Bug using finance bug 18.03.2021 (Idéfix fantasticos Flolandria OLCycle waerl)

[Gipfelstuermer]

-Is that mentioned in the fairness rules? Implicit?
I have no bloody clue. Well of course it's the old rules that applied, not the new voted on rules. Changes if I remember correctly were minimal.

Not really minimal because now we have rules for executing the decision and for appealing against a decision.

Executing the decision: The game’s developers generally follow the FPC discussions and execute its decisions in the database as soon as possible, preferably within 3 days. Some of the decisions are automated already (bans, fines) but others are not yet fully automated (C4F points, In-Race Time/Points penaties)
Appealing against a FPC decision: After the decision has been communicated to the player and made public in the fair play thread, players have 3 days to appeal against it in the case-thread in the forum or in the ingame hearing. If nobody appeals, the decision remains in force. If there is an appeal, the FPC does another voting round as soon as possible, preferably within 7 days.

But you tell me the old rules apply... grrr... So old rule would be: The game owner does whatever he wants. And back then he decided not to execute the FPC decision.

But someone could argue that the new rules apply.

[Robyklebt]

Don't waste my time, talk with Alk+AAD and do it.

I'll waste yours a bit.

But you misstated the old rules. What's the purpose of that?

Plus the new rules state:

The game developers generally follow the FPC discussions and execute its decisions in the database. They also preserve the right to halt, postpone or veto a decision in the exceptional case that it cannot be implemented technically or poses problems for the game’s existence or further development.

So "since poses problems for the game's existence or further development" is rather undefined, open to interpretation, we could simplify that and day "the game runners can do whatever they want." Nothing changed in that then. Is a bit what you're doing about the old rules. I have to inform you though that stuff like this is now punishable,

posting false statements as facts, aimed at discrediting or humiliating a targeted player;

Looks like intent to do exactly that to discredit Luques and lesossies. Let those sour grapes go, you behaved badly enough towards them while they were here, maybe it's time to let it go.

[flockmastoR]

But you tell me the old rules apply... grrr... So old rule would be: The game owner does whatever he wants. And back then he decided not to execute the FPC decision.

I think thats the important part.

Do I like this? No, I also stated that the money should be taken from the teams immediately. I was not part of the FPC decision but what I know from cases when I was in the FPC back in the earlier phase of the game: there are sometimes situations where game owners just didn't want a decision to be executed. As far as I got it, the 100k fines for the teams were the ridicilously low compromise fine. So case was closed under that circumstances in the past.

From what I know, others also profited from bugs from time to time and could keep their profit. Cases closed.

Let's concentrate on the future and try to make this impossible. We now have a finance log that helps us to get the information, as well as admin tools to check the finances of the teams + FPC in power to execute the fines they set.

[Hansa]

Idéfix PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
fantasticos PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
Flolandria PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
OLCycle PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES

Luques supposed to subtract the advantage in the database.

so the decision was pretty clear and the amount should have been subtracted, luques wasnt around much at that time so probably he just forgot to do it? to say he decided to didnt execute the decision doesnt feel correct because he never mentioned that he wouldnt execute it. so our new admin should act now? because the FPC made a decision to take that money back only the execution tool was missing in that time.

Also never understood why the FPC didnt take that money like Roby proposed it back then.

[Robyklebt]

But you tell me the old rules apply... grrr... So old rule would be: The game owner does whatever he wants. And back then he decided not to execute the FPC decision.

I think thats the important part.

I don't think it is, see Hansa. The common sense reading is: Luques simply never got around to it, it wasn't an active decision, it was being busy with other stuff, not c4f Supported by the fact that he hardly posted anymore. After the start of that affair he posted only 15 more posts in the forum. Bugs, server down, calendar. (2 about the bug and bug using before that) 13 after the fines were posted. Maybe he said something internally, but we non-FPC members don't know about that. So from my point of view, it's clearly just a case of something getting postponed, then forgotten.

Do I like this? No, I also stated that the money should be taken from the teams immediately. I was not part of the FPC decision but what I know from cases when I was in the FPC back in the earlier phase of the game: there are sometimes situations where game owners just didn't want a decision to be executed. As far as I got it, the 100k fines for the teams were the ridicilously low compromise fine. So case was closed under that circumstances in the past.

Do you like it? No, you say, then act.
As far as I got it the 100k fines were just the fines. As far as I got it, it was always understood in every such case that the money gained through a bug would be taken away. If it wasn't bugusing, then no fine, just the money. Or with small amounts possible that the work involved didn't seem worth it. The same here, even without the FPC writing "Luques supposed to subtract the advantage in the database." it would seem clear to everybody that that amount of money, up to 17 millions, wouldn't, couldn't be left with the bugusers.

At first it seemed through the fine. A shortcut basically, to minimize the work for Luques. From a procedural point of view the old system, fine and restitiution separate made sense. Like if you, AAD decide to steal "Donkey quartetts" worth 200 Euro from your local toy store. You get caught, the fine won't be 200 Euro plus a bit more, it will be xx and you give back the valuable Donkey Quartetts. Here to save Luques time it seemed easier to fuse those 2 together, then didn't happen for whatever reason.

So in this case it seemed clear that the fairplay case was closed, fine given, but the advantage gained still needed to be substracted. Never occure

Let's concentrate on the future and try to make this impossible. We now have a finance log that helps us to get the information, as well as admin tools to check the finances of the teams + FPC in power to execute the fines they set.

The future might be Flolandria or OL coming back in the game and flooding the market with their money. So this issue is not only in the past.

[Schartner Bombe]

If it is as Roby fervently describes here - he is fighting for justice here - I don't see why they don't take away the wrongfully received money?
Because then we wouldn't need any more fair play rules here either.

Besides, one has to ask oneself anyway, what kind of teams are they trying to exploit such a bug - especially on purpose?

What then is fair play for the FPC? Isn't the FPC intended to create fair conditions in rsf?

Either everyone else gets the money from whoever got the most - or you take it away from everyone, plus a penalty?

[Gipfelstuermer]

Also never understood why the FPC didnt take that money like Roby proposed it back then.

Here to save Luques time it seemed easier to fuse those 2 together, then didn't happen for whatever reason.

Maybe he said something internally, but we non-FPC members don't know about that.

It has been agreed that sharing from the internal FPC forum is unwarranted. So unless the view on that has suddenly changed - which would surprise me given the outrage on that some years ago - I would rather refrain from doing that and so I can only refer to the decision:

Idéfix PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
fantasticos PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
Flolandria PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
OLCycle PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES

To give you a better understanding, as it is difficult to imagine from the outside: These auto-generated texts came from the old FPC tool in Flash. The way it worked was, that the decision-maker sees the recommendations from FPC members, then he can adjust/set the penalty and decide/execute. Those texts quoted only appear after the decision has been executed. As you know, the decision did not have to correspond to the FPC majority recommendation in the old FPC. (In the new FPC, it has to correspond. That's one of the key differences.)

So, against that background, the idea, that the decision was unintended seems far fetched if not presumptuous, at least until proven otherwise or admitted.

Now, can we still act? Of course we can. That's why we are here. The question is just how. Just let developers overrule past decisions? Not ideal in my point of view, because where do we start and where do we stop? Ask the FPC to overrule it? Seems more logical to me, if we want to give someone the power to overrule past decisions. We just have to be aware that means more or less every FPC decision can be re-opened at a later time, which sounds quite cumbersome for the FPC members. So we would kind of need rules for appealing against a decision. Maybe something like max. 1 official appeal per case. We could also call this an exception, but that would make it a Lex Idefix et al, so not really preferred solution I guess.

[Schartner Bombe]

Also never understood why the FPC didnt take that money like Roby proposed it back then.

Here to save Luques time it seemed easier to fuse those 2 together, then didn't happen for whatever reason.

Maybe he said something internally, but we non-FPC members don't know about that.

It has been agreed that sharing from the internal FPC forum is unwarranted. So unless the view on that has suddenly changed - which would surprise me given the outrage on that some years ago - I would rather refrain from doing that and so I can only refer to the decision:

Idéfix PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
fantasticos PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
Flolandria PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
OLCycle PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES

To give you a better understanding, as it is difficult to imagine from the outside: These auto-generated texts came from the old FPC tool in Flash. The way it worked was, that the decision-maker sees the recommendations from FPC members, then he can adjust/set the penalty and decide/execute. Those texts quoted only appear after the decision has been executed. As you know, the decision did not have to correspond to the FPC majority recommendation in the old FPC. (In the new FPC, it has to correspond. That's one of the key differences.)

So, against that background, the idea, that the decision was unintended seems far fetched if not presumptuous, at least until proven otherwise or admitted.

Now, can we still act? Of course we can. That's why we are here. The question is just how. Just let developers overrule past decisions? Not ideal in my point of view, because where do we start and where do we stop? Ask the FPC to overrule it? Seems more logical to me, if we want to give someone the power to overrule past decisions. We just have to be aware that means more or less every FPC decision can be re-opened at a later time, which sounds quite cumbersome for the FPC members. So we would kind of need rules for appealing against a decision. Maybe something like max. 1 official appeal per case. We could also call this an exception, but that would make it a Lex Idefix et al, so not really preferred solution I guess.

Ok, what will be the penalties for breaking the fair play rules - and what will be the consequences for the mentioned teams next time the fair play rule is broken? I think nothing - like before and like now. or throw the fair play rules overboard - because it's not fair if these teams take part.

[Schartner Bombe]

And why do this Teams say nothing - or did they? Why dont they say, "ok mistake, was unfair, will give the money back - please make that technically happen Alk, Gip or AAD"? Was that the suggestion of the teams mentioned? Or didn't they care? If not, it's easy to decide, in my opinion. Because they just stay unfair.

[ProTour-Team]

Idéfix PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
fantasticos PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
Flolandria PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
OLCycle PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES

Luques supposed to subtract the advantage in the database.

There is absolutly no need to "overrule past decisions", just let the new admins do what the old admin forgot to do.

[Schartner Bombe]

Idéfix PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
fantasticos PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
Flolandria PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES
OLCycle PENALTY SUBMITTED: FINE OF100000, WARNING: YES

Luques supposed to subtract the advantage in the database.

There is absolutly no need to "overrule past decisions", just let the new admins do what the old admin forgot to do.

No its not!! It was their decision to play unfair. So I'm for Roby's suggestion. Take the money from the two who were no longer online. The other two too, so they can keep playing - but take the money. Are you one of these 4, ProTour-Team?

[Schartner Bombe]

Another question, why are the FPC's the same teams as Admins?
Thats far from a objective or reasonably balanced system?

[Schartner Bombe]

There is absolutly a need to "overrule past decisions", as we know from history!

[Robyklebt]

Don't understand the reluctance to act. A bug, users were informed and asked NOT to take advantage of it, the majority managed to pull off the extraordinary feat of not profiting from the bug. 4 failed. At least 3 of them with multiple sales.
One of you, Gipfel, at the time was in the FPC, spent a fair amount of time trying to get the calculations right, dealing with not very forthcoming perpetrators in some cases. And now you feel it might be the right thing to do just let it go?

On procedural grounds? Based on this?

So old rule would be: The game owner does whatever he wants. And back then he decided not to execute the FPC decision.

Which is very clearly a misrepresentation. FPC advisory, whose advice was followed in the vast majority of cases. Owner/admin with veto power.
The owner btw can do whatever he wants even if it's not explicitly written anywhere. Owner decides to stop the game? Who's going to stop that? We can have as many paragraphs as we want, in the end the owner can do what he wants.

The use of the word "decided" implies a conscious active decision. Do we have any indication at all, that was the case?

Luques supposed to subtract the advantage in the database.

It was even written explicitly in the FPC decision. So doesn't even matter if restitution was mentioned in the old rules or not (as I argued before IMO wasn't necessary before either, since it's absolutely obvious that illegitimately obtained money will have to be paid back.) It's very clear: The bug money has to be given back.

The claim "Luques decided not to" which seems to be the main road block is bollocks. Unless he said something to that effect to he FPC or anybody else in private, the common sense (worrying that the multi seems to be displaying it) conclusion has to be that he forgot. An interpretation supported by the general lack of activity in the months following this ruling.

Which leaves us at: There are no procedural grounds not to take action.

Btw, the main reason for this post is that OL has just bought his first rider. It's now. It's happening, Baby!

So hope the FPC is ready, Fairplay section is going to have some action soon. In the meantime the admins can now decide fast if they want to gift a bug-user 17 millions. Using risky assumptions and hair-splitting arguments.

[Gipfelstuermer]

One of you, Gipfel, at the time was in the FPC, spent a fair amount of time trying to get the calculations right, dealing with not very forthcoming perpetrators in some cases. And now you feel it might be the right thing to do just let it go?

No, as I said, of course we can act and overrule. Personally, I think it would do justice. That's why I did all the calculations and made my recommendation back then. In fact I take it as a complement that now my recommendation is seen as justice by a big group here. Schartners comment that admins shouldnt be involved in FPC at all, I don't understand in that case. Think twice. Who would feel responsible at all then?

FPC advisory, whose advice was followed in the vast majority of cases. Owner/admin with veto power.

Just how often do I have to repeat it? Admin did not only exercise veto power. A veto is a legal power to unilaterally stop an official action. That would mean: FPC takes the decision, admin vetoes it, nothing happens until a new majority is found. But in many of the cases, the reality was: FPC takes a decision and admin takes a completely different decision, irrespective of what the FPC majority was. It's a huge difference.

So, again, I am happy to act and overrule in this case. But do I want to do it again and again and again? Do other admins or FPC members want to do it again and again and again? FPC is not little work. It's a hard job already. 56 cases since the new version has an FPC by the way. Members getting insulted, etc. Now you want someone to also correct past mistakes. Maybe this case, that we are talking about, was one of the biggest mistakes of the admin in the past. So maybe it's a reason to prioritize that. But dont expect admins or FPC members to correct everything from the past. It's my duty to make that clear to manage expectations on that. Even if someone presses the button now. Tomorrow we re-open the PTT multi case? The day after we re-open those countless Big Donkey insult cases? I have no interest in that. So if I have to correct this case, it must be an exception and/or guides by rules.

[schappy]

Everybody who talks here, say it is the correct way to do the right way, nobody say something against it.

I have a little suggestion to make this clear. Ask Everybody in the FPC and the three admins. If its fine in this case to act for justice without radiance for other things. If everybody agree, to this. But of course, only in this case.

[team fl]

My internal FPC post from 22 August 2022:

Actually I didn't, as I haven't followed this case closely.

I think, as the FPC has made the decision already and luques was fine with it, we (you) should execute it now to start into the new version with a clean slate. That was my intention, a bit linked to my newly opened thread, yes

In any case, thanks a lot for the effort.

This was left with no reaction. So as an FPC member, i fully support the immediate executionof the decision made, layed down and as interpreted by Robyklebt.

[Robyklebt]

So, again, I am happy to act and overrule in this case.

No need to overrule. Need to execute! This is not an appeal.

[Gipfelstuermer]

So, FPC is now reviewing this case (again). The amounts of 5.7M for Idefix, 276k for fantasticos, 17M for OLCycle and 3.4M for Flolandria are proposed in the system (again). Now the decision can be made (again). The difference is, last time the decision was in the hands of the admins. This time the decision can be done by majority vote in the FPC.

[Robyklebt]

Unnecessary really since the decision was made only the implementation missing.

But if you prefer making it a reopening/appeal/review for whatever reason....

The problem now though is something else:

The amounts of 5.7M for Idefix, 276k for fantasticos, 17M for OLCycle and 3.4M for Flolandria are proposed in the system (again).

Over 2 years after on/off activity, without the money being taken, by no fault of his own, you can't expect Idéfix to have that kind of money. Have you checked his cash reserves? If he has it, ok, if not....Forcing him to pay back the full amount at once, becomes a second punishment. It basically means redoing the whole team. He has lost some of the illegitimately earned money due to the higher tax since then presumably as well. So even in case he had 5.7 millions in cash reserves, a discount would be appropriate.

A sensible solution would be to discuss a repayment plan with Idéfix (ideally by PM or in-game fairness thing so we are not subjected to his writings too much, with other users here would be fine)

He should be forced to repay the money or a percentage of it, but it should be about recovering the money, or part of it, not punishing him a second time (100k the first punishment.

For fantasticos 276k is probably easily affordable, influence on tax negligable, but in fairness he should then get a similar discount.

Flo-OL inactive since then, money there, take it all at once logical, fair, unproblematic. (Although re-looking at the file probably OLs profit is smaller than 17 millions, he almost certainly must have gone under 70% at some point too. But since he chose not to cooperate so far... you could of course simply check his finances to figure out the correct amount. Actual money-rider he just bought-amount received/95*100 to see how much cash he had at the time. But let him do the work .

[Quick]

What donkey actually means is an additional tax because he could use the illegitimately earned money to grow his team, buy better riders and consequently win more.

[Gipfelstuermer]

You just presented even more reasons why it is necessary to treat it as an appeal/re-opening instead of the naive request to simply act on behalf of the former admins without knowing more about the intentions behind their previous decision.

So of course the involved teams have the right to speak up in the FPC Hearing.

[Robyklebt]

Actually it was an appeal to common sense. Guess you didn't recognize it.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Some update after the FPC sharpened its pencil and used its calculators because it can be argued that FPC should not ignore that 2 years passed since then. The argument would be to create justice, but at the same time let the 4 teams continue their re-start as if they re-started with 20M. Because otherwise they could have reset their teams anyway.

If FPC was to go down that route it would mean the following for each team.

Easy for inactive teams:
- Flolandria's deduction would remain ~3.5M because he has more than 23.5M in cash (no riders)

More complicated for active teams:
- fantasticos' deduction would remain ~276k because he restarted in June-2023 and had more than 20.276M at that point. He spent ~11.5M on 5 new riders and still has ~9.5M cash left.
- OLCycle's deduction would be ~8.5M as he restarted this month with ~28.5M, which he spent on 4 riders worth ~10M and he has another ~18.5M in cash
- AGF's deduction would not be necessary anymore because he restarted in Dec-2022 with less than 20M. He had 13M in cash (according to the Finance Log) and 3 riders worth a total of 5.85M (Labous, Berteau, DefoorCash). Calculating this was extremely complicated because the value depends on training history and points history, but so indeed it was comfortably below 20M in total (13 + 5.85 = 18.85). The last one is perhaps the most surprising, but indeed AGF brought down his team value from 39M back then to less than 20M because he was inactive in the meantime with ageing riders.

FPC could still just subtract the original bugusing profit (From 2 years ago) instead. Most likely, that would just lead to Resets for OLCycle and AGF because their total capital would drop below 20M. This is now up for discussion / decision.

[ProTour-Team]

why shouldnt they drop below 20M? they can still chose between keeping their team with less money but their riders or reset. no need to let them keep their riders while keeping 20M aswell