I agree with you 100% that directors should need to do more than just click "hire" to profit off players. The problem with your suggestion is that "user activity" is not the metric they are using. If that were the metric they were using, I would completely back your suggestion. There may be a trigger for the amount of time a player needs to log in for before it counts, but Bogie has not said anything to indicate that this is even a remote concern for staff. (And it would not make sense. It would be easy for multis to show up as being active for 30+ minutes per day without doing anything.) The problem is that they are using metrics that we, the normal player, cannot see. So we cannot simply check their stats to know if they are or are not "active" enough for this update. We can't check their E usage. We cannot see crime trends, unless we personally track them for days/weeks. Drug usage does not appear to count for activity. (I have a 0*, daily active player that has been using drugs.)
(There is also a separate issue of the new "active" definitions rolling out with no warning. Directors woke up to having lost profit, while also still paying full wages to players that they had already vetted for being active based on the standards that staff had already provided. Staff changed the rules, to the detriment of legitimate company owners, without any apparent reason for doing so. If the reason is to catch multis/bots, it would make far more sense to have not rolled this out and to have secretly flagged and watched the problem accounts.)
I've several times debated between responding to this or not. My intent of this response is not a "defend Hank" post, but a "point out the logical fallacy" post.
"Absolute confirmed evidence" is not a thing in real life court systems. Evidence needs to be found to be reliable and relevant to be admitted to court. There is no "absolute" standard, and "confirmed" is misleading and subjective (confirmed to be what?). Evidence is really just a premise of an argument being crafted. In this situation, you are creating an argument on circumstantial evidence. It is certainly confirmable, and really absolute. It goes like this: 1. Did Ched make a post in the Committee forum about how a stock would go up? (Yes/No) 2. Is there a documented surge in purchasing of the stock that was discussed? (Yes/No) Now, if the answers are Yes and Yes, then you have absolute and confirmable evidence. It simply remains circumstantial. Because, then we add 3. Did Ched lead information in public forums that would lead savvy investors to make speculative trading? (Yes/No) 4. Did all the suspicious purchasing occur between the Committee posting and the Public leak? (Yes/No) Here we see the answers are Yes and No. You have absolute and confirmable evidence of what everyone knows happened. A group of people made a ton of money that you didn't want them to. That is frustrating and embarrassing. For the overall game, that's also concerning, because inflation is a major factor in long-term sustainability. But, as it relates to evidence, yes, you have evidence; the issue is that you have no evidence of anything unethical or against any rules.
A "real-life law process" would not be debilitating. I'm from the US, so details may be different for you in the UK, but it's rather similar. (From what I know, the it's easier to prosecute in the UK.) You can charge money without a lengthy trial. An agent of the state (police officer) observes a crime (violating the speed limit) and gives a ticket. If the fined individual wants to challenge this, they can go to court. This is a very rapid trial, typically only several minutes. If the police officer has ANY evidence (a reliable eye witness account by the officer), then the person will be paying the fine. All it takes is a crime being witnessed for a person to be fined. Sending a person to jail for more than temp/trial holding, you have to have a trial and have court approved evidence beyond reasonable doubt. As Fed'ing is a very real economic loss to yourself, you have already set up serious measures to ensure you aren't wrongfully deleting players. You already have a system that requires evidence and allows appeals.
"Leaving questionable committee members in their place, leaving all potentially illegal profits e.t.c." I want to point out that this is a very dubious sentence, and as you have called out forum posters for not bringing intelligence, I feel that you deserve to be called out for this gem. This single sentence has 3 logical fallacies: a false comparison, false analogy, and slippery slope. A. False Comparison: "leaving questionable committee members" and "leaving potentially illegal profits" are superficially similar, but don't actually compare. One is a role that is filled by meeting select criteria, the other is a rule violation. The conditions are really opposite. This is akin to comparing "giving a doper a gold medal" to "not prosecuting a child murderer". B. False Analogy: You compare how it would be too burdensome to require absolute confirmed evidence for "committee member shadiness" and "potentially illegal gains". We all agree that it's too high a hurdle for giving a committee member the boot, you have tried to piggy-back on that to say the same thing should apply to stripping stock earnings from a player. The transgressions and the resulting responses are in no way similar or related. As such, they are not analogous. C. Slippery Slope: "leaving all potentially illegal profits" lacks a stopping rule. Any profit in the entire game is potentially illegal. What if I have inside info for a real-world game and use it to bet in game? You have no evidence that I don't do this. Thus, all my bookie profits (all of everyone's bookie profits) are potentially illegal. Your instant rebuttal of "but this just concerns one event with one stock" is invalid, as the entire discussion revolves around your claim that you don't require any evidence for any transgression (thus, you've thrown out the ability to claim it's limited to a specific transgression).
As for removing committee members- that has nothing to do with the real-life legal process. Just like any job or volunteer position, if you don't fulfill the requirements, you can get removed. Here, the requirement is "Ched's trust". If you lose that trust, you lose that position. This leaves us at: You CAN use real world legal methods. See a crime, punish the crime. -or- Collect sufficient evidence and ban an account. This leaves us with the question: Why wouldn't you require evidence before punishing a customer?
We also know that you are capable of enforcing rules while requiring confirmed evidence. We know this because you've done that for years. You even regularly make threatening statements about your high tech methods for tracking rule violators. If you have such a bag of tricks for catching multis, you can certainly handle "who made a super shady purchase after the committee announcement and before I accidentally leaked information on the Bugs Forum?" In this situation, you only get to have it one way. We trust you that you can actually find rule transgressions, or we trust you that you can't actually find rule transgressions.
"Again, however, no one has been actually punished. I just reversed some 'too good to be true' profits." This is simply playing a semantics game to make your actions appear less harsh. You stripped players of money- that's punishment. As others have suggested, you could remove the profit from a certain time period (like $20 or $30 per share) if your concern was shady trading or inflation. That you are stripping all profits from shares bought in a certain time frame- that is simply punishment.
We can look at this in another way (I don't know the exact days that events went down, so I'm making up a different situation) Day 1- stock is worth $50. Player X buys gobs and gobs of it Day 3- stock is worth $60. Player Y buys gobs and gobs of it Day 5- stock is worth $75. Players Z buys gobs and gobs of it Day 15- stock is worth $125. Players Y and Z sells. Lots of random players are buying Day 20- stock is worth $150. Player Z buys. Some random players are buying and some are selling Day 60- stock is worth $400. Player X sells. Player Z sells. Random players doing stuff. Fast forward- Anyone that bought stock between day 1 and day 15 have all profits from the transactions removed. So, Players X, Y, and Z all lose money. Player X loses $350 per share, Player Y loses $65 per share, and Player Z loses $50 per share. This is done, in the name of correcting for possible illegal gains. Players Y and Z only lost profits made during the a chosen window. Player X loses all profits during and after the chosen window. Player Z, having bought on day 20, gets to retain all gains from day 20-60, player X does not. Days 20-60 are not being questioned as suspicious. Thus, Player X has a $250/share lose that Player Z is immune from because.... umm.... not punishment? If the concern was inside trading, and there was not punishment, there would have been a much more widespread and much lesser fee.
For example, I had the 100,000 needed for the previous BB. As the stock had become nearly worthless as an investment, I never had any intent to sell. But, as a Relentless member, I saw the chat after the new WSSB benefit was announced. I can't remember if it was Nash or Hank, but one of them mentioned that the stock was undervalued for the benefit. Many people were already selling (the stock had probably already doubled by that point). Because of their assessment, I kept my stock and didn't sell until it was in the $400s. If there was NO punishment involved, all stock gains during that period would be removed, including for those of us that didn't buy or sell during that time, and for those under the $2B mark). And, if there were no punishment, gains after that point would not be removed. After the release of the new WSSB benefit, I was operating under the same assessment as Hank and Nash were. But, because of "buy dates", those gains have been treated differently.
Not a direct reply- "What this looks like as one of the quiet, -poor-, -non-script-using-, low key Relentless players that just likes to cruise through the game as a nice break from school and work" The facts as I am aware 1. Several Relentless members have been getting publicly grilled over stock scripts- some members of the community want blood and/or rolling heads 2. A possible committee violation occurred related to revealing stock info 3. 20 people have been identified and fined the profits of sales of that stock, if the stock were purchased during a specific window of time 4. It was decided that no evidence was needed to determine if a committee member actually provided anyone with any information 5. It was decided that no evidence was needed to link the 20 players with any committee member that could have been leaking information 6. It was decided that no evidence was needed to establish if any rule violation ever even occurred 7. If the purpose of actions was to eliminate the possible illegal gain of profits during a small window of time, the actions taken would relate to the profits during the small window of time 8. The actions taken did NOT relate to the profits during the small window of time
What this looks like to me A. The selected solution would not damaged too many people, but would really damage the Relentless players that met the criteria (I really haven't looked into how the non-Relentless players are impacted. But, as Deft is flush, I'm assuming he'll be fine if he continues playing. And I'm assuming that most of the 20 players similarly wouldn't be financially wrecked. I could be wrong. Again- this is how it looks to me, being provided as feedback from a consumer to a supplier.) B.a. The selected solution doesn't actually address the concern of insider trading. It addresses 'removing massive profits made by people that speculatively traded a stock that wasn't supposed to generate that much profit.' B.b. If the issue were insider trading, select individuals would be isolated and punished harshly. If the issue were profits from insider trading, then the money removed wouldn't be based on the 'sell date', but based on the value of the stock around the time of the incident. Ex. remove (total shares) x [(price of share 7 days after possible leak) - (price of share at point of purchase)] instead of (total shares) x [(price of share at point of sale) - (price of share at point of purchase)] C. This looks like either the developer punishing people that had annoyed other players or that had annoyed the developer. D. This looks like an unexplained reversal from a trend of requiring more evidence and transparency.
Because, again, if this weren't punishment, the "not-punishment" would have been far less. If Hank/Nash/others had sold and re-bought 2 weeks later, they would have still have massive profits and much smaller "not-punishments".
No, the "loser" is not "whoever can't kick the members". You have lost the raid as soon as you declared it. You aren't farming a wall. You went out of your way to start a no-one-wins, no-holds-barred street fight with someone smaller than you. You won't get sympathy when you cry about them not standing still to get punched. They beat you in a game of checkers and used a rather basic hit-and-run strategy. You apparently have never learned anything about (extremely basic) military strategy.
Even if it is a "bug" in the system, you are trying to get sympathy because you losing a fight you started. Grow up, move on, learn from your mistakes.
Also, as general advise, stop coming to the boards to complain that the game should change to fix your mistakes. If you are picking on someone that much weaker than you and losing, you should be coming to the boards to congratulate them on a game well played. And you should be seeking out advice to get better at the game.
This may have been suggested already, but maybe the game could benefit from a potential expansion of missions givers at a rate of at least once per decade?
This post seemed well intended and in kind spirits.
But "f you are going to tell someone, anyone some bees that is going yo have an impact on them you dont do it in public" is wrong.
There is no single rule of thumb. Broadly speaking, the more power you have in the dynamic, the more you should make things safe and private for the other person.
A child facing rejection from a parent is definitely in the weaker position. That child should present that news in private if that is where the child feels safer.
The father is definitely in the wrong, here. A child being able to predict the father would react poorly only reinforces they made the right choice to do it in public. It is not a child's responsibility to cater to a parent's shortcomings. It is a parent's responsibility to support of their child.
I *think* there is no benefit of increasing advertising after you are the biggest advertiser in your industry. I *think* there is a set benefit for being the highest advertiser in an industry, then everyone else's advertising benefit is based on % compared to the top spender. So if you changed advertising to $100b, you'd just lose a lot of money, while making all other companies lose any meaningful benefit from advertising (for the few days your company exists).
Am I the only person that thinks 1 SE is cheap for buying out of a chain? I don't have the perspective that many in the game have. Having spent almost my entire game-life in R*, it is hard to imagine anyone *wanting* to be in a top-end faction, if they wouldn't want to chain. Reflecting what many others have said, I have never heard of anyone being punished for IRL coming in the way of chain requirements on rare occasion.
I think Nightmare's analysis is the right approach for making the base market value of buying-out-of-the-chain-but-staying-in-the-faction. (For upgraded factions, the math ends up in the same ballpark. 100 hits take ~$200m worth of 30e cans, providing 45e per can.) I just don't think it seems like a large enough number to make up for all the actual grinding they're making everyone else do for their benefit.
Even at 1 SE, this seems like the deal of a lifetime to me. My IRL hourly wage translates to ~$161m worth of donator packs. For around 2.5 hours of IRL work, I could purchase the 20-donator pack deal, for an instant $462m in game. I definitely spend more than 2.5 hours in game for a chain. Waaaaaayyyy more than 2.5 hours. If I wanted to opt out of a chain, I don't think the price tag should only consider the immediate in-game cost of ecans. I think the price tag should also consider the very real time and effort that the factions members contribute.
(I also really liked Unlucky's post highlighting different situations that would make sense for some factions, like a PA leader pacifist.)
"my guide is not focused on Target List like yours"
Baldr may politely disagree with you on this point, but I will explicitly call this a patent lie. Baldr's "target list" section is 1 section of a 12 section guide, which is FAR more comprehensive that your guide. Baldr's guide is *the* beginner guide. It has literally 7.5k upvotes, because it is so comprehensive, while still being so accessible and easily understood. There is no reason for you to try to belittle his work, to try to excuse your own laziness.
Like Baldr stated (paraphrasing), there is always going to be room and use for new n00b guides. There is no reason to steal other people's work without even giving credit. (And even if you give credit, you should get permission first. That is just good manners.)
TL:DR Don't steal and then try to make excuses and belittle the work of others.
I have now purchased 3 "casual contracts". The transactions have been easy, everything was communicated well, everything went smoothly. I will definitely do more contracts with them in the future.
What? I honestly can't tell if you are trolling. This really just requires reading more than just the Bill of Rights.
10A, in the most basic take, says the federal government is limited to the powers the Constitution delegates to the federal government. 10A does not, in any way, restrict the powers that are delegated to the federal government. It only prohibits exercising powers not delegated.
In other words, if the Constitution says the feds have the power to do something, then the feds have the power to do it. This is one of the really easy parts of conlaw.
The Constitution says the federal government is delegated the powers to tax and spend. And the Constitution says federal government is delegated the powers to regulate interstate commerce. And the Constituon says the federal government is delegated the powers to pass those laws necessary and proper to carry out all other delegated powers.
No matter how many times you say "but the tenth amendment", the Constitution still explicitly delegates these powers to the US government.
Your argument seems to amount to "if 10A doesn't say the power exists, then the power doesn't exist." Which isn't supported by 10A, anything else in the Constitution, court cases, or reality in general. Your argument would also lead to absurd conclusions like the federal government can't pay the military, simply because 10A doesn't address military pay. You actually have to read the Constitution to find the delegated powers, before you can try to pretend to know what 10A is limiting the federal government to.
Yes, that is 10A. Which discusses the allocation of powers not delegated to the federal government.
I don't know if I wasn't clear enough in my prior post or if you are generally unaware of how much power the Constitution gives the US government to tax and spend.
Tax and spending powers are delegated to the US government, by the US Constitution. This includes for "general welfare" purposes. The power to make laws that are "necessary and proper" to enact other powers is also a power delegated to the US government, by the US Constitution. The power to regulate interstate commerce, which includes purely intrastate activities that would have interstate effects when considered in the aggregate, is a power delegated to the US government, by the US Constitution.
Tax and spending power is enough to address any 10A concerns for a Medicaid for All program. Tac and spending power combined with necessary and proper is enough to address any 10A concerns about essentially any imaginable universal healthcare program. If Congress chose to somehow not spend any money on universal healthcare (in some magical hypothetical), then commerce clause powers would address the 10A concerns.
It would take a bizarre program and sloppy bill drafting to get any 10A concerns. The 10A concerns would only start popping up with some easily separable details *if* Congress chose a non-spending, direct regulation approach. And it is hard to imagine how Congress could do a non-spending approach to universal healthcare,
Legitimate 10A issues would come up in scenarios like if Congress tried to force states to adopt definitions of medical standards. Or if Congress tried to make it so states had no power to regulate medical standards. (Not even saying the states would win those battles. It would be highly dependent on the specific facts.)
There is nothing in 10A that would prevent the federal government from making a universal healthcare program. In terms of universal healthcare, 10A would be extremely difficult to violate. I can't imagine any universal healthcare program that wouldn't fall easily within the tax/spending powers and the modern commerce clause powers.
Edit to add: After the initial spending program is established, huge amounts of related laws could come in through the necessary and proper clause. We don't even need to get into the expansive growth of the modern commerce clause. This is a simple issue of tax/spending + n&p.
To summarize what has been said so far (because there aren't any actual disagreements happening): 1. It is easier to get started today 2. Older players have a head start 3. Older players are playing the same, easier version today as younger players 4. The top players in the big categories got there by using game mechanics that no longer exist
(Disclaimer: I don't really care either way about the outcome of drug and activity metrics. I just want something in place that is stable and people can rely on.)
It seems like most people are still not understanding the argument in the OP. Knuff is not making an isolated argument about drug penalties. The argument is that modifications in activity penalties should be balanced out somehow. (Whether you agree or not is up to you. But, Knuff is presenting a multifaceted approach that requires considering "activity" and "drug use", which cannot be properly addressed by simply talking about the recent ability to see drug penalty for work efficiency.)
As to the "have your cake and eat it, too", the logic to support it does not exist here. (Presently setting aside that this proverb was misused in this situation, see end of post). "Have your cake and eat it, too" would look like 1. Restore the previous activity metrics (eat the cake), and 2. Reduce drug use penalties (still have a full amount of cake)
Knuff is not saying that. Knuff is not suggesting a doubling the cake, Knuff is suggesting that the governing bodies consider modifications that would allow for roughly the same type/size of cake that the governing body took from. (Knuff, please correct me if I am incorrectly speaking on your behalf and I will edit this post accordingly.) Knuff is saying something more like 1. The changes in activity metrics has increased penalties for employees (actually taking away a part of the cake), and 2. It would make sense to alter other metrics to balance this out (to restore part of the cake that was taken).
So Knuff is saying something closer to "I want Ched/Bogie to consider ways to make amends for the portion of my cake they ate, so I can choose to have it or eat it."
(General note: the "have your cake and eat it, too" proverb only applies if the subject has done something to reduce what they have. There is nothing indicating the Knuff removed any portion of his cake. The saying does not apply when someone else has taken something from the subject.)
Xanet's own post even expressed that the guy was a known scammer and was terrible at money management. Xanet has already admitted to having no reason to trust this guy.
Why defend the mistake when Xanet is even saying the guy had a clear track record of being untrustworthy?
I think one of the problems is that people generally don't understand how easily the system is taken advantage of.
What happened in the summer of 2018 is hard to even call "abusing" the system. The manual updated system was essentially based on an assumption that no one was putting a lot of money into the bookie. It was never planned out. 2018 was bordering on game breaking. (I was watching from inside R*. It was insane how much money was being raked in.)
There wasn't any special skill, math, or bot that was being used. It was just a large group of players keeping track of real world events and seeing how it lined up with the torn bookie.
Staff doesn't have the man power to do this. I don't think Ched has the motivation to hire 6+ people to sit around watching the bookie, just to raise the bookie limit.
The bookie was always broken. The mistake was having a $1b cap in the first place. They really do need a new API before they can safely raise the limit.