Should We Have a Three Strikes and You're Out Rule in DCUO?

That's to say your stance was not letting them back in, which leads to.....

So which is it? Did you say they should not let them back in, or did you say something should be done?

My opinion is that the people should have been permanently banned. My opinion is that something should have been done.

Something was done. Daybreak banned them temporarily, Daybreak let them back in, that's Daybreak's decision not mine.

Speed hackers are exactly the same, I believe they should be permanently banned - if caught enough times, but the community doesn't get to decide whether this be three or any amount of times. The amount of times Daybreak decide to let someone get away with something that is at their discretion and should always remain at their discretion.

I am far more happy to Daybreak to have a "case by case" threshold in terms of this than some archaic mandatory "three strikes" and you're out rule

Should we make a list too of all the people ever banned and for what so we can laugh at them, ridicule them and mock them so everyone else is scared of infringing out of fear they'll suffer the same consequences. Of course not. That is obviously what some people want here though.

You want to know that action is being taken, well then I've got news for you. you'll be waiting a long, long time because Daybreak are NEVER going to tell you what punishment is dished out to any individual.

So if you're hoping Daybreak are going to say "Batman9Xxx$ was banned today for speed hacking 6 times" thank you "xyz yzs and rsz" for the reports you have helped make this community a better place, then you're dreaming, actually borderline delusional.

Out of every 10 pvp matches when grinding for gear, I will literally run into 2 or 3 speed hackers. Not playing. 1v1 arenas are sickening. Its gotten so bad, that veteran players just try to figure out the best ways in a build set to armory to beat them.

Not profitable to fix, or working as intended? -.-

Doesn't matter. The bans wouldn't stick if they were widespread. The devs would cave like they did last time. Gotta game full of cheaters and no moderation.

They should actually at least pretend to enforce the no hacking rules when it affects something other the $$$ items.

That is absolutely not a symptom of delusional psychosis. That disorder and the required criterion for it is clearly outlined in the most recent version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. It would be considered naive at best.

All I'm saying, is that you took a specific reactionary stance to an issue, which is all that seems to be happening in this topic, and then you've tried to correct people foe the very thing you are loosely guilty of. And that is NOT to say I completely disagree with you, but I think you are splitting hairs and being slightly contradictory is all.

The thread topic is about whether or not we should have a "three strikes rule in DCUO"

my answer to that is "No" because despite any opinion any of us should have in terms of what should be done about cheaters I don't think one should be in place.

When I say people should be permanently banned I don't mean instantly in any circumstances, outside of what Daybreak outline in their own terms and conditions warrants such a course of action.

In other words for the purpose of clarity I agree with Daybreak's terms and conditions and am not opposed to how they function.

Also I never used the term "delusional psychosis" you've jumped to that conclusion all on your own.

The meaning of the word "delusional" is also "having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:"

It's not an exclusive term that relates solely to mental disorders such as psychosis.

That is also not the layman's term of delusional. The term delusional references psychosis by default.

Also, it's only your opinion that Daybreak will not publically shame people for cheating. You dont know that for sure and infer nativity to anyone who thinks they might. So I wouldn't attempt to point out assumptions in statements since you seem to make them yourself, which again is contradictory.

No that wouldn't be fair for people who don't cheat that are in a league the has cheaters. It would make alot of people would think
what the point in having league then.

Actually, anyone who has ever reported someone knows what he said. They send you a little note thanking you for reporting and saying that they will not discuss what action is taken against the person. That obviously precludes them exposing the person publicly.

Interestingly, even this thread itself will get shut down (due to a few of the posts) since discussing actions taken against exploits and cheaters is against the ToS.

Bottom line: it's hard to say what action daybreak takes, because we're not behind the scenes. Proving cheating is a lengthy process, and while it's important to punish cheaters, exploiters and hackers, it's very tough to do because of how easy creating other accounts is. No one knows what things those people have had removed from their accounts, etc. Reporting is important not just because of what exploiters are doing, but also because it lets Daybreak figure out what they're doing and take steps to repair the faulty code.

A better thread title would be, why is it taking so long to fix speed hacking?

I guess then you can consider the post I made on the topic that got deleted yesterday my strike one. lol. There is one great takeaway from this though.

Does anyone need a hard feat in PvE after the stats revamp? Might as well speed hack it, if you aren't banned for multiple reports in PvP you sure as hell won't be banned for it in PvE. The only thing you have to be careful about using it is calling someone else out on the forums for speed hacking or your account might be suspended. What a joke.

https://imgur.com/a/h4bRz

Why not?

Go play rust on a server with a hacker. Do you know what happens when the anticheat catches a player hacking? They get kicked instantly and banned. The server then tells you their name in global and that they have been banned for cheating. Catching and getting rid of cheaters is important to the integrity of any game that is multiplayer.

I would agree. Instant IP ban account wide for hacking, 3 strikes for other things.

It is the English definition of delusional. If you don't know what the word means then I suggest you look it up.

If someone doesn't know what the word means then that's not my problem.

As for whether Daybreak will publically shame people they will not, they have a privacy policy in place. If you don't understand what that means then I suggest you go read it.

No it is not. I suggest you check your sources outside of some Google search.

You are wrong.

Point 1. Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. notice too the context of the example sentence is similar to mine.

A player who thinks Daybreak is going to publicly start shaming people i.e. making lists etc. have false and unrealistic beliefs or opinions.

I'll quote myself for your edification.

i.e. borderline having a false or unrealistic belief or opinion.

Are we done here yet? No? Ok here's a video for you.

Definitions are not broken up into “points”. They are separated into vernacular functionalities or “parts”. So let’s review. Here’s an overview of what you said:

“It is the English definition of delusional. If you don't know what the word means then I suggest you look it up.”

In order for this statement to be correct, you would have had to have said either:

“It is a part of the definition of the word delusional…”

“It is a common use of the word delusional….”

“et cetera et cetera”

You made a claim that a part of a definition is the actual definition which misrepresents the definition. What I said was that you are wrong, which IS correct. You are wrong, and your very own post supports this. But, let’s take this a step further. There are better word choices IF you meant what you say you meant (that being that the word delusional in this context means naïve or something similar). I’m going to say that you didn’t mean that at all and was indeed referring to a “borderline psychosis” (and very amateurly I might add).

I’m going say that you’re being disingenuous and pretentious. Since I'm the one making that claim, the burden of proof lies on me. So, in the spirit of debate, let’s review further….


“…snip…then you're dreaming, actually borderline delusional.”


I don’t believe we need to look up the definition of the word dreaming to make this point, but if you need me to, I can explain the definition of it as well. Then, there’s the use of the word “borderline”. That’s a VERY odd choice if you were not trying to use the word delusional to imply psychosis. The word borderline is commonly used in psychology, and everyone knows the word delusion is frequently used in psychology. Then of course, you use the word “dreaming” which implies the people who you are referencing are not in a state of conscious reality. It wouldn’t make contextual sense if you would have said:

“then you’re dreaming, actually borderline naïve.”

So, your ploy is clear. You are trying to find a loophole in order to make it sound as if you were not referring to something that you clearly were referring to.

Lastly, what evidence is there of you being pretentious? Well, there’s the tone of your previous posts, and then of course you prematurely busting your load with the video in your last post. I’ve made my case and think you should think twice before telling people what rights they have in expressing their ideas in a forum that is designed to house those exact ideas.

Based on the sentiment you express in this thread, no one should have the right to say that “Daybreak should do” during any conversation ever. So, put your ego in check and in the words of Jack Ryder (and in the theme of the forum unlike Ace Ventura)

“YOU…ARE…WRONG!”

It's fascinating. You've deluded (see what I did there) yourself in to thinking that there can only be your one singular use of the word and that it has to relate to mental disorder when that simply isn't true.

It's beautiful. Tell me do you think the person saying the senators were "delusional" was implying the senators were psychotic or suffered from psychosis or do you think they were simply saying the senators had an unrealistic belief that they could or would achieve a particular outcome. Notice how the example sentence doesn't go along the lines of your assertion as to how I should have phrased my statement either.

Just the same as when I said some members of the community were delusional for thinking they could receive a list.

You seem to think my use of the word was incorrect and that I should have replaced it with "naive". You're right I could have chosen to use that word, but I didn't because that would imply that my opinion was that the players lacked experience, wisdom or judgement.

I do not believe they do, I just believe they have an unrealistic opinion hence the use of my word "delusional" was completely appropriate. If you think you're somehow going to get me to back down or alter my words then you my friend are "delusional" or is it naive... nah delusional.

Nice job on this. +1. You got your point across clearly and directly while avoiding the annoying/blind forum rules typically preventing any out spoken behavior.

I also feel a strike system would benefit the games integrity.

I think your use of the word is ignorantly used, much like your example of people using the term during the elections. It's much like when someone says they're OCD because they like their desk organized, or when someone says they have PTSD because they got tilted off a video game.

The bigger picture here, is that it's obvious you were implying people have a psychological disorder, and are now backtracking on an attempt to justify your inappropriate use of the word delusional, much like the people in the example you gave.

I think it's sad. The more you try to justify it, the more you paint yourself into a corner. You're being disingenuous about it, and it's obvious.

Call it fascinating if you want, but what it really is is sad.