Let me repeat again that multi-accounting is still fine as long as it does not threaten the economy or ecosystem. What people can do to threaten the economy, I don’t know at this point. Thank goodness, nobody has done anything similar so far.
1 Like
What exactly is a simple script, what exactly impacts the economy? Even though that only 1% of the hardcore geeks might be using scripts, we do need to clarify every little aspect for everyone.
I´ve seen so many people coding crazy stuff for CU already (and also coding stuff to extract more value such as the guy who minted 20 Mythic lands more than a year ago and immediately flipped them), that there is most likely also people using stuff to automatize things. We need clarification for everything.
So it is my fault for not keeping up with every patch note and not LGs fault for implementing bugs? (see above my example of questboards f.e.)
As I said, many people might not even be aware of a bug and/or might not know whether thats severe or not. Sometimes, you might fall behind for not using a “bug feature” because all the others do, but you didnt have the balls to do it because it might get you banned even though it was somewhat okay? We need clarification.
Because its CRYPTO Unicorns. This is not all about being fun and being worried that my level 30 Mage in World of Warcraft gets banned. This is about LOTS of money and fun.
And all my money being gone or not depends on the decisions of a couple of teammembers. With humans being involved, there is always and will always be a risk of being accused falsely. There has been people sitting in jail for all their life for having done nothing wrong.
2 Likes
Please do not focus on the “simple script” part and focus on the negative impact on the economy. Anything that threatens a possible collapse of the CU economy is a negative impact. I would think simple clickers are fine since they don’t really impact the greater economy. Again, the key is on the impact on the economy. Anything that sets us to a path of economic instability, I believe, should be bannable.
I also thought that the first questionable ban might cause even early players to start selling assets or stop upgrading their lands and unicorns. And after such a case, it will be very difficult to attract new players.
And again, how does this relate to web3, when the assets belong to you, but at the same time, someone can say that they are no longer yours. Even the current “air-locks” in the game annoy me, that I can’t manage my assets without a game client, it’s hard to imagine the feeling of a ban.
While it’s in my head that there may be clear rules about game hacks or smart contracts, it’s hard to imagine the rest without negative consequences for the reputation of our project. It seems to me easier to make changes in the game that will not allow the use of scripts that harm the economy than to sort out player complaints about incomprehensible bans. Again, developers can make temporary asset freezes (you can manage them, but you can’t use them in the game until the unfreeze, for example, 3 days) when moving between accounts, as is done in other games, if you don’t like that people use NFT on different accounts to get an advantage.
4 Likes
For now, what I can see is that the concern is the clarification on Sybil Attacks and how it’s different from multi-accounting. I’ll look into that. The other concern is a possible warning system so I’ll also look into that. I’ll probably make revisions next week. Thanks for the comments so far!
Edit: The other concern is the clarity needed on what scripts are bannable so I’ll also look into that. Please keep the comments coming so that I’ll have a lot of information prior to any revision. Thanks again!
Edit #2: I would like to clarify that the goal is to protect our ecosystem and community. It is not meant to punish the players. This is why it’s essential to be specific on the parts that need to worked on to ensure that we keep the bad actors out while keeping our players safe.
2 Likes
Can you give us all 2-3 examples for this then? I am no programmer at all (unfortunately 
) so I cannot even imagine what you mean by that. It might be clear to some what you mean by that (even though the other replies in this thread seem to be on my side of not knowing what you mean)… But for all the others that dont have experience, please clarify. What would be okay and what are 2-3 examples that will be banned? How do you measure the negative impact?
1 Like
Community,
Firstly, I would like to say I agree with all the below replies and I am thrilled to see the community voice their concerns in unison in what I believe is the most critical proposal for the future of our game.
This post will be focused on the vagueness and lack of clarity of the proposal and also the risks this proposal poses in regards to a popularity contest. There is many other potential risks I see in this proposal in regards to decentralisation and loss of “Daw”, but I want to focus on lack of clarity as I feel the team needs to give us a more in-depth proposal with specifics details, before we talk about the other risks it may pose.
Now I know many people already have brought up the issue of a “popularity contest” and it has been conveyed effectively, but I would like to also share my feelings on this and why I am not only shocked by this proposal but honestly, very scared.
Not scared because I exploit the game, scared because I am not liked.
A lot of the community not only know me from discord but would dislike me. And that’s okay. I can accept that. I can be aggressive, negative and over-critical at times. I know. But, believe it or not, it all comes from a passion for this game. Nobody wants this game to succeed more than me. I have been here since day 1, I have been very active and I have put a huge amount of money into the eco. I don’t ever sell assets and I am regularly buying. So put aside your dislike for me please and forgot my negativity for a minute, and see that although I may be negative in discord, when it comes to the ecosystem and game, I am actually quite a positive community member.
So why am I telling you all this? Why am I making this all about me? All valid questions.
Simply, because I want you to see exactly what I am feeling right now and see the extent to the damage this proposal in its current form could cause.
I could not list the amount of fights I have had in discord to date. Not only with general community members but with Council Members and staff. Just yesterday I was arguing with Aron.
This proposal opens up the possibility of a popularity contest. How will I fare in that? Not well I believe. Should my net worth take a huge loss just because people have a grudge against me?
I could be easily reported and targeted, innocent of exploitation, guilty of being unliked. This proposal is based on the judgement calls of all the people I have had run-ins with. Not only that, but my interpretation of it is, “Guilty until proven innocent”. I am not saying anyone would get me banned because of their personal feelings towards me, but this proposal allows a tiny chance for this to happen. Many of the important people who could help me appeal a ban and prove my innocence of exploitation aren’t going to help me after I have had fights with them. And I wouldn’t blame them. Why would they stick their neck out for me?
If this proposal goes to vote in current form, I will be liquidating all assets, immediately. This is not a threat. This is not a power trip. This is a my only option. I can’t risk a chunk of my net worth on a proposal based on popularity with no clarity or specific details. The Crypto meme of “trust me bro” comes to mind when I read this proposal. We have to put a lot of trust in the judgement of LG on banning.
This is not acceptable. - Innocent people will get caught in this.
This is not decentralization.
This is not web3. - This banning procedure is exactly what I would expect from a centralized company like Activision.
I not only welcome replies but I urge them. I may have interpreted some details of proposal wrong as I am honestly in panic mode and welcome correction. Also, its very hard to interpret this proposal correctly when there is so little specifics.
Apologies for the long winded reply, but I wanted to make all my feelings and worries clear in the hopes that other voices, may come forward and talk about their personal concerns. I thank you if you made it this far and I hope you really think about what this means for our game.
Before I go, I leave you with one last question to ponder; How many people are going to have similar fears as me and leave game?
Yours Sincerely,
One of the Discord villain’s that you love to hate! 
Bigmc19
(P.S. I left CU discord and won’t be returning. I think its best for all. Especially me, as I can’t afford to ruffle any more feathers in there, just in case this crazy popularity contest proposal actually passes)
9 Likes
You realise that bot activity has made up for a significant portion of the existing economy? The funny thing here is that banning bots before the implementation of delegation would do the exact thing you’re trying to prevent with these extraordinarily vague rules.
Hello, @Bigmc19! I would like to address your main concern re: the popularity contest thing:
No, you cannot get banned simply because someone reported you. Different techniques will be used to monitor and investigate in-game and on-chain behaviors. The proposal does not seek to ban players - it seeks to ban bad actors, people that will exploit us, and get us rekt. Normal players should not be affected here.
The voting will only be for the unban only. This is for those who have been proven to have exploited CU and have subsequently been banned. For these cases, the DAO can decide whether to let them back in or not.
This proposal isn’t in its final form and can still be revised to ensure we do not unnecessarily threaten normal players like yourself.
Hi Nanessa,
Thank you for your reply.
Firstly, just want to note, that all these fears are based on a worst case scenario, I am not saying that any of this will actually happen to me but in web3 this is not enough. We need 100% transparency and clarity! We have too much to lose. Crypto is the wild west, legality and rules is very much still a grey area. So when there is on ounce of doubt, crypto users need to mitigate risk.
Your reply to my post kind of proves how the proposal really lacks clarity and specific details. If it was clearer, my post would probably not have been needed. Clearly, I have interpreted some parts of the proposal incorrectly. Your corrections are a big relief to me so thank you.
Of course I know this is only a draft and very glad to hear there will be changes to it. But we have to address them right now on the first draft before the revised version is added so our views can be taken into consideration.
This proposal is the most important one to date in my opinion, and will have huge impact on the future of this game. This can’t be rushed and I hope your team is open to taking their time before you put forward a revised proposal.
Looking forward to seeing the revised version and I hope that will ease all my concerns in previous post.
Just to note, I have many more major concerns regarding the proposal but I focused on the lack of clarity as I think we the community can’t tackle any of the other concerns, (Like banning assets goes against decentralisation and the whole point of web3) until we have more details.
Exploiters need to be stopped. 100%. Who we consider an exploiter and how we deal with them needs a huge amount of care and consideration however.
I look forward to seeing changes to the proposal and hope my post may of helped a little in your team’s thought process on this proposal going forward.
With regards,
2 Likes
Funny thing is … I just play the game and don’t use ANY scripts. Not going to sell me on this perspective. If you were in Sunflower Lands and they caught you doing this they would ban you.
Personally, I am not a fan of scripts in any way. Play the game the way it is intended, which is click on the buttons is where I am at.
1 Like
I see no issues with this proposal. In fact, I am surprised as a community we waited this long for something like this. The fact that bots; multiple aliases and other things are still going on is something I would have thought was already addressed. In fact, I thought it was part of the general rules, but reading this I see it is not.
So, yes… 100% behind this… let’s stop the cheating; automating; fake accounts; and whatever else is going on.
1 Like
I don’t mind discussion that is generally good discord. We can discuss and disagree. I don’t think that is the problem they are really trying to get at in the proposal. You and I have had some good discussions and that is OK. There are other situations that are not. Personally, I have seen your comments in Discord and while I don’t always agree I don’t personally see anything wrong with your posts from a “we should ban” someone.
I do agree we need to watch that this does not turn into a witch hunt. This is not about burning down your neighbor’s house to get ahead in the community. I would hope we go into this process with a careful eye on who is “reporting” who and why and watch to ensure that it is not malicious just to report folks because … well that will get you ahead.
This proposal feels very WEB2 and defeats the main purpose of NFT gaming, which is about true possession of ones assets.
A lot of traditional game breaking bugs are simply not possible due to the nature of the blockchain.
And some of the things that are ban able in this proposal are not the fault of the player but of LG.
For example Evolving unicorns on another wallet makes sense, in fact if you have the patience (locking and unlocking) for it there is zero reason to continue evolving on your primary wallet.
And although I never did it because I have PTSD from getting locked out, I can’t fault the people who have. Because this is a design flaw and NOT an exploit.
I have been playing games for a very long time and let me tell you something, you do not win this battle. LG you do not win this at all. And considering the nature of this game, there is zero reason to fight this losing battle.
If Blizzard-Activision, Epic, EA can’t win the battle against cheating and bots… You guys absolutely will not. And you have zero incentive to try, in the end any form of botting/scripting
should from my understanding be in the form of automations and thus should not be more impactful than delegation. In fact if delegation were a thing this needn’t even be a subject of conversation.
This is going to be a very large waste of treasury funds to put it mildly.
This above comment exemplifies everything wrong with this proposal and many things wrong with our current society. In it’s current form this proposal is essentially the CU version of the Patriot Act, we shall sign away all our rights because somewhere out there, there could possibly be someone who maybe might have some type of nefarious intentions.
That being said the wording of this proposal was very grey and vague, and it sends the absolute wrong message to the community. But I understand the underlying spirit of the proposal and thus I shall respond to it as well.
We as a community (and I include LG in that usage of community) wish to safeguard our assets by safeguarding the economy, and there is a fear of bad actors abusing systems either through malicious gameplay OR even an actual hack of some sort. And as we as a community and an ecosystem grow the odds of this happening also grow. And bad actors are thus not just a possibility but are an inevitability.
What we need to think about is in what form will these exploits occur? And how will we deal with them? Here are a few ways I see we may get exploited and logical solutions to approaching these issues
1). I think we should assume that the smart contracts are safe, otherwise that in itself also defeats the purpose of WEB3 gaming. And if we doubt that assumption then perhaps more regular security audits should be a thing?
2.) The bug bounty program just like marketing needs to be front and center.
Perhaps larger rewards and making it more easily accessible, either way this in itself is a huge deterrent. And should be a main priority
3.) Immediate action. There needs to be a more direct line of communication for reporting game breaking bugs/exploits and it is NOT acceptable to wait until the next maintenance/patch cycle before doing something. Shutting down the servers NEEDS to be on the table. It needs to be an option to say we will go into an emergency maintenance mode. If anything it can be a council responsibility to asses the severity of an exploit/bug and if it needs immediate action. We also need to have a cheat sheet of what those actions are depending on how severe the issue. The key is to be prepared for the worst case scenarios.
4.) In cases where a bug/design-flaw was abused in the past, consider the recent farm debacle as an example. It should be a given that we can impose restraints not on the assets but on the gameplay impact. For example what LG did by imposing a global limit on farm plots was a good move.
5.) Now the following is purely explorational so I urge readers to take it with a grain of salt! If we are scared of economy breaking impacts and wish to grant LG more power to handle potential troublemakers within the ecosystem my suggestion is that we reanalyze LG’s ability to deal with non crypto assets (crafting materials for example). While maintaining the immutability and decentralization of crypto assets and thus preserving our rights as players, community members… And above all else investors.
This proposal may in fact be the most important proposal we have seen to date, and many important conversation points have been raised. But it remains of the upmost importance that we keep in mind what we stand for as a potential pillar of the WEB3 gaming ecosytem. The world is watching.
5 Likes
I agree with much of the above discussion. There needs to be more clarity on what is considered economy breaking and what isn’t.
At what point would you consider it to potentially break the economy? Is it if it causes more RBW/UNIM extraction than could be obtained through gameplay actions?
What do you consider leaderboard manipulation? Would an example be people using unicorns they didn’t own in Team RPG?
Is there any reason the time limit on the appeals process is 7 days? What if someone decides to touch grass for a few weeks and comes back to an unappealable permanent ban? How do you intend to alert the user that they have been banned so that they have ample opportunity to make their defense?
1 Like
Lets talk again when you´ve been banned because of how vague the proposal is and you simply didnt know that you did something wrong. Will you still be fine with it when you lose thousands of dollars out of nowhere? (If you even have such a big stack, I am not familiar with your size)
Hi Goliath,
Firstly, thank you for your reply.
My post was entirely based on worst case scenarios and also the proposal’s presentation to us which has zero clarity. Felt like we were been told trust LG, trust in the process. That doesn’t work, we need 100% transparency. Our assets are too valuable.
Just to note; Nanessa has cleared up some of my biggest concerns in her reply but we need them in writing. That proposal didn’t give us specific details so my mind jumped to the worst possible situation for me. Which is understandable when you have a huge amount of money on the line, you panic.
On the banning for my discord comments part, my main worry was not just community members trying to get me banned.
My first interpretation of the proposal was this;
Players with a grudge with me could report me.
I then have mods who may have grudge against me deliberating on my case and because there is zero clarification and no specific details on what exploiting is, I could easily be banned by a biased interpretation of the rules. Their proposal leaves the community at the complete mercy of LG who can change their mind regularly and hand out different bans based on personal opinions. We need clear and concise rules that there is zero room for biases to creep in.
I don’t trust LG. I don’t trust Mods. I don’t trust the Community. In web3, I trust no1. Not a slight on anyone, just I want to be safe when my net worth on the line. Its too dangerous. LG don’t seem to get this. They refuse to embrace web3. We are not web2. you can’t just go to web3 and get the easy funding and then decide to want to be a web2 game and follow EA and activision rules. Self custody and decentralisation matter!
Now after I am banned, to get an appeal I have to go to Government council, who I think I have had a fight with pretty much all, should they decide if I am ruined financially? Banning the actual assets and expecting us to trust this proposal is an absolutely mockery of web3 gaming.
Let’s say by miracle, I make it past gov council, I then have to win a vote in community. Few whales don’t like me and I am done. How do I even know that LG won’t use their 200m RBW…
Now as mentioned before, this is worst case scenario and Nanessa has corrected me on few things, but until its in writing and while my financial well being is on the line, I demand new proposal with clarity or I have to leave the game…
Your last couple of lines of your reply sums up what I want perfectly. I want more details. I want to feel safe that I can’t be targeted.
Appreciate your response.
With regards,
2 Likes
Hello, again! I understand everyone’s perspective thus far. I want to again reassure everyone that this is just the initial stage.
Based on the conversations I’ve seen here and on Discord, it appears that many agree on the necessity of a Ban Policy. The main concern expressed is the lack of clarity regarding specific offenses, which has understandably led to apprehension. This is precisely what the ongoing discussion period is meant for - to allow us to continuously revise and develop a well-crafted policy that safeguards our shared ecosystem while ensuring that no innocent parties are unjustly penalized. As the decision will ultimately be made by the DAO, we should look to continue iteration in the next few days.
I continue to look to the community for additional feedback prior to any major revision. Thank you!
2 Likes
I agree with the overall sentiment that the proposal is vague and not in the spirit of web3.
When delegation comes out, if my scholar finds a new lucrative way to use some new future mechanic (kinda like the farming “bug” [in quotation marks because it was part of the game that got past QA/QC and they played the game normally] where you could plant event seeds over and over for big farm boosts), now that means ALL my assets are at risk for being forever locked and my account banned. You’re spending time, effort, and resources to create a delegation system that now I don’t know if I want to use for fear of the new vague terms and immediate bans.
“Temporary Ban” isn’t a temporary ban. It’s a permanent ban with a 7 day appeal phase. Poor wording.
No warning? What is this nonsense? If you flag an account give them a warning and an actual 7 day temporary ban. If they continue with doing what they’re doing after they have been warned at that point they are at risk for a stricter punishment.
Never ever should my assets be held hostage from me due to some bug that fits the vague criteria, or a scholar playing the game in a way that may or may not fit within the vague guidelines. If this is the case we will find other web3 games to play that are actually decentralized. A company shouldn’t get to hold all my assets from me.
1 Like
Just a couple quick thoughts. Please think about what happened when people started listing locked assets on OS. This hurt economy and by all means could be subject to these rules. Being in discord I watched dozens of well meaning people lose all there rewards caught up in being false flagged. Many did not have happy endings. A year later LG still cant deal with this and OS never fixed it. LG does not have the capacity to enforce and mediate cases like this. We have a year of evidence backing this statement.
Yes I am for banning actors who try to cripple the game or steal from the treasury.
LG has always said that we own our assetts and are free to come and go from the economy. As this is true in nearly all of Web3. It has been shown not to be true in CU since launch. Even this week I witness uses who are unable to use there nfts that are locked into the game as they are stuck in limbo. These people truely do not have control of their nft’s. If they did they could buy or sell them and unlock them anytime they wished. If we are to implement a rule where nfts can be locked and banned without notice with a ban. Then we are not Web3. LG needs to make a choice. Are we Web3 and own are assetts. Or web2 and merely have persmission to use them and no ownership.
I know the spirit of this proposal is good. I understand why it is me proposed. But I would listen to the community. Gain feedback. And relook at how it is written and think about being very clear with a new revision.
Main question. Am I wrong here. Does banned mean your assets are locked in game and or can never be bought or sold again. Blacklisted on Hawku sounds like they can not be bought or sold there. But there are other markets. What if a player buys them there and then trys to play. How would team deal with this.
Just my thoughts. Look forward to constructive thoughts and replys from community.
I am sure everything will be just fine. So everyone please relax and ask your best questions.
2 Likes