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

[Robyklebt]

As RfM and Big Donkey calculated (well, calculation RfM really) in the main chat, he was. Cheapened rider. Not bought at 100%. So the base is not his market value, but his transfer price. Maybe RfM can reproduce the calculation here.

[Robyklebt]

RideforMoney<12:30>: so for waerl : 1781622 * 0.95 (in case if uses the bug) * 0.86 (in case he has the guy for 36 days : so 50-36 = 14% of malus) = 1.455.584

[Gipfelstuermer]

RideforMoney<12:30>: so for waerl : 1781622 * 0.95 (in case if uses the bug) * 0.86 (in case he has the guy for 36 days : so 50-36 = 14% of malus) = 1.455.584

Thanks to both of you.

Added waerl to the Google Sheet

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[waer]

good morning and sorry for delay in answer
i dont think that i have "used " the bug to sell nenning
i have received 1455000 from the sale (total value of nenning 2085000) the total value of waer team was 18500000
i have bought nenning 11022021 and sold 18032021

[Gipfelstuermer]

good morning and sorry for delay in answer
i dont think that i have "used " the bug to sell nenning
i have received 1455000 from the sale (total value of nenning 2085000) the total value of waer team was 18500000
i have bought nenning 11022021 and sold 18032021

hi waerl,

can you make a screenshot showing your total team value or send me your login data via PM, so I can check?

Otherwise there is a risk, that the tax will be calculated too high for you.

Gip

[waer]

hello gipfel my pw is xxxxx username waerl thanks for the support

Donkey edited the post to hide pw, sent it to Gipfel by PN...
Not a good idea to post your data publicly.

[Gipfelstuermer]

hello gipfel my pw is xxxxx username waerl thanks for the support

Donkey edited the post to hide pw, sent it to Gipfel by PN...
Not a good idea to post your data publicly.

thanks waerl, thanks Donkey

File updated and indeed as waerl is below 20M total capital, he did not use the bug. Sorry for confusion.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

[Gipfelstuermer]

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.

[Robyklebt]

Ha?

I thought the plan was to save Luques the work and fine them the amount they gained by using the bug (+ an eventual fine)?

[Robyklebt]

So, do the bugusers still have the money they got by cheating at their disposal?

[Robyklebt]

Nobody asked you. My question obviously is to the FPC and Luques. But of course no problem with you answering either.

But the question wasn't if you and the others were fined, that is known, the question is if the money you got thanks to the bug-using has been taken from your account. Or if you have been allowed to profit from that bug.

Fairplay btw is not only something that exists only if it concerns somebody directly.

[Robyklebt]

Have to say, this is rather depressing. Of course kind of hilarious too, but mostly depressing. The whole obfuscation and all just to get an advantage in this online game?

- that money only exists in your phantasm

According to the research/estimation of the FPC, see the Tax evasion sheet by Gipfel above, the 4 bug-users gained 5,7 millions, 17 millions, 3,5 millions and 276'000 respectively by using the bug. Money they wouldn't have gotten without the bug. No "phantasm".

- fpc did their job

FPC gave out a 100k fine and left the 4 bug-users the money. Great deal of course, 17 millions thanks to bug using, pay a 100k fine, come out with a net profit of 16,9 millions. The FPC didn't choose the most elegant solution, give the money to be substracted as fine. Part of it of course the whole FPC setup including restrictions.

- luques is wise enough to avoid killing the game more that it is

This one I take as having 2 meanings.
1) Luques didn't substract the money. Why you don't want to state that explicitly is a bit of mystery.
2) Taking away the illegitimately earned money would be "killing the game more". Or to say it in another way. You claim the right to cheat for yourself, "threatening" to leave the game if you have to play by the same rules as the rest.

As I said, depressing. Why not assume your responsibilities for once and demand that you be allowed to pay back the money you shouldn't have. Of course now after x months you might not have all in cash, contact Luques or the FPC and start talking about a pay-back plan, pay back in installements, x a month, whatever. For OL since he's inactive, a one time deduction works, for Flolandria too, for fantasticos it's small, so works too.

[ProTour-Team]

ok so the teams kept their money, fpk cant do anything without luques and he isnt around?

[Carry Rhodan]

it demotivates me to continue playing RSF when I see that bugusing is not punished.

[RS Coesitz]

Will something happen here or is it according to the rules when I make a second team to have a chance against Bugusers who still got the riders and the money? Just asking. It´s quite demotivating to play this game a fair way if guys who don´t increase their chances? Honest question. I mean: if Ide does not get punished for cheating, why should I?

[Gipfelstuermer]

Sorry, I only saw these questions late. I try to respond from FPC perspective:

Is it according to the rules when you make a second team? No. Each player is only allowed to have one team. The FPC has a variety of technical checks to detect how many teams each player has.
Is it demotivating to play this game a fair way? It is certainly more fun to play this game a fair way. For you and for other players as well. We all benefit if we play in a fair way.
Why should you get punished for cheating? Breaking the fairplay rules should result in a penalty in order to encourage players to play in a fair way.

Anyway, we are drifting a bit away from this case. I only leave this case open in case luques wants to contribute something.

[RS Coesitz]

Sorry, I only saw these questions late. I try to respond from FPC perspective:

Is it according to the rules when you make a second team? No. Each player is only allowed to have one team. The FPC has a variety of technical checks to detect how many teams each player has.
Is it demotivating to play this game a fair way? It is certainly more fun to play this game a fair way. For you and for other players as well. We all benefit if we play in a fair way.
Why should you get punished for cheating? Breaking the fairplay rules should result in a penalty in order to encourage players to play in a fair way.

Anyway, we are drifting a bit away from this case. I only leave this case open in case luques wants to contribute something.

Ok, so perhaps my fault. It seems to me like the fair play rules are kind of a wish or proposal and Luques decides in the end who is allowed to break them and who not.
I agree in your points. But especially if you read the answer on the second question again, you see what the problem in this case is. I know, you are not the one to blame for it. But it is simply demotivating to play fair, try to build a good team, have to work with those taxes and others simply use bugs to get an advantage.

[Robyklebt]

Time to push this a bit again...

The MAIN question hasn't really been answered yet by the FPC. Where only one member seems even to think it's worth answering questions, the rest seems to think that unnecessary.

So again, the simple question to the FPC. Has the money gained through bug-using been taken? Judging from Idéfix' answers(who somehow seems convinced he's a victim here) it seems no, the general impression is no, so I and I guess others assume the answer is "no", but we haven't actually had the confirmation.

If it is no, the next question then is why. But attention, in the end this question is not that important, and is a question that should be thought over carefully before it's answered, no internal opinions should be posted here, as unfortunately has been done in the past. So no xxx voted against it. Or Luques forgot. Or the fine was there but the final click was missing. Ok, last one might be ok as answer. General answer, or something like "prefer not to answer" really would be enough. The "why" can be helpful for the FPC internally, to avoid a similar situation in the future.

The next question then is,: is it planned to correct the situation?, and that's the second important question. Because if the calculations here are correct, OL gained 17 millions from it. Since he's not active, once the FPC is up and running in the new version, IMO there would be no obstacle to act. Once it's up an running. In Idéfix' case a bit more complicated because his 3 millions from over a year ago are probably used, somewhat "lost" due to the higher tax than he would have had without it (but also possibly higher earnings and more success due to it), so a back payment in monthly rates might be more sensible than taking away the 3 millions at once.

Then can't restrain myself on the rather unfortunate answer Gipfel gave (but at least he gave one!)

Is it according to the rules when you make a second team? No. Each player is only allowed to have one team. The FPC has a variety of technical checks to detect how many teams each player has.
Is it demotivating to play this game a fair way? It is certainly more fun to play this game a fair way. For you and for other players as well. We all benefit if we play in a fair way.
Why should you get punished for cheating? Breaking the fairplay rules should result in a penalty in order to encourage players to play in a fair way.

If somebody has a second team, what happens? Does he get a fine, 100k but is allowed to keep the second team? No. But that's more or less what seems to have happened here. "Seems", see first question.
The problem here is not the lack of penalty. There was a fine. We know that, that was mentioned. 100k. The problem here is if the bug users were allowed to keep the money they got through the bug. Like if a multi was allowed to keep and play with his second team, after paying a fine. If it was handled like this, the encouragement to play in a fair way really is minimal.. .not to say non-existent. Next 5% for all sales bug as it stands I would encourage everybody to sell us much as they can... if all you get is a small fine?

Anyway, we are drifting a bit away from this case. I only leave this case open in case luques wants to contribute something.

Fortunately (for this case...) Luques seems off for a long time, so we keep it open And no, don't think we're really drifting away from this case. Culprits identified, fined. But could they keep their loot?

[Gipfelstuermer]

Lots of prose including Socratic questions... I reply with Kant in the end. But only to the one relevant question I found:

is it planned to correct the situation?

Relevant question, but a polar question doesn't do justice here. The question would be: Planned by whom? why? when? etc... In that order. In the end, who has the power to do that? Who has the right to do that? Based on which grounds? What is the FPC rule that governs appeals? What about other cases? Is there a statute of limitation? etc... I have no answers to these questions.

Don't get me wrong. I am much in favor of strict application of fairplay rules. In fact, I'd propose much stricter fairplay rules, too, and it will be hard to find a more severe FPC member... but can I just go ahead and act legislative (create FPC rules governing appeals and the statute of limitation), then judiciary (judge on the individual cases) and then execute those (technically, making changes in the database)? Others have certainly worked like that in the past and then the FPC was heavily criticized for that, even though it wasn't even the FPC acting like that... Practically I could. Some others could as well. But I prefer to act only according to that maxim which should become a universal law. Should it become a universal law, that FPC members individually create new rules, judge as they think and then execute? If they are sane and want the best for the game, it might work practically... but it would not be responsible behavior and it would open the door for lots of abuse in the future... so eventually, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to act responsibly on this without answering the questions above.

[Robyklebt]

Planned by whom?

FPC and Luques

why?

Because it's their job

when?

In the future When the FPC interface is running in react. Or when Luques shows up.

. In the end, who has the power to do that?

The FPC for proposal, Luques for final click. Maybe leso still as well. Luques for "by hand"

Who has the right to do that?

See above minus possibly leso.

Based on which grounds?

To keep the game fair.

What is the FPC rule that governs appeals

No idea, there is none I guess. But it's not an appeal anyway. It's a demand to finish the logic process.

What about other cases?

Trick question!!! You Schlitzohr. If I talk about other cases you'll close the topic because we went off the case. But if you know of other cases that haven't been concluded, tell me which, I'll happily analyze them.

Is there a statute of limitation?

Not directly relevant, since it's not a new case but one where the investigation is concluded, the fine collected but the robbed money still missing.

I have no answers to these questions.

That is rather worrisome! Pretty easy answers. You really should be able to come up with those answers yourself.
But anyway, now that I gave you the answers, you can answer my much more relevant question.

The rest, nobody is asking you to change rules, implement new policies or to act on your own and take the money from the accounts with your database access. At least I'm not. No, the question is about if the FPC (and Luques...) have any intention of trying to finish the job that somehow seems to never have been finished. (Still assuming it wasn't taken, but still no clear answer.) Does the FPC, following it's rules, meaning internal discussion and voting (that right now isn't available) then waiting for the final click by Luques, have any interest to bring the case to it's full conclusion?

[Gipfelstuermer]

The FPC for proposal, Luques for final click.

Happened already, as you know, more than a year ago.

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

Decision taken. We are going round in circles.

[Robyklebt]

Well, if somebody from the FPC would be able to give a straight answer we could break the circle. To your credit, you answer, while the rest seems to be missing, but we need to "decurve" your answers at some point....

Fines, warnings, done, we know. The question you identified as relevant but refuse to answer straight:

is it planned to correct the situation?

Maybe change it to:

Is it possible that the money gained through bug-using will be taken back in the future?

[Gipfelstuermer]

Is it possible that the money gained through bug-using will be taken back in the future?

Yes.

[Robyklebt]

Correct answer, there is the chance Luques whenever he comes back thinks something should be done.
Thanks

[Robyklebt]

Time for this thread again.

1) Has the bug money been taken from the 4 bugusers accounts?

2) If not, it should be done. Now.

In an attempt to avoid another round of evading counter-questions, mind numbing "arguments", pseudo-philosophy and other weird antics, I'll preventively answer here already.

1) No idea why a simple yes/no answer poses such a problem, no idea how to loosen the brain-knot on that one really. Yes or no, that's all that's needed. Unless it should be a secret, for nebulous reasons.

2)
-Why?
Because it's the right thing to do. You make a multi, you get a penalty, AND GET ONLY TO KEEP ONE TEAM.
Here you earn money, lots of it actually, you get a fine AND...??
-Who has the authority, the power to do that?
The triumvirate. All, Gipfel, AAD. Not sure how you are organized internally though. But unlike last time this was brought up, now these 3 are clearly accepted as game runners, admins, bosses of the game. You don't need anything more. You have the authority and the power.
If you really want some more justification, ask the FPC, but really it's not their job, it's not a new case, the penalty part is over, dealt with, it's about taking the illicitly gained cash away, finishing the logical process. Something that is implicit in the original judgement. Don't really think the FPC actually has the authority, but if that's what's needed to make the game runners sleep better, ok ok. Or make a poll for all I care. But really you don't need authorization. At this point it's not about power and authority, that is solved, it's about duty.
-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. Was it explicitly mentioned that multi teams don't get to keep more than one team? If both not mentioned, same thing.
- Too long ago, is there no status of limitations?
No there isn't.
-Is it really necessary?
Yes. Letting cheaters keep their illicit money is wrong.
-It"s just RKL on a crusade against some of his enemies.
No it isn't. And even if it were, the facts of the case don't change.
-But how?
Just do it. You have access to the database.
-But it's so long ago, the situation has corrected itself by now.
No it hasn't
OL has gained over 17 millions through the bug. 0 transfers since then. Take the money. Before he starts using it.
Flolandria gained 3,5 millions. Hasn't done transfers since. Take the money. Before he starts using it
Fantasticos gained 376'000. Active on/off since then. Take the money, small enough that it won't hurt that much.
Idéfix gained 5,8 million and has been active. In his case indeed taking that all at once would hurt him. More than it would if the money had been taken im a timely manner. Make a sensible deal with him. It's not about punishing him, that was done with the fine, but correcting the wrong. Implement a monthly payback plan, give him a discount on the overall money to pay back. But we can't just let it go. Cheat by bugusing, spend the money fast (as he did). The money is gone (by getting riders others would have gotten otherwise) can't count as a reason to let bugusing go. Plus considering how he since somehow has tried to portray himself as victim, slipped in the occasional lie (I used the react version, so didn't realize it! When the market wasn't there on react yet..) it's even more important to correct the situation. Dishonesty shouldn't be rewarded. But again, make him a deal, taking the whole money now at once would be unjustified punishment, not his fault nobody has acted for so long, can't expect anybody to wait so long keeping the illicit money safe for years.

Anyway, do it.

Really think the whole text should be unnecessary, only a reminder enough (even if... even a remainder should be unnecessary) but past experience in this thread was so surreal, thought I better avoid "clever" questions by giving long unnecessary common sense answers. Hope I haven't overestimated anybody and now have to deal with another set of "clever" questions