Emailing Support - Why are we doing it?

But you seem to be missing the point that it is highly unlikely that A-Net's methods utilised a completely computer-based method for detecting these bots, and the complexity of making judgements on individual cases cannot be left for a computer to decide. So the two options are to use a system that is completely computer-based and cannot differentiate case-by-case examples, or use a combination of both computer and human based operations. As it is likely the latter is true, then human error is a highly probable possibility.

And while we're quoting titles here,
<PhD in Organisational Psychology.

EDIT:
Hypothesised probabilities mean nothing, so don't use them as a basis for logic.

You don't think a multi million dollar company used a computer based algorithm for detecting bots that used dll injection and packet manipulation? LOL. Oh ok... that's a fairly naive view, not going to lie....

The system for detection was automated. The results would be sent for further review and litmus testing. If after 1-3 more litmus tests, the account was still found to have the flags the algorithm was intended to find, it would be added to a list of a mass banning. This isn't rocket science, it's actually rather simple.

1= guilty
0= not guilty.

COMPUTER SAYS... 1... Support tech confirms 1 from records. Banned.

COMPUTER SAYS... 0... Account is passed and not subject to further investigation. Not banned.

To your second point: Rationality can be used in place of logic when standards exist, as they do in this case. Rationality + logic = a pretty air tight argument. What side of this are the rest of you arguing exactly? I fail to see where you could possibly have ANY argument here.

Sorry, you caught me out on a bad phrasing (i meant detected and action on). You were arguing a couple of posts ago that the whole process is based on binary operation, and as such there is no error in their judgement. But now you're arguing that they do infact use human input? One thing I have discovered is that whenever there is human input, there is the chance for human error.

It is doubtful that the algorithm was written in binary (by doubtful, I mean it wasn't, period.)

The language doesn't matter....

The fact is, a monkey could write a search algorithm to search for the values they were searching for.

Method:

Test programs to find value mutations/changes

Bot programs 1-6 change value A to value B.
Bot programs 7-11 change value A to value C.
Normal operation changes value A to value D.
Client side operations change value A to value D.
Bot programs 12-14 change value A to E (this 'bot' or mod has no effect on game play and is therefore ignored)

Run search algorithm for value B and C.

If B and/or C are detected, flag account.

Review further instances of value change on flagged account. If positive... BAN.

I'm sorry, did I miss something here?

Are you guys seriously suggesting that something in normal operation or something that is PURELY client side can manipulate the values they were looking at? If you are seriously suggesting that... LOL @ YOU. It helps to know something about the topic you are discussing... typically at least.

This is, again, cut and dry. They didn't make a mistake here... they checked this out, litmus tested it. It's infallible.

If you are too lazy to read what has been posted in this very thread, then I am far too lazy to repeat what has already been said for your benefit.

I've bolded, underlined and italicised the factor which can fail, and it is due to what I have been arguing this whole time, human error. And I used binary as your original explanation used this as an example, but this has no real merit in this discussion because this process still produces empirical evidence which must be analysed. Scientific research 101. And when analysis is performed, there is no guarentee that the analysis will be flawless.

The review is really only a human confirmation of a computer certainty at this point. It simple serves as a last check. The computer algorithm is already correct, and that is the point people are failing to realize. This is a black and white issue, and people are trying to treat computer algorithms like a gray area. Computers aren't gray guys and gals, sorry to say. The review was for the benefit of those identified as cheaters/botters, not for their determent. ANET didn't even have to review the flagged accounts, they could have done it in a totally automated manner, and it likely would have yielded the same results.

If anything, the second review may have let a botter or 2 slide by, because the human judgment overruled the computer detected value changes I elaborated on above. So... that's game, set, and match.

To suggest I am lazy after posting an explanation and quoting her on her most RECENT statements is rather bold. But, that's your choice Theo. I'm not going to publicly argue with another mod over such a black and white issue, where there is no gray area.

If an account was banned wrongfully, it was a fluke, a random error, and not the norm. When you submit a ticket to support regarding this, they will do yet another check on your account, as it doesn't take long. If this additional check corrects a very, very rare error, so be it. Likelihood of that...? Slim to none. They are giving you automated responses if their ADDITIONAL review has still found you to be guilty. Anyone arguing past that point is simply lying.

As you do not have access to the methods that A-Net use for detection, then what you are arguing is only a hypothesis. A-Net could have simply set a quota for .dll injections, and used that as their evidence to ban. The method you have stated would have been a great method to use, but A-Net do not exactly have a track record for selecting the best possible tool for the situation.

Going off the fact that this was done by a multi million dollar company with stock holders, it would be assumed they used a fairly safe, reasonable method that was thought out enough to be effective, without being to broad, as to ban those that didn't deserve it. My point stands, hypothesis or not. The vast majority of these bans were legitimate, and those that were wrongfully banned will be unbanned.

I highly doubt they let the Asurans take care of the algorithms, so we cannot be sure that the algorithms are flawless, right?

Huh? So your concluding statement actually agrees with me that human error existed in their judgement? I'm now a little confused as to what you were arguing now...

Judging from the amount of bans that were confirmed as valid from the people admitting the use of bots both here on Guru and on the Wiki, it is safe to assume the algorithm was dead on. Again, this type of algorithm would be extraordinarily easy to create, and litmus testing would ensure its accuracy. They did a press release on this matter, and stock investors would shit bricks if this wasn't done perfectly, by the books, and in the best interest of the company.

So... you can bet this was done with extreme scrutiny and in a very controlled, logical manner. That, again, isn't to suggest ANET/NCSoft aren't infallible, but it is suggesting that in this case, 99%+ of the bans were legitimate. That is an excellent value to aim for, and we have seen far more than 1% of the banned people claiming innocence. It's far easier to assume those people are lying than claiming computer error in an investigation that has spanned several MONTHS.

No, I'm not agreeing with you, at least not in the sense you feel I am. The human error I point to would simply be a bookkeeping error. The algorithm for this sort of detection is rather simple, it must might contain many variables. It is possible, however unlikely, that the algorithm was flawed, but the likelihood of someone lying is far, far higher than the algorithm being fundamentally flawed. You supposedly have a PhD in psychology, you should know that...

A public posting of innocence screams, "I'm trying to get people to believe me so that I look better to ANET, or I can start some kind of public outcry to make it seem like reversing this decision will get good press!", instead of that user just sending an email to support and having them triple check things yet again. These automated responses are only sent after they RECHECK it.

The "evidence" would argue the quota hypothesis. My hypothesis is the most logical and rational based on all available data. This takes into account those that were banned for excessive bots and those that simply tried the bot to see it work, perhaps only using it for a few minutes on one occasion. They were all banned, without differentiation. That implies, simply, that it was a return value based search, most likely looking at packet data. Specific values were IDed, and targeted for a search through the database, which according to Gaile, went months back.

This isn't an argument with respects to the likelihood of lying compared to the results of a computer algorithm, it is an argument about the presence of human error, which you were arguing that there was none of (at least in the beginning).

And personal attacks are a characteristic of a weak argument, attack my argument, not my person. But surely one who also a member of the world of academia understands this?

Tongue in cheek. I wasn't attacking you personally, simply pointing out that psychology would strongly suggest my point.

I never said there wasn't human error, I said there was no computer error. Any human error would be eliminated by an ADDITIONAL check through the data collected, and checking the determination. If there is one poor soul, who after an additional review, was truly innocent, and their ban wasn't lifted, I do feel sorry for them, but the chances are about as high as a human being able to lift a full size Blue Whale with one finger. Human error, in this case, would be very small, and would not account for the number of reports of innocence we have seen, on Guru, let alone other sites.

I'm going to bed now, having made all the points I could make on this topic. I will agree to disagree with anyone who would argue against the overall accuracy of this ban given the available data. Goodnight.

This little exercise was fun ^^ It is good to know that there are other intelligent individuals out there, who have the ability to present a valid argument. Take care.

Most of the claims of 'innocence' are by those who claim they tried the bots out because they were curious. I'm inclined to believe that the human error rate was very low given the process you outlined.

rahja could u plz stop bsing;

tell me what if legal program 15 changed value A to B?
false positive?

who would check all 3700 accounts for false positives reviewing logs and such?

indeed they wouldn't they would just ban all, and w8 for people who think they got banned unjustly to ask for revision!

and this last point is what people are discontent about as customer support is failing to give a **** about them, and anet is simply using a bot to reply back to them.

furthermore there are bots who work through pixel detection (farming bots) or are simply macros (spam bots) which don't change any values and as you setup in ur hypothetical situation value A will be changed to value D and thus these bot will and are going below the radar.

You know what "professional" means, do you?

Are you suggesting that prople working at this system are just amateurs?

They've set criteria to detect bots in their system and obviously NO "legal program" would have changed value A to B. They know their code better than you and they surely know how to check their code better than you as well.

If anything, if it was so easy to have "false positives", the consequent ban slaughter would have been massive and clearly evident.

Please, get serious.

It is only cut and dry if you are willing to assume a certain set of assumptions.

I don't care if Google,Microsoft,Apple,Sony,and Nintendo made a company together to make this detector. It can still go wrong,because humans made it.

1. If it was tested,I doubt (repeat doubt) that it was tested 3.7k times

2. I know they went wrong on something,because a friend I know IRL was banned,and I know he has no knowlage of this things. You won't find a more casual gamer than him,Jesus Christ he just recently found out about Fallout 3 and other games having console commands. He did not use any third party programs,or buy any money from GW. He hasn't broken any rule other than language (and I'm just puting in the language thing to say something)

Microsoft,one of the most known software companies,has errors on ALL of their OS's (see Windows Vista)...why it has errors? humans made it. Same with Apple...hence all programs can f*ck up.

I know it sounds cheesy,but it is the truth.

There is a big difference between a complex piece of software such as an OS and a simple piece of software like a .dll checker. Also, simple programs are easy to debug.

Maybe your friend is innocent. Maybe someone else installed something on his computer. Maybe he unwittingly installed it without realizing it. If he's innocent, he'll probably get his account back.

Your friend may have accidentally downloaded a program that used the methods that ANET/NCSoft were witch hunting for. This is a sad fact, but we are responsible for the things that go on our system, and that includes viruses, worms, malware, etc. There is some piece of the pie that is missing in your friend's story, because it would be literally impossible to produce a false positive on the variables they were looking for without some kind of program manipulating source code. If he was banned due to this reason, that is unfortunate, but you need to be in full control of your system at all times, and exceptions cannot be made in these cases; that simply opens the door for other, actual cheaters, to scream the same thing, and have their bans lifted. This isn't a jail sentence, it's a ban in a game. Your friend has been welcomed to restart a new account, but I'd highly recommend that he/she check their system first for any type of malevolent software.

An algorithm doesn't need to be tested the number of times you want it to give results... You test it against constant variables versus independent variables. It needs to be litmus tested in order to determine accuracy. You can run an algorithm several million times in order to check its accuracy and precision, both of which are important.

Running a search script or algorithm on a SQL database is drop dead easy, and cannot be compared to an OS. You are basically trying to compare a Star Trek Warp Drive to a 1991 Chevy Cavalier... which is a pretty bad way to look at this. An OS contains millions of lines of code (Vista had over 50 million) A SQL identification algorithm or search parameter of this nature would contain no more than 150-250 lines, depending on the number of variables and automation they put it in. I could program that without a flaw, and that says a lot, considering I'm terrible with SQL compared to people who really know it.

Your first assumption is a bit skewed. It assumes that a false positive can be generated using a "legal" program. The very nature of these programs is against the ToS/EULA, so there really isn't such a thing as a false positive.

Mods that ANET has looked the other way on are those that are client side only. Client Side ONLY Modification != Packet manipulation

Your second point is invalidated, as it isn't support "not caring", it's simply using an automated response after they have run yet another check of your account with their litmus tests. If it continues to produce positives, they will send you the messages you see at the beginning of this thread. If their recheck yields negatives, they will take a different course in support. The reason you aren't seeing those responses is because.... for all intents and purposes, they don't exist.

To your furthered point, I actually agree. This method is highly accurate, but limited to the markers I pointed out. GUI driven bots or advanced macros are much harder (or impossible) to detect using an algorithm without going below the 99% accuracy barrier. That barrier is established because 1% can be a very large number in the case of mass bans. Those type of bots have to be manually hunted down, and those methods are fairly full proof, but they are very slow and time consuming for support. These bans were issued to the people that used bots that used packet manipulation. Sadly there are limitations to the power of CS, and this is it. The remaining non dll injection bots must be dealt with manually, and that leaves more room for human error, but also doesn't create these massive bans, and so those hundreds of bans that will be done manually will be go on more or less unseen.

No.Nothing. Nada.

I know I have no evidence,but take my word for it. Only he has access to his PC,and he did not download anything...He barely played GW. he did nothing.period.

If he get his account back,then cool. But this proves there is a margin of error,even if its only 1 account out of the 3.7k

It would take more than 10 minutes on average per player that is for sure. Lets not forget they do not only get tickets regarding this particular issue, but they also have tons of other tickets.

He would not want to play the game at all, simply because any loot he obtains is losing value constantly as your bot finds the same stuff over and over again, and of course you are willing to sell this stuff cheaper and cheaper because:

a) It did not take any effort for you to find those items, so basically anything you get for them is for free.

b) You (the botter) have millions of those items.

c) More and more people are running the same bots, so there's even more items, and therefore they lose value.

Sure it does, it devalues gold itself, are you telling me it doesn't cause inflation?.

You mention you used part of your money to buy some of the titles, so let me guess party, sweet, drunk titles?, where do you think that money is going anyway?, to the economy of course.

People can't understand an ingame economy anymore than they can understand real world economics. You can explain all day long, but it will do absolutely no good, but here we go.

You making gold without playing means you can make gold at a much higher rate than other players who have human limitations and time constraints can. That means you have more raw gold than the majority of those players that are actually playing, and not cheating. This in turns means you are willing to spend more on items, since you don't value the gold as much as someone who actually worked to earn it. This in turn drives up prices, as sellers see people willing to pay higher prices, and subsequently raise their prices. Enter the vicious cycle of GW economic inflation.

This isn't rocket science....

Just came back from a 6 month hiatus to see my account banned. Don't think I've ever used a third party tool, other than the "hi-rez textures in towns" program that was on the wiki.

And I was so intrigued by the mesmer update. :\

That's client side, so again, I'm calling bullshit. That mod doesn't modify the packets being sent back to the server. So... nope, start thinking harder.

This ploy you guys have come up with in an attempt to feign mass innocence isn't fooling those of us who understand how this works. You are only fooling yourselves...

I'm waiting for the drunkard and sweet tooth bot bans.

Just you wait, I'll be unbanned and getting an apology, I'm sure!

(Seriously though, I can't image a situation where I've hacked the game. I have 2 elite armor sets after 5 years, I barely PvP, and likely 30 platinum to my name.)

Until such a time that it can be proved there was some kind of fundamental flaw in the detection systems used (which there won't be), the Inquisition asserts your guilt. It can only be assumed there is a fundamental flaw in the methods used to detect these bots, or you are lying/forgetting. Going off the sheer number of people admitting they did bot after they were banned, I'd say it was pretty damn accurate.

My guild leader on my PvP account botted once, and only once, in RA to see how the bots worked. He was permanently banned, and deservedly so. I feel no different towards him than I do a random person on these forums who I have had no prior knowledge of. At least my guild leader isn't lying or publicly QQing, because he knows what he did, and he knew the potential consequences.

Most of those aren't bots (at least in the case of sweet tooth) but simple macros. Yes, they could ban for those, it's true, but the likelihood of that happening is slim to none compared to the RMT farm bots and exploiters getting banned first, in that order.

Even more reason to submit your ticket to support..they may have info you don't know about...due to:

A 'friend' you forgot about and gave your account info to while away on your hiatus....
A hacker that trashed your account.
Keyboard cat taking lessons from HA int1
---many possibilities.

Always best to wait for your incoming responses from support..no one here can help you..sorry.

They would undoubtedly deserve the ban though and have no room for QQ or cause to demand redress.

I would demand redress, but it would be with Gaile and the support team, quoting them on past language that explicitly permits simple G11/G15 macros. However, in the end, it would be ANET's call, and if they were to uphold a ban on my account, I would accept it and move on, like an adult.

They never gave any indication that the type of bots that were used were in any form, approved. The ToS/EULA specifically puts sanctions against them. A forum isn't a place to redress this type of issue; a support ticket is the place for that.

Well like i normally try to be hounest i backtraced my steps and noticed i forgot a verry important step.

So here is my updated ticket.

Ah, Gaile actually discussed this a bit on her talk page, and yeah, its a dll injection, it is bannable, and it isn't approved.

"Is injecting a .dll, not used for botting, a bannable offence?
My question ^, I believe I was banned because I injected a .dll into Guild Wars and this is the justification [not justification, but how anet 'caught' all] of the 3700 bots.
It was used for absolutely NO botting purposes, and I believe this is why I was grouped with the 'botters.' The .dll was used for something called "packet faker," which was JUST LIKE texmod, client side ONLY. With this, it was possible to see your character use any of the hero rank emotes, and any of the zaishen rank emotes, again, ONLY CLIENT SIDE. Nobody else saw them. It gave me no advantage to the game over other players at all, it only made my screen shot folder larger.. -- is for Rift, etc. 18:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, KSMod (forces high-def armor textures on everyone) seems to be in the same boat... -- is for Rift, etc. 20:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, I used a skill log script a few times when writing match reports. Client side, no effect on the game, but used an dll injection. Account banned. 130.89.172.242 21:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I too am on the same boat as Rift. I used 'PaketFaker' and got banned for it. It is just like TexMod! Wicca 06:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are at least the second person who's mentioned PaketFaker and said you felt its use was acceptable because "it's just like TexMod." I don't know that. The support team doesn't know that. And unless you're a programmer who can read and analyze source code, you probably don't know that either. TexMod (in its original, unaltered form) is allowed because it gives no gameplay advantage. I can speculate that the other program is not totally benign, and that something in it gives advantage to the user. I do not know that, though, I truly am just speculating. If the use of PaketFaker caused your account to be blocked, then that's just another reason why we make it clear we do not give a thumbs up to third-party programs. Only a few third-party programs have been shown to pose no negative risks to the user, and even those must remain in their original form to be risk free. No one knows how many times a benign program is altered to be bad. In the end verification of a program's integrity rests with the user. -- Gaile 05:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)"

hope that helps, that risky lil program had all the earmarks of a problem from what i saw. i mean it let you spam all the emotes in game? doesn't that sound like perhaps something that might not fly with support?

well, anyway good luck

the margin of error is much greater than 1/3700, but looks like anet wont admit it so no hopes of him or any other innocent getting their accounts back!

also wana hear something scary?

contradiction much? turns out people (one who i know, and odds are he is innocent but thats beside the point) listened to regina, went out spent money on full new gw accounts to continue playing this game they once loved despite the terrible support only to have their new accounts banned by the next day since their credit card numbers or some other piece information was black listed. pretty sure that is not even legal, if it prevented them from purchasing the game in the first place maybe, but banning the new account withing hours of purchase after they made their money defiantly cannot be.

yes bots banned, thus better place, i was one who was actively pushing for measures to be taken against bots, reporting them when ever I saw one. heck i dont even pve, and rarely play classes in pvp that could benefit from botting. yet i was falsely accused and banned along with a handful of botters. thus i can see why the people who didnt have the misfortune of getting caught in the crossfire would not want any of the banned people to get their accounts back thinking they all were part of that rather large group ruining the gaming experience of others. but believe me there are innocents who got falsely accused too, yet support is not even giving them a chance to clear the misunderstanding by simply replying to all botters and innocents alike with prewritten automated replys basically telling them to gtfo and that anet doesnt give a **** about them and their loss.

I for one support our new banscythe wielding overlords.

OK, so its been a week, I've seen the same people for that week complain, whine, issue threats, QQ, and generally bellyache. Out of sheer curiosity has anyone NOT done what Anet has accused you of and gotten a negative response yet? or been ignored? Or are all the guilty just clogging things up still, and wondering why Anet/support gives you canned responses that culminate in DON'T BOTHER? Ever wonder if the letter was directed as such because you were guilty? Though i haven't heard of one yet, Gaile has indicated there are other responses.

Perhaps the reason is, no one to date, that has posted on here has been innocent? Seen everything from "PacketFaker" to outright admittance to botting and enjoying it come out, but in the end all have had dirty little secrets. Has anyone gotten a response from support yet?

Actually, that response you quoted was in reply to someone who claimed a friend had the same issue... the response Gaile gave was this

further she wrote in response to someone claiming that a friend had the same situation you describe with your friend

hopefully that clears that up a bit

Actually anet made that legal when you accepted their EULA. Basically, as soon as you agree to that, it means they can just cancel your account and take your money, because it states that they can do whatever they want in the EULA and don't even have to give you a reason. The only way you can defeat it, is to not support Anet by not buying their products and then spreading word of mouth.

Thankfully they are not stupid and don't do that to everyone and seeing as they all have us hook line and sinker, they don't have to worry about 3,700 accounts and some of their friends that won't be buying stuff from Anet anymore. Also since a lot of those people will probably go to GW 2, Anet is only gaining. So yeah, pretty much all you can do is screenshot Regina saying that and it will either A. get her in trouble (idk why you'd do that) or B. support will change something. I doubt it'll be B though.