For the sake of argument, let’s say that I’m a horrible jerk. Yet you don’t really know it. In fact, I’m actually a compadre, as far as you know. This means I am not just an annoying or hateful person, but something more sinister. I’m deceitful. Top it off with this tidbit straight from the cubicle world, I’m willing to bury you and your work to get ahead. In my mind, I believe you’re a cash cow. Someone I can constantly abuse, manipulate and take advantage of for my own gains.
With the anonymity of the Internet behind me, I take my douchebaggery to the extreme. I jump on your account, loot it for everything it’s worth, claim the goods on an alt, redistribute them to my mains and delete the temporary mule. Rather than disappear into the sunset I hang around, consoling you as you complain to me, your “best friend”, how your account was ravaged. I offer a shoulder, in-game currency, even a hot new ride and tell you to keep playing.
Now, let’s say I take it a step too far. I overplay my hand, tipping you off to something odd. Eventually, the authorities realize that it was me. I’m busted and clearly in the wrong. What do you expect to have happen?
Me, I expect the authority figure to take care of it, because, well, they’re the authority. Whomever it is has access to loads of information that I, the victim, cannot see. I believe that the person was given then position because the person is level-headed, analytical and ultimately fair. The information will be poured over, digested and receive the appropriate response, consistent with previous cases. Parties on either side may believe the outcome is unfair to them, but unbiased parties wouldn’t expect anything different.
In APB: Reloaded, a F2P title, a GamersFirst GM decided to let the hackee decide the outcome of the busted hacker.
This decision blows my mind. First of all, Barnarner claims “it is a relatively unique case.” In what universe is this unique? I’ve witnessed these acts a handful of times across my MMOG career. I can’t even count how many times I’ve read of the dastardly act. That’s not even my main concern, that would be the precedent that the GM is setting.
Barnarner is getting cheers on the thread, since the act of giving the victim the hammer of judgement is eye-raising (free press…) but it’s terribly shortsighted decision. Expecting this person to be level-headed is ridiculous. Emotional attachment to a character is bad enough, enter in the deceitful friend and any player would enter a nerdrage to end all nerdrage.
Perhaps BlackJackieChan has taken the time to cool off before voicing the fate, but giving him authority erodes that of Barnarner’s (and other GMs). Did Barnarner not want to make the call? Was there no pre-defined rule for this matter or a related matter across of all of GamersFirst’s products? Was the case simply seen as a cheap, viral marketing opportunity? Further, other players affected by hacking – which, by anecdotal evidence, is rampant in APB: Reloaded – will expect similar treatment. No company can possibly allow every hackee to decide the fate of their hacker, so why introduce the idea?
I’m no legal expert, but the fact that the game is F2P means these players may very well have paid a fair sum for their characters. Now we’re entering the very gray virtual property arena. One where a completely biased person has been handed judgement. Depending on the outcome, hacker beef43302 may have his own legal powers available since it’s been made public that GamersFirst isn’t deciding the fate of breaking the Terms of Service for its product.
The case of BlackJackieChan v. beef43302 by way of Barnarner is eye raising in all the wrong ways, despite the knee-jerk reaction of many MMOG players. In fact, Barnarner’s decision to make this all public may well have been a knee-jerk reaction itself. “Hey, I bet the forum would love this drama.”
The only thing I’ve got to say is, welcome to the f2p world. This kind of drama happens a lot within the f2p MMO’s/ In most cases it’s about p2w.
If he is guilty of doing wrong then he deserves what he gets.
He has been found guilty and convicted by the higher authorities, they have just delgated the punishment.
Taking to an extreme, its the same as a mans wife is murdered the murderer is found guilty, the man gets to weild the executioners axe. Seems like a fair deal.
It is different if the hackee is the jury, but hes not.
The hacker may well have spent lots of money on his character, but he was quick to remove items someone else has paid for, seems only fair he loses his purchased stuff in return.
Seems like a good idea and will probably deter hackers in future, a hackee is bound to be less lenient than a GM it will make the buggers think twice. I am against hackers & cheaters – wrecking the enjoyment we spend huge amounts on – give em hell.
I was burgled recently, cost me over £3000 pounds, he was found guilty and given a slap on the wrist, I think a much better system would be he found guilty and I get to weild a two by four to his knees. Who better to decide how damaging the crime was than the one that was wronged.
This is hardly a “disturbing” or even “scary” precedent. What is the hackee going to decide? That they arrest the hacker and ruin his/her life? The option that the person really had in this case is to ban the user or not. Maybe press charges (this is most likely a stretch), but good luck with that considering he gave the “hacker” (more like social engineer) his account information.
It’s not like this is a criminal hearing and the judge is allowing the victim to decide weather or not the person is executed. The worst case outcome regardless of the BlackJackieChan’s decision would have been a banning for Beef43302 and BlackJackieChan not getting his stuff back.
If anything, I would say the GM was lenient in the case as I would not have restored BlackJackieChan’s stuff on the account considering that there are warnings saying “do NOT share account information”. I would have still banned Beef43302 though.