Ban Policy Implementation

100% against. For one simple reason:

“blacklisting assets and locking them in game”.
If this passes I can 100% guarantee you I am immediately unlocking all my assets and dumping everything. because you just became a centralized game at that point and there is literally no point in supporting the project anymore at that point.

this is web3 - innovate a way to de-incentivize behavior. You start acting like Blizzard or Paypal and locking my shit … Byebye.


What has changed that these types of measures are now being considered? Is there something we as a community should be made aware of? Because afaik the game was getting exploited since dark forest act 1 and we never considered the quite frankly drastic measures we are considering now.

1 Like

I will quote on this, trust me, bug bounty makes you not want to report anymore to the team. They will just slap you with same reason such as “by game design” but the funny thing is, they acknowledge the exploit and will just “keep an eye” on it until you know it was exploited by a lot already.

My post about this issue was flagged as it contains sensitive info that may lead on people finding out the exploit. But bug bounty is a joke. They even comment on one report that due to the fact that the reported bug/exploit is still theoretical, they won’t award the user the bug bounty as there is still not much data available, but after the exploit went mainstream and garnered a lot of public attention, bug bounty got awarded to the latest reporter and saying to the first one that they awarded the latest one due to it being a “live” issue.

So we ask them if they want the bug to be exploited first by the community before they acknowledge the bug as a true issue.

LG on pinpointing what is an exploit or not is very flawed so before they implement such rules, they better be accurate and precise on what they deemed as a bug or exploit or just scraped some of the rules as it contradicts their way of handling things.


@Dipbeak already stated what I wanted to ask as a specifics for this issue, the serious discussions in discord already has provided the requirements of what is needed to be specified.

Exactly so why did we even need to put them in the voting for public, if zendesk already confirmed their banning? you guys are “confident” on your tools right?. there is a lot of this in Serious that needs to be catched up on this. i dont want to repeat what was said there.

LG is part of DAO, so why not call out those players and present evidence that they are doing something really malicious? and before stating that it is malicious. LG should present what is considerred malicious and that moving forward let this be the standard. The problem here is that LG has not provided its stance on what is Right or wrong and what is breaking thier ToS and not. so for them to ask for a nuclear bomb to nuke someone, you can’t just do that step because you havent even told us what is bad and what isn’t. Yeah i get it. you posted a proposal with a General intent of what is the clause is but still you have to specify which ones are the ones that you’re seeing right now because no one knows what the hell is going everytime, we cant always follow what you’ve posted or what you said in some random thread. . after the rules are established then you can start working on that ban whatever. the big reason why people are jumping on this is that you’re already asking for a weapon and we dont even know what the “enemy” is doing yet.

  1. Set a Consesus rules which we all agree on.
  2. Create severity based on what was agreed on.
  3. Set Punishment according to severity.

This is not new in any space of rule making. you also have the right to ban them, like right now. if they are really breaking the rules and doing something bad in the economy, even up until today. you can also have warning systems to indicate who is and who isn’t. didnt you guys have our email addresses and discords that are tied in our wallets? . shouldn’t you guys have that ability to contact them or send them some type of warning IN-GAME that what ever they are doing is wrong before you purge the hell out of them? so why are we putting this proposal like as if you are going to target someone?. it puts people in anxiety as you didnt state clear rules of what is “proper” game function or not. You know I file a lot of bug reports from your Zendesk. and you know some of it is VERY exploitable . and yet people dont know they are actually already exploiting the system. there was even one time on the Farming where i asked you if you want to put certain restrictions on me and you guys never put any. so if i had abused it. (which i didnt). you have nothing to chase from me because you never indicated any specifics or terms of use.


here is another example of Bug i reported to you yesterday.


Unicorn Hunt quest says that the energy required for that is Zero . this is from a known Story Chain quest and you added these as new values. these people are doing those quest right now with 0 energy where areas last time it takes 1 energy to complete. so if someone keeps doing that quest to get thru it then it means they are able to technically “exploit” the system because they were able to pass thru w/o using any energy at all .

of course you may pass this as they are not abusing the system etc etc because its your fault. but where do you draw this line? like on the speed farm plot that you said was part of game design. people made noise about it several times players harrassed me for it with some people DM’ing me about it. and yet you treated it as Tier 3. when it could have been game breaking when it was exploited. was it only Tier 3 because We [yes there are few of us] didn’t exploit it? sometimes what you guys do are very subjective, sometimes and it puts us on the feeling that you can just ban anyone you dont like that are in the system. im not saying you will but its exploitable in an extent and we wont want that to happen in this community.

going back : WE DO NOT HAVE A CLEAR LINE OR WHERE WE CAN PASS. there are times that we ask you but you never provide. so as a player in the same space why would we just want to walk on our own eggshells and when you find something you didn’t like you will just jump for a ban?



So now LG team wants to report any flaws or vulnerabilities even if it’s theoretical or hypothetical, as long as it can affect the sustainability of the ecosystem, right after they reject a same case bug/exploit? I feel robbed if I am the one who reported it. I might focus on obtaining the bug first instead of reporting it. Might as well inform others to get it as well then share the rewards with us, after all it is not an exploit if it’s not “LIVE”

Agree that bug bounty is a joke and this proposal is vague


Since we dont experience what the team and devs do on the back end of servers. It might really help sway opinion on this proposal if we knew what team and devs have to deal with on a daily basis. Everyone wants game to succeed and game to be safe from bad actors.

1 Like

Maybe it’s easier to make legal automation, even if it costs money.
Let me pay extra to have the beds automatically seeded, and then there will be a benefit to the ripening time.
Or maybe let there be a line of those seeds that need to be sown.
And then the question of bots and scripts may disappear by itself

It is interesting to me to have completely conflicting thoughts on this subject.

  1. Have I been waking up at 5 AM and playing to 11Pm for a year clicking by hand while other people simply played with a bot. How does that make me feel.

  2. If bots have been playing since day 1. How much of our DAU are bots. What would DAU look like without them. Is it better or more healthy for DAO that we keep them until natural real players join.

1 Like

My reaction is … bots need to go and the game economy needs to stand on its own two feet. Players cannot continue to take advantage of the bots forever with the excuse of “we need to look active”. That is where I stand on the matter of bots.

Edits have been made to the initial proposal.


  • Removed Sybil Attack section under Ban Instances and Scenarios
  • Explained which scripts are acceptable under Cheating and Bots in Ban Instances and Scenarios
  • Added a Warning section which explains how the Warning system will work prior to making a temporary suspension
  • Removed the Reporting section
  • Clarified when reinvestigation request is possible and when a DAO appeal is necessary

Please continue the discussion over the next few days. Thank you!

1 Like

I dont think you have to wait until natural real players join, you just need them to give a second option. And as there is no delegation yet whatsoever, I highly suspect that we will see heavy dumping if we actually forbid all bots? Just as much as anyone else I dont have a clue whether it is 10 bots, 100 or 500… But in the worst case scenario this could really shake things up in a really bad way

1 Like

Now it’s more accurate and understandable. Thank you

I agree with Krumpy. If bots and scripts are not completely off the table, it should be clearly stated what operations can and cannot be done by the bots/scripts. I’m currently doing everything manually, but I assume there are many players who are risking their assets right now by using a bot/script to make their farming life easier and limit time spent in the game. Ambiguity does not serve anyone in this situation. If bots are allowed, I will for sure use them as farming really is a mundane process that ties me down to my laptop and controls my daily schedule.

1 Like

The revisions didn’t really change anything.

  1. Exploiters/Hackers don’t care about their asset getting banned, these people are obviously not playing the game and are just looking for quick extraction of value.
  2. Fighting bots is a lost case, how much will you spend fighting these each month ? It is a cat and mouse issue. And allowing scholarship but banning bots which is the same thing is non-sense. Everyone is admitting CU is a chore to play, this is a game design issue. If the options is either get scholars or quit your job, the fact games should be entertainment first is totally lost. On top of that what will you do when scholars will start using bots because these will not care about the assets they don’t own ?
  3. Banning assets is a Web2 strategy, this doesn’t work in Web3.
    1. Web3 is about ownership, banning asset is removing ownership.
    2. Web3 is about interoperability, who will spend his time building interoperability on top of CU (for ex: a sidegame which reuse CU assets) if any assets can just simply be banned because the creator or the DAO want it ?
  4. Everyone fears getting banned, that’s why people asking for a warning system first. Now what about doing “bannable” activities, get a warning, continue, then before the 7 days period is over simply switch the assets to someone else / another account and repeat ?

The whole proposal should just be canceled, it achieve nothing and will only create fear and make lot of people quit.


Can I ask what % of players use bots. And on a different note does the section in TOS that talks about loot boxes mean I could get banned from living in the US. Thanks :heart:

1 Like

There won’t be additional expenses fighting bots. They’ll just be part of normal operations from hereon.

The warning system has been added as per request! We will discuss the loophole you mentioned and make revisions as needed! Appreciate you pointing it out!

Sorry, but that’s rubbish. It still takes resources and time to manage, so there is inevitably a cost - unless you have those resources currently sitting around doing nothing for a wage. Invariably there will be mistakes, appeals and other unexpected outcomes from this that will create additional demand on resources.

Vyona is right, fighting bots in web3 is a lost cause. Many have tried and failed already. What do LG bring to the table that no one else has so far?

I understand the concern. Regardless of the whether others have succeeded or not, we should not abide by the extractive nature of using bots. The fact that it’s difficult should not deter the DAO from protecting its ecosystem from exploitation.

1 Like