Second thing FAnG are famous for

[Parthos]

Originally Posted by Rumad

If you weekend [sic] out all the cheats PA would have no paying players (not enough to play a round).

The #1 reason I and several others quit playing PA was not being able to stomach all the cheating that surrounded us anymore. Seems like a case of chicken/egg to me. You say getting rid of the cheaters would kill PA. The playerbase is self-selecting. When the non-cheaters quit out of disgust, all you have left is cheaters. I hope they are all enjoying wallowing in their own filth. The protestations I'm seeing (in my insomniac state) of "degrees of cheating" are especially amusing.

[Cayl]

Cheating should be looked at by PA-Team from an mathematical standpoint, because they aren't the church, they aren't going to be able to dictate morality to their playerbase.

Is R * P > B

R = Risk of Being Caught (in %)
P = Cost of Punishment
B = Benefit of Cheating

Now B is a very high value, no matter what units you measure it in. Cheating can be a very nice way to make it to the top quickly and easily. Its seductive, I mean that extra 4 hours of sleep before your big final tomorrow when your alliance mates can just take your login and keep you sorted. Whatever, the Benefits are well known and quite large.

However P isn't that high. So you get deleted. You're out a fiver, and the planet you never could have had trying to hold down a job, go to school and keep the girlfriend happy is gone too. P can't really be increased much beyond deletion by PA-Team. Only loss of reputation and possibly alliance membership could jack that up a bit.

And R is also pretty low historically speaking. I mean really, PA-Team has all this development to do, and deleting people is always such a negative action, people complaining and moaning, and another paying player is gone, and besides, its so hard to get proof. Can't we all just get along?

So there is the problem. Except for people who know they'll be caught, or people who have a lot to lose (Top 10 comes to mind), the only reason you wouldn't take the greater benefit over risk of being caught is your own morality. Considering that this is just a game in a fictional space run from a fictional country (Who really believes in Norway anyway?) its not too surprising that people cheat.

[LEFF|pm]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Cheating should be looked at by PA-Team from an mathematical standpoint, because they aren't the church, they aren't going to be able to dictate morality to their playerbase.

Is R * P > B

R = Risk of Being Caught (in %)
P = Cost of Punishment
B = Benefit of Cheating

Now B is a very high value, no matter what units you measure it in. Cheating can be a very nice way to make it to the top quickly and easily. Its seductive, I mean that extra 4 hours of sleep before your big final tomorrow when your alliance mates can just take your login and keep you sorted. Whatever, the Benefits are well known and quite large.

However P isn't that high. So you get deleted. You're out a fiver, and the planet you never could have had trying to hold down a job, go to school and keep the girlfriend happy is gone too. P can't really be increased much beyond deletion by PA-Team. Only loss of reputation and possibly alliance membership could jack that up a bit.

And R is also pretty low historically speaking. I mean really, PA-Team has all this development to do, and deleting people is always such a negative action, people complaining and moaning, and another paying player is gone, and besides, its so hard to get proof. Can't we all just get along?

So there is the problem. Except for people who know they'll be caught, or people who have a lot to lose (Top 10 comes to mind), the only reason you wouldn't take the greater benefit over risk of being caught is your own morality. Considering that this is just a game in a fictional space run from a fictional country (Who really believes in Norway anyway?) its not too surprising that people cheat.

..just wanted to add a factor to that equation

Is R * P > B + P

R = Risk of Being Caught (in %)
P = Cost of Punishment
B = Benefit of Cheating
P = Propability of getting closed without legal cause

Until today the PA crew did not manage to announce a list of illegal actions and - what`s even more important - clear definitions of what exactly is defined as "farming"
Basically its up to the multihunter to decide whether to close a planet or not and the clearance of their decisions is basically a huge gray area.
Multihunters use arbiters of ingame-alliances and get "supported" (you could also call that "influenced") by players who want to harm other alliances.
Imho its absolutly not acceptable one player getting closed and another one not even getting molested for the same action...

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Parthos

The #1 reason I and several others quit playing PA was not being able to stomach all the cheating that surrounded us anymore. Seems like a case of chicken/egg to me. You say getting rid of the cheaters would kill PA. The playerbase is self-selecting. When the non-cheaters quit out of disgust, all you have left is cheaters. I hope they are all enjoying wallowing in their own filth. The protestations I'm seeing (in my insomniac state) of "degrees of cheating" are especially amusing.

My argument isnt to stop getting rid of cheaters, just the majority of pa universe have broken the rules. Believing anything other than this is naive.

It is chicken and the egg, but what do you do when you have a game of 200 planets because you have weeded out the bad apples (account sharers, farmers, escorters etc)? Cheating will always exist and as for wallowing in your own philth - i don't cheat, i still pa and i have fun - am i big? Nah - but at least i am still here for my mates

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by LEFF|pm

..just wanted to add a factor to that equation

Is R * P > B + P

R = Risk of Being Caught (in %)
P = Cost of Punishment
B = Benefit of Cheating
P = Propability of getting closed without legal cause

Until today the PA crew did not manage to announce a list of illegal actions and - what`s even more important - clear definitions of what exactly is defined as "farming"
Basically its up to the multihunter to decide whether to close a planet or not and the clearance of their decisions is basically a huge gray area.
Multihunters use arbiters of ingame-alliances and get "supported" (you could also call that "influenced") by players who want to harm other alliances.
Imho its absolutly not acceptable one player getting closed and another one not even getting molested for the same action...

In that caseyou have to add in te variable of constancy of decision and indeed whether the hunter has formd any personal viewon the individual caught and waht evidence is presented and any precedent set from previous rounds.

Looks like its gonna be a complicated equation.

[Cayl]

Leff, your reusing the same letter for a new variable aside ...

I don't think thats how that would factor into that particular equation. In any case, it is unacceptable that on its 11th hosting of the game, PA-Team wouldn't have a set of rules that everyone clearly understands and precedents that can be followed. I think the rules are fairly clear and introduce some white areas and black areas. Now the task becomes to narrow that large grey band between them down a bit.

However, like it or not, no rule enforcement in the world is able to totally consistently apply the rules unless the Risk of being caught is 100% in all circumstances. Its not realistic to think that PA Team can achieve this. Their goal is to make it sufficiently high that the left side of my original equation becomes greater than the right side.

Until the risk of being caught is 100%, multihunters will find out about things when people bring greater scrutiny on themselves. If you enter the top 100, 50, 10, then people will start looking at you closely. If you attack a major alliance, they're going to have the resources to thoroughly scan you and the experience to know what they're seeing. Once you're under this scrutiny, its only logical that multihunters will follow up.

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Cheating should be looked at by PA-Team from an mathematical standpoint, because they aren't the church, they aren't going to be able to dictate morality to their playerbase.

Is R * P > B

R = Risk of Being Caught (in %)
P = Cost of Punishment
B = Benefit of Cheating

Now B is a very high value, no matter what units you measure it in. Cheating can be a very nice way to make it to the top quickly and easily. Its seductive, I mean that extra 4 hours of sleep before your big final tomorrow when your alliance mates can just take your login and keep you sorted. Whatever, the Benefits are well known and quite large.

However P isn't that high. So you get deleted. You're out a fiver, and the planet you never could have had trying to hold down a job, go to school and keep the girlfriend happy is gone too. P can't really be increased much beyond deletion by PA-Team. Only loss of reputation and possibly alliance membership could jack that up a bit.

And R is also pretty low historically speaking. I mean really, PA-Team has all this development to do, and deleting people is always such a negative action, people complaining and moaning, and another paying player is gone, and besides, its so hard to get proof. Can't we all just get along?

So there is the problem. Except for people who know they'll be caught, or people who have a lot to lose (Top 10 comes to mind), the only reason you wouldn't take the greater benefit over risk of being caught is your own morality. Considering that this is just a game in a fictional space run from a fictional country (Who really believes in Norway anyway?) its not too surprising that people cheat.

Your equation's wrong. It should be:

Is R * P > B * (1-R)

R = Likelihood of Being Caught (as a decimal from 0 to 1 - i.e. % chance/100)
P = Cost of Punishment
B = Benefit of Cheating

Otherwise the equation doesn't reflect the fact that the right-hand side of the equation should be 0 if getting caught is a certainty.

[Cayl]

You raise an excellent point Sid.

The main problem is that (1-R) for most planets is so close to 1 (ie the risk of getting caught is almost 0).

[Synthetic_Sid]

Originally Posted by Cayl

You raise an excellent point Sid.

The main problem is that (1-R) for most planets is so close to 1 (ie the risk of getting caught is almost 0).

Actually, to be very pedantic about the equation, R should be the PERCEIVED risk of being caught (as opposed to the actual likelihood). That may seem a very petty distinction, but in fact it has a lot of relevance to one of the more effective ways of addressing the problem:

A name and shame campaign - where caught cheaters were named on these boards for everyone to mock and laugh at - could have the double benefit of increasing both R and P.

[G.K Zhukov]

If you browse backwards Sid, I wrote about that 1 or 2 rounds ago.
Even Maddix understood I was correct.

[Tomkat]

I have another thing FAnG could be famous for!

Being unable to read arbiters correctly, and hit their allies. Then getting arsy when the ally hit gets annoyed about it all.

At least now we know how the currently ranked #11 player got to his position - by attacking allies who didn't bother to get defence because they assumed he wasn't stupid enough to land. Heh.

[Waku]

and when will you get them back m8 im still waiting to defend

[Tomkat]

Dunno, I've given up caring about a few roids.

It's laughable how little respect the FAnG members have for their command though.

[Waku]

its laughable that you are still crying about your roids when you said yesterday you would just drop it and you didnt care cause you didnt play actively anyway cause you only played for your alliance
.....

[mazzelaar]

Mistu and FAnG are the best of friends \o/

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Waku

its laughable that you are still crying about your roids when you said yesterday you would just drop it and you didnt care cause you didnt play actively anyway cause you only played for your alliance

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Dunno, I've given up caring about a few roids.

What?



Incidentally mazz (et al), this isn't MISTU's opinion - it's my own. Until FAnG can control a few of their members/officers though, they won't get much respect from me. Not that that's really all that important, as a lot of people don't respect them anyway.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Incidentally mazz (et al), this isn't MISTU's opinion - it's my own. Until FAnG can control a few of their members/officers though, they won't get much respect from me. Not that that's really all that important, as a lot of people don't respect them anyway.

bah - there you go getting my hopes up again. you're such a tease

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by mazzelaar

bah - there you go getting my hopes up again. you're such a tease

It's how you like it really :P

[Waku]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

What?
.

why do you keep bringing it up then?

[Rumad]

arbier infringments are never as simple as they seem. Heartless, Irv and LB are the active hc mmbers and they have the respect needed - if you have any issues talk to them.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Waku

why do you keep bringing it up then?

Because FAnG should have more control over their members. An alliance with renegade members, even if it is rank 1, isn't much of an alliance.

[JonnyBGood]

So some FAnG member landed on a MISTU officer eh? Hardly surprising really. I mean does anyone honestly expect MISTU to declare war over a silly little thing like getting roided by their allies?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So some FAnG member landed on a MISTU officer eh? Hardly surprising really. I mean does anyone honestly expect MISTU to declare war over a silly little thing like getting roided by their allies?

I'd advice you to only comment when you have either talked to Tomkat or to the FAnGers in question or when you know enough about how and what ...

Becides, breaking an ally on 1 incident end of the round when everything is played already is rather silly imo.

Didn't think Tomkat should have gone to AD with this ...

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Didn't think Tomkat should have gone to AD with this ...

And I don't think the FAnGers who basically laughed at their command and alliance policy should have got away with it. But we don't always get what we want.

[Zh|l]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

And I don't think the FAnGers who basically laughed at their command and alliance policy should have got away with it. But we don't always get what we want.

You expected something else from them?

Be honest :/

[Gerbie]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

And I don't think the FAnGers who basically laughed at their command and alliance policy should have got away with it. But we don't always get what we want.

I haven't got a clue what happend, but I have a funny feeling this might be a precedent for interesting things to come.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

And I don't think the FAnGers who basically laughed at their command and alliance policy should have got away with it. But we don't always get what we want.

I don't approve what our members did, yet I still think you shouldn't have gone to AD with it. Every issue FAnG and MISTU had this round (not many) were solved internally. I don't see why this one is different.

Then again I'm not an HC so I'd have done things differently but that doesn't matter.

Zhil, could you for once grow up and stop giving smart remarks which basicly do nothing else then insulting other alliances. It doesn't suit a person who used to post objective info but kinda took a different way lately ...

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

to LEFF, nice Lies about Saeder Krupp, I knew some pple in there but luckily they never had to fight us

rgds Kj

Hi KJ btw

Im no PA Player (not anymore) and I dont really want to take part in this discussion. I have only one favor to ask: Pls dont believe in stories fang tells u bout us. 90% of them are lies. Thats all

greetz

N1n3, proud Member of Saeder Krupp.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus Knute

Hi KJ btw

Im no PA Player (not anymore) and I dont really want to take part in this discussion. I have only one favor to ask: Pls dont believe in stories fang tells u bout us. 90% of them are lies. Thats all

greetz

N1n3, proud Member of Saeder Krupp.

I was talking about Saeder Krupp back in the days I played Neocron aswell. Like over a year ago or something. At that time you were not part of that clan m8.

LEFF, you shouldn't allow your brother to talk aswell

nice seeing you though, n1n3

[kyrealean]

i browse thru every few days or so, happen up upon this thread started by zhil. as usually Zhil has some amusing threads to read

anyway i found this to be entirely amusing.


each person that has posted here should really ask themselves this 1 question.....

how many PA players have never 1 time EVER logged into another planet to launch a fleet for someone, to use as a defense fleet for yourself, ever made a farm planet to get the precious E roids, to use as a spy planet on another alliance and the list can go on and on.....

cheating has been rampant in PA since it started, and will only continue to do so. the best ones simply dont get caught.

alliances can only police themselves so far, and i know for a fact that many alliance leaders in the past have taken a blind eye approach to alot of it as those were usually high ranked planets involved in the cheating.

there is no moral high ground to be gotten here, no alliance is clean as snow, every last 1 of them has some rotten apples in it, so really this thread is not so useful.

just try your best to do the right thing and things will work out, but if you take the blind eye approach and it burns you, just take the heat and move on. LDK did a marvelous job of PR damage control each round, as have other alliances heh.

[fbd]

Originally Posted by Rumad

arbier infringments are never as simple as they seem. Heartless, Irv and LB are the active hc mmbers and they have the respect needed - if you have any issues talk to them.

Out of interest how many HC have FAnG gone through?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by fbd

Out of interest how many HC have FAnG gone through?

r7: LEFF, Lockhead, TU, Hinch, Rumad, (Leinad as interim) and Kjeldoran
r8: LEFF, Lockhead, Rumad (just a few weeks), (Leinas as interim), Cray and Kjeldoran
r9: Irvine, LB, Acidrain, Benneton
r9.5: not sure, the same as r9 I think
r10: Webangel, Irvine, LEFF, Morden and Kjeldoran
r10.5: LB, Irvine, Alch and later on Heartless

so 16 different HC's throughout 6 rounds, if I'm not mistaking.

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

With the attitude to cheating Forest seems to have, why did he join FAnG??

(since the section deletions of reborn were as long back as r3, Im forgetting them for now )

Do you just bitch and moan on P l a n e t i a and Planetarion AD or is it a general trend? Or are you just here while pia boards are down like me?

[Jorinn]

Originally Posted by xtothez

Personally I love the logic:
Fang member: "No fang member has cheated"
Bystander: "What about xxx? He was closed"
Fang member: "Yes but he was kicked from fang, therefore no fang member has cheated"

For the record i have no idea if someone in FAnG cheated as i haven't been around but closed doesn't mean cheated. It's suspicion thereof.

[Mav]

imo FAnG should drop stickdeath, he really doesnt fit in with the image any alliance wants tbh, he is a lose cannon.

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by Mav

imo FAnG should drop stickdeath, he really doesnt fit in with the image any alliance wants tbh, he is a lose cannon.

I actually like him

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Mav

imo FAnG should drop stickdeath, he really doesnt fit in with the image any alliance wants tbh, he is a lose cannon.

If sickdeath doesn't fit in, then sure I don't either. Ironicly I founded FAnG, don't you think that'd be weird then?

[LB|away]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If sickdeath doesn't fit in, then sure I don't either. Ironicly I founded FAnG, don't you think that'd be weird then?

*cough*no*cough*

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

If sickdeath doesn't fit in, then sure I don't either. Ironicly I founded FAnG, don't you think that'd be weird then?

Not at all KJ - you're a nice guy. SD is a loose cannon, as Mav said. He's also socially inept.

[Mav]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Not at all KJ - you're a nice guy. SD is a loose cannon, as Mav said. He's also socially inept.

very true, you and benneton were my favourite people in fang when I was there, but stickdeath is well, weird tbh, Im sure he said he was very ill also just to get a higher rank and to get people feeling sorry for him.

Everytime I got into an argument with him, it was like, look im ill, i could die in a few days, blah blah blah, but somehow he magically recovered from it.

[Kjeldoran]

erm, very little you pple know, that's all I will say about this ...

[Morden]

Originally Posted by Mav

very true, you and benneton were my favourite people in fang when I was there, but stickdeath is well, weird tbh, Im sure he said he was very ill also just to get a higher rank and to get people feeling sorry for him.

Everytime I got into an argument with him, it was like, look im ill, i could die in a few days, blah blah blah, but somehow he magically recovered from it.

Strange that, personally I always liked him, but then again ive always been a bit of a loose cannon myself.

[Hathor]

I love this......a few rounds ago all the flaming would have been about Dingo and NoS, or maybe Fury or even legion.
Now that Dingo is absent and the other alliances ceased to exsist it seems FAnG is the new scapegoat or'toy' to be attacked and flamed.
Nothing changes does it. [ no question mark as it is a rhetorical ]
/me goes back to having a good laugh and the notion of 'cheaters'
Thanks for making my Sunday night a little brighter with the humour guys

[Mav]

Originally Posted by Hathor

I love this......a few rounds ago all the flaming would have been about Dingo and NoS, or maybe Fury or even legion.
Now that Dingo is absent and the other alliances ceased to exsist it seems FAnG is the new scapegoat or'toy' to be attacked and flamed.
Nothing changes does it. [ no question mark as it is a rhetorical ]
/me goes back to having a good laugh and the notion of 'cheaters'
Thanks for making my Sunday night a little brighter with the humour guys

Nah I like FAnG tbh, I just think SickDeath lies to much and is a loose cannon, just my opinion though, which has seemed to of been backed up by people I don't know either???

<Random Person> Hey your post on sd was so right an funny!!
<mav> who are you again?

[cypher]

hmmm only read first page and a half or something... i'm just wondering about a few things...

Originally Posted by Rumad

How do you ban someone in an anonymous world?

i think you let killmark in your alliance sometime? (rounds back) i might be wrong... but he turned cheating into an art basically..

and about some eclipse/fury people saying they took in gozu/ouzo (ldk kinda group) isn't that quite lame aswell? seeing as you did take in LOADS of LDK players aswell in round 9 i think. but then they served eclipse, so suddenly they weren't cheaters...? ofc those same guys were cheaters again in round 9.5 when they whooped your arses:/

same goes for quite a bit of other alliances btw...

i don't mind 'a bit' of cheating tbh... as sooooooo many people do it.. it's just when it's done ALWAYS when it's really annoying like with for example meddy. i doubt he has ever actually been able to finish a planetarion or ******** round at all. yet he can still get an alliance if he wants too.... THOSE people should be refused by any alliance tbh. and in that matter i think fang is really really lame aswell yes.
</bored>