Free Market Spot AFK/Camp/Hog/Selling Shenanigans

I have a number of issues with this that I'd like to raise for discussion, but please do not take this as a specific attack upon you or your actions @Kai .

Firstly, spot selling/buying have been a thing for as long as the free market has existed. Regardless of if you were "hogging", "camping" or "afk but not opening" or putting up one expensive item for sale, they essentially serve the same purpose and is widely seen throughout all of free market.

In this particular situation, the spot was won by @boredxz fair and square and thus my take on the situation is that he can do whatever he likes to with said spot, be it left unopened for hours, opened for sale at a set price, gift or donate the spot, open an AFK shop to sell items of his choice or what have you. For what it's worth, he may choose to Blackboard s> his spot at a price of his choice on a separate client in FM entrance and time it accordingly with an unopen shop that's otherwise AFK to reduce chances of actual botters and spot campers from stealing it from the intended buyer. That is entirely reasonable and thus I do not believe that having a semi-open spot is any different from having an actually open one, unless the act of selling/purchasing FM spots becomes against the TnCs of MapleRoyals altogether.

I do not believe that using GM powers (akin to using a hack, essentially) to disconnect other players from MapleRoyals is appropriate. Staff are privileged with this power to disconnect hackers, botters, RWTers etc for the purpose of banning them and if BoredXZ or any other player is known to have broken game rules, staff then have every right to do so. However, in the absence of proof and in the absence of legitimate suspicion warranting an interim ban (e.g. suspicious activity bans), disconnecting players without subsequently banning them with a rightful clause in the TnCs is virtually the same as using a prank on players. I accept that part of the MapleRoyals TnCs include staff discretion as part of decision making - however I think your reasoning must stand its ground and that there is either 1) appropriate evidence that someone is breaking rules or 2) that there is sufficient unexplained actions/items that warrant enough suspicion from the staff body to place an interim ban. Under bans for suspicious activity, my feeling is that such decisions should not be made by one single staff member alone.

This is open for discussion as I agree FM spot wars have always been a topic of contention. However, the starting point of this particular case was not something I can agree with because the person who alerted staff was someone who was sitting on the Ch1 FM1 spot waiting to camp it. Just like there is no proof (but also no need) for BoredXZ to use a bot to maintain the spot as taken, there is also little evidence that campers standing on these players aren't using bots either. Should we be disconnecting everyone? Should this be a bannable offence altogether? Who knows. None of this is in the TnCs, however; and this doesn't even qualify as objectionable behaviour because nothing in what has been done today is actually objectionable.

If the same situation happened in Ch20 FM22, none of this would have been a problem to begin with, but why should it be a problem in Ch1 FM1? Since when did spot demand have anything to do with the terms and conditions of this server?

 

Thanks for opening this feedback thread, I hope we can all come to a general consensus on how we should deal with potential botters/shop hoggers/etc. I'd like to remind everyone who's participating in this discussion to remain civil.

Now, back to the topic on hand.

I received reports that there may be a potential shop botter in said room so I checked it out like I always do (i.e. this is not the first time I'm doing this). I gave BoredXZ 30 seconds to respond to me (when dealing with suspected cheater, mainly botters, we will give them some time to respond to us before deciding on the action to take), otherwise he will be disconnected in suspicion of being a shop botter (more on this later) in order to release the spot. However, note that being disconnected is not the same as being banned. He can still log back into the game. Fortunately, he replied me within 3 seconds of my warning which is why no action was taken against him. Whatever you see in the screenshot above happened after BoredXZ whispered me that he's not AFKing and is intending to use the spot.

It is factually correct that hogging a spot is not a punishable thing (based on T&C), but like OP mentioned, I had to take discretionary action in this case since I'm hearing unhappiness on both sides, 1) those who reported to me that there's a potential shop botter and 2) those, like OP, who aren't happy that I wanted to take action. In many cases, those I disconnected had no intentions of using the spot/did not reply me/are actual shop botters. Basically, I chose to err on the side of caution by taking into consideration of the many instances that this exact situation happened. But sometimes, I may misjudge such as in this case, especially since the server went up not too long ago. However, that still doesn't justify why BoredXZ is hogging the spot for almost 2 hours (or however long since the server went live). Personally speaking, I think it is ridiculous to hog a spot for hours and not wanting to open it. I don't think the reason of "maybe he's just doing price check", "maybe he wants to hold it for his friend", "maybe he wants the spot but not now" is a good enough reason to justify the action.

Au contraire. I'll handle the case like any others, regardless of channel or room. But, that is very subjective. If there are tons of spots in Ch20 FM22 and you reported a potential spot hogger, all I'd do is ask you to utilize the other spots around the map while at the same time, I'll carry out the same process of warning the player. In many cases, reports are usually made for the popular channel and room, for obvious reasons.

So as a staff, I want to seek the community's opinion. What should we do in such cases? Do we err on the side of caution, or do we entirely ignore all reports pertaining to shop hoggers/botters? Let me state this for the record, I think at the moment, there's no true, 100%, fool-proof way of telling who's legit and who's botting. This requires manual work of actually checking in on the suspect, like how we deal with botters/macrobotters.

Alternatively, we can introduce a new form of deterrence which is to release the spot after it has been held and not opened for a period of time. This not only deters shop hoggers, but also shop botters.

Thoughts?

Edit 1: For shop botters that I disconnected, I did not ban them because like OP said, there's no concrete evidence per se. All I had was that they did not reply me, but that's not sufficient to warrant a ban. But If I recall correctly, I probably banned 1 or 2 because it's just so obvious that they're hackers.

 

Only going to tackle this:

First, I see nowhere in the rules that states player happiness plays a role in rule enforcement, and there is nowhere in the rules which states that a GM is allowed to use their own discretion when punishing players for engaging in fully legal game play. This is no different from you going in the FM Entrance and DCing somebody for spamming annoyingly because another player was unhappy about it - you do not get to decide how people play the game outside of enforcing the rules while using your discretion for the specified rules where it is outlined (such as the defames rule, obviously somebody defaming a player 9 times maliciously should be punished despite not hitting that '10' threshold, for example). If no rule breach is in question (which there wasn't, since no rule exists for this matter) there is no need for action to be taken. You simply tell the unhappy player reporting it that such behavior isn't currently against the rules and you cannot do anything about it. DCing somebody because another player doesn't like what they are doing (and you agree with them) despite their actions not breaking any rule whatsoever is just flat out abuse of power (even if your intention is not malicious). Past cases should not matter in determining whether or not he is disconnected as everybody should be treated as an innocent individual. Just because in the past others who had done the same thing were found to be botters does not mean that it is fair or reasonable to assume everybody who does that is a botter as well. It's like, nobody trains at spirit vikings, and 9 times out of 10 when you come across somebody at that map, they're hacking, so would it be fair to ban every player you find at spirit vikings under the assumption that they're hacking like the rest? Absolutely not, but it is something to use for your own memory to trigger a little "hey, the last 9 people I came across who did this were cheating...let's investigate further, and if nothing is found, fair game let 'em hang at spirit vikings!" Nomsayin?

BoredXZ does not need to justify why he was "hogging the spot for almost 2 hours". There is no rule against hogging a spot for any amount of hours. You do not have to justify actions that are not rule breaking to begin with. His intent could be malicious-just to be a dick-and that's fully allowed under our current rules. This saying is beyond annoying, but it really does apply here: don't hate the player, hate the game. Rally up the players who agree with you to get change implemented in the rules so that this type of assholery can be stopped with actual enforcement. Don't hate on BoredXZ for taking advantage of the opportunity presented to him, he isn't doing anything wrong. Should the rules change and he continue, then of course he would be in the wrong, but that's for future discussion should it happen (and I highly doubt it would).

Don't at all take this as me siding with the players who steal spots and shit, and even though it was a lot of fun back in gMS, this isn't the same free-for-all auto-clicker & DC hack type environment so things should be treated differently. I don't agree with it but I also don't agree with enforcing imaginary rules based on player unhappiness and GM's personal feelings. Let's get it in writing, and I think that your questions to us are on the right track to achieving that!

 

You're right, which is why I said it's a discretionary action. In actual fact, I could have done nothing about it and just let players complain via Discord or Shoutbox or in-game via PM. But I chose not to, and that's my discretion. I believe a game shouldn't be something that spoils your day. Since such situation happened, I had to look into it because I feel that's my responsibility as a Staff. We can all argue about what staff should or shouldn't do, but whatever we do, we do it because we felt that it was in the best interest of everyone. Of course, you'll definitely have people that disagree. But I don't mind, as long as they disagree logically and not letting emotions get the better of them.

This is correct. However, discretion still applies as I deem fit depending on context. The clause on discretion is as quoted:

Technically speaking, I intervened under the clause of a potential and believable cheating/hacking/botting case. I treat all reports of potential shop botters equally, and pretty much carried out the same process. That was ruled out the moment BoredXZ replied me, so no actions were taken. As mentioned, I took the necessary steps and precaution that I felt was in the best interest of everyone else. Some have asked me "How is it even possible that BoredXZ got the spot via botting, when the server just came back on? It'd made more sense if he got the spot immediately after someone closes it, after AFKing ontop of the spot for hours" -- my answer would be that "who knows what kind of bot is out there. As far as I know, there exists hack which helps you auto login and do certain things, so why not a hack that helps you auto login, go to certain cc and room and set up a spot?".

This is incorrect. I do not disconnect anyone because some player doesn't like what that particular player is doing. I only disconnect if I deemed it necessary (i.e. disruption to players around, or in this context, a potential shop botter). For example, if you're spamming during GM events, I'll not hesitate to disconnect you (but I don't do that now, since we can kick players out the event instead). But we'll give out warnings in advance, which I did in this case as well. BoredXZ had 30 seconds to reply me, and he did.

Fair point, but also subjective. When you have dealt with enough of such cases, you get to the point that you gain a 6th sense as to whether someone may be breaking the rule. Of course, it's not a flawless sense. The same applies to suspected RWTers as well though. We prefer to err on the side of caution, or at least that's what I observed.

I'd like to make it clear that in no ways am I hating on any players. Just doing what I perceived to be in the best interest for those who filed the report, and possibly everyone else. But you're right, which is why this thread exists. Let's see if we can work towards a more feasible solution.

Someone has created a similar thread here https://royals.ms/forum/threads/fm-spot-botting-autoclicking-solution.155929/, he suggested the same thing I did. Personally, I don't merch much, so I wouldn't be able to fully relate to those who do. I think it'd be best for players who merch frequently to share more about what they think of the current spot hogging / botting situation, and what kind of solutions they think best fit the game.

 

As someone has correctly pointed out in the other thread but I'll clarify here too - spot hogging and spot stealing are two different things. Spot hogging in itself is entirely legal up to this point. It is spot stealing for which the legality is often questioned - are they using a bot, a hack, etc. Once the spot ownership belongs to an individual they have no need to use a bot, because that spot is already theirs.

In this particular instance, the spot was held since the server went up and as someone correctly pointed out to you, the motive, intent or need to bot/hack does not exist - all fm spots are free until they are taken by players.

The OP in that thread's solution (which is what you are imposing by disconnection) is a potential fix to spot hogging but does not address spot stealing where botters may actually be present. In fact, it is likely to worsen the amount of botters around stealing FM spots because it enforces shops to be open, meaning all players are able to see when the shop is closed. This means for any planned transfer of spot ownership the risk of spots getting stolen by botters and hackers what-have-you is then increased.

I'm not saying that spot hogging, spot selling or spot stealing is right morally but under the current TnCs only using macrobots / hacks for the purpose of stealing spots is what is a bannable offence. It is difficult to prove, yes, but in this situation it is extremely unlikely because the server was literally just reset. I can see why this has occurred to be a believable claim from your part as staff, however, and respect your responsibility as staff to investigate any claims which you feel are legitimate (or illegitimate, for that matter).

It might feel ridiculous to hog a spot for hours without opening it but to be that is no different from someone opening a shop with a blue snail shell for 2.1b on a spot, nor is it any different from any of the other shops selling anything, even though the action itself might seem like a dick move. What is different is that ownership transfer of said spot is probably safer and less likely to be taken advantage of by true overlapping botters as no one can physically see when the shop is closed again. I am of course biased as I also frequently give spare fm spots to friends and I have no qualms in doing so - I much rather my friends have access to spots than strangers because honestly, I don't even know them. For the players who pmed me after the last patch all saying "can u pls move > ur taking 2 spots", sorry if I sound like a dick but I have every right to do so. What makes you think I should give the extra spot to you, when I can give it to my friends? What makes you think you deserve the spot any more than any of the others who pmed, let alone my friends who I'm actually willing to share the FM spots with?

I do merch frequently but feel as though having a voice from only merchers would make this discussion prone to bias. As such, if there are differing opinions I am keen to hear them - please remain civil as Kai said, as I do not want this thread to degrade to a flame war.

 

Abuse of power. No GM should threaten a player for doing something certainly within the law. The fact that the, "open your shop or I will disconnect you" card was played, followed by a 30 second timer created for everyone to see, followed by proclaiming to everyone the spot will be up for grabs after the timer hits zero is absolutely abuse of power and a threat not deserved by anyone. I won't forget to mention when asked about the reasoning for this action, "this is MY rule" was the response. Within terms and conditions, if anyone wants to hold a Channel 1 Free Market 1 spot and not open their shop for any finite period of time, they are absolutely able to do so. Sure it may be a waste of space, but that person has the right to do whatever they want with that spot as they earned that real estate within the Free Market. All this because of what? Players who want that spot messaged complaining about something they can't have? Sucks for them. Suck it up and go find another spot like everyone else. That's just the way it goes in the Free Market.

This situation was handled very poorly and I believe @Kai should be warned at the minimum.

 

Everything you mentioned is the standard procedure I take when dealing with such cases. Ask anyone else who reported a suspected shop botter, I'm sure they'll tell you that I publicly set up a timer as well. When I say 30 seconds, I mean 30 seconds. Not 29. Not 31. 30 solid seconds. If a suspect failed to respond to me, that's when I disconnect him. Maybe I should explicitly state that every GM has his/her own ways of dealing with cases. This is just my way. We're not given a manual on how to do things. When given this job, we're trusted to use our best judgement.

The report I received was about a potential shop botter. If the report was regarding shop hogging, I honestly wouldn't have done a thing about it. When I arrived in the map, there were about... 10 players-ish crowding BoredXZ. Maybe you can enlighten me on what kind of inference could I have possibly made, if not for "Hmm... this looks weird, is this guy really a botter? Probably good to check him out." which is pretty much what I did.

Let me clarify on the "this is MY rule" part. Indeed I said something along the line of "if you have the spot use it, my rule is that simple". But it's clearly taken out of context here. How I do things, basically depends on the set of rules I decide for myself. Catching a hacker? Make sure the server warns me about it first. Next, check the player out and observe. If he's hacking, ban. This is my rule. Player being reported as a suspected shop botter? Check him/her out. Call him/her out, give him 30 seconds to respond. If he doesn't assume the worst (i.e. shop botter) and disconnect him/her. This is the rule I used when handling such cases. Basically, "rule" here pretty much means "standard operating procedure".

What you mentioned about people being able to hold a spot for however long they like, as long as they obtained it, that is correct. But, if you're being reported as a suspected cheater, you leave Staff (not just me) no choice but to check in on you. Unfortunately, BoredXZ was reported.

Looking back, I don't think I'll change how I handle such cases, because there's simply no reason to. My process works, and it saves time. TLR if you're approached by staff to give a respond within a period of time, simply cooperate and do so. This applies to not just in FM, but anywhere else in the game. I have the tendency of going around popular farming maps to check on people by saying "This is a random bot check, please respond within 30s" and players willingly responded "?" or "hello" to me since that tells me they're legit.

Also, I hope players will stop being selfish and learn to be more gracious (i.e. don't hog the spot for no justifiable reason. See my 1st reply). I don't see why such a minor incident can be blown out of proportion, perhaps because I don't merch as much so I'm unable to relate. All I'm asking for (or Staff in general) is for players to cooperate when we're doing our duties and things will be fine.

If after all that I've said, and you still aren't convinced that I'm just trying to do my job, feel free to reach out to an Admin (Tim, Matt or Andreas) to lodge a complaint against me (I believe I suggested that to you and Latias and you said something along the line of how this doesn't affect you since you're not being reported, so you're not bothered by it, but your respond clearly tells otherwise). If given a chance, would I do things differently? No. Until the day we can decide as a community on what's the best solution for such cases, I'll continue doing what I've doing all along, if and when I receive a report about it. Period.

 

No harm no foul guys, move along.

 

You can't. The GM should had left it alone. Despite the fact it was just hours after the reset, it's extremely hard to prove. It wasn't in his right to subjectively make the conclusion that he was botting just because he didn't respond in thirty seconds. The said person that had DC'ed rightfully claimed the spot as his. Let me clarify Kai's motive based on the screenshot, he DC'ed said person due to hogging, which isn't a legitimate reason to DC. There are many people who hog CH1 free market spots until the next reset. Should a GM take action against them? No, because it was rightfully claimed.

Quite frankly, I think that's a terrible system in place. For many reasons. One of those reasons being that your judgement is not flawless, you DCing a player because you think he is a potential botter is under the premise of guilty until proven to be innocent which is hardly reasonable and fair. But your reason to DC was due to hogging, which is another wrong in itself.

 

Suspected shop botting. I'd have never entertained the report if it was for hogging.

 

Please don't resort to straw man arguments. Because that is not what I'm saying.

As per the screenshot you have literally said you been actively getting rid of afkers who are hogging spots. Hogging does not necessarily correlate with suspicious botting. Should people who hog FM1 spots until next reset should be dc'ed based on your judgement? Even if it was suspected shop botting, is the premise of guilty until proven innocent even right in this scenario?

 

This is kind of besides the point of this thread, I think. However, put it this way, if I submit a report right now that claimed you were a hacker without any proof or any legitimate explanation whatsoever, are staff then obliged to go and find you and somehow prove that you're not?

Personally I think reports for breaches in the TnCs should be exercised by staff with a certain degree of caution and as far as I am aware very few players are banned without definitive proof nowadays. I'd like to again reiterate that banning / exercising other GM powers upon players without concrete evidence should be exercised with a high degree of caution because the current policy on this server is that if these are wrongful bans / actions, these players do not receive any form of compensation whatsoever. I'm sure all staff are acutely aware of this.

As I said, in this particular situation Kai thought he witnessed a believable report and approached the scene to investigate. There is nothing wrong with this in itself as any staff would approach a report that they feel warrants investigation. However, the subsequent actions that were taken, including expecting a response from said player I do not feel is an adequate reflection of if they are botting or otherwise breaching the TnCs though because like I said, Kai reached the scene at a point where botting is no longer relevant - he already has spot ownership. Similarly the report was likely misleading in the first place because unless the reporting player was present during the time in which the spot was first claimed, he would not have any clue whether the spot was taken legitimately or using a bot.

I can personally say in this instance I was present when BoredXZ took the spot, and that spot was empty at that point in time. I can say this because my shop is right next to his in 1-1 and we logged into the server at essentially the same time.

Thus, for lack of a better word, threatening to disconnect a player if there is no response in 30 seconds at this point in time does not reflect if they are botting or not, nor do I think disconnecting a player is justified in this instance (or any instance, for that matter).

Again, this is a general feedback thread that I hope allows members of the community to discuss the wider issue of FM spot ownership and its transfers and the underlying issue of FM spot botting, and how staff should respond when approached with reports of this nature. Please do not treat this as a personal tact against Kai, BoredXZ, the original reporter or any others involved. There are no hard feelings here and I want to keep this as civilised and respectful as possible, and as a community that is something I think we can achieve whilst bringing constructive input and discussion.

 

Allow me to reiterate my previous post which was apparently deleted. You can't. The GM should had left it alone. Despite the fact it was just hours after the reset, it's extremely hard to prove. It wasn't in his right to subjectively make the conclusion that he was botting just because he didn't respond in thirty seconds. The said person that had DC'ed rightfully claimed the spot as his. Let me clarify Kai's motive based on the screenshot, he DC'ed said person due to hogging, which isn't a legitimate reason to DC. There are many people who hog CH1 free market spots until the next reset. Should a GM take action against them? No, because it was rightfully claimed.

Also for that second part on what you said, I'm not attacking Kai? Also he literally said he was.

Agreed.

 

You do know that the conversation spans beyond the screenshot you seen above right? May this can put things slightly more in context.



I think I've mentioned enough that I approached BoredXZ because of a report on a suspected shop botter. I'm fine repeating it once or twice, but it's started to get annoying that I've to repeat more than that.

I would like to remind everyone to remain civil. This thread is starting to derail into a flame war.

Edit 1: With regards to your screenshot, maybe mine would provide some context. We can all take things out of context, when not presented with the full picture. When I say afker (as shown in your screenshot), I'm referring to botters. From the start, to the end.

 

I do not intend to take sides here but I wish to confirm something. Was the spot BoredXZ stood (hogged or whateva) occupied by anyone else before BoredXZ took over? Or was BoredXZ the first one to grab and claim as his hired merchant space right after the server check?

In the report for suspicious FM botter, did the reporters provide evidence or eye-witnessed claims of BoredXZ snatching/stealing/taking over that spot from a previous owner or did they just see someone not opening a shop for hours while having the possession of the space?

 

He was the first owner since the server went up.