So called 'boosting' my stats.

[BetaPuffle]

This honestly isn't fair. The thread I made was simply asking if it was legal for people to rack up wins on a uncrowded server. That's all I did. The ones who fueled it are the people who started pointing fingers, and MrGears helped fuel it with this thread. The topic had been dying out but he brought it back to life.

You just said he was illegally racking up kills

 

[fatmannumbah8]

Why do people always have to go on threads and start arguements?

 

[qwErtyVAsdfghN]

I actually enjoy the 6 player games, even when I do poorly. It's an interesting way to play.

Yeah like yesterday on sg2 with the weird chests. That was actually pretty fun.

 

[Mr_Gears]

Excuse me for asking a simple question and leaving you completely anonymous.

You left me anonymous. But your friends didn't. And by friends I mean @Virtual. He was in the skype call that you guys added me to. So it really wasn't anonymous.

 

[Virtual]

You left me anonymous. But your friends didn't. And by friends I mean @Virtual. He was in the skype call that you guys added me to. So it really wasn't anonymous.

I'll delete my post when I said you were ranked 13. I really don't want to be involved with this. I apologize.

 

[The Arena Master]

I'll delete my post when I said you were ranked 13. I really don't want to be involved with this. I apologize.

Virtual it's a bit late for that now...

 

[Col_StaR]

Whoa, everyone needs to calm down here. For the record, stats boosting in general is not allowed and will result in a ban/stats reset; the Administration will discuss what constitutes stats boosting and what does not. Whether Mr_Gears was boosting or not is an entirely different matter, and we should not immediately assume that he was.

The Administration is currently looking into this case, and I'm heading up the investigation. I've already spoken to @Mr_Gears and he's given his statement. @The Arena Master, next time we're on TS, I'd like to hear your statement as well.

See, it's for reasons like this that we prefer questions, problems, and reports get brought to the staff, and not left to the uninformed to swarm over. As far as we can see thus far, no one's at fault.

 

[Pixelatorx2]

Whoa, everyone needs to calm down here. For the record, stats boosting in general is not allowed and will result in a ban/stats reset; the Administration will discuss what constitutes stats boosting and what does not. Whether Mr_Gears was boosting or not is an entirely different matter, and we should not immediately assume that he was.

The Administration is currently looking into this case, and I'm heading up the investigation. I've already spoken to @Mr_Gears and he's given his statement. @The Arena Master, next time we're on TS, I'd like to hear your statement as well.

See, it's for reasons like this that we prefer questions, problems, and reports get brought to the staff, and not left to the uninformed to swarm over. As far as we can see thus far, no one's at fault.

I would also like to see how this would be prevented, as we have over 200 games played per 10 minutes I think (correct me if I'm wrong) It would be nearly impossible to monitor this. Just interested how this would be ruled out.

 

[Col_StaR]

I would also like to see how this would be prevented, as we have over 200 games played per 10 minutes I think (correct me if I'm wrong) It would be nearly impossible to monitor this. Just interested how this would be ruled out.

The difficult part would be actually tracking who's point boosting and who's simply doing things fairly, and then the additional issue of implementation. It's actually very similar to the oft-requested demand of, "get rid of teams".

Right now, not everyone whom I've talked to in the staff even agrees what constitutes point-boosting. We agree on a generic definition of, "fallaciously inflating the number of wins by playing rigged games," but we have not agreed on how a game would be considered rigged. Does it depend on the number of wins the person gains, or the number of people in the game? What if not every game is has the same winner, is it still considered a rigged game? What if it was simply a streak of good wins? And how do we differentiate between rigging a game with friends and simple teaming?

On a technical side of things, the above issues are even further complicated. We can interpret, infer, and imply a lot of information by our social understanding and historical extrapolation of previous games. Computers, for all their computational power, cannot be easily made to understand such things. We cannot make our servers flag people for malicious stats activity because there is no distinction between "malicious" and "innocent" along the lines of code; we could code in certain conditions that the system checks for, and once those conditions are met we could make a flag appear, but how can we make a computer do it if we humans can't even agree on it ourselves? It's technical implementation issues like that that make such things problematic. I would prefer if the Devs kept their focus on their current projects than deal with this rather-rare and innocuous issue.

The way I personally see it, stats-boosting isn't really practical or effective. It requires a lot of set-up, is subject to a lot of variety, and would require a lot of time. It requires a large-enough group of associates who are coordinated enough to dominate a certain server. Even if the 12-slot server was half-full with associates, that means that six other free players could still kill the others to ruin their scheme. And even assuming that this does occur with 100% success rate, they are still subjected to the standard wait times and persistence required to rank into the top 500. Considering that this is a long, drawn-out, boring, uneventful, and immoral process involving 3+ people, I don't see anyone taking it as a long-term viable option for internet fame.

 

[Mr_Gears]

The difficult part would be actually tracking who's point boosting and who's simply doing things fairly, and then the additional issue of implementation. It's actually very similar to the oft-requested demand of, "get rid of teams".

Right now, not everyone whom I've talked to in the staff even agrees what constitutes point-boosting. We agree on a generic definition of, "fallaciously inflating the number of wins by playing rigged games," but we have not agreed on how a game would be considered rigged. Does it depend on the number of wins the person gains, or the number of people in the game? What if not every game is has the same winner, is it still considered a rigged game? What if it was simply a streak of good wins? And how do we differentiate between rigging a game with friends and simple teaming?

On a technical side of things, the above issues are even further complicated. We can interpret, infer, and imply a lot of information by our social understanding and historical extrapolation of previous games. Computers, for all their computational power, cannot be easily made to understand such things. We cannot make our servers flag people for malicious stats activity because there is no distinction between "malicious" and "innocent" along the lines of code; we could code in certain conditions that the system checks for, and once those conditions are met we could make a flag appear, but how can we make a computer do it if we humans can't even agree on it ourselves? It's technical implementation issues like that that make such things problematic. I would prefer if the Devs kept their focus on their current projects than deal with this rather-rare and innocuous issue.

The way I personally see it, stats-boosting isn't really practical or effective. It requires a lot of set-up, is subject to a lot of variety, and would require a lot of time. It requires a large-enough group of associates who are coordinated enough to dominate a certain server. Even if the 12-slot server was half-full with associates, that means that six other free players could still kill the others to ruin their scheme. And even assuming that this does occur with 100% success rate, they are still subjected to the standard wait times and persistence required to rank into the top 500. Considering that this is a long, drawn-out, boring, uneventful, and immoral process involving 3+ people, I don't see anyone taking it as a long-term viable option for internet fame.

This is why we all love The Col.

 

[Col_StaR]

This is why we all love The Col.

*Tips his hat*
"Just doing my job."

Hopefully I'll speak with everyone today or tomorrow to settle this incident.

 

[Levah]

The difficult part would be actually tracking who's point boosting and who's simply doing things fairly, and then the additional issue of implementation. It's actually very similar to the oft-requested demand of, "get rid of teams".

Right now, not everyone whom I've talked to in the staff even agrees what constitutes point-boosting. We agree on a generic definition of, "fallaciously inflating the number of wins by playing rigged games," but we have not agreed on how a game would be considered rigged. Does it depend on the number of wins the person gains, or the number of people in the game? What if not every game is has the same winner, is it still considered a rigged game? What if it was simply a streak of good wins? And how do we differentiate between rigging a game with friends and simple teaming?

On a technical side of things, the above issues are even further complicated. We can interpret, infer, and imply a lot of information by our social understanding and historical extrapolation of previous games. Computers, for all their computational power, cannot be easily made to understand such things. We cannot make our servers flag people for malicious stats activity because there is no distinction between "malicious" and "innocent" along the lines of code; we could code in certain conditions that the system checks for, and once those conditions are met we could make a flag appear, but how can we make a computer do it if we humans can't even agree on it ourselves? It's technical implementation issues like that that make such things problematic. I would prefer if the Devs kept their focus on their current projects than deal with this rather-rare and innocuous issue.

The way I personally see it, stats-boosting isn't really practical or effective. It requires a lot of set-up, is subject to a lot of variety, and would require a lot of time. It requires a large-enough group of associates who are coordinated enough to dominate a certain server. Even if the 12-slot server was half-full with associates, that means that six other free players could still kill the others to ruin their scheme. And even assuming that this does occur with 100% success rate, they are still subjected to the standard wait times and persistence required to rank into the top 500. Considering that this is a long, drawn-out, boring, uneventful, and immoral process involving 3+ people, I don't see anyone taking it as a long-term viable option for internet fame.

Well. You sorted that out. *Puts money in hat*