then becomes one of whether it's intentional or not.
If it was an 'accident' then I can agree that there is no real reason for the OP to be distressed by it, but from the information we have here, @Sneaky_thieving_goit did this with the sole intention of stealing from the OP's SG - if that wasn't his aim, he should, by rights, give the items back. Since he put the OP on ignore as soon as he did this, he clearly thought he got away with it and would continue to get away with it. As I see it, @Sneaky_thieving_goit griefed the OP intentionally.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
It's a shame that nothing can be done about this. It seems to come down to the fact that because you trusted someone with responsibility that it was your fault. To be trusting is not your fault but perhaps were a little naive and that isn't a crime. Most people on this game are pleasant and trustworthy, morally sound and so on, but unfortunately not everyone perhaps even here on the forums.
This person turned out to be untrustworthy and it seems like you are being punished. In turn if you are to leave the game then the good and trusting and morally sound members of the game have a casualty and in a way aren't we being punished by losing someone like that ?
I think if it were me I would accept the judgement of support and stand back and say, 'I've learned from this, now I will have to be more cautious of people'.
You need to only give people proven to be worthy of responsibility. Someone who has put a lot more into the SG/VG and over a longer period of time. If they are not happy about waiting and proving themselves then, it should be non negotiable and if they want to leave then fair enough. Hopefully not to another SG/VG with people who trust too easily. I am a member of 2 supergroups. One is where I am a leader and this is because the people that started it are good friends and in some cases the best of friends who I have met in real life on a couple of occasions. The other is also one where I know a leader pretty well but I have few responsibilities, I can invite but very little else and to be honest I'm just happy as it is.
When it comes to storage racks, Not allowing people to remove from it should not be a problem with friends as those that lead and have responsibility will get the things you would like from the rack and give it to you if it's something you need.
Yes you have been wronged but I think support can only really work within the rules that they are given. They may wish they could do more for you but perhaps their hands are tied.
I hope you will change your mind about leaving. This game can't afford to lose good people.
[ QUOTE ]
Did @Sneaky_thieving_goit tell the OP that he was going to clean out the storage and bug out of the SG? No. That's defrauding. He fraudulently gained access and permissions to a SG with the intent to strip it bare. Did @Sneaky_thieving_goit do it on purpose? Looks like it. Did @Sneaky_thieving_goit's actions cause distress to the OP? Yes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did the OP give full permissions? Yes.
Would it be possible to state, on one man's word alone, that anything fraudelent took place? No.
What if the guilty part posted first? What if he reported the OP for harassment and drawing attention to him? What if you were seeing things from the other side, without the OP's input at all?
A number of you are wildly underestimating the thought process that needs to go into this sort of judgement - you can't just grab your pitchfork and torch as a GM.
Perhaps this person has ad some sort of sanction against him, but it's policy not to say what's been done to said tea leaf.
Defiant 50's
Many and varied!
@Miss Chief
Im sorry for your loss, this might make you feel better
http://eve.klaki.net/heist/
Think their loss is a tad more than yours, but it proves a point in mmo games.
Unlucky - you got conned, Mr OP. Doesn't sound like their first sting either. Good cautionary tale though, thanks for posting it.
Unfortunately it's not entirely fair to criticise the system in place because GMs cannot distinguish intent from salvage logs, nor can they distinguish between:
1. SG member Player1 with access stealing insps/salvage/enhancements,
2. SG member Player1 with access asked by second SG member Player2 to remove insps/salvage/enhancements. Player2 then reports Player1 for stealing.
Theft for personal gain is socially unacceptable, but it would be equally unacceptable for policy to allow the above situation to occur. I hope this bad experience hasn't put you off CoX, running an SG, or continuing to participate in the typically pleaseant (if occasionally shouty and neurotic) community.
Hope the @name being chuckled around is just a nickname and not the actual name, btw.
[ QUOTE ]
Do I think @Sneaky_thieving_goit broke rule 1? Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
1. While playing City of Heroes , you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bolded the relevant bit.
The OP is clearly distressed by this. @Sneaky_thieving_goit seems to have done this on purpose, but that is beside the point - the OP is distressed, and it was by @Sneaky_thieving_goit's actions. Action should be taken. I don't care what that action is, as long as some is taken. I trust the GMs enough to suppose that on consideration they will do/have done so.
As for whether the OP should get his stuff back... in the interests of fairness, yes, but policy is that he won't, so I can understand the official stance. On the other hand, if the removed stuff can be taken away from @Sneaky_thieving_goit and given back to the OP, then that would be a VERY equitable result.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I kill someone in a PvP and that causes them distress - am I breaking the rules? If I don't let a level 1 join a level 50 teama nd that causes them distress am I breaking the rules?
@Sweet Chilli
[ QUOTE ]
Hope the @name being chuckled around is just a nickname and not the actual name, btw.
[/ QUOTE ]
We're all using the nom de plume for him. The OP *did* originally post the guys name though..
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
If I kill someone in a PvP and that causes them distress - am I breaking the rules? If I don't let a level 1 join a level 50 teama nd that causes them distress am I breaking the rules?
[/ QUOTE ]
The two are not comparable. If we are to believe the OP's side of things, this entire thing appears to be a "sting" operation; designed entirely to gain trust and them steal from him, betraying that trust. Killing someone in PvP or not letting them team is totally different.
You could only really compare the two if you let someone team, probably several times to gain their trust, and then deliberately got them multiple faceplants; or repeatedly killing the same person in PvP, not even letting them out of the zone (difficult, but possible). THEN, it could be considered griefing.
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
You could only really compare the two if you let someone team, probably several times to gain their trust, and then deliberately got them multiple faceplants; or repeatedly killing the same person in PvP, not even letting them out of the zone (difficult, but possible). THEN, it could be considered griefing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except, unless they've changed the policy while I was away, pretty much nothing is considered griefing in PvP Zones. If the game allows it then it's fair play.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
This, along with several posts above i think highlight that the current rules of conduct may be inadequate (specifically points 1-4 of the rules of conduct). As they are, the rules do not seem to be able to provide adequate protection for players whilst maintaining the freedoms of players and being enforceable within the confines of the game itself. If i were being cynical, I might suggest that the only one of those three that are currently able to be achieved is the second, that of freedom. Can anyone think of ideas for a revised set of rules that would adequately balance all three? I am struggling to do so at the moment...
@Jaw Dropper - Toons of all levels so drop me a line!
Imaginary Inc.
Twitter me!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could only really compare the two if you let someone team, probably several times to gain their trust, and then deliberately got them multiple faceplants; or repeatedly killing the same person in PvP, not even letting them out of the zone (difficult, but possible). THEN, it could be considered griefing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Except, unless they've changed the policy while I was away, pretty much nothing is considered griefing in PvP Zones. If the game allows it then it's fair play.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know, hence I said *could* instead of *would*
Red names HAVE also said that repeatedly attacking the same person, making it impossible for them to do anything, COULD be considered griefing (quite rightly too IMO).
In either case, it's still not really comparable to what seems to have happened to the OP, as that seems preplanned.
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
In either case, it's still not really comparable to what seems to have happened to the OP, as that seems preplanned.
[/ QUOTE ]
Never underestimate the force of "crimes of opportunity", but yeah, it seems planned.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
By allowing them access to the base salvage, you effectively gave them the permission to empty the salvage bins should they want to do so. It's simply the way things work. It's like having a shared bank account with someone else, if they decided to empty the money from it it's their decision, and they have the right to do it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the most accurate RL comparison. It really sucks that this happened to you, but as with a shared bank account, the other person has full rights to everything in it.
The whole issue is about taking one's words against another. (sorry if that's not proper english - but I think you got my point)
There is always 2 sides of a story. We have no way to verify the exactitude of one's side. Sure we can check logs and use whatever tools we have at our disposal, but not only this would take a considerable amount of time, the logs don't always tell the truth. What if they made some kind of arrangement IRL or on MSN, that would completly spin the whole story? We will never know about that.
If we were to set a precedent for a case like this, this would be open doors to all kind of abuse, and would eat up a huge amount of customer support's ressources.
I am not on anyone's side, just looking at things from a neutral perspective. I have seen such ugly things during my long time playing MMOs, sometimes so tricky that you can't tell who is wrong and who is right.
Not saying this is the case here (and obviously it isn't), but we cannot verify the claims as they exactly happened. Hence the answer you got from our customer support.
FAQ - Support Client - PlayNC
Episode 13
Thanks, Palladium. I don't think that too many people are disputing that NC Customer Support have to operate on the basis of what can be definitively proven. It is a shame that the storage permissions are as primitive as they are, because a more sophisticated setup might have prevented this.
Really what it comes down to is that while NC simply can't take action from a CS perspective, because it is impossible, that is no reason for us as the players not to express our disatisfaction that there are not currently viable systems in place to prevent just this sort of action.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
If you want to discuss the Rules of Conduct, we should first take a look at them.
1. While playing City of Heroes , you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players.
2. You may not post or communicate any players real world information (name, address, account name, etc.) through the City of Heroes game or on the official City of Heroes website.
3. You may not use sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive language.
4. You may not post or link to any sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive imagery or content.
5. When communicating in City of Heroes using Global Chat (server wide chat), you may not spam, flood, or make duplicate posts. For more information, please see the User Agreement section 4 (k).
6. You may not impersonate any employee of NCsoft or its associated companies.
7. You may not violate any local, state, national, or international laws or regulations.
8. You may not market, promote, advertise, or solicit within the City of Heroes game or on the official City of Heroes website.
9. You may not modify any part of the City of Heroes Client , Server, or any part of the official City of Heroes website.
10. You may not advertise the intent to or commit the act of buying, selling, trading, sharing, or transferring access to any City of Heroes account.
11. You may not advertise the intent to or commit the act of buying or selling items for cash or trading items from one server to another.
12. You may not arrange for the exchange or transfer of any pirated or illegal software while using the City of Heroes game or website.
13. You will follow the instructions of authorized personnel while in City of Heroes or on the Official Website.
14. You may not organize nor be a member of any pledges or groups within City of Heroes that are based on or espouse any racist, sexist, anti-religious, anti-ethnic, anti-[censored], or other hate mongering philosophies.
15. You may not provide false information or intentionally hide any information when registering for your City of Heroes account.
16. You may not upload or transmit on City of Heroes or the official City of Heroes website any copyrighted content that you do not own all rights to without the express written permission of the author or copyright holder.
17. You will not attempt to interfere with, hack into, or decipher any transmissions to or from the servers running City of Heroes .
18. You will not exploit any bug in City of Heroes and you will not communicate the existence of any such exploitable bug (bugs that grant the user unnatural or unintended benefits) either directly or through public posting, to any other user of City of Heroes . Bugs should be promptly reported via Ask A Question at http://uk.support.plaync.com
19. You will not attempt to play City of Heroes on any server that is not controlled or authorized by NCsoft or its designees.
20. You will not create, use, or provide any server emulator or other site where City of Heroes may be played, and you will not post or distribute any utilities, emulators or other software tools related to City of Heroes without the express written permission of NCsoft.
Source
Taking a look at those, we can immediately see that @SneakyThief has already broken rule 1 straight away, so one has to ask; why DON'T NC take action against salvage thieves? It's a clear breach of the rules, after all...
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.