1234567890
I have that farm in my friends tab! Very suspicious... it never changes position. I do recall it leveling up once though. It was the darnedest thing, went from a level 50 to 100 in an instant. He always has deco nobody else ever seems to get too. Like a really nice bell that was on his farm a while back. :smirk:
All kidding aside, I am voting report them through in game. It really does contradict the name and shame policy of these forums to post them here.
I voted we should post pictures here for all to see, only because Nick requested that we post farm names, levels, NHs of suspected bot farms in that other thread. And it amuses me when admins encourage us to go against forum rules - like no name and shame.
(Even though I chuckle at that situation, I still feel very sympathetic to those who were unjustly banned, and I think it would be the right thing for SC to open an avenue for them to appeal and prove their innocence.)
I read the TOS again this morning and it seems that if you are permanently banned from the game you will be permanently banned from the forum also. So if that is still the case, everyone that has been banned and posted about it have received temporary bans. Most likely 14 days.Quote:
Originally Posted by LetTheMusicPlay
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetTheMusicPlay
How do you see that? How would anyone prove their innocence?
Guilty until proven innocent?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggerr129
A written policy and an implementation of it are two entirely different things. Exactly how does the forum know about the status of your farm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiggerr129
That would be a promising sign for those who can't access the game but can still post here. :thumbsup: :)
But I understand it a little differently. I think the presumption would be that those banned from the game may be/will be banned from the forum also if SC knows the forum name of the player whose farm has been banned and a forum admin actually goes through the task of banning. I'd be surprised if co-banning is automatic and immediate.
I don't think SC knows what many of the forum members' farm names are. If motivated, through browser cookies and tracking, they can probably find that info out for a lot of people... especially if a player uses facebook to log in to the forums, and it's the same facebook attached to their farm.
:DLol Rbcrewser and TexasLea re: Greg's farm:D
I didn't see the thread about posting farms here in the forum. I wouldn't want to do that, as it completely violates the positive intent behind no name or shame.
I report obvious bots privately to Supercell. That's where the positive action is, anyway. It helps when SC posts attributes of a bot to guide us. I have posted a couple of pictures of the obvious bots with all identifying info. stripped out, when someone has asked what a bot farm looks like. It would be very helpful if SC could put pictures in a sticky that we could refer to.
I agree with you that pictures with names should never be posted in the forum for all to see. There was a poster a couple of months ago that was posting obviously normal farms as bots, but it seemed as if the poster saw nearly all farms as bots. That was innocent, uninformed posting. The potential for malicious posting is there as well. No name no shame is a very good mandate, including within the bot debate.
Good question:thumbsup::caticon:
Right now, I think SC probably uses certain markers that ping suspicious activity. Those markers are probably set to be broad enough to catch as many 3rd-party-software users as possible. But because of their broadness, their test for suspicious activity may tolerate a certain amount of erroneous findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by beestenboel
Obviously, I'm not on the Hay Day Tribunal, and I have no idea how they specifically identify suspicious activity. But anyone who appeals their banning should have their account examined more carefully by SC, using narrower and more specific tests than they do for their general bot sweeps.
Just as casual as the words "prove their innocence" that you used :) Which is why I mentioned the "guilty until proven innocent?".Quote:
Originally Posted by LetTheMusicPlay
It's simply impossible to prove your innocence, even if you've done nothing wrong.
SC also does not need to prove you're guilty. Suspicion is enough to ban you without notice.
Ah, I deleted half my post about U.S. jurisprudence before I saw your post, because I was getting carried away lol. And true that, I probably encouraged a response that would cite the "innocent until guilty" principle with my first post in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by beestenboel
And I agree with your bolded part. They're perfectly within their rights to ban us based on whatever standard they've set for themselves. But just because they've reserved authority to do that, it would be a marketing and public relations misstep to wield too heavy a hand. Obviously, they're quite clever, and they know that already.
When a crime in the real world is committed, there are never complete recordings of the crime committed that prosecutors/juries can examine. In a mobile game, there are game logs and direct evidence that SC has access to. We should hope and strive for zero wrongful decisions in all situations and contexts. But, because of various practicalities, I would expect SC to make fewer wrongful decisions re: banning than the U.S. criminal court system re: convictions.
It was inartful of me to phrase that as players having a chance to "prove their innocence." Really, at appeal, the onus should be on SC to determine whether the banning was justified or not. Hopefully, they'll invest enough human-hours to examine each case, so that all wrongful bannings can be overturned.
SC really needs to train their support team better! And maybe you should consider posting screenshots of those responses in this forum, as they obviously contradict what Nick says?Quote:
Originally Posted by rbcrewser
i am very much against name and shame. I don't care whether it is a farm or hanging a support person out to dry. What I did do was email supercell with copies of the "support" and asked for them to review the answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spearhead
Wow! How stunningly rude and arrogant of that Support employee! These kinds of responses kill the good relationship SC and players want and need to keep this game viable and fun.
That was good thinking to send copies to SC! They need to know how some support members are undermining the game experience through unhelpful, snarky, rude or wrong answers.
It's my guess that it's an "individual employee with little supervision" problem, or a business-culture problem within SC's outsourced help company.
I've received very unhelpful responses in the past.
I've also received extremely helpful, kind, dedicated replies that have solved my problem beautifully. These stellar support persons are the ideal ones that SC needs to keep, and hire more like them.
Excellant way to handle the situation. Good for you. One of the most consructive ideas i have seen :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by rbcrewser
That's a good point. I know I have seen a few folks who not only admitted to violating the rules and posted a screen shot of their banned farm. They were soon banned from the forum also. They made it easy I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by LetTheMusicPlay