Gold buying enforcement thread

[Itsapov]

Want to open up a non-judgmental discussion about RMT.
Nobody here supports it, but the enforcement side has nuance worth thinking through together.

Gold buyer profile (on average)
From what I've seen,(on official) most gold buyers are endgame raiders. They show up consistently, run content with guildies, and are often among the more active players on the server.

They buy because they see farming as dead time between them and the content they want to play. When they level an alt, they either self boost or juice them up with gear, like Fiery Weapon at level 1, new weapons every 10 levels etc. They are usually big spenders, because the entire point is removing friction.


Household and shared-IP situations
On a private server, household members share an IP. A ban on one player can affect a spouse, sibling, or child who never bought gold. Account-level enforcement should probably be the default. When IP action is necessary, household members who weren't involved need an appeal path.

What's likely most fair for buyers
First offense: full gold removal and a two-week ban.
Second offense: permanent ban.

Reasoning:
Gold removal takes away whatever they gained from the transaction. The two-week ban costs two raid lockouts. Real money gone, gold gone, and two weeks on the sideline with nothing to show for it.

Why 1 warning is better than instant perma:
1. socially shamed - which active players care about.
2. wasted their money
3. Someone that buys a second time, will also buy a third time because they don't care.

Sellers
Permanent ban on identification.
Sellers operate on disposable accounts and cause outsized damage through botting, node camping, and inflation. One active seller visibly distorts the economy within days at our scale.

There is an argument for "observe behavior" to catch more accounts before banning but not sure if its worth it.

Why the asymmetry
A seller's account is disposable. They have no emotional attachment.
A buyer's account often has hundreds of hours of legitimate play behind it. They're in fundamentally different situations, and the enforcement can reflect that.

Graduated enforcement gives someone one real chance to course correct. After that, the line is the line.

My take: of "most fair" (welcome to disagree)
Buyers: account only, 2 strike rule, ip if strong evidence supports it.
sellers: IP, perma

Curious where people land on this.

[Wubc]

Why 1 warning is better than instant perma:
1. socially shamed - which active players care about.
2. wasted their money
3. Someone that buys a second time, will also buy a third time because they don't care.

All of these apply even if it is a permant ban on first buying offense. You can be named and shamed, you will have wasted our money. Someone who does not care, will also go from first offense to second especially when they are allowed to...

Why the asymmetry
A seller's account is disposable. They have no emotional attachment.
A buyer's account often has hundreds of hours of legitimate play behind it. They're in fundamentally different situations, and the enforcement can reflect that.

Graduated enforcement gives someone one real chance to course correct. After that, the line is the line.

The buyer has a chance to course correct. Start from scratch, don't cheat. They are still able to play.


I do not see why we need any leniency towards people who knowingly go out of their way to break rules. This only lowers the risk of attempting it...

[Itsapov]

I do not see why we need any leniency towards people who knowingly go out of their way to break rules.

Fair counter argument honestly. They knew the rules and chose to break them anyway. If they quit, yeah could be seen as a good thing for the overall server health.

The reason I made the argument was because a 2-week ban for people that are not active gold buyers would probably accomplish the same without losing an active player.

to me the "ideal buyer response" is:
They "try it" -> "they get caught" -> "omg never again, thank you for not perma banning me" but maybe that's wishful thinking, not sure, why I wanted to open it up for discussion in a way that does not frame buyers as the villain.

[Mrsneed]

I actually think allowing RMTers to come back after a ban is too lenient and would be in full support of a kernel-level ban from the server altogether. Granted I'm not in favor of giving kernel-level access to anything, rather this is just a means to express just how much I don't want to see or interact with anyone doing RMT ever.