Massive Ban Hammer Mega Discussion

I never said that, I just disagree with the idea that a single punishment wiping out all other occurrences of cheating does anything but encourage people to keep cheating until they get caught.

Currently, once a person cheats, whether they are caught or not, there is never any reason for them to EVER stop cheating. Let me explain why.

Let's say Bob hears about bots and decides to cheat one day. A week later a guildmate gets caught and gets a week suspension. Bob decides it isn't worth the risk and quits. Bob had zero reason to quit. Why? Because under the current system, Bob can randomly be suspended an infinite number of times at any date in the future. There is literally zero reason for him to ever stop, whether he gets caught or not.

The main issue is that, nobody on this side knows how things work. Nobody knows the who, what, when, where, or why they got in trouble. Even if they knew they cheated, they don't know for which specific slice of the calendar they are being punished for. They don't know that stopping will save their accounts. Because of this, there is little reason for them to stop. If anything, with this system, they should just go harder at it with the assumption that this particular account is doomed.

That is why I suggest suspensions saying something like "You were suspended for cheating. If you are caught cheating again after your suspension is up, you will be permanently banned."

But some of them do stop the cheating once they are caught. But in your world, because they cheated for the previous year they should be retroactively punished not just one time, but 365 times. And what a lot of us are saying is you get caught and punished, you should then have a chance at reform and change. But in your view, there is no reform. Instead there is a cloud that hangs over that account and for the next number of days/weeks/mknths/years, lightning can strike from that cloud in the form of another suspension/ban even though the account was a good soldier and did no wrong. It reformed.

And a single punishment won't always stop the cycle either. The point of a punishment is to make people not want to do the actions that would cause it in the first place. If someone is able to cheat and get enough out of it before they get caught and punished it might not matter to them that they got a short suspension.

And not everyone is getting suspended multiple times. The problem is people are making assumptions as to why some are getting punished multiple times and Daybreak does have their reasons for doing it. If you don't want to get punished for cheating the simple answer is to not cheat and there are plenty of people that are not cheating and have not been hit by a punishment.

So you believe that people cannot change and be better? That if caught they will continue to cheat?

From what I have seen on these forums not everyone who has been suspended for cheating is getting repeat suspensions. But regardless the best way to not get suspended for cheating is to not cheat in the first place.

I never said that but even if they change that doesn't remove all past actions.

You are under some misconceptions. One, its not a coordinated effort from Daybreak. And two, if you are in agreement that we should reform cheaters, then you need to offer up a solution, because all your doing is spewing nonsense at this point.

The point of a punishment is to get people to change their behavior in order to avoid further punishment. In the current climate changing your behavior has no impact on your chances of receiving future punishment.

You are pivoting. I already agreed with you several posts back that a person should just not cheat at all. That isn't the discussion or the issue. The issue is that, under the current system, there is zero incentive to ever stop once a person does it the first time. That sucks as it makes people even more toxic. Either adopt a zero tolerance policy or a 1, 2 or 3 strike policy. Say, first time is 7 days, second is 14, third is permanent. But make sure that the counter starts from the date after they get back from suspension.

I mean I agree, the simple answer is not to cheat. I have never cheated and, therefore, never been suspended.

But if someone has been cheating for a period of time and finally gets caught, you believe they cannot and will not change. I disagree- I think SOME of them may change. Not all of course. But you want to continually live and look at the past, whereas I want to live in the present with an eye on the past.

What solution are you offering up? Not punishing people by wiping out all other offenses after a single punishment is not a solution. What I am saying is leave the punishment up to Daybreak and you can appeal any actions against your account if action is taken against it.

If Daybreak choses to let a single punishment be the result that is fine, if they chose to punish someone again that is also fine.

And encouraging them to cheat until they are caught and punished is a good idea?

This is the concept of deterrence and risk.

1. Action is forbidden.
2. Punishment for forbidden action is advertised in hopes of deterring forbidden action.
3. Actors balance probability of being caught and punishment being applied (risk).
4. Actors who measure low risk and high reward commit forbidden action, become "offenders".
5. Punishment is applied to offenders in hopes of deterring further forbidden action.
6. Punishment of offenders is advertised in hoped of altering the risk balance of actors who are considering offending and offenders who have not been caught.
7. Offender re-offends after punishment (recidivism).
8. Punishment is applied to the re-offender (per step 6). Punishment can be escalated to deter further re-offense by affecting the risk balance more than the original punishment. (Progressive discipline.)
9. Repeat step 8 until re-offense ends or until it becomes more effective to permanently remove the offender from the population.

Punishment-based deterrence is most successful when the punishment quickly follows the offense, but this is not always possible due to short resources, investigation requirements, due process, etc.

For those arguing that a single punishment should wipe a record clean, modern western law (practice, study, adjudication) would disagree. The best analogy to that system would be that of speeding tickets in many American states wherein you can be pulled over for speeding many, many times and never really be at risk of losing your driving privileges. Instead, you pay a fine and maybe higher insurance. In effect, that method of punishment is not deterrence, but a "a cost of doing business".

Thus, if cheaters do not receive progressive discipline based on their prior record, they will accept suspensions in stride knowing that they'll be able to return and cheat again without receiving risk of escalating punishments. The attempt at deterrence would not sufficiently affect the risk-reward balance and no long-term change to behavior would be measured.

Addition by request:

There is also the issue of double jeopardy-- the issue of being punished for the same offense despite having already received punishment for that specific offense. Example:

1. Offender committed forbidden act (use of forbidden software at 9:45pm on May 1, 2022) and is recorded doing so.
2. An investigation ensues and a decision to punish is decided on May 10, 2022.
3. Offender is punished with a 1-week suspension (May 22-28, 2022)
4. Offender returns to Everquest on May 29, 2022 and is subsequently suspended again for the exact offense that was committed on May 1, 2022.

This would be inappropriate.

However, note the specificity of the time and date. Offenses are specific to individual actions taken. It may well be that the original punishment was delivered in response to the offenses on May 1 AND the offender was also caught offending on May 2-21, but those hadn't cleared investigation prior to the May 1 punishment being established. In that case, the offender may be due further punishment for the offenses committed.

Example: A person steals 4 cars on consecutive weeks. The person is arrested, tried, and convicted for the 2nd car stolen during the 2nd week. The person does a week in county jail and returns to freedom.

The next day, the investigations on the 1st, 3rd, and 4th finish and the person is arrested for those crimes. The arrest and ensuing deterrent punishment will not be considered double jeopardy because they are for different offenses even if within the same pattern of behavior.

And the concept of a single punishment wiping out all other cheating just encourages people to cheat until they get punished as they know that will wipe out everything that they have done in the past. If people know that they get let off the hook after being punished why should they stop cheating beforehand?

Stop it Waring. You were asked to offer up a solution. The rules say you must contribute constructively to discussions. So repeating the same thing over and over without offering anything in return.

If you don't want to follow the rules, then you should not participate.

And I have offered a solution of leaving the punishment of cheaters up to Daybeak. You keep pushing an idea that not only encourages cheating until you get caught but rewards it. I have yet to see an single answer that explains why someone would want to stop cheating before they get punished since there would be no difference in the punishment if they stop now or when they get punished several months down the line.

We should just leave this up to Daybreak as they are the only ones with the knowledge of what people are doing to get the punishment.

You made a huge post that doesn't deal with what anyone was saying. People didn't say there shouldn't be progressively harsher punishment. They said that right now there is zero reason to ever stop because there is no path to redemption.

If you started cheating today and got caught next week. Even if you come back after your suspension with the determination to never cheat again, you can still be hit again a month later.

Again, you disagreed with this yourself, as it does not encourage people to stop cheating. Please offer a solution, thank you.