Grab that tea people ... Thyiad the Verbose is back with two browser windows and the cut and paste keys ...
Cattleya said:
I'm going to try to explain my basic problem with the concept that only the hacked item should be deleted. Basically, what this creates is a system where the only risk of trading is losing the items you traded. (Obviously you lose the hack, but you didn't have that to start with.) This could cause people to become more careless and less concerned about the legitmacy of their items.
Firstly, that covers haxxored items; but no mention of items that look perfectly legitimate. Additionally, I have to mention reputation here. There are already official trading hoops - probation and unofficial ones - "I reserve the right not to trade with anyone with whom I am not comfortable". The other is reputaton and gut instinct. Let's not forget how big a part they play. There are people I won't MP/trade with and I am betting a large part of the SPF has too.
Cattleya said:
..given how easy it is to cheat in SP, it was would be a disasterous thing for the economy around here.
See my point about HF rushing. Can you be sure they are actually being done? I could dupe runes and just say I rushed. You wouldn't know. Trust has to be part of this, and at the moment, trust is not being extended to those caught by items that look perfectly legit.
Cattleya said:
I would stop trading and MPing if we decided to completely eliminate the concept of taint when dealing with hacks.
It is the definition of taint that I am questioning. The concept is fine in practice but the effects are wide-ranging and penalize forumites who have done nothing wrong except trade with someone who has later been banned.
Cormallon said:
I won't be trading if there is this risk of being forced to delete stashes and chars when I'm the victim of a bad trade (or being hrown out of trading / MPing/ tourneys if I don't).
This is an honourable stance, Cormallon. Let me ask the forum, how many people do you think trade and either keep quiet about a trade/MP with a banned member but continue to trade/MP? At which point does an
unknowingly MP with a banned member created the necessity to delete the character? A rush? An Act's questing? A dfficulty? A Baal run?
Quickdeath said:
First, no one is implying any criticism of you two - this is a discussion about rules, and the ethical prinicples that underlie them.
QFT
Quickdeath said:
And what should be done with items and characters that are "tainted X-times removed?" That is the question.
Psychic Watch said:
This is where the "statute of limitations" should come in. Everyone would have to agree on what (short) amount of time (perhaps a month or two) contaminated items could be eligible for the scorched-earth deletion policy (everything and everyone in contact is deleted or rolled back).
I think if there is an opportunity to rollback, people take it - especially if it is a quick catch (within a few days). But what happens when you find trades going back months where a member has only just been banned?
I loathe out-of-game examples but here's one. Ratchett & Clank 3; I played it like crazy and got a good way through - Spitney Gears or whatever the bosses name was. Decided to load it up to show a friend, but I was tipsy and hit save and not load. Save game gone. I
still cannot play that game, I just cannot face it. Going back and doing what I have already done. OK that was my own (slightly drunk) stupidity and a we are discussing here those who have unknowingly been effected. But again, we punish those who have done nothing wrong if we make them rollback months of work.
Psychic Watch said:
I can see this being a slippery slope of "if I can get away with it for X months, the items become legit".
Which is why if a trade is published in the SPTF, no one screams at the ATMA readouts, the recepient shouldn't be punished. The details were published, there was no way to know there was a problem with the trader. If the sellers reputation and your gut instinct as a buyer says go ahead then that should be enough. You did your homework, the trade was public how much more
caveat emptor (buyer beware) can you do?
Psychic Watch said:
@Thyiad: How long did you have those items before their source player was banned? What led to their discovery? Did those banned ever mention whether those items were found "under the influence"? (trying to get a sense of the time scales)
Anything I trade for tends to sit in a quarantine stash for a good few weeks - longer now. I only do trade threads irregularly when I have a number of things I want. The Maras I have been trying to trade for since I got here and acquired in my most recent trade thread, is still sat in a quarentine stash.
Chain of Strength trades were in my 23 July 2006 thread; he was banned around 28 August. 6dollarburger trades were also in 23 July 2006 thread; he was banned 8 October 2006. (That was one bad trade thread for me.)
I was told to delete the items because the sources were people who had been banned for hacking (a charm IIRC from CoS, a jewel from 6dollarburger). They were not 'discovered hacked' just from a source who was later banned. And there were no questions in my mind about the legitimacy of either of those members at the time. Similarly with jantias gems. The pgems were fine; the member was banned. I have no idea if the members admitted finding them while using hacked items - that would be a question for the Mods. But my purchases were of items that looked fine in an open trade.
@Throndhart - Absolutely right. A complete wipe would be the only way to ensure a completely clean pool. I wouldn't do it, for one.
DeathMaster said:
Back to years ago, I was driving in the rain, and had full car of people.
*snip*
DeathMaster said:
I know my example isn't perfect, in fact it is bad example, but I think it highlights "how can you enforce a rule, if you let it loss anyway". Maybe some other guy saw me got away without a fine, would feel free to beat the light just because he knows he can get away. In our D2 term, we let one person go "tainted" and go free with trading and MP, how can we enforce others to follow the rule?
You're right, that is a bad example. :tongue: You deliberately went through the light. Therefore you are in the
obviously haxxored camp. Therefore you delete. In your example, if you were driving an emergency vehicle on-call (IE blues and twos - lights and siren on) you would still be caught and fined (and in the UK that has been done, it is an absolute offence). I would like to see someone justify that.
For the record the judge who fined the fire-engine driver said the case shouldn't have been brought.
No one can possibly say that by limiting the concept of taint, the SPF welcomes and legitimizes
haxxoring. Following the rule of not making items is set in stone and no-one is challenging that. What is being challenged is that traders/MPers who have followed the no-haxxoring rule, who have tried their utmost to be careful in a trade have been caught out through no fault of their own and are then on the wrong end of a witch-hunt.
As both SPTF Mods have posted here in favour of the current regulations, it is quite clear that nothing will change. Those who have done nothing wrong, except be unlucky enough to trade with someone who was banned will delete the traded items, items found with the traded items and characters who used the items or be banished from the forum.
I will just sit back and wait until we find out who has made a trade with Fbob or whoever, continued to use that item and not mentioned it. We'll discover they have MP'd and traded with most of the SPF and by the current concept of taint, nearly everyone here needs to delete everything in order to continue trading/MPing.
And then I will say "I told you so".
Google