New items facing abuse?

[dst]

You have no say in this sasha as you are one of the few who got punished for alt abuse.

[Jubaris]

You are right Z, 2009-2015 year thing is an extreme example and has nothing to do with the scenario of a player bypassing alt checker with intent, that you are saying is not against the rules.

Ary said most of it on the subject.

 

Dst's point about free credits is indeed as per the current system - but I don't see how you see this as a problem, and the original scenario as not. Free credits is a legit mechanism for every player, and doing free credits helps MD in advertising, MD shop treats a free credit and payed credit the same, so what's the difference between the scenario where free credits are used instead of 'real' credits?

Either both are wrong (and per rules they are), either they are both right.

[Sasha Lilias]

Sasha you spent a large sum of money on shop, right? So would it be fair if I cheat out the system for 1000 credits without donating a dime? I don't think so.

 

Yet you'd be cheating how? Voting is still helping MD in the long run by advertising the game. If you voted for the game enough times to actually raise 1000 credits (5,000 votes based upon a $0.2 gain) then I'd actually sing your praises - that's around 333 solid days of ensuring you vote. There will always be those that will pay for the game as well as vote as voting doesn't provide an instant satisfaction like buying straight up.

 

 

You have no say in this sasha as you are one of the few who got punished for alt abuse.

 

I think I can have as much of a say as I wish, thank you. Regardless of being punished for it or not.

 

I do believe you're talking quite a number of years also, 3-4 perhaps?

 

I abused WP's, have given my repentance, faced my punishment and moved on. Sue me.

 

You have no word in whether I have a say or not. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sasha Lilias

[Ary Endleg]

First of all, I know I'm not allowed to talk how to abuse things.

 

Secondly your math is wrong because you used 0,2 instead of 0,02. So it would be 3333 days. But that's all fair, I'm speaking of cheating in here (check the line above).

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

I agree with you Ary, the "common sense" rule frequently over-rides legislation - but not always. It depends on the person judging, and I wouldn't like to assume what any individual might say. In terms of Money Laundering...again you are using the word 'dirty' as if the item was ill-acquired...but it wasn't. It was acquired quite reasonably. It isn't laundering. It also isn't against the stipulated rules.

 

Rhaegar - Yes free-credits have a value. Yes potentially they have the capacity to add players, and that has the capacity to add funds....but this is a much slower process, and one set in probabilities. It is not fair in my eyes to see it the same was as someone who pumps money in to the game directly. That's how I see it at the present time anyway.

 

There are clear cases when using this system will be abuse. For example: A1 is building a wall. It needs 3 bricks. B has a brick. A2 has a brick in their shop, they buy it and funnel it. To be fair to Sasha though, I have always thought she does have a point regarding this, not in every circumstance, but in some. The alt may still be funding MD, is it so relevant that shuffling didn't occur when trade could be done with no fund placed? There is an argument to be had one way or the other, and I go back to what I said, the true argument here is some people feel there should be no alts.

 

Generally if using the alt to orchestrate a build via the main, that's what I see as a possible abuse of any consequence in the current state of the system and its governance. I also think time and mass have a big impact on what is and isn't abuse here and its way too hard to define the situation so simply (hence my comment re ease of acquisition). If someone considers there has been an abuse, and it involves something like this, then it would need to be taken on an individual basis.

 

Z

[Ary Endleg]

As Rhaegar put it simply, key word is intent. If item is acquired in legal means but for ill intent, that's dirty in my book.

 

It's also a reason why it's impossible to prevent anything. It all depends on intent, which is hard to prove without extensive investigation, which again requires tremendous resources.

[Myth]

again you are using the word 'dirty' as if the item was ill-acquired...but it wasn't. It was acquired quite reasonably. It isn't laundering. It also isn't against the stipulated rules.

 

- Player wants item X on account A

- Player doesn't have item X in the shop list of account A

- Player makes account B

- Player doesn't have item X in the shop list of account B

...

- Player makes account N

- Player now item X in the shop list of account N

- Player uses middle man to get item X from account N to account A

- Player has successfully dodged a hell of a lot (or maybe less) of shuffles to get the item in the shop the way it was meant to be = less $ for MD

 

I believe this is what Ary and Rhaegar are referring to. :P

 

It is a loophole any way you look at it... aren't loopholes to be reported? (which is the intention of this thread, as far as I can tell)

Edited February 14, 2015 by Myth

[No one]

[spoiler]

By the definition of 'technically', then lets be clear here 'technically' you didn't transfer a morph from your alt to your main, that's the point. 'Technically' your alt transferred a morph to another character, and that character transferred a different Morph to your main.

This is what is the exact definition of money laundry.

 

I could go on forever saying why it is or isn't easy and that would take up waaaaay too much time over something that frankly I think is not a big issue and shouldn't have been raised in the first place. If you feel its easy, and its wrong, as I said its a moral opinion. I'm not going to care one way or another if it becomes against the rules for the record - but I do think the logic is faulty personally - and unless someone can show me a rule that states otherwise, currently it isn't breaking any rule.

 

Z

[/spoiler]

"'Technically' your alt transferred a morph to another character, and that character transferred a different Morph to your main."

To rephrase it : your main received something that your alt payed. Isn't this the exact rule for alt abuse ?

 

"I could go on forever saying why it is or isn't easy and that would take up waaaaay too much time over something that frankly I think is not a big issue"

Please do go over them , I will read it and compare with my ideas.

And what do you mean by: "not a big issue" ? Entire alts can be "cleaned" with this.

 

I am not stating that this was not used before (I'm not that dumb) but I want YOU to understand that this is possible and its implication.

 

And the second reason for raising this topic is : before anything gets coded (or the topic totally derailed) ... do you want this made legal or forbidden ? and how ?

Edited February 15, 2015 by No one

[Nimrodel]

All those people who talk about voting.. Um have you considered the thought that a lot of people dont vote? They simply click on the links to get the creds? I am ashamed to say I have done that a few times when I urgently needed ap in the middle of a quest or something. But yeah I am sure there must be a lot of people doing that on a regular basis? So when are talking about abuse, lets not talk about free credits because that probably is the easiest way of cheating the game :p

[DARK DEMON]

 

- Player wants item X on account A

- Player doesn't have item X in the shop list of account A

- Player makes account B

- Player doesn't have item X in the shop list of account B

...

- Player makes account N

- Player now item X in the shop list of account N

- Player uses middle man to get item X from account N to account A

- Player has successfully dodged a hell of a lot (or maybe less) of shuffles to get the item in the shop the way it was meant to be = less $ for MD

 

I believe this is what Ary and Rhaegar are referring to. :P

 

It is a loophole any way you look at it... aren't loopholes to be reported? (which is the intention of this thread, as far as I can tell)

 

This^

 

It is a loophole indeed, but who says that you'll be so so lucky to get your desired item on your first alt, or second alt, or third alt..? Honestly, you will need a huge amount of time to get item X randomly available on N account; its only a 8/775 chance :P

 

If I had a choice to cheat the system this way or trade it for 3/4/5 silver from another player, I'd choose the trading _every_single_day...

 

 

But seriously, if you wanna "fix" this, just make it like: All alts should show the exact same items on the RP item shop section. Make it based on IP rather than different items for a different account.

 

I don't see _any_ other automated method that can fix this, except one that will greatly restrict trading possibilities and cause huge problems later on (see my initial posts), or the manual method of someone being determined enough to check logs and catch such 'abusers'.

[Kyphis the Bard]

Here are a couple examples of my perspective of this topic:

1. A1 wants item X on account A2, their alt
2. B has item X as well, and is willing to help A1, but wants to keep item X
3. B gives item X to player A1 and gets a new item X from A2

This is abuse. Even though at no point does the item from A2 go to A1, B would never have given the item if A2 was not going to replace it. Fundamentally, it should be considered as the same item.

1. A1 wants item X1 on account A2, their alt
2. B has item X1 as well, and wants items X2 from player A1, but also wants to keep X1
3. B trades item X1 to A1 in exchange for item X2 from A1, and X1 from A2

This is also abuse. Again, at no point does the item on A2 go to A1, and A1 has even payed B for item X1, but A2 paying part of the cost is still resulting in an abuse - you can't use items from one of your accounts to buy items for another.

1. A1 wants item X1 on account A2, their alt
2. B has item X1 as well, and wants items X2 from player A1
3. B trades item X1 to A1 in exchange for item X2 from A1
4. A2 retains their copy of item X1

This is not abuse. In this case, the only exchange is a proper trade, with no alts involved. A2 might not need item X1, but no effort to move the item to A1 has been made - a completely discreet copy has been acquired.

1. A1 wants item X1 on account A2, their alt
2. B has item X1 as well, and wants items X2 from player A1, but also wants to keep item X1
3. A2 can make use of item X3, which B has and is willing to trade
4. B trades item X1 to A1 in exchange for item X2 from A1
5. A2 trades their copy of X1 for item X3 from B

This is not abuse. While B is ending up with a copy of X1 at the end, this is not as a result of a single trade, but two discreet trades. This is a touch messier, because the existence of the second trade is a deciding factor in whether or not the first trade happens. However, the second trade is a discreet trade, with all goods payed for as part of the trade. It is not unknown for someone to make a trade with one person, selling something they want, because they know someone else will pay them more than the price they payed for the same item. This is, in essence, the same as a supermarket making a markup in price.

The other scenario's are fairly clear cut, but this last one is the one that requires monitoring - paying a significant value item, such as a Morph, on the second trade would very rarely be accused of abuse, while paying a low value, such as a flower or single silver coin, would almost always be abuse.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

Once again..for the people in the cheap seats...the definition of money laundering has to do with ill-gotten goods. Not transfers, otherwise banks would be money launderers. The situation in itself is NOT laundering. If you define the original good as ill-gotten, then it becomes laundering. If they were acquired via reputable means, it isn't. So unless you are telling me that A2 got his X via some dodgy system of theft or bribery already, then can we please stop calling a monkey a fish? Or are we saying that anything acquired on an alt is ill-gotten? That makes little sense to me and is only pointing me to the conclusion I'm making that actually the argument is 'no to alts'.

 

I say not a big issue because I don't see how this is an 'easy' thing to do as a profitable continuous mechanism. You'd have to have two people working together to get the same items to funnel to the main over and over again. There are over 700 items, with 8 per shuffle, and they aren't a different set on every shuffle. Only in the case that there is a large player base with high fund input, or where the number of items reaches X amount of mass does this begin to be a viable system of fraudulent behavior. Every available item isn't even in the game yet, that's how low the probability factoring currently stands, not for small one offs, but for a general system that is an actual problem. DD...your solution works if you couple it with a ban on the mechanism being discussed as it increases probabilities to a level of concern so its a possible work around I recon, though I still really don't see what the huge issue is right now.

 

If some of you feel this is a major concern, come up with a solution.

 

Z

[Ary Endleg]

Once again..for the people in the cheap seats...the definition of money laundering has to do with ill-gotten goods.

 

Once again, I'm mainly talking about ill-gotten goods. I fail to see how you remain blind to possibilities. If item was acquired on alt with ill-intent (such as sole purpose to launder it to main) it's illegal in my book. Furthermore there are many ill-ways to acquire goods with alts. Such as using 5$ signup bonus on your alt, using stats/loyalty on one account to acquire shared items that with help of middle man would be passed to your other account. List goes on.

 

Next, you are mostly arguing linguistics in here about phrase "money laundering". Your argument isn't valid from my point of view because money laundering is the closest label that describes this to my knowledge. You argue that if item wasn't acquired by ill means that this whole thing is legal which circumvents the first out of three steps of laundering. Second step is passing the goods through complex scheme of transactions to obscure the origin of goods. Third step is return of goods to launderer after the origin has been obscured.

 

What we have in MD: First step is acquisition of item regardless of how. Second step is passing the item in order to obscure the origin for purpose of bypassing the alt restriction trading mechanism (which is illegal act, quoted from rules below in spoiler tag). Third step is receiving the item after origin has been masked sufficiently.

 

So that should cover up your linguistic interpretations, label it as you wish. By my estimation most of such illegal trades do have ill-gotten origin.

 

Regardless of that, all of such actions are illegal because they have one thing in common: INTENT to bypass interface restrictions in order to have a gain on one of your accounts on the expense of another.

 

[log='Rules']General rules:

 

If something is restricted by the interface and you find a way to do it any way, assume it is a bug or exploit. If you proceed to take actions that the limitations of the interface suggest you should not be able to, you may be banned at any moment without warning.

 

Alt Restrictions:

• No Trading of Creatures, Items or Avatars
• You may not take actions on one of your accounts that another of your accounts is able to gain direct profit from. Profiting can be in the form of reputation, or gaining of trade commodities such as creatures, items, applicable knowledge, any other form of game currency that may arise, or any advantage conferred by spells or abilities.
• Any funds of one of your accounts may not be used for the profit of another of your accounts. Knowledge, coins, activated credits, creatures, spells and abilities, and any other forms of currency that may emerge in the future may only be used to profit the account that holds them, or an unassociated account. Purchasing things for a "friend" on one of your accounts, who then gives them to another of your accounts, is still alt abuse, and if your "friend" is found to be a knowing party will also be subject to punishment. Joinining an alliance with several alts also counts, if it is to fill the seats for the sake of it

[/log]

 

PS shuffling cheat is the smallest issue if you ask me

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

First it was "LOL?" now it's I'm blind. Wonderful. Well Ary... I fail to see how you remain blind yo your own logical fallacies - but failure to see each other's perspectives is hardly relevant to point out, its pretty obvious. Or rather, in my case, I see your perspective, I just don't agree with it.

 

Buying something with ill intent does not make the purchase illegal. You can go on about intent all you want, but it doesn't inherently make something illegal. The whole point of Money Laundering is that the goods are illegal, its not that the goods are being moved around, its the fact they are illegal that makes it a problem. It's precisely the' where they have come from' that defines laundering - as in "washing dirty money". It isn't a matter of linguistics it's a matter of factual definition. You're using a term that emotively will activate certain responses to back yourself up, and due to the severity of the suggestion you're making, I'm afraid I'm not going to let it slide. It's sheer inaccuracy.

 

You are still arguing against alts in general, because now you are arguing that items acquired on alts are ill-gotten, thereby making any alt related purchase or trade 'illegal'.

 

Underline, capitalise, embolden or use italics to highlight your point all you want but unfortunately it isn't that I don't understand what you are saying, it's that I don't agree with it, so it makes little difference.

 

I go back to what I just said - if you have such an issue with it, stop arguing with me. I've already said I don't care either way what happens whether I agree or not, it's not a big issue for me - so stop arguing arbitrary points and start coming up with a solution.

 

Z

[Grido]

For the record, Money Laundering, as Zlei said, is regarding money sourced illegally, not money you intend to use illegally or immorally. Please no more discussion about this.

 

 

This form of trading ~is~ Alt Abuse. Alt abuse is defined as one of your accounts benefiting from another account you control.

 

IF B(middle man) trades with A1, as a direct result of trading with A2, then A is abusing having multiple accounts. B, in knowing this, would also be culpable. The key point here being that B would have to be aware of A1 and A2 being alts.

This scenario is the case regardless if the item is the same in both cases or not - it would not work as an auto block.

 

Is it happening frequently? Well I hope not. Will people be punished for doing this if caught? Yes.

[Chewett]

For the record, Money Laundering, as Zlei said, is regarding money sourced illegally, not money you intend to use illegally or immorally. Please no more discussion about this.

 

 

This form of trading ~is~ Alt Abuse. Alt abuse is defined as one of your accounts benefiting from another account you control.

 

IF B(middle man) trades with A1, as a direct result of trading with A2, then A is abusing having multiple accounts. B, in knowing this, would also be culpable. The key point here being that B would have to be aware of A1 and A2 being alts.

This scenario is the case regardless if the item is the same in both cases or not - it would not work as an auto block.

 

Is it happening frequently? Well I hope not. Will people be punished for doing this if caught? Yes.

[Ary Endleg]

Okay fine. My apologizes for classifying all cases of abuse under the term "money laundering". Not all of them fall under that term but some do. All of exemplary cases given by me are illegal because they go against quoted rules. Also Chew too said in his early post it's illegal.

 

So we've established that it's illegal and that it's happening.

 

Problem is it's hard to notice such things and distinguish it.

 

PS

Grido posted before me.

[No one]

I am not stating that this was not used before (I'm not that dumb) but I want YOU to understand that this is possible and its implication.

 

And the second reason for raising this topic is : before anything gets coded (or the topic totally derailed) ... do you want this made legal or forbidden ? and how ?

So far you understood that this is possible. Good.

You also agree that most of it should be forbidden (when it is still hard to define the advantages).

 

The next thing to debate is : should we totally allow it or just forbid it completely ? (because there are way too few resources to manually check them all)

And after that, maybe : how can we terminate this kind of abuse ? with the widespread idea , so far, that this cannot be stopped automatically.

Other possibilities would be:

     Is locking the item shop for alts a real solution ? or

     Should common item trading be allowed (with the restriction that you already payed 5-10$ in other shops) ? (after all, as some state, they are payed for/won/whatever)

 

So ? what is on your mind ?

[Ary Endleg]

I know it can't be prevented, it can only be made harder or to take more time and effort to perform abuse. I would say it should be forbidden completely, but then again I know it would be fighting the losing battle.

 

It won't do much good itself but I think there should be some AD requirement in first place for that shop branch.

[Change]

The roundabout way of giving items to your alts shouldn't be allowed. As for how to stop it, the most cost-effective way would be to keep an eye out occasionally, and if someone is caught have them banned/heavily punished. If people wish to abuse the system while knowing they risk getting banned, even if the risk is relatively small, then there's not much that can easily be done to stop them. If they do get banned though, they don't have any right to complain.

 

The punishments for such stuff need to outweigh the profits of such activities. As for spending tons of time trying to catch alt abuse--it's not worth it. However, enough time should be spent (said amount of time might be spent already) so that people do get caught and they're actually punished for their actions.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Change

[Chewett]

These rules were originally enforced when a large amount of people made alts for the christmas tree, and traded creatures to their mains. This was a massive abuse and really broke the rarity of a lot of creatures around that time. MD suffered during this time.

 

Please remember when and why the rule was created.

 

If you wish to report things, feel free to message me.

 

Discussing the changes in rules, based on how it works now, is probably good but remember why it was implemented :)