Seeking unfair advantage with an alt

[Skully]

Dear admin and members of the Tribunal,

I would like to raise this case in order to receive some clarifications.

I'm not seeking punishment, repayment or any other form of compensation.

@koltes has made the following statement public:

4 hours ago, koltes said:

One thing for you to note, that in regards Savanna it is no matter what you or anyone else feels like. It is what it is and BLACK involvement in setting up the exploit is NOT proven. What you think or believe is your own right. We used it to our advantage when we realized the alt was on our side, but we have not set it up.
"Truth is not what you want it to be. It is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie." No one can ever prove that it was BLACK's setup, because it wasn't and bringing this up over and over I see as offensive action. Rules says - can't prove - do not accuse.

I hereby accuse Clan BLACK of seeking an unfair advantage through the use of an alt in the assault on Savanna.

This I believe is not a direct violation of any explicit rules, but can be construed a violation of intent as mentioned in:

I would like to ask the Tribunal, with its credo "loose lips, sinks ships" in mind, is the statement made by @koltes deemed sufficient prove to substantiate the accusation?

To smooth the proceedings, can I request Clan BLACK to either let @koltes be spokesman for the defense or appointment one other person.

To all other Captains, PLEASE STAY OUT OF THIS. As I have advised in the past, Captains join a Tribunal should be subject to similar potential punishment. You have do have the likes button, please use that one accordingly. (Sorry for the lack of dislike.)

Should the Tribunal wish to evaluate this, then I want to thank them for the time they are willing to invest.

Yours truly,

Inquisitor Skully

[admin]

people say many things on the internet. Words are not enough to proceed with this issue unfortunately. 

Do you have screens, videos, stream recordings that could support your report?

[Koltes]

@Skully I believe you know what the presumption of innocence is? I don't need to explain, represent or claim anything until our guilt is proven.

I stand my ground by repeating that BLACK did NOT set this up. We had no intention to do such thing which is also proven by the fact that our guys actually HAD few screening battles outside Savanna with you and fought their way in.

Its been a number of weeks since you cant drop it. This is what your lot was known on PVP1. This is how you fight wars keep nagging until its your way. Not in my game. You can continue playing your games, but those who accused other of cheating been noted as the biggest cheating clan on PVP1 many times. You also need to bring all facts together about WHAT exactly was happening during this battle while we were approaching Savanna.

While there is no way you can prove that BLACK was involved in setting up that battle because we never did, your very own nation AT THE SAME BATTLE is clearly guilty in setting an exploit right there using your PIRATE alt to pull pirate fleet into a battle by ninja tag. The only reason why he didnt is because we countered him by GnG. Its ok, we didnt report you. Being hypocrite is a normal thing for your lot and we are getting used to it. Go ahead bring some made up staff that I will destroy with real evidence. Until you do I don't need to interrupt my dinner. Bye now

[Tomms123]

The rule also says "

• If you do not have video or other effective proof, but instead suspect there may be wrongdoing, you may use F11, or Private Message Ink and/or an active Moderator on the forums.  Please provide as much evidence as possible, and please F11 and note the bug number where applicable.  If you're messaging Ink or the Moderators, it helps to have bug numbers (they look like NAB-12345, but bug numbers are not required) so that your complaint can be properly investigated.

"

 

[Christendom]

For reference here is a screenshot of the encounter at Savannah where a BLACK clan member tags in the pirate alt in question.  It is worth noting that the player Koiz in the battle that streamed the encounter did go pirate with his entire clan the very next day.  It was almost like he was bragging......

This is however, water under the bridge....so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.

and the same player sailing in consort with the BLACK clan members after the battle

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Christendom

[Skully]

9 hours ago, admin said:

people say many things on the internet. Words are not enough to proceed with this issue unfortunately. 

Do you have screens, videos, stream recordings that could support your report?

I'm merely curious what is deemed enough evidence, so we can all sail with the same expectations.

The usage of an alt has been proven.

@koltes admitted BLACK was fully aware of using the alt to gain an advantage.

Whichever way the words are recorded, through post or screenshot make little difference.

Ergo I consider the charge proven.

I can fully agree with @koltes, BLACK did not plan this. It was a crime of opportunity.

As you have said yourself:

"If the game does not give you a fair ground you will consider the game unfair and will not participate."

(mobile can't link)

It boils down to agreeing, or conceding, what constitutes fair grounds between all parties involved. Otherwise I fear there is no game.

And you are well aware that I'm not afraid to admit my own wrongdoings.

Yes, open world tagging without intent of doing battle is trolling. I have reported on this a couple of times. Hopefully this is fixed now.

So again I merely ask why an admission by @koltes is inadmissible. Or do we need to interpret such admissions as mere trolling?

Note that trolling is a violation of rule #2.

Again I wish mere clarifications to better align expectations that a lot of folk still hold after the original Savannah incident. On the incident itself the case has been closed, so I don't see need to rehash it.

Ever grateful, 

Inquisitor Skully

[Koltes]

5 hours ago, Christendom said:

For reference here is a screenshot of the encounter at Savannah where a BLACK clan member tags in the pirate alt in question.

The screenshot proves nothing. Our guys thought that they were tagging legitimate player. Koiz was right there too. If they knew MasterBatern was pirate alt they would have tagged Koiz or the other dude on the screen.

 

Quote

It is worth noting that the player Koiz in the battle that streamed the encounter did go pirate with his entire clan the very next day.  It was almost like he was bragging......

Koiz switched with his clan just like VCO did. Are you now accusing him too? Sounds like a witch hunt to me or a mad dog case when you just dont know who to bite.

 

Quote

and the same player sailing in consort with the BLACK clan members after the battle

Also proves nothing. Our fleet is rushing to get inside PB. They didn't tag other screeners too.

 

Quote

This is however, water under the bridge....so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.

The whole case is water in a dead pond. You can't beat BLACK in face to face equal fight so you choose to fight us on the forum.

From now on every single accusation of BLACK, even slightest suggestion without any evidence will be reported on the forums and in game via report.

Accusations without proof is a banable offence.

Have a nice day

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by koltes

[Sir Texas Sir]

I would like to add the rules also state false accusing some one is against the rules.  So accusing all BLACK or one player or another of something.  I been accused over and over and I wasn't even in that battle.  At the same time that one was going on this one was going on.

[Koltes]

18 minutes ago, Skully said:

I'm merely curious what is deemed enough evidence, so we can all sail with the same expectations.

The usage of an alt has been proven.

@koltes admitted BLACK was fully aware of using the alt to gain an advantage.

Whichever way the words are recorded, through post or screenshot make little difference.

Ergo I consider the charge proven.

I can fully agree with @koltes, BLACK did not plan this. It was a crime of opportunity.

As you have said yourself:

"If the game does not give you a fair ground you will consider the game unfair and will not participate."

(mobile can't link)

It boils down to agreeing, or conceding, what constitutes fair grounds between all parties involved. Otherwise I fear there is no game.

And you are well aware that I'm not afraid to admit my own wrongdoings.

Yes, open world tagging without intent of doing battle is trolling. I have reported on this a couple of times. Hopefully this is fixed now.

So again I merely ask why an admission by @koltes is inadmissible. Or do we need to interpret such admissions as mere trolling?

Note that trolling is a violation of rule #2.

Again I wish mere clarifications to better align expectations that a lot of folk still hold after the original Savannah incident. On the incident itself the case has been closed, so I don't see need to rehash it.

Ever grateful, 

Inquisitor Skully

You need to look hard on the screenshot of who was in that battle. My name is not there @Skully. You name is also not there. Whatever you or I say is not a prof to anything but an opinion of an outsider. At the time when battle for Savanna happened I was at work.

You have removed the rest of the context from my message which was a reply to express my opinion on the matter which stands the same. I don't belive that if people genuenly didnt know they were taggibg pirate alt than that those people are guilty in setting up the exploit. Otherwise knowing how easy these nations to use all dirty tricks they would have used it every time just to frame BLACK and run tribunal after tribunal until this game community is destroyed completely.

Therefore, my opinion on the matter remains the same - that if players used it to their advantage is not a crime. Things happen quickly. Every second is counting. Did they do a mistake? Maybe. Were they tagging on purpose. Nope.

Again this is an opinion of a person who found out about the battle few hours later. We have heard lots of accusations from people whos characters were created AFTER Savanna PB. Are we also going to take their words as proves?

Edited July 31, 2017 by koltes

[Skully]

This is not about the Savanna incident itself, but rather the admission.

19 hours ago, koltes said:

We used it to our advantage when we realized the alt was on our side

Hence I purposely ignore any side comments.

I truly believe you in that the statement is a poor choice of words, especially since you were not present at the battle.

However I see it as a faux pas in the overall game.

36 minutes ago, koltes said:

Otherwise knowing how easy these nations to use all dirty tricks they would have used it every time just to frame BLACK and run tribunal after tribunal until this game community is destroyed completely.

Framing and baiting is already happening at the Tribunal, hence it has become an endgame instead of being used for arbitration. I think I have proven this beyond a doubt. This needs to change somehow.

42 minutes ago, koltes said:

Therefore, my opinion on the matter remains the same - that if players used it to their advantage is not a crime. Things happen quickly. Every second is counting. Did they do a mistake? Maybe. Were they tagging on purpose. Nope.

Other folks have made unfortunate and unintended mistakes as well in which the Tribunal had no other option but to extend warning or penalty to the accussed.

Thus I come back to expectations of folks with regards to this matter. I can make no request to the Tribunal nor any demand of whatever nature. But if I may, I will voice my expectation, a simple warning to BLACK to both consider their words and actions a bit better next time.

Respectfully,

Inquisitor Skully

[Fastidius]

Didn't adding battle groups address this issue?

I think the devs suck at managing this stuff as much as anyone and have many issues with decisions etc but if they did something to address it.

I would also put forth that another fix to this would be that if there is no activity in a battle log for 2 minutes the battle should immediately exit.  The argument of people wanting to go to the toilet etc after a battle is pretty much addressed by light speed on exit and logging at sea.  Again it wont fix the issue but would cause people to actively partake in the not sinking but only tagging of a cutter.

 

I also think that this is not an attack on Black. Just that it is trying to tie the dev/tribunal team to actually stating and upholding their own ruleset which clearly they cannot do.  I would be aggressively forcing alts to be the same nation and the mains by IP tracking. I would be being hyper aggressive towards ethical decisions if I thought they were against funzors.

 

I am however not a dev for the game nor a mod so interpreting the rules is a bit grey as everyone can agree.

 

 

 

[Koltes]

4 hours ago, Skully said:

Thus I come back to expectations of folks with regards to this matter. I can make no request to the Tribunal nor any demand of whatever nature. But if I may, I will voice my expectation, a simple warning to BLACK to both consider their words and actions a bit better next time.

I utterly disagree. A warning should be issued when the guilt is proven, but the wrong doing is minor and not enought to trigger a punishment.

I this case no sufficient evidence were present to support accusation, therefore there are no grounds for a warning.

 

50 minutes ago, Fastidius said:

Didn't adding battle groups address this issue?

Yes they did. We had two issues with the screeners. 1). They were able to pull apart our fleet into small separate segments and gank each segement with an overwhelming force thanks for having larger player base. 2). If screeners where in no position to fight, they would then grief tagged fleet not fighting, but keeping them in the battle.

Both of these issues have been resolved brilliantly by the development team using new tagging mechanic and battle group.

I would also like to note that after Savanna and ever since the patch that brought new tagging mechanics BLACK have sailed to every single PB and waited outside for the PB to start.

GB or US have failed to come and screen pirates  out simply because there is no way for them to use previous broken tagging mechanic and that they now have to risk similar BR ships and fight properly.

 

Quote

I think the devs suck at managing this stuff as much as anyone and have many issues with decisions etc but if they did something to address it.

I think you are wrong on this account and unfair. Devs have super exceeded the original promise on the game development. They continuously address issues. They are here to make the game and not to babysit alpha testers. This however have no relevance to this tribunal topic.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by koltes

[Skully]

3 hours ago, koltes said:

I utterly disagree. A warning should be issued when the guilt is proven, but the wrong doing is minor and not enought to trigger a punishment.

Again I fully agree. Even to the point where I have advised the Tribunal to make punishment never exceed damages.

3 hours ago, koltes said:

I this case no sufficient evidence were present to support accusation, therefore there are no grounds for a warning.

Here I have to disagree. By the letter I have given evidence to prove intent.

At the same time, however, I debunked your statement, because I'm not aiming to prosecute.

4 hours ago, Fastidius said:

I also think that this is not an attack on Black. Just that it is trying to tie the dev/tribunal team to actually stating and upholding their own ruleset which clearly they cannot do.  I would be aggressively forcing alts to be the same nation and the mains by IP tracking. I would be being hyper aggressive towards ethical decisions if I thought they were against funzors.

Bingo. (Except maybe for the alt part. )

Neither is this an attack on the devs.

3 hours ago, koltes said:

I think you are wrong on this account and unfair. Devs have super exceeded the original promise on the game development. They continuously address issues.

I commend the dev team for sticking to their guns and trying to see this seemingly impossible task through.

Yes, they address issues (and here comes the dreaded) but do they try to find common grounds, or are we swinging left and right until maybe we stop close to a good point.

Time after time a new mechanic comes into play only to not match the expectations of, well, anybody. Not all mechanics, but certainly some very critical ones.

Similar to the Tribunal itself. It's too hard for folks to gauge expectations and thus come out extremely disappointed. Tribunal must never be a fight.

Like BLACK showing off its strength on the map, I can also go full guns blazing. The results will be equally, if not more, devastating.

We need common grounds, so everyone can sail with the same expectations. Then everyone can fight on equal terms.

Here I can not quote what is already moderated. But I think it is true, not by choice of the dev team, but because managing such issues is the most gruesome/ugly part of game development. (I fear this doesn't translate too well. Nobody should be required to shovel shit,  so we should all do a bit of it.)

Courteously,

Inquisitor Skully

[Fastidius]

@koltes,  the decisions I am referring to are more about development and integrity stances over nation chats/alts in general and such.  These decisions are at best a poor choice and at worse a money grabbing exercise.

[Skully]

It's about having common understanding of the rules and how they are applied. Without this there is no game to play. This is not a threat nor boycott, but simply an assertion.

With regards,

Inquisitor Skully

[Custard]

I am a simple person.

Simply said @Koltes has admitted that although they did not set up the EXPLOIT they did take advantage of it. Regardless of how it arose this is exploiting the OP is not calling for any punishment (neither am I) shouldn't @Admin make one of two statements.

There is no problem with doing this it's within the rules  or please don't do this it's lame and then lock the thread? Just so everyone understands anything else leads to bullshit we all need less of this 

[Slim McSauce]

 

[Koltes]

@Slim Jimmerson See my reply above. Its perfectly Okey to replace Skully's quote with your own.

[Slim McSauce]

5 minutes ago, koltes said:

@Slim Jimmerson See my reply above. Its perfectly Okey to replace Skully's quote with your own.

 

12 hours ago, koltes said:

I utterly disagree. A warning should be issued when the guilt is proven, but the wrong doing is minor and not enought to trigger a punishment.

I this case no sufficient evidence were present to support accusation, therefore there are no grounds for a warning.

 

So you think that when guilt is PROVEN, then you should get a WARNING. As if the rules aren't warning enough.

Wow.... Just wow.

Either way my picture pretty much proves you knew the rules, and still did what you did. For most people that's clear admission, you knew the advantage the alt was giving you.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Slim Jimmerson

[Koltes]

6 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

So you think that when guilt is PROVEN, then you should get a WARNING. As if the rules aren't warning enough.

Until my guilt is proven what are you warning me about? That I was there and could hypotetically do it because I was there and had tools to do it?

"Slim Jimmerson! We are warning you that raping is against the rules!"

"Why are you warning me about it?!"

"Well Sir... You've got the tool"

 

Your picture proves nothing, because I wasn't there in that battle. Whatever I or anybody else who were not there says anything about the battle its just an opinion and proves nothing, because if person were not present there at the time when it happen he is not a witness. Whatever I say is falls under my right to express my opinion in the name of Freedom of Speech.

freedom of speech

noun

1. the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by koltes

[Hodo]

20 minutes ago, koltes said:

Until my guilt is proven what are you warning me about? That I was there and could hypotetically do it because I was there and had tools to do it?

"Slim Jimmerson! We are warning you that raping is against the rules!"

"Why are you warning me about it?!"

"Well Sir... You've got the tool"

 

Your picture proves nothing, because I wasn't there in that battle. Whatever I or anybody else who were not there says anything about the battle its just an opinion and proves nothing, because if person were not present there at the time when it happen he is not a witness. Whatever I say is falls under my right to express my opinion in the name of Freedom of Speech.

freedom of speech

noun

1. the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

 

You are incorrect sir.

On the internet there is no such thing as "freedom of speech".   As ultimately it is up to the owner of that medium on  what can or cannot be said there.   In this case Game-Labs can choose to remove any post they wish and censor any statement made on these forums as long as they are the owner of this site. 

[Koltes]

8 minutes ago, Hodo said:

You are incorrect sir.

On the internet there is no such thing as "freedom of speech".   As ultimately it is up to the owner of that medium on  what can or cannot be said there.   In this case Game-Labs can choose to remove any post they wish and censor any statement made on these forums as long as they are the owner of this site. 

Thats true, and the only thing that can be applied to what I say is censorship if my words goes against the rules of this forum... which they haven't.

Using an opinion of a person was not present as an evidence is just a sign of lack of real evidence. I looked at the same screenshot and expressed my opinion on the matter under the circumstances of a discussion that I replied to, which they conveniently pulled out of context.

Edited August 1, 2017 by koltes

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

29 minutes ago, koltes said:

Your picture proves nothing, because I wasn't there in that battle. Whatever I or anybody else who were not there says anything about the battle its just an opinion and proves nothing, because if person were not present there at the time when it happen he is not a witness. Whatever I say is falls under my right to express my opinion in the name of Freedom of Speech.

freedom of speech

noun

1. the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

 

Your assessment of "freedom of speech" is correct, but I'm afraid you are wrong where this "freedom" is applied here. This is a "privately" owned forum run and owned by Game-Labs where speech, being written, is moderated, can be curtailed and can be squashed if deemed unacceptable, in any way, by the owners of said forum.

With that said, although this is a "public" forum,  you do not have "freedom" to say whatever you want here.

 

arrgh!.. @Hodo beat me to it 

Edited August 1, 2017 by WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

[Koltes]

21 minutes ago, WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:

Your assessment of "freedom of speech" is correct, but I'm afraid you are wrong where this "freedom" is applied here. This is a "privately" owned forum run and owned by Game-Labs where speech, being written, is moderated, can be curtailed and can be squashed if deemed unacceptable, in any way, by the owners of said forum.

With that said, although this is a "public" forum,  you do not have "freedom" to say whatever you want here.

 

arrgh!.. @Hodo beat me to it 

See my reply to Hodo mate. I haven't broken any censorship rules else I would have a warning for THAT. Rules of this forum state that I'm entitled to expess my opnion if I don't break rules of the forum (harrass, abuse, offend, racism, bigotry etc etc). USA is a state with a freedom of speech, but it does not mean you can break laws of the country, such as make racist, sexims remarks, abuse people etc. No different. I can say whatever I want as long as it goes with the rules of this forum.

In US freedom of speech also does NOT mean you can say whatever you like. There are also rules and regulations. FOS means that you can express your opinion within set rules and government may change the laws however it see fit. 

Edited August 1, 2017 by koltes

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

5 minutes ago, koltes said:

See my reply to Hodo mate. I haven't broken any censorship rules else I would have a warning for THAT. Rules of this forum state that I'm entitled to expess my opnion if I don't break rules of the forum (harrass, abuse, offend, racism, bigotry etc etc). USA is a state with a freedom of speech, but it does not mean you can break laws of the country, such as make racist, sexims remarks, abuse people etc. No different. I can say whatever I want as long as it goes with the rules of this forum. 

haha  it figures...always twisting situations and bending the rules to your liking.  

when all of a sudden USA is your beacon of freedom?!? everyone in USA gets criticized for what they say in the media, just because you have the "freedom" say whatever you want doesn't mean you won't get called on it.

and btw... i ain't your mate.