PDA

View Full Version : Is This an Abuse of the VIP program?



Pages : 1 [2]

jai151
06-21-2013, 09:23 PM
Well then. I guess its not abuse for Billy to give me his VIP packs and I give him money in real life in exchange. CZE said they won't be regulating the third party market and its the exact same thing. So no abuse. Just stop.

Actually, if you're doing that every month, that is blatant abuse.

jai151
06-21-2013, 09:24 PM
But see, you can't distinguish that scenario between anyone else if you just monitored VIP boosters.

They said in the announcement they had sophisticated monitoring. Who ever said they were just watching packs?

OutlandishMatt
06-21-2013, 09:59 PM
They said in the announcement they had sophisticated monitoring. Who ever said they were just watching packs?

Because there's nothing else associated with VIP that can be traded?

jai151
06-21-2013, 10:09 PM
Because there's nothing else associated with VIP that can be traded?

Yes, but who says it ends when the pack gets traded? That wouldn't be very sophisticated.

Patrigan
06-21-2013, 11:31 PM
Patrigan was the first in this thread to suggest automatic account banning, by an AI/bot without human oversight, after as few as three packs are traded between the same two accounts -- http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25598&p=256535&viewfull=1#post256535 -- and did so suggesting it was a positive approach for CZE to take, and warned others. That post is what got me involved in this thread actually, as the thought that CZE would ever dream of doing so warranted a public objection in my opinion.

Even though this thread is pointless until we've seen a ToS, I'm being called out here, so I will respond once more. In delay, because I don't really care about this thread anymore.

Apparently my whole point went straight over your head. The kind of punishment didn't really matter. Usually banning doesn't even work, because you can quickly create a new account and get the same benefits. A revoke of rights indeed works a lot better.

My point never was about the banning, it was about the automisation. If this is against the ToS, then you can be damn sure that they will have a system that red flags people. If people remain red flagged for long, chances are they will automatically punish them. With 17.000 persons who got accounts and already 5 of the 20 or so in this thread saying they WILL do it, then a case-by-case system is simply impossible. What will happen (and what happens at ALL major game companies) is that you will get a punishment and that you can afterwards contact customer service to explain the situation. Usually you will fail to explain that you were NOT breaching the ToS, sinceyou will have to prove somehow that the person giving boosters actively uses the VIP, not just plays the game.

But then again, this is why I don't participate in this thread anymore. Most people simply don't understand the opposing points. You are a prime example of this. I guess you already want the punishment you will be recieving to be downgraded, because you know you'll be breaking the 1 VIP per person rule?

Kietay
06-22-2013, 12:40 AM
Has Jai gone insane? Tune in at 11 to find out!

Unhurtable
06-22-2013, 03:22 AM
2. I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I don't really acknowledge the very concept of "abuse" in giving a company money for a product of zero marginal cost to them. If it cost them five bucks to print and ship four boosters, and selling them VIP for four bucks was a money-losing promotion, sure. But you know what happens if someone subscribes and gives away their cards? CZE makes an extra four bucks of pure profit.

Well, essentially, "abuse" of the system would be to bypass the "1 VIP per person" rule (as you would be able to gain boosters for WAY cheaper than everyone else). There is something wrong with doing great economical investments (like buying bulks of things for reduced price), but when someone puts up a rule that is bound by a voluntary exchange, then its kind of a douche move to bypass that rule. So, is there any tradable commodity that CZE could give instead of the booster packs for VIP that would remove the ability to "abuse" the system given the above clarification?

Also, theoretically, CZE loses 0-4$ if a person gets a second VIP account instead of buying an extra 4 boosters a month from the store. We could argue all night what that number is (maybe its even a profit), but they don't automatically earn more money by allowing people to have multiple VIP subs.


The person quoted did actually say that -- http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=25598&p=257079&viewfull=1#post257079


Tada! The fact that my wife is a person and/or exists is immaterial to the issue of policy violation if she gives me packs. THOUGHT. POLICE. Her intent in owning the sub is the reason she is allowed or not allowed to subscribe...

He meant your wife being "immaterial" (I'd use a different word for this to be honest) to the argument. The wording is "whether or not she exists", in other words it doesn't matter whether you have a wife or not. Now, I do not agree with jai in this instance, as you share finances (which means that you technically pay for half of both VIPs, 1 in total) but he is not pointing towards your wife being a person based on her use of the VIP program.


Jeez, people.

Does anyone, anyone, have any sort of problem with the solution to this problem that has been posted multiple times, on multiple pages but is always for some reason completely ignored?

That is, the VIP Boosters are untradable--the cards inside are fine to trade, but you can't give away the booster itself to keep people from trying to sell the booster.

That good? That solve any of your problems?

The different between trading a booster and trading the cards inside the booster is what? This is a "soft" solution, in other words it doesn't fix the problem completely only makes it a little less harder to do. Yes, those who are looking to abuse the system would need to open the boosters first then send the cards. The problem here is that you are essentially punishing those who are not looking to abuse the system who just want to sell their boosters. Now, we could argue about the weight of the two changes, but the proposed solution is not a guaranteed net positive.

Banquetto
06-22-2013, 05:34 AM
Again, I did provide proof. You didn't accept it.

A blatant lie. You provided no such thing. You provided a link to a CZE staffer saying something completely different to what you are claiming they are saying.


Jeez, people.

Does anyone, anyone, have any sort of problem with the solution to this problem that has been posted multiple times, on multiple pages but is always for some reason completely ignored?

That is, the VIP Boosters are untradable--the cards inside are fine to trade, but you can't give away the booster itself to keep people from trying to sell the booster.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but you'd have to admit, it would make "VIP boosters" less desirable than "normal boosters", and would potentially hurt sales of VIP subscriptions.

Arbiter
06-22-2013, 05:42 AM
You know, I have seen a lot of threads where people are decrying the imagined advantage others have over them in MMOs and crying out for nerfs, but this is the first one that I have seen which wants to "NERF WIVES" because they are overpowered.

Get good at draft people. A good player will average more than one pack of winnings at a draft table for their $1 entry. Which means they'll have a source of cheaper boosters than VIP.

Either that or hit up online dating sites to get your own wife so you can make $4 a month. Be warned, though, if you split up she'll get half your collection which may be worth more than $4 a month... ;)

jai151
06-22-2013, 06:35 AM
A blatant lie.

And now we've reached the point where I know you're just trolling.

Gwaer
06-22-2013, 08:52 AM
This is a strange thread. Jai seems to be such a levelheaded person. But he does look insane here... This thread is a silly place.

jai151
06-22-2013, 10:38 AM
This is a strange thread. Jai seems to be such a levelheaded person. But he does look insane here... This thread is a silly place.

I think part of the problem is people are getting the wrong impression of what I'm actually arguing. I have no personal problem with any situation. I'm not saying any of the situations should or should not be enforced. I'm not saying anyone should be banned, VIP or otherwise. I was simply answering the question, "is it abuse?"

That's why all the extenuating circumstances don't matter, because the question was never, "should it be punished?"

Gwaer
06-22-2013, 12:15 PM
I'm of the opposite opinion of you, and it seems so obvious that 2 people with 2 vip subs could not possibly abuse the system, no matter what happened. Even if one person never ever opened a single pack of cards, and always gave the other person the packs.

I think the drafting Scenario is most apt. If person A gave person B all of their packs, and person B uses them to draft, and then returns every single card from all packs back to person A, including the cards from person B's packs, in effect person B had, and opened all the packs, and person A ended up with all the cards. They both used the packs they purchased however they saw fit as individuals, and according to the statement of 1 vip sub per person, it is clearly not abuse. If however, you had 2 accounts that you owned exclusively, and did the exact same thing, it would be abuse because only one person is involved. The qualifier for abuse is number of individuals involved.

snarvid
06-22-2013, 12:43 PM
I'm shocked this thread is still going.

According to what we know, Jai is right. Anyone who wants to argue impracticality of enforcement or murkiness is welcome to, but VIP is one-per-customer by explicit admission of intent by CZE and any and all means of acquiring VIP > 1/customer is in violation of their stated wishes, aka abuse.

Niedar
06-22-2013, 12:45 PM
Well then sounds like there is no abuse here considering we aren't talking about 1 customer but 2 customers.

Gwaer
06-22-2013, 12:49 PM
I'm shocked this thread is still going.

According to what we know, Jai is right. Anyone who wants to argue impracticality of enforcement or murkiness is welcome to, but VIP is one-per-customer by explicit admission of intent by CZE and any and all means of acquiring VIP > 1/customer is in violation of their stated wishes, aka abuse.
The rules are not that an individual is not allowed to end up with multiple vip packs, the rules are that no individual is allowed to have more than one subscription. Making deals, having friends just give you packs they get from vip, having your entire guild give the guild master vip packs in order to distribute them to the rest of the guild as prizes, none of those things are abuse, or against anything CZE has said.

Miwa
06-22-2013, 02:28 PM
The rules are not that an individual is not allowed to end up with multiple vip packs, the rules are that no individual is allowed to have more than one subscription. Making deals, having friends just give you packs they get from vip, having your entire guild give the guild master vip packs in order to distribute them to the rest of the guild as prizes, none of those things are abuse, or against anything CZE has said.
All those things are fine as long as the donor accounts are actually being used to play the game.

If they see an account with VIP not being played, I'd expect that VIP would eventually get banned from that acct. Over time, the abuse everyone is trying will get throttled down, or it wont be widespread enough for CZE to care. Or it'll be so widespread that VIP dies.

ossuary
06-22-2013, 02:33 PM
Some of you are going to awfully great lengths to justify giving the bulk of the transferable benefits from a second VIP account to a single person. Whether or not two physical people exist or play the game is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not a single person receives some or all of the benefits of more than one VIP account.

If they do, it is abuse. End of story.

Two people genuinely using both accounts is not the issue here. If two accounts are trading or even giving cards back and forth all the time, that is clearly two people sharing their resources, and that is fine. One person taking all of 1 VIP account for themselves, and a second person giving most of their benefits from a 2nd VIP account to the first person, without receiving anything in exchange, is abuse. The 1st person is EFFECTIVELY using two VIP accounts, and the 2nd person is not. That 2nd person shouldn't have the VIP account, since it exists PRIMARILY to funnel benefit to the 1st person against the wishes and rules of CZE.

Why is it so hard to understand the difference? Clearly, you don't WANT there to be a difference, because this is behaviour you wish to engage in yourself. Well, sorry, but you can't. But feel free to get yourself in trouble with CZE if you insist on trying.

Niedar
06-22-2013, 02:48 PM
Sorry I am not going through any great length at all, it seems quite the opposite, you guys are going through great lengths to throw in a ton of qualifiers. Instead my stance is simple, if its a person its not abuse if its a secondary account then its abuse.

Gwaer
06-22-2013, 03:25 PM
Sorry I am not going through any great length at all, it seems quite the opposite, you guys are going through great lengths to throw in a ton of qualifiers. Instead my stance is simple, if its a person its not abuse if its a secondary account then its abuse.
^ QFT this is absolutely right. And incredibly simple.


Some of you are going to awfully great lengths to justify giving the bulk of the transferable benefits from a second VIP account to a single person. Whether or not two physical people exist or play the game is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not a single person receives some or all of the benefits of more than one VIP account.

If they do, it is abuse. End of story.

Two people genuinely using both accounts is not the issue here. If two accounts are trading or even giving cards back and forth all the time, that is clearly two people sharing their resources, and that is fine. One person taking all of 1 VIP account for themselves, and a second person giving most of their benefits from a 2nd VIP account to the first person, without receiving anything in exchange, is abuse. The 1st person is EFFECTIVELY using two VIP accounts, and the 2nd person is not. That 2nd person shouldn't have the VIP account, since it exists PRIMARILY to funnel benefit to the 1st person against the wishes and rules of CZE.

Why is it so hard to understand the difference? Clearly, you don't WANT there to be a difference, because this is behaviour you wish to engage in yourself. Well, sorry, but you can't. But feel free to get yourself in trouble with CZE if you insist on trying.

It is perfectly within the stated rules for someone to have an account, pay the 4 bucks a month, rarely play, and when they do play only do some pve stuff, and give another person all their vip packs. It's not stated anywhere that would be a problem, it's not even hinted at. I don't see why that is so difficult for you to understand. Until they come out and say, people aren't allowed to give their vip packs to someone, it will never be an issue, no matter how much you want to make it one for whatever reason.

Banquetto
06-22-2013, 04:33 PM
I think part of the problem is people are getting the wrong impression of what I'm actually arguing. I have no personal problem with any situation. I'm not saying any of the situations should or should not be enforced. I'm not saying anyone should be banned, VIP or otherwise. I was simply answering the question, "is it abuse?"

That's why all the extenuating circumstances don't matter, because the question was never, "should it be punished?"

Whoah, whoah, whoah. That's not at all what I thought you were saying, and if it is what you were trying to say all along, then I did get the wrong impression, and I apologize.

I thought you were making statements about CZE policies and thus were talking about whether this was forbidden, not just whether it was abusive.

So, on that question: is it abuse of the system for two people to have two VIP accounts and one of them to pass the benefits over to the other?

No. I don't believe it is.

I think that the spirit of the rule is actually the same as the letter of the rule - VIP is meant to be a "one per person" thing.

And I don't think it makes a difference what that person chooses to do with their cards.

There are so many possibilities. Giving away the cards. Selling the cards. Trading the cards. Doing the above with only some of them, not all. Rare drafting and then giving away the good rares. Or selling them or trading them.

I've thrown various hypotheticals out there already. There are many more. e.g. what if me and my wife each sub, open our cheap pack each week, and I give her every wild and blood card and she gives me every diamond and ruby card? We've both obtained rare cards for our chosen decks twice as fast as any one person with one VIP would. Is that abuse?

No, I think if you try to dig into these situations, it just gets silly. I don't think the phrase "thought police" was out of line when it was first used in this thread.

I think the rules are simple - one subscription per person. And I think the only way to manage such a rule is to keep it that simple. If it's a different person with a different name and a different credit card, it's not abuse. It's another paying customer.

Lastly, one final question for everyone to ask themselves: if a new person creates an account and opens a subscription, do you think CZE would be (a) happy to have another satisfied customer? or (b) concerned that someone, somewhere might be getting a few cards a month for a few dollars less than they might have possibly paid?

I'm pretty sure the answer is "a".


Why is it so hard to understand the difference? Clearly, you don't WANT there to be a difference, because this is behaviour you wish to engage in yourself. Well, sorry, but you can't. But feel free to get yourself in trouble with CZE if you insist on trying.

Question for you, Ossuary. Jai has clarified his position - he is not saying that this behaviour is against the rules, or that it would or should be punished by CZE. He is just saying that he thinks it is abusive and bad behaviour. But you seem quite clear that you think it is forbidden by CZE.

Do you have a source for this? Because as I have said before, every link that I have seen has simply made it clear that the rule is "one per person", and never said anything about what that person chooses to do with their cards.

Turtlewing
06-22-2013, 07:29 PM
I don't buy that at all, the only time I would consider it abuse is having multiple accounts for one person. I think its absurd to call it abuse when there is a real person behind the account and they actively decide to give someone else a gift.

What a lot of you seem to have lost sight of is that the way CZE will enforce the "must be a person" rule is by running analytics on the server logs to look for accounts that behave like a bot or a hacked account.

If you trip those analytics CZE has every reason to suspect you are not a real person and they will act accordingly.

The cases where it's abuse are the ones where the account isn't being used to play the game, but still has VIP and is transferring the packs to another account. That's exactly what bots do and it's that behavior that is being discouraged. If you play the damn game you will have nothing to worry about. If you don't play the game and consistently send your packs to another specific person for no in game compensation you should not be surprised if they cut your VIP sub because they suspect you may have been hacked or be a bot.

Gwaer
06-22-2013, 07:49 PM
If that's the case just have your "bot" run some pve content. I seriously hope their analytics are not that basic.

ossuary
06-22-2013, 08:18 PM
Question for you, Ossuary. Jai has clarified his position - he is not saying that this behaviour is against the rules, or that it would or should be punished by CZE. He is just saying that he thinks it is abusive and bad behaviour. But you seem quite clear that you think it is forbidden by CZE.

Do you have a source for this? Because as I have said before, every link that I have seen has simply made it clear that the rule is "one per person", and never said anything about what that person chooses to do with their cards.

Hey,

I'm pretty sure I remember this coming up on one of the live streams, in the questions from the chat room section. Possibly the episode where they had just patched the game that day and it broke the matchmaking code? I admit that I'm getting oldish and my memory isn't the best, but that's what's jumping out in my brain. ;)

I know that the links previous people have posted were on the "one per person" verbiage, and I get how if that was all you'd seen, that could realistically be interpreted to mean as long as 2 physical people are picking up their rewards, it's fine. But I'm positive I remember someone specifically referred to people trying to "get around that limitation" and saying that would not be allowed.

I suppose it's a matter of personal interpretation (until we see some form of ToS) whether circumventing the restriction refers only to secretly having two accounts that you only use for yourself, or whether handing over all of the transferrable rewards from one account to another with no remuneration constitutes abuse. My feeling based on past experience and other EULA-style systems I have seen is that the 2nd scenario would also be considered against the rules, and handled accordingly.

I don't know what the penalty for violation of this rule would be, nor do I particularly care, because I have no intention of breaking it even in spirit. That's not what my comments were about. I'm just saying that it is, by what I've seen, an abuse of the VIP program. Whether they will actually crack down on this will probably depend on how much it happens. But I'm pretty sure their tools are set up to spot it.

Turtlewing
06-22-2013, 08:23 PM
If that's the case just have your "bot" run some pve content. I seriously hope their analytics are not that basic.

Why would they be that basic?
The analytics will be designed to distinguish between normal gameplay by a real person and automated activity by a bot. They'll likely be reasonably sophisticated taking into account all account activity, and focused on detecting behaviors CZE wants to discourage.

Nekojin
06-22-2013, 08:42 PM
Sorry I am not going through any great length at all, it seems quite the opposite, you guys are going through great lengths to throw in a ton of qualifiers. Instead my stance is simple, if its a person its not abuse if its a secondary account then its abuse.

How do you actually determine that there are different people behind two given accounts, and not just one person? That's harder to tell. But it's not an impossible task.

With regard to the question of automation (raised by Patrigan, I believe) - there are very, very few completely automated punishment systems in MMO games. In most cases, the automated routines simply highlight potential problems, and a live GM is required to make a judgment call to determine whether rules are actually being broken or not - that is to say, nobody gets banned automatically, there's always a live person pushing the button (or not) when a ban is being considered. League of Legends, as an example, takes it a step further, and lets any player who has reached max level participate in their judicial system.

IP addresses are largely irrelevant, because there are legitimate uses for people with the same IP, and abusive uses for people with different IPs. What the system is most likely going to be watching for is patterns of behavior - do these two (or three, or ten) accounts actively play? Do they trade back and forth, or does it go completely one-way? Those are just a couple of the criteria that I can think of off the top of my head for behavior-tracking.

Wildcard's example of himself and his wife would result in the judging GMs looking at the wife's play behavior, in comparison to his own. If, for example, the VIP pack trades always happened within a few minutes of his own play session starting, it's highly likely that her VIP is merely being farmed for his benefit, especially if she never took part in any of the other VIP benefits. If, on the other hand, she was an active player, and she happened to kick the pack over at the start of her sessions following the weekly pack distribution, and her play times and his didn't match up consistently, they'd be more likely to leave it alone.

All of that said, everything that everyone is saying so far is largely speculation. While they do want to control the VIP usage, they haven't been completely clear on nailing down all of the specifics on that. It's entirely possible that they won't discuss it overmuch, because discussion of moderation mechanics makes it easier for cheaters to circumvent those same mechanics.

One thing I can say for certain, though - those people who are saying, "They'll never ban a paying player, they'd rather keep getting your money," are wrong. The money they're getting right now is less important than knowing that they've got a secure, trusted gaming platform for the long term. Raking in more money now simply doesn't matter if their system starts being viewed as cheatable, causing the game to become a ghost town in a year or two. They're playing a long game. Banning a paying customer is the right thing to do if the customer is abusing or exploiting the system. The customer is not always right.

And finally, Cryptozoic probably has a wide range of potential punishments for abusive players - banning is a choice of last resort. I can think of many different ways to punish abusive players without simply locking them out of the game. Revocation of VIP access rights is a good choice for abuse of the VIP program. Revocation of tournament winnings if someone's been using shills to win tournaments is appropriate. And so on... total account bans are a tool of almost-last-resort. IP bans follow.

So for now, let's just relax, sit back, and wait for more information from Cryptozoic. This argument will no doubt come up again.

wildcard
06-22-2013, 09:43 PM
. . .
So for now, let's just relax, sit back, and wait for more information from Cryptozoic. This argument will no doubt come up again.

I think most of what you've said is reasonable, but you may be discounting the effect that deep market oversight and manipulation will have on a game that thrives on trade. Particularly when the first false positives start being publicized. CZE is very proud of their ability to roll back transactions for example, which is awesome when we're talking about protecting the macroeconomy from botters and cheaters and hackers ... but the flip side of that is there will be times you log in to play your new constructed deck and find a half dozen cards missing and the deck unplayable because the AH transactions you legitimately made for them have been rolled back, because the original source was illegitimate. That's going to scream in the face of players that they are not "collecting" any "cards" nor are their "trades" made with any permanence, and that could be devastating for a TCG. Similarly, players that are punished for abuse of the VIP system because their online play/trade patterns don't pass muster is going to scare the crap out of the player base. In a physical TCG your trades with other players, store purchases and sales, and your entire collection are all very private matters and there are no scenarios in which cards are removed from your collection, or transactions undone, because of store/company policies. Just speculation, but I personally think CZE needs to be extremely careful with how their wield their tools, far more so than any standard MMO.

Nekojin
06-22-2013, 10:00 PM
I think most of what you've said is reasonable, but you may be discounting the effect that deep market oversight and manipulation will have on a game that thrives on trade. Particularly when the first false positives start being publicized. CZE is very proud of their ability to roll back transactions for example, which is awesome when we're talking about protecting the macroeconomy from botters and cheaters and hackers ... but the flip side of that is there will be times you log in to play your new constructed deck and find a half dozen cards missing and the deck unplayable because the AH transactions you legitimately made for them have been rolled back, because the original source was illegitimate.
If anything, I suspect that you're underestimating the flexibility of CZE's ability to punish the abusers, and not affect the innocents downstream. They could quite easily revoke the payments on the abusing account (IE, seizing Plat paid for cards that were obtained improperly), and leave their unsuspecting buyers downstream with the cards that they bought with no knowledge that there was anything hinky going on.

As for false positives - Again, we should wait and see. I suspect that CZE will be using a light touch, and only penalizing the obvious abusers. It's likely that some will slip through the cracks; there's no such thing as a perfect, 100% effective defense. In cases where they're unsure, they'll just continue to monitor the account(s), and not say anything.

And then there's the false-false positives. People who scream that they were punished unfairly, when in fact their punishment was entirely deserved. Those are another facet of the "no perfect defense" issue. And there's little way to prevent this. However, if there's sufficient trust in the system, the "false-false" people won't be a significant issue, partly because they'll be few and far between. How people complain says a great deal about them, often more than what they're complaining about. ;)

OutlandishMatt
06-23-2013, 03:17 AM
I would love it if they made it mandatory for users to have Authenticators, especially for doing any kind of trading.

jai151
06-23-2013, 06:33 AM
There's one piece of the puzzle that just doesn't click for me to say "It's not abuse if my (insert relation here) is playing on the account."

What does playing on the account have to do with the subscription? The sub gets you three things: 4 packs a month, access to a VIP tournament, and the goldfishing feature. Anything else on the account has no connection to it at all.

So where is the functional difference between:

A) One person VIP access opening a second account and signing up for VIP access on both.
B) One person VIP access opening a second account, signing up for VIP access on both, and telling his nephew that he can play on that account but he has to send him all the free VIP packs.
C) The (relation) of one person with VIP access signing up for VIP access only to send all packs to that person.

An argument that keeps getting brought up is that it's none of anyone's business what happens after the person gets those packs, but that would mean nothing is abuse, or, at the very least case B isn't, when it clearly is. It would also mean the analytics, which we know are already planned to be in, couldn't run.

wildcard
06-23-2013, 07:36 AM
Jai, (A) is one person that has opened up two VIP accounts and is against the stated policy of one-VIP-subscription-per-person, (B) is two people with two VIP accounts, not against the one-VIP-subscription-per-person policy, with a secondary market transaction that makes you/CZE unhappy because in your estimation the nephew (who is now not entitled to sign up for VIP himself) is agreeing to give something away that he should keep for himself, (C) is two people with two VIP accounts, not against the one-VIP-subscription-per-person, with a @#$%ing MOTIVE that you're not happy with. A is abuse, B and C are not. I completely agree that in all three scenarios the end result is the same -- one person with *gasp* two whole booster packs that were originally acquired for less than $1, but the path to getting there matters a whole heaping lot... just like the difference between acquiring something by theft or by mutually agreed upon trade.

Edit: In writing and re-reading that it occurs to me that we haven't previously discussed the fact that this second person, this straw-man in some scenarios, is losing the right to have a VIP account of their own. That itself is something of value, owned by this individual, which is theirs to trade or gift and does not cost CZE anything. You cannot take it away from them (like not telling the nephew you used his name on the second account, or using it without his consent) because that would a theft of its own kind.

Edit #2: Sorry, I also failed to respond to your point about the analytics not being able to run. All of the analytics we've discussed so far would be difficult to run, I agree. Maybe they're much better than I think, but I'm on the "be careful" side of using them regardless. Determining if two logins are the same physical person is very difficult to do, and behavioral heuristics is the only tool I'm aware of. Beyond requiring two names and two credit cards issued in those two names, I'm not sure there's much that's bulletproof beyond that for separating the wheat from the chaff. But, even that pretty heavily curbs abuse. How many credit cards issued in different names do you have access to that can be used to set up fake VIP accounts? 1 or 2 at most I would guess for most people. And again the ~$3/month savings is not going to get hackers to consume stolen cards for this.

jai151
06-23-2013, 08:56 AM
Jai, (A) is one person that has opened up two VIP accounts and is against the stated policy of one-VIP-subscription-per-person, (B) is two people with two VIP accounts, not against the one-VIP-subscription-per-person policy, with a secondary market transaction that makes you/CZE unhappy because in your estimation the nephew (who is now not entitled to sign up for VIP himself) is agreeing to give something away that he should keep for himself, (C) is two people with two VIP accounts, not against the one-VIP-subscription-per-person, with a @#$%ing MOTIVE that you're not happy with.

B is still explicitly one person with two VIP subscriptions. Remember that the account and the subscription are two different things, in this case the only difference between A and B is that the abuser is allowing a relative to use his dummy account. C is FUNCTIONALLY one person with two VIP subscriptions, it's just whether intent/knowledge that they are bypassing the limits really comes into play.

Your "Steal or trade" being functionally identical is not the case, as in one scenario the result is I am robbed and in the other I am making a deal. The closest parallel would be someone hacking into my account to steal an item vs a friend of someone hacking into the account to steal the item and then trading it to them without them knowing the item was stolen.

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 09:23 AM
The entire situation you present is a trap, all of those scenarios could be abuse, we're missing information, so we can't say for certain, that information is whether it's allowed for an adult to purchase VIP subscriptions for minors and for themselves. That's an entirely different issue.

Person a buying the subscription with their own credit card, keeping the subscription up even if they don't play very much, giving all the packs to person b who plays regularly and drafts a lot and has a VIP of his own is not abuse cannot be abuse and will never be abuse.

jai151
06-23-2013, 09:52 AM
The entire situation you present is a trap, all of those scenarios could be abuse, we're missing information, so we can't say for certain, that information is whether it's allowed for an adult to purchase VIP subscriptions for minors and for themselves. That's an entirely different issue.

Person a buying the subscription with their own credit card, keeping the subscription up even if they don't play very much, giving all the packs to person b who plays regularly and drafts a lot and has a VIP of his own is not abuse cannot be abuse and will never be abuse.

If person a is giving the packs the person b to draft with with no reciprocation, though, it is abuse

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 09:57 AM
If person a is giving the packs the person b to draft with with no reciprocation, though, it is abuse
It absolutely isn't. Once again. The condition for abuse is not ending up with multiple packs, it is having multiple personal subscriptions, I listed a ton of valid ways someone could end up with quite a lot of VIP packs.

No one at CZE has said anything that defends your point.

jai151
06-23-2013, 10:18 AM
It absolutely isn't. Once again. The condition for abuse is not ending up with multiple packs, it is having multiple personal subscriptions, I listed a ton of valid ways someone could end up with quite a lot of VIP packs.

No one at CZE has said anything that defends your point.

They haven't said anything backing up any other point either.

What nobody has answered is where the difference is that makes that situation not abuse. You still have one person getting two subscriptions.

From a completely objective standpoint, if you have person B supplying person A with all VIP packs from their account, where is the functional difference between that and person A having two accounts? There isn't one.

If I came from a very large family and set up 100 accounts, one in each of their names, and set up VIP subscriptions on all those accounts, and funneled all those packs to my account but let any of the family that wanted to play on the account I set up in their name, how is that not me abusing the system? Just because a real person is attached to the account doesn't mean that same real person is who is using the VIP subscription.

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 10:23 AM
Because the rules are one VIP account per person. That's the backup for my stance. 2 different people have subs, what happens to the packs after that is irrelevant. Those people can do with the packs what they will. That is the stance that has been stated. I don't understand your desire to complicate it beyond that.

To be generous, I will say it is against the tos for two people to share an account. To it would be a separate abuse for person b to log into person a's account and send themselves the packs, and it would be an abuse for person b to have two accounts with VIP subs that were his, so to be legit a second person has to be involved.

jai151
06-23-2013, 10:24 AM
Because the rules are one VIP account per person. That's the backup for my stance. 2 different people have subs, what happens to the packs after that is irrelevant. Those people can do with the packs what they will. That is the stance that has been stated. I don't understand your desire to complicate it beyond that.

Because in the original quote where "one per person" was mentioned, they also said no gaming the system. These situations have all been gaming the system.

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 10:28 AM
No, gaming the system would be pretending to have other people involved. To make accounts in other peoples names that weren't party to it. The system is 1 sub per person. If you are to game that, then you'll be punished. Having legit people playing with no interest in VIP packs giving you their packs for whatever reason cannot ever be abuse.

jai151
06-23-2013, 10:32 AM
No, gaming the system would be pretending to have other people involved. To make accounts in other peoples names that weren't party to it. The system is 1 sub per person. If you are to game that, then you'll be punished. Having legit people playing with no interest in VIP packs giving you their packs for whatever reason cannot ever be abuse.

The question is why are they signed up for VIP if they don't want the packs? If that person is signing up for VIP to just pass the packs to a person who already has it, why isn't that abuse when it's functionally the same as person A signing up twice?

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 10:36 AM
The question is why are they signed up for VIP if they don't want the packs? If that person is signing up for VIP to just pass the packs to a person who already has it, why isn't that abuse when it's functionally the same as person A signing up twice?
The persons intentions cannot be evaluated. They could be doing it for a multitude of reasons, payment for something, a gift for something, it doesn't matter and is irrelevant. They just have to determine, probably by seeing a different name on a credit card that a second individual is involved. After they determine that it is a real person they literally cannot tell that person how to use the packs they bought. It would go against everything they've said as a company in relation to the things you are buying being yours that they won't mess with.

jai151
06-23-2013, 10:42 AM
The persons intentions cannot be evaluated. They could be doing it for a multitude of reasons, payment for something, a gift for something, it doesn't matter and is irrelevant. They just have to determine, probably by seeing a different name on a credit card that a second individual is involved. After they determine that it is a real person they literally cannot tell that person how to use the packs they bought. It would go against everything they've said as a company in relation to the things you are buying being yours that they won't mess with.

If it is set up the way you say, though, it is wide open to abuse. I could set up X accounts in different names, get X prepaid cards to cover them, and send all the packs to my main account.

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 10:47 AM
I doubt they will run background checks on every name they see, so that's possible I suppose. If you are getting prepaid cards in names other than your own you're already violating laws, so breaking a tos isn't the end of the world. You'll also probably be caught eventually. You may get away with it for a while, but really what have you gained? 12 packs for slightly cheaper than market price?

Vorpal
06-23-2013, 11:32 AM
CZE will determine what is abuse and what is not.

There's little point in trying to figure out which cases are abuse and which are not ahead of time. They'll tell us.

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 11:35 AM
CZE has made it pretty clear that they keep an eye on the forums for feedback and ideas. Any discussion here is not really pointless. They have not hammered out the complete details of this program yet obviously. This discussion may not be a huge influence on them but they could certainly have gathered something.

majin
06-23-2013, 11:52 AM
The persons intentions cannot be evaluated. They could be doing it for a multitude of reasons, payment for something, a gift for something, it doesn't matter and is irrelevant. They just have to determine, probably by seeing a different name on a credit card that a second individual is involved. After they determine that it is a real person they literally cannot tell that person how to use the packs they bought. It would go against everything they've said as a company in relation to the things you are buying being yours that they won't mess with.

it's like asking your parents to buy you stuff. they won't be using that stuff but they are real people and the store shouldn't care who will use the things they buy.

or when there's a promo that says "1 purchase per person", you can bring your friends, relatives, give them money and let them buy the item and then give the item to you. you aren't creating fake people / fake accounts, they are real and even if they give you the stuff and you give them the money to buy you the stuff, you're not breaking the TOS of the promo

majin
06-23-2013, 11:57 AM
If it is set up the way you say, though, it is wide open to abuse. I could set up X accounts in different names, get X prepaid cards to cover them, and send all the packs to my main account.

one problem i see on this idea (assuming CZE creates a log of activities on each account) is they will see that your account is getting vip packs from different people every time (unless you will reuse the accounts with new prepaid CC, not sure if that's possible or legal)

the main difference with your friends / families accounts sending you their VIP packs is that those accounts belong to real people with real method of payment

it will still be CZE's call but i just want to point out that observeration

hammer
06-23-2013, 12:16 PM
Honestly I would rather cryptozoic did away with the VIP boosters all together or just make it 1 x non-tradeable draft a month (i.e 3 Boosters and 1 Plat 7$ worth) if they were feeling generous they could add a random non-legendary PVE Equipment it still really good value for a draft and cuts down the likelihood of abuse.

Genocidal
06-23-2013, 12:25 PM
Your signature is almost as ridiculous as this thread.

Yoss
06-23-2013, 01:49 PM
You know what would help stop VIP abuse? Authenticators! See the thread on said topic. Also IP and/or device tracking.

Cotton
06-23-2013, 08:37 PM
If a CC is only allowed to be used on one account, how will people abuse this system?

Genocidal
06-23-2013, 10:29 PM
As of 2008 the average American cardholder has 3.5 credit cards. I suspect that number isn't going down, and it's also trivial to make throwaway virtual numbers with most cards, or to buy prepaid gift cards, etc.

Gwaer
06-23-2013, 10:33 PM
Simply check names in response to having multiple cards, and if you have to do not accept anonymous pre-paid cards.

Genocidal
06-23-2013, 11:08 PM
You want to use names as a unique identifier? That would cause... a few problems, to say the least.

Gwaer
06-24-2013, 12:19 AM
You want to use names as a unique identifier? That would cause... a few problems, to say the least.
Believe me, my real name has a secret organization on Facebook where we all plot together for world domination.

We are all quite geographically spread out however. It's not difficult to collate some originating IP addresses and some flexibility in variance to number allowed in a given area. Im certainly not advocating any one technique. But a spectrum of many. I honestly don't think a couple of people with additional VIP subscriptions is really that big of a problem either to be honest.

wildcard
06-24-2013, 05:42 AM
I'm just glad to see this thread talking about ways to figure out when one person has signed up for more than one VIP subscription, instead of talking about ways to figure out when the economic value of two VIP subscriptions has become concentrated in one account after trading on primary or secondary markets.

Identity proofing is a hard problem, but a combination of not accepting prepaid cards, and using a one time password over a phone number when you create the account is probably sufficient. At that point the number of VIP subscriptions a fraudster can get is limited to the lower of the number of legit credit cards he/she has, and the number of phone numbers he/she has. 1, 2... maybe 3 in a fringe case? Using only numbers I have access to I could in fact get two VIPs that way, but one would use my home phone so my wife would be limited to one VIP sub from her cell at that point.

Further, borrowing a friend or family member's phone number is taking away their right to get a VIP subscription for themselves down the road. If you do it without their knowledge, you've effectively stolen their identity. If you do it with their knowledge, well it was their right to trade, so you're definitely in a grey area then.

And of course you can continue to apply heuristics from here if you insist on really stamping this out. But they should be focused on user behaviors (source IP, login times, login durations -- I'm already not liking this -- resetting of the phone number on the account to one consolidated number, etc.) and not economic activity, because again you cannot reasonably evaluate the motives behind any trade or any sequence of trades (my buddy lost a bet and now he owes me all his VIP packs for the next year). I'm personally happy leaving the heuristics out of it entirely, not because I'm a cheater but because I don't really believe they're going to help more than their going to hurt.

jai151
06-24-2013, 05:52 AM
Identity proofing is a hard problem, but a combination of not accepting prepaid cards, and using a one time password over a phone number when you create the account is probably sufficient. At that point the number of VIP subscriptions a fraudster can get is limited to the lower of the number of legit credit cards he/she has, and the number of phone numbers he/she has. 1, 2... maybe 3 in a fringe case? Using only numbers I have access to I could in fact get two VIPs that way, but one would use my home phone so my wife would be limited to one VIP sub from her cell at that point.

Unfortunately, thanks to Google Voice, you have an unlimited number of phone numbers.

wildcard
06-24-2013, 06:08 AM
Drat. Well, out of band identify proofing is a thing, but it's expensive and cumbersome and they're not likely to want to do that to people over $4/month anyway.

jai151
06-24-2013, 06:20 AM
Honestly, I think from the start we've just been way overthinking this. I went off on my whole thing, everyone fought about what is and isn't abuse, I think this is just one of those situations we just need to trust CZE when they say they have something in place.

To be fair, I was never really a fan of the VIP sub in the first place, it was the first stretch goal that felt out of place. I still don't really like it. But it is what it is.

ossuary
06-24-2013, 06:23 AM
Well keep in mind that all of the stretch goals were things they wanted to do at some point anyway, making them stretch goals was just committing to finish them earlier than they had originally planned, because they could now afford to. The VIP subscription was always, if you'll excuse the pun, in the cards. ;)

jai151
06-24-2013, 06:26 AM
Well keep in mind that all of the stretch goals were things they wanted to do at some point anyway, making them stretch goals was just committing to finish them earlier than they had originally planned, because they could now afford to. The VIP subscription was always, if you'll excuse the pun, in the cards. ;)

Oh, I know. But just because something was always planned doesn't mean it's good or it fits =)

ossuary
06-24-2013, 06:30 AM
True. Those are two different conversations.

Honestly I think people are getting pretty worked up over all this. I don't see a problem with CZE offering 4 packs a month, doled out weekly, at a discount. Realistically speaking, it's not going to be enough for anyone. To me, it feels like a really clever way to get some guaranteed income every month (maybe even from people who wouldn't otherwise buy packs at all), coupled with a sneaky way to tantalize easily addicted people into buying even more. It's savvy business, and I really doubt it will break anything or reduce CZE's total income. If anything, it will increase it.

jai151
06-24-2013, 06:36 AM
I agree. This is a tough one for me because it's one of those, "Well, I just don't like it" situations. There's nothing on the surface wrong with it, it's not bad business, it's not even really all that abusable. It just rubs me the wrong way.

ossuary
06-24-2013, 07:24 AM
I know what you're talking about. That feeling that you can't really quantify, but makes you uncomfortable all the same. I don't get that feeling about this specific feature, but I can understand why some people would.

wildcard
06-24-2013, 07:50 AM
Hooray, I can agree on all counts! :) I do think it's clever, as one booster will never be enough if you want to draft (works out to about 1 draft/month if you sell one pack). Though I could see enthusiastic PvEers getting it just to open the pack for the treasure chest and because PvP cards can theoretically work out well in PvE. Assuming they get some good loot it would entice them to buy a few more boosters here and there. It's a good hook, but I wouldn't be sad to see it replaced with something else like one free draft per month or similar.