Forums

Moderation improvements

Quick find code: 74-75-117-65961716

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Along with many others on the forums, I have encountered severe problems in the methods that moderation is carried out. This has resulted in great surprise from these people, including me. The specific problems are Botwatch and the appeal system.

I apologize in advance for the extreme length; I find it important to fully explain my points and detail my information. A concise version of all of this is at the bottom of these posts.

I should also mention that although my writing may or may not indicate otherwise, I actually have great respect for many of Jagex's staff members, and I do not assume them to be dishonest or abusive.

Contents:
= Details of problems =
= Suggestions =
= Oppositions / Summary =
= Concise version =

= Details of problems =


Botwatch is used in order to efficiently track, judge, and take action based on activity depending on whether it is considered botting. All of this was most notably proven on 27 September 2012, caused by an oversight involving a testing feature, and it is currently being proven by continued yet more subtle false positives.

Another problem is the current appeal system, which, despite its name, is simply used for requesting a review of an account. This is a good start, especially compared to the previous lack of the system. However, the absence of a particularly important section requires improvement as well.

I took interest in these because I found Jagex's methods to be rather strange due to their potential for injustice. After further investigation, I noticed that the system appears to focus more on removing as many bots as possible than on protecting those who play the game; this imbalance causes more concern than relief among some, including legitimate players. I have never trusted this system from the beginning; any trust that I did have was little more than shaky optimism. My experiences with and research of it have re-inforced my distrust.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:29:23 - Last edited on 14-Mar-2018 17:09:37 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
For those who are curious, on 9 September 2017 at 15:51, Botwatch removed me from the game for fourty eight hours for "Bot Busting Moderate". I used what I dare call the 'appeal' system to request a review. However, the form contained no section for user explanation. After slightly more than a week, I was told that "after a comprehensive review, there [was] no evidence to suggest the ban was applied in error"; this is not equivalent to claims that evidence of botting existed, which was very suspicious both because I did not bot and because such wording can be misused.

I eventually discovered that a mass ban had evidently occurred either due to legitimate methods of alchemizing things or – far more likely – due to something at the Lumbridge Beach event, as several other players reported similar concerns and problems on the forums around similar times. This assumes that these false positives were not entirely indiscriminate.

This is one of several problems with the current moderation system. Botwatch and the current appeal system are ineffective in protecting players for three reasons: ineffectiveness against bots, unnecessary ambiguity to rulebreakers, and harm to legitimate players.

Attempting to obscure evidence from botting accounts – by delayed banning, specifically – causes more harm than good. While delayed bans may help to track mass botters, this also allows greater average lifespans, which allows bots to interfere with players in some activities for longer. It does not slow bot development significantly because those who review the accounts will know what happened anyway due to current common knowledge and, more importantly, the presence or even the anticipation of the bans. Therefore, it is unnecessary to expend excessive effort towards obscuring evidence. Legitimate players' gameplay should not depend on what bots are capable of, regardless of how obscure the activity is.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:29:35 - Last edited on 15-Feb-2018 19:53:35 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Secondly, due to lack of evidence, delayed banning, and the resulting lack of clear communication, some rulebreakers will not be able to learn anything from bans, and some have even improved their behavior after learning for themselves, rendering such bans pointless after too much time has passed. In addition, distrust will occur as others notice that no evidence is given apart from accusations, even if the enforcement is justified. There is a difference between showing evidence and showing circumvention methods; one can be done without the other.

Also, enforcing rules and laws is best done if it is swift, certain, proven, and proportional to the offense; uncertainty, ambiguity, and delays render it useless, and unreasonable severity and wrongful targeting incite retaliation. Therefore, it is ineffective to obscure evidence.

Lastly, and most importantly, these ideas of enforcement are also relevant to legitimate players because the current methods of moderation are harmful and counterproductive to them. Because Botwatch often uses automated bans, action is often taken before any manual review. I understand why this is done, as Botwatch's false positives are evidently rare, and it is important to improve time efficiency.

However, due to obscured evidence and the lack of an explanation section in the appeal system, legitimate players do not receive fair defense against accusations; one particular user described this as "very very frustrating, and unjust". This is not proper enforcement due to wrongful targeting and "kangaroo court" and because it is not swift, certain, or proven. Such treatment can render individuals angry, paranoid, or both, causing various reactions of their own, such as forms of retaliation or withdrawal respectively. In other words, neglect breeds hatred. Therefore, it is both counterproductive and harmful to obscure evidence and to prevent appeals.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:29:56 - Last edited on 29-Sep-2018 22:45:18 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
= Suggestions =


All of this is why I cannot ignore such treatment, on behalf of myself and others who were affected by false positives. Although the current progress with the appeal system is a decent start, it is possible to improve it without hindering the moderators. I propose several improvements to Botwatch and the appeal system, which will address each of the three main problems.

In order to work more effectively against bots, I and Miu recommend taking action immediately upon detection and potentially after moderator review against roughly 50% of bots. This will benefit players by reducing bot interference while still tracking the activity of mass botters.

This is also helpful against rulebreakers because it contributes to proper enforcement, which is much more effective in encouraging improvement of behavior. Because it is particularly important to use proper enforcement with this group, I also recommend reducing any ban delays and showing evidence of wrongdoing for all offenses. As previously stated, evidence can be shown without circumvention methods.

(These would be unnecessary for mass-botting accounts; no players are using them.)

Showing evidence is also helpful in giving fair defense to legitimate players. However, in order to ensure that this is truly fair, I propose two modifications. First, I strongly recommend allowing appeals for more gameplay offenses, such as bug abuse; imperfections with efforts against botting indicate imperfections elsewhere, and the moderation team is not infallible.

More importantly, I very strongly recommend adding an explanation section to the current appeal form. This is very important because it would allow full, actual appeals to be submitted while still allowing time efficiency for moderators and more accurate judgements with proper investigation; these would result in more fair decisions being made and better cases on both sides.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:30:21 - Last edited on 25-Sep-2018 20:12:53 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I also strongly recommend re-wording moderation-related messages that are sent to users, especially responses to appeals. For example, when an appeal is denied, the user should be told that evidence was found that an offense was accurate and how, not that no evidence was found that it was inaccurate. In addition, not everything is the user's fault, as Botwatch has demonstrated; users should not be accused of not reading rules or properly securing accounts if they are not found to be at fault. Modifying the wording of messages will encourage a greater impression of honesty, which improves trust of the moderators.

Although I do not support or oppose this, considering one-time appealable warnings – mere reminders, not further action – may help to mitigate problems with false positives that do occur while avoiding potentially unnecessary vengeance against rulebreakers.

Lil Trout proposed upgrading player moderators by allowing them to spy on, temporarily ban, and send CAPTCHAs to players and to view recent activity logs. These true moderators would improve time efficiency and players' trust.

Responding to those who submit reports may help to improve their trust, their accuracy, and, therefore, moderators' time efficiency.

Lastly, I understand that appeals can be misused by rulebreakers who seek impunity, so I recommend imposing mild punishments for blatantly false appeals. This is only to be done when an offense was clearly committed and the user fails to provide reasonable defense; no punishment would be given for presenting a reasonable case, even if the appeal is denied. This will reduce the number of false appeals that are submitted, providing more time for moderators. (This suggestion relies on the vital implementation of explanation for appeals.)

= Oppositions =


I have also considered several interesting oppositions to these ideas, which contend that they are either not possible or not necessary.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:30:50 - Last edited on 12-May-2018 19:48:44 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Regarding possibility, staff members likely have limited time, considering everything that they do as staff members; I generally assume good will whenever possible, and proper time management is extremely important in their work. I also understand that the presence of rulebreakers who submit false appeals would be a waste of time. My suggestion for extending appealable offenses would contribute to this problem.

However, it is important to avoid cutting corners; the lack of an explanation section in the appeal form is a very good example of this. In addition, the presence of evidence means that little time is required to review it in comparison with users' explanations in many cases, and those explanations would actually help to reduce time spent per review. Lastly, my suggestion for mild punishments in response to blatantly false appeals is intended to discourage such time-wasting. It is possible to avoid cutting corners while effectively managing time. Therefore, it is possible to implement these suggestions.

As for necessity, I found five relevant points: responsibility of rulebreakers, records of offenses, current care in reviewing offenses, and two important points of common witch-hunting.

It may be considered unnecessary to show evidence to rulebreakers because they should know what they have done and because it is their responsibility to observe the rules. While I agree with the reasoning, this is not the case for everybody who is accused. Not all rulebreakers may learn anything without evidence, such as those who simply do not remember the incident; more importantly, not all accused individuals are rulebreakers. Showing evidence makes improvement easier for rulebreakers and resolution easier for legitimate players, which improves trust of staff members by dispelling most, if not all, claims that appeals are investigated too carelessly. Therefore, it is more worthwhile to consider these individuals than those who merely seek impunity.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:31:17 - Last edited on 15-Feb-2018 20:04:00 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
It may also be considered unnecessary to allow users to provide any input on suspected offenses because all records are already stored; all reviews would hypothetically be accurate as a result. However, my experiences with the system have indicated either that not all information is truly available, or that not all aspects of offenses are considered outside of account ownership, including the events of the suspected offenses themselves. Allowing explanation in appeals would allow moderators to review the correct aspects of incidents, depending on users' claims and beliefs regarding them, and determine whether offenses are truly accurate. Therefore, it is necessary to refrain from one-sided cases and allow explanation in the appeal form.

The third and fourth points are regarding the quality of the system. In the sticky thread "Bans, mutes & more" in Community Led Account Help, one of the J-Mods claimed that all offenses – including bans – are reviewed extremely carefully; the code for the thread is 408-409-0-65731276. (However, since I posted this thread, the J-Mod's thread was removed; please feel free to ask me about any other details that were included.) This would intuitively mean that appeals would be unnecessary because the system is already perfect. In addition, many non-malevolent witch-hunters make similar implications; their claims indicate beliefs of perfection.

However, my experience and research of Botwatch indicate otherwise; I've provided reasoning for this argument above. While I understand why it would be important to avoid worrying players, it is more important to be honest; misinformation and stonewalling are not solutions to this because they have extreme potential for abuse, and it is difficult to assume good will in these cases. Therefore, moderation – including the automated system – is not perfect or omniscient, and should not be treated as such.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:31:40 - Last edited on 07-Mar-2018 18:38:59 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Lastly, in claims against another person, one particular unnamed witch-hunter claimed that players "have no 'rights' here" and that "Jagex can pull [their] plug at any time without reason or explanation". While the implication may be arguably valid due to the terms of service, I find it very unwise to use this reasoning. This is authoritarianism; enforcement is considered strict and non-questionable, and power is used in the place of reasoning. It is unhealthy to both the staff team and the community for a large number of reasons; at its worst, it encourages distracting power-hoarding habits, fuels witch-hunting, discourages trust of staff, and incites hatred and retaliation such as boycotting or rioting, which can and does affect both groups.

All of these cause reduction of game quality due to fixation on moderation, such as by witch-hunting, worry of random bans, or retaliation; this affects the staff members due to reduction of trust, which also results in reduction of player count and real-money purchases. Several other online games, which I will not name, are a testament to these points. Authoritarianism is unhealthy for individuals and the community, and is ultimately counterproductive; as previously stated, neglect breeds hatred. Therefore, it is necessary to treat players with more respect by improving the system for the benefit of them and of the staff team.

(This is not to imply that Jagex is currently using authoritarianism; my evidence does not currently indicate such malicious intent.)

For all of these reasons, it is both possible and necessary to improve the moderation system by often taking immediate action, showing evidence, extending appealable offenses, and allowing full appeals, including explanation. I believe in the staff members' ability to implement these. They are better than careless bans and appeals, and they have the opportunity to prove it for both their own benefit and ours.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:31:57 - Last edited on 23-Jun-2018 17:15:21 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
= Concise version=


Here is the concise version of my points. Please read these original posts in their entirety before responding, however, as they contain many more details.

Although I appreciate Jagex's efforts among their staff members, the current methods of moderation are causing problems through ineffectiveness against bots, unnecessary ambiguity to rulebreakers, and harm to legitimate players.

These problems can be resolved for all three groups by taking immediate action against roughly one half of offenses, showing evidence and reducing any ban delays for accounts used by players, allowing appeals for more gameplay offenses, re-wording messages for players, and – most importantly – adding a section to the current appeal form for the user's explanation.

Although staff members likely have limited time, there is a difference between efficiency and cutting corners; my suggestions are possible because they will not interfere with time significantly and because the explanation section would actually improve time efficiency.

These suggestions may be considered unnecessary because rulebreakers are expected to know what they did, records of incidents already exist, and offenses are already reviewed carefully, and they may be considered pointless due to a possible authoritarian system. However, these suggestions are necessary in order to address false positives and other imperfections of the current moderation system, which will benefit both the community and the staff team.

I will continue to add to this thread as I obtain more information and discussion, and I will ensure that it remains active until I have completed my purpose with it; please feel free to discuss this or request modifications, as I would like to avoid unnecessarily inciting problems while providing as much knowledge of this situation as possible.

Please spread word of this thread if you wish to support these ideas.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:32:12 - Last edited on 14-Mar-2018 17:25:07 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
If you would like to investigate this further, I have added several reference threads. They act as helpful sources regarding the situation, although I do not guarantee the accuracy of all information and I advise caution due to possible heated posts. Many no longer exist due to being pushed past page 50 (marked by -) and some are simply listed here to show where I investigated. However, threads about botting and claims of false positives often appear with a forum search of words such as "bot" for those who wish to investigate further.
408-409-0-65731276 - Bans, mutes & more (Deleted by a J-Mod)
14-15-633-65943835 - High Alch ban? (Source of witch-hunting points; locked due to a flame war primarily about using tape on a mouse, and since pushed past page 50 of threads)
14-15-6-65948459 - High Alching question (My starting point of forum investigations, in which a player asked about re-positioning their mouse; since deleted, likely by being pushed past page 50)
408-409-942-65940773 - Ban for botting? (Deleted; was not locked or pushed past page 50)
409-410-665-65914261 - Mistaken for a bot! (-)
74-75-843-65952091 - Zami Wine (Outdated; still exists)
408-409-720-65952403 - Ban for using bot?? (-)
408-409-613-65952579 - So I got banned for macroing? (-)
408-409-207-65961027 - Account falsely banned. (-)
408-409-697-65952198 - 2 falsely banned alt accounts (-)
408-409-436-65982367 - Hacked and banned for botting
408-409-970-65981658 - Banned alternate account
408-409-344-65982082 - Banned after 10 weeks of basic

I also recommend viewing Lil Trout's posts - located between pages 2 and 3 of this thread - which mention upgrading of player moderators; this may help in improving time efficiency and prevention of botting while avoiding further false positives.

On page 4, I mentioned introducing indications when reports are accepted or denied, which may help to encourage more participation and more accurate reports.

This post is reserved for any additional information.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

28-Oct-2017 21:32:24 - Last edited on 10-Feb-2018 20:20:47 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Orophin, I have heard of that problem as well, and I am glad that Jagex's moderators have worked on reducing that problem. Similar to EagleSunrise, I am hopeful that they also consider the importance of protecting players over eradicating all bots, as well as balancing focus on both the "Type II" and "Type I" errors that he mentioned. Thank you for your response, regardless.

(Also, although I'm not an attorney, I am experienced with psychology and rather interested in detail. However, I can probably be an attorney as well. o.O)

Miu, you make a very good point regarding the ban delay. Perhaps a 50% probability for instant or delayed banning would work well, as it would provide a balance between the benefits of the two. It may be worthwhile to consider rulebreaking players as well; perhaps a reduction in the delay for this group should be considered. I have added these points to the thread.

I also believe that false positives are rather rare, although they can still be severe problems for legitimate players. Thank you for your responses, everybody.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

04-Nov-2017 16:26:47 - Last edited on 07-Mar-2018 17:44:14 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Dilbert2001 said:
...


Thank you for the information. I understand the concern with comments on moderation action; I assume good will and believe that moderation is often accurate and done with a focus on protection, as opposed to attacking those who act "out of line" and potentially arbitrarily.

As I have demonstrated, initial reactions to moderation are more often given by those who are directly affected than those who are not. I have observed that while some individuals are actually level-headed, reactions to moderation are often extreme; the fact that not all of those who are affected are not guilty means that these reactions can also be irrational, a waste of time, or even unnecessarily offensive or shaming.

Therefore, it is understandable for staff members not to take interest in comments on moderation and even for them to 'stonewall' these comments, if you will; although your post mentions more of forum moderation than general and game-specific moderation, I do find it to be relevant for these reasons.

Unfortunately, communication problems exist between players and staff members; the 'customer support' FAQs are a good example of this, as they do not have functions that allow players to speak directly with staff members. I have great respect for true customer support employees, although I have admittedly not found any such staff members in the community.

However, I have found two reliable ways of communicating in this situation: spreading word of a noticeable subject - often a problem - in order to raise enough awareness to be noticed, or gaining enough status and popularity - if you will - for an individual to receive specific attention from those who manage the relevant subject.

In either case, this is why I make efforts to have word spread of this problem, and why I would like this subject to be considered more with logical and ethical reasoning than purely-emotional responses, shaming, or stonewalling.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

16-Nov-2017 00:50:14

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I am glad that we are gathering more specific cases here, such as Dead Wife's and The Bob's claims; these provide specific examples of why it is important to avoid unnecessary vengeance - in the cases of both the staff team and the sympathizers that The Bob mentioned - and to perform genuine investigations.

I also appreciate that we have received several particularly interesting suggestions so far, such as the upgrading of player moderators that Lil Trout proposed; I agree with this idea because it would allow more communication between players and the staff team and improve their ability to protect legitimate players from rulebreakers. I have added this idea to the thread.

Thank you for your responses, everybody.

Edit (13 March 2018):
By the way, Dead Wife, I agree with both you and The Bob regarding the number of sides in any given case. While there is often more than one, there are cases in which one of those sides has a far better case in one way or another. In yours - according to your claims, and as far as you and I are evidently concerned - the opposing side has presented no evidence apart from accusations, and therefore proven nothing except for the flaws of the system. Examples such as this demonstrate why a system of "guilty until proven innocent" is counterproductive in virtually any situation.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

12-Dec-2017 20:55:35 - Last edited on 23-Mar-2018 15:49:41 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Rage Paragon said:
...


While not all of those guilty will plead innocent, I agree that there are those who seek impunity and that there is a problem with distinguishing them from those who are not guilty. I also agree that it is important to consider Jagex's motives for the large number of false positives that do occur despite claims otherwise.

I personally speculate that their moderators do not have time to fully review every single account due to the amount of time that it would take in comparison to the number of rulebreaking incidents - such as instances of botting - that need to be addressed quickly lest their numbers become too great to manage.

I believe that it is important to consider Jagex's inconsistent claims as well. For example, not all bans are reviewed carefully, as my own has proven; reviews are done neither fully nor carefully. I have noticed more frustration, worry, and distress in response to the current system than support for it, which may raise the question of why this is the case.

The number of false positives would not be as severe if appeals and reviews were not gravely ignored. All of this is why I added the proposal of including a section for explanation in the current review request form. This would allow the moderators to know which aspect of an account should be investigated, such as account ownership, detected software that was active alongside RuneScape, or the specific actions of the user. Showing evidence to the user further benefits this because it would allow information for the user to defend themself.

This is also beneficial to the moderators because it would allow quick review of the correct aspect, allowing more time for other reviews. It is not that the user should be fully trusted lest they in fact be a rulebeaker; however, it is also not that the user should have no say in their own matters lest they be a legitimate player and lest undue damage be done by imperfections in moderation.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

21-Dec-2017 00:06:02

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Rage Paragon said:
...


Actually, I do understand how humans generally work. The behavior in this case is the same among nearly all species, which is their search for rewards and avoidance of problems, whether they be in nature - such as hazards or predators - or, in the case of humanoid species, in society - such as imprisonment, fines, or loss of status. Lying is a common way of achieving these.

I also understand why you believe me to be ignorant, as I attempt to assume good will whenever possible and may, therefore, appear not to know of the entire situation. EagleSunrise shared a quote here, which illustrates this: "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.". If I was unclear, I apologize. It is not that all of those who claim to be innocent are innocent; it is that not all of those who are accused are guilty.

However, you mentioned that 95% of incarcerated inmates would claim not to be guilty of their conviction. Although this appears to me to be a hypothetical example, this 95% would mean that those of the remaining 5% either give no claim or claim that they were in fact properly convicted. In fact, I have examples. On the forums, one particular person asked about their account, as all of their money suddenly disappeared, and when a Jagex Moderator responded that it was for real-world trading, the user simply thanked them for the response and accepted the penalty. In addition, another person confessed to using an autoclicker in a thread that they created, claiming that they deserved a ban but that it was disproportionate.

Therefore, those accused will not always lie; it is important to listen to their cases. I do not believe in perfection due to the existence of false positives, and honest trials are often intended to mitigate these.

This is continued in my next post.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

27-Dec-2017 00:37:56 - Last edited on 13-Mar-2018 18:10:22 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
The opposing side should also be considered. What if those accusing are simply seeking benefits, such as a feeling of power, righteousness, or approval? More relevant, what if it is the trial itself that is questionable at its best?

In fact, this appears to be the case in this situation; not all people need to lie in order to avoid punishment. Despite being one such person, I do acknowledge that I do not currently know what the true number of these individuals are in relation to the number of rulebreakers. However, I do know that the anti-cheating team is capable of investigating these cases more efficiently - both in terms of time and accuracy - without cheating, themselves.

Prime Axiom said:
...


I agree that gameplay updates are important; for example, I look forward to the bank rework as well. However, although I respect your interest in other types of updates to RuneScape, it is also important to consider the refinement of the systems that ensure its playability, especially those that currently risk problems for players, such as Botwatch.

My suggestions aim to benefit both the community and the staff team. When you have an opportunity to do so, I would be very happy if you decide to read the original posts, as they contain much more extensive details regarding the benefits for both groups. In order to respond to your concerns, the greatest benefit for the staff team is their time efficiency, which means that they would be able to perform reviews more accurately and more fairly in less time for each.

I also recommend viewing the various threads, posts, and articles that I referenced; it is wise to gather information from more than one source.

Although you appear to oppose updates that are not directly related to gameplay, I would like to know what your opinion is on the specific subjects that I detailed.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

27-Dec-2017 00:51:03 - Last edited on 13-Mar-2018 18:13:58 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
During my investigations on the forums, I have read about bots that had been found by players. Those who had reported bots with groups claimed that the bot was quickly banned; however, those who had evidently reported bots on their own claimed either that the bot "survived many reports" - as one individual wrote - that their reports were evidently ineffective, or that the report took far too long to process.

Yesterday, I witnessed an interesting situation involving a player whose account had been stolen and was being used to spam directions to a scam. Because the controlling bot was spamming in Prifddinas's Tower of Voices at an active time, it was quickly reported by at least five players who then encouraged others to report it. As I had expected, the bot was removed very quickly, if it did not switch to another world.

However, this still concerns me for two reasons. The first reason is that this says nothing of individual players who report bots in more obscure areas, such as the Captured Temple with the wine of Zamorak, combat training locations, and the Nature Temple. Reports of these situations appear ineffective.

The second reason is more relevant. Another forum user mentioned that they once witnessed the animation for a botting ban; however, nobody in the Tower of Voices at the time witnessed it. This indicates either that the bot either switched to a different world, or - more concerning - that we are no longer receiving any indication that a bot has been banned. This is concerning because this silence gives the impression that reports are ineffective, which discourages players from submitting further reports and raises suspicion of the moderators' activity.

In addition to the original subjects, I would like to discuss the ideas of indicating when players' reports are successful - or when bots are banned - and of granting increased report priority to those who submit high-accuracy reports.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

02-Feb-2018 20:06:33

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Whatusaytome said:
KathrynMiles said:
...
...


I apologize for the late response, although you have provided very interesting input. I personally believe that submitting reports - such as scamming, spamming, and other rulebreaking - can be very beneficial, and I have great respect for those who genuinely attempt to protect others from such behavior. In the past, I have submitted reports of every bot that I have encountered and observed, including those at the temple with the Wine of Zamorak, in the Grotworm Lair, and at the Nature Temple. However, after 9 September 2017, I have stopped primarily because the reports appeared to be ineffective and partially because the actions taken were sometimes unnecessarily inaccurate.

Notifications would also be helpful for improving players' report accuracy and potentially encouraging activity in processing reports. If players are told why their reports were declined or thanked for submitting accurate reports, they may find it easier to submit more accurate reports in the future. This would also help to improve time efficiency because fewer inaccurate reports would be submitted, allowing more time to review each report that is submitted as well as more time for more genuine offense reviews.

In addition to this, report responses would encourage reviews to be conducted properly - assuming that they are in fact not currently satisfactory - and provide an opportunity to prove to reporters that their reports are in fact heeded and reviewed. This, in turn, encourages more accuracy, as previously mentioned, and can result in a very beneficial cycle for both the community and staff members.

Thank you for your input, Whatusaytome. I have referenced this page in the original posts. Anybody else who wishes to add their input to this or the other subjects of this thread is welcome to do so.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

20-Feb-2018 18:52:15 - Last edited on 13-Mar-2018 18:15:23 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Sorry about the late response, Whatusaytome; I had hoped for more input from new posters as well, although that has not happened recently. Although I understand that these ideas for improving existing game content are relatively unorthodox, players' safety and security is an important part of the game.

I appreciate your support - as well as the support of others - and I plan to continue maintaining these ideas.
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

12-May-2018 19:37:19 - Last edited on 24-May-2018 16:08:00 by KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

KathrynMiles

Posts: 123Iron Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Although I have been away during the previous month, I have noticed that the Lumbridge Beach event has been taking place again. In my original posts, I speculated that one of the possible causes of the false positive that I mentioned was the Lumbridge Beach event - assuming that it was not either due to alchemy or indiscriminately given.

If what others say is true about their cases, such as Mr Agile, FrankenBride, and (in one of my reference threads) Dani12345a, the false positives are affecting a variety of activities. However, I am interested in more information. Specifically, I have not yet heard of enough examples to determine the accurate ratios of false positives resulting from each activity.

I would like to know if anybody else has examples of false positives that they believe to be associated with the Lumbridge Beach event. Personal stories about false positives with other activities are also welcome, as are stories of successful ban review requests. All of these examples can help with gathering more information and finding previously-unnoticed specific problems.

Another point that I would like to discuss is Miu's response on Page 2; they made the case that delayed banning can confuse mass botters and track the flow of money and other activity. While I still believe that they make a good point in favor of this, I would like to know what others have to say about this.

Considering the presence of all three groups that I mentioned in the original posts, do others believe that it is possible for the effects of botting to be eradicated more effectively if action is taken more immediately (essentially preventing most confirmed botting from having an effect), more slowly but broadly (which is what the current system does), or a balance between both?

(In order to clarify, despite the lack of recent posts, I am still maintaining and checking this thread; I am simply hoping for more responses at the moment.)
-=
Katheryn Lucy Miles (alias)
=-

Moderation improvements | Improved player customization | Great Orb Project improvements

02-Sep-2018 20:14:27 - Last edited on 18-Sep-2018 21:06:36 by KathrynMiles

Quick find code: 74-75-117-65961716Back to Top