Script: "Reliant" + HTML Script Legality Discussion

[Guy]

Category 3B: Accidentally illegal HTML bots. These bots try to follow the Script Rules but screw up. The majority of bot-related problems we deal with come from here. Usually the bot correctly identifies itself and is attempting to do something legal, but has developed a bug that causes it to spam requests, and the author doesn't notice. A common example is a bot that is careful to stay within the permitted ratelimit when everything is normal, but as soon as it gets an unexpected result, like a missing nation, it gushes forth retries at maximum speed. We generally respond to these bots by contacting the owner and informing them of the problem. We may also block the bot from the site. If the bot's intended purpose is legal, and we can see that the author made efforts to follow the rules, we tend to be lenient, since we understand that bugs happen to the best of us. But often they shouldn't be on the HTML site in the first place, and bot authors who choose this path rather than the API are responsible for what happens.

Category 3C: Deliberately illegal HTML bots, e.g. Predator, bots that cheat at Challenge or other mini-games. These automate things we don't permit to be automated, or execute actions that we require to be performed via the API (e.g. sending telegrams, answering issues), in order to avoid the API's rate limit and restrictions. Many operate in stealth mode, pretending to be regular human traffic, which means they're difficult for us to detect and may operate undercover for some time. Because the purpose of a 3C bot is to break the rules, we deal with them harshly: We may punish users regardless of whether or not they are the bot's author, or understood what the bot was doing--especially if the purpose of the bot was to gain an advantage over other players.

Summary

It's hard to get in trouble from a Category 2 bot. Even if your bot spins wildly out of control (e.g. Storm), its impact will be fairly limited, and we will probably just block it and contact you to fix it.

It's easy to get in trouble from a Category 3 bot, but if we think your bot is buggy rather than trying to do something illegal, and you made efforts to comply with the rules, we will again probably just block it and contact you.

Anyone using a Category 3C bot is in trouble.

Is this still applicable policy? From Roavin’s post, this sounds like it’s well within ‘Category 3B’. Perhaps some clarification on the likely range of outcomes would assist a lot of people to not be on the verge of quitting this game.

[New Astri]

It's potentially going to be several more weeks. It requires a ridiculous amount of work - and admin work, which is the most limited thing here - to investigate these kinds of cases. There is a chance that staff exasperation with situations like this could result in admin banning script use on the html site (as against API) entirely.

If that's the case, then quite frankly NS needs to hire developers or go open-source and let the very talented pool of developers who play this game help improve it. Because despite handwringing over all this stuff, the Scripting Era of NS has always been a direct response to poor game design and outdated UI features. Banning all script use that's not through the API will lead to an exodus of players. Nobody wants to use the API because it's a burden and 90% of the enhancements third-party devs are making for NS aren't possible through a rate-limited API.

The prospect of endo tools possibly being illegal, until I got that clarification from [v], was already about to result in the collapse of TSP's long-term security org. This whole saga has led to several of our top talent being so disillusioned with the game, they've quit their leadership role or are leaving NS altogether.

I can't imagine a worse way NS admins could be approaching this.

Could not have said it better myself. NS is, frankly put, a pretty technologically antiquated game. All of the playerbase innovations exist to improve the base experience. Being forced to stick with the base site would be the nail in the coffin for NS. I personally really like that idea of going open-source, because the staff team just seems really exhausted and out of touch with the playerbase these days. Letting more people with passion for the game and the developing skills necessary to make important changes have a say in the direction of the game would be very healthy for the community.

[Free Algerstonia]

If that's the case, then quite frankly NS needs to hire developers or go open-source and let the very talented pool of developers who play this game help improve it. Because despite handwringing over all this stuff, the Scripting Era of NS has always been a direct response to poor game design and outdated UI features. Banning all script use that's not through the API will lead to an exodus of players. Nobody wants to use the API because it's a burden and 90% of the enhancements third-party devs are making for NS aren't possible through a rate-limited API.

The prospect of endo tools possibly being illegal, until I got that clarification from [v], was already about to result in the collapse of TSP's long-term security org. This whole saga has led to several of our top talent being so disillusioned with the game, they've quit their leadership role or are leaving NS altogether.

I can't imagine a worse way NS admins could be approaching this.

Could not have said it better myself. NS is, frankly put, a pretty technologically antiquated game. All of the playerbase innovations exist to improve the base experience.

Improve the base experience for whom? Because, with the exception of endo and maybe R/D, all scripts come with a side effect of making the game completely unfair and give one side an undue advantage.

[Roavin]

Thank you, Sedge. Knowing that, I can provide some input as well (i.e. naming the specific places in the source code where these things are handled). Should I GHR that info?

(Just a quick non-technical response for those that are interested and watching this thread: I checked the code yet again just now. Reliant handles any requests in a centralized manner. I couldn't find any places that circumvent that mechanism and could have caused a simultaneity violation, but I can certainly imagine that it may have a bug. On the second point, I'm very certain that Reliant doesn't violate this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the specific players using Reliant (even those that aren't tech-savvy) are well aware of the one-click-per-action rule and would have reported it in our internal channel if they had noticed Reliant doing more. )

We have two active members of the Admin team. Only one of them is carrying out the investigation of this case, and they have very limited time at present.

Very understandable (RL > NS as always, particularly with current events as they are), but at least a "heads up, this will take a while, but we acknowledge that you're ostensibly doing everything in good faith" would have massively helped. So far, this looks and feels like we're being investigated like a 3C violation (deliberate rule-breaking) when even the knowledge of Reliant's name comes from us operating Reliant the way we're supposed to.

[Kethania]

Nobody wants to use the API because it's a burden and 90% of the enhancements third-party devs are making for NS aren't possible through a rate-limited API.

This is a ridiculous statement. For all its flaws inherent to being a 20 year old browser game, the NS API is a wonderful thing that makes development much easier. Saying that a feature created specifically for your development convenience is "a burden" is kind of disrespectful.

The bot I run only uses the API and does not make any requests to the HTML site. Pray tell, what are those 90% of enhancements that are not possible through the API, and that are so severely impacted by the rate-limit?

NS needs to hire developers or go open-source and let the very talented pool of developers who play this game help improve it

How familiar are you with software (and game) development economics and open-source governance to be saying that? While I personally would love to read the NS source code just out of morbid curiosity, imagining going open-source as some kind of silver bullet is misguided.

[Wallenburg]

Open-source is a terrible idea for a service that handles private user information and already has to deal with constant cheating and ban evasion.

[Haganham]

If that's the case, then quite frankly NS needs to hire developers or go open-source and let the very talented pool of developers who play this game help improve it.

From what staff have told us about how NS is bodged together I'm pretty sure anyone who looks at the source code without psychological conditioning will simply have their face melted off.

[New Rogernomics]

Might be an unpopular opinion, though it might be a thought to introduce more features in-game to be more paid model based, while not in any major way introducing a pay-per-use model that hurts the game. This has already been done with stamps, so it could be done for other things.

There is always going to be a need for cosmetic html features and scripts, and the problem with such things is supporting it with infrastructure and having staff, who are paid at least in part for their services as a developer. I am not sure how NS could realistically afford that and day-to-day development in other areas, without boosting what NS gets in terms of donations via either a monthly or yearly subscription for using some of those extra features.

Not an easy thing for me to say, as I like NS's model as it is, but even a layperson can understand a game with scripts and such is a lot of effort, and without enough staff all kinds of issues arise. Plus unfortunately it isn't a perfect world where everyone has time to devote to NS, without financial compensation to either pay for services that help development or fund the development project itself.

I could see folks breaking rules as a sign of larger frustration at the pace of development. Though NS is a lot more open to allowing players to run scripts and html addon tools than most other sites, who just outright ban them as cheating or making an edge over other players.

[Sedgistan]

Thank you, Sedge. Knowing that, I can provide some input as well (i.e. naming the specific places in the source code where these things are handled). Should I GHR that info?

Yes, please do.

On the 3b/3c questions, that is part of what is being investigated.

[Old Hope]

(Just a quick non-technical response for those that are interested and watching this thread: I checked the code yet again just now. Reliant handles any requests in a centralized manner. I couldn't find any places that circumvent that mechanism and could have caused a simultaneity violation, but I can certainly imagine that it may have a bug. On the second point, I'm very certain that Reliant doesn't violate this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that the specific players using Reliant (even those that aren't tech-savvy) are well aware of the one-click-per-action rule and would have reported it in our internal channel if they had noticed Reliant doing more. )

Yes but the rule seems to be a bit more complicated than that. The restriction extends to far more than one click per action.

Warning:This is only my personal interpretation of the rules. It may be incorrect. Check with site staff before relying on this.
It also forbids:
Allowing another action before the server gave a defined response
and the thing this most likely violated...

Reliant handles any requests in a centralized manner.

handling requests in a centralized manner unless the script itself acts under the defined response rule, for all actions.
(e.g. Roavin and Ever Wandering Souls use a centralized script. Roavin sends a request. As soon as this request hits the centralized point, all other requests from Roaving and Ever Wandering Souls must be blocked until the server gave its defined complete response.)
The centralized point is the user in this case that needs to observe the request limits, not just Roavin and EWS.

[Witchcraft and Sorcery]

For once in a blue moon I’m going to wholeheartedly agree with Glen.

I literally cannot play the game without scripts for a number of reasons, and while I am not as technically literate as the actual devs I have the pleasure of playing alongside, the sense I get is that the way admin is approaching this seems archaic. The abject refusal to adapt or change the site in a way that scripts would be less needed in order to perform basic functions is frankly appalling, and instead of do anything about the myriad of player concerns, it reads like admin has had their fingers in their ears and decided to swing the ban hammer rather than improve accessibility and modernize in any way.

And that has me seriously doubting my future in the game. I relied (heh) on Reliant just to be able to do what I love, which is R/D gameplay, at a level consistent with other players. Not only because I had and still have internet problems due to living in Europe (which is a can of worms in itself), but because I have a visual impairment that makes reading and especially reacting to things moving around (as is common in R/D). It’s really upsetting to realize that a site is so poorly designed and the admins are so adamant to force players to interact with it in a way that discourages someone with a disability from playing the game.

Now, the fact that it has taken such a long time to get so much as a crumb of an answer as to what is going to happen to Reliant users has completely gutted my faith in the site administration to the point that I’ve at a minimum stepped away from regional gameplay, and am seriously considering leaving the game altogether.

[Merni]

Nobody wants to use the API because it's a burden and 90% of the enhancements third-party devs are making for NS aren't possible through a rate-limited API.

This is a ridiculous statement. For all its flaws inherent to being a 20 year old browser game, the NS API is a wonderful thing that makes development much easier. Saying that a feature created specifically for your development convenience is "a burden" is kind of disrespectful.

The bot I run only uses the API and does not make any requests to the HTML site. Pray tell, what are those 90% of enhancements that are not possible through the API, and that are so severely impacted by the rate-limit?

I'm not Glen, and this is mildly off-topic here, but the two big things I can think of are

• pretty much anything R/D related (which need to interact with the HTML site as there is no API command for endorsing, moving regions, etc. and nor is there likely to be. Even API happenings have a delay to prevent R/D players from using it.)
• recruitment (the 180-second cooldown makes it rather unviable to recruit solely via API)

Given that this thread is about an R/D script, I think you can understand why the API's non-usefulness for this purpose was brought up.

Edited because the quote was incomplete.

[Sandaoguo]

How familiar are you with software (and game) development economics and open-source governance to be saying that? While I personally would love to read the NS source code just out of morbid curiosity, imagining going open-source as some kind of silver bullet is misguided.

Fairly familiar, I've been (hobby) coding for games since I was a teenager and I'm in my 30s now. I'm well aware that NS likely can't afford to hire developers. So their options are to rely on the same 2 admins who don't have time, add more admins (which is incredibly hard to do when you can't judge their skill, because they've never seen the code base), or throw the NS code base onto GitHub and let third-party devs submit PRs for improvements. If Max Barry finds the words "open source" icky, NS can still put the code on GitHub under a proprietary license. Will any of that happen? No, and that's the annoying part of NS being a game that's always 10 years behind the internet.

Open-source is a terrible idea for a service that handles private user information and already has to deal with constant cheating and ban evasion.

Open-sourcing a project has no negative impact on information privacy, unless NS is riddled with insecure code just waiting to be discovered and exploited, in which case third-party devs can spot that and fix it... like is done with literally all open source projects. Cheating and ban evasion are moderation issues, not game development issues-- knowing how NS is coded doesn't make it any easier or harder to evade a ban, which is done literally by just creating a new account.

[Roavin]

So, while preparing the GHR, I found the bug.

Reliant essentially handles simultaneity as recommended here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=481693

It does this correctly, except it does the first part a tiny bit too late, doing it when the request is issued but hasn't returned data yet, rather than doing it before the request is issued in the first place. For people with fast connections to NationStates, that didn't matter, because Reliant got to doing the first part well before a second action could have taken place, but for prolific buttonmashers with slower connections to NationStates (i.e. players in Europe), the user could have triggered a second action in that small time window between the request being issued and Reliant blocking access.

Remember that post-code review change I mentioned in my earlier post? That added a further safeguard that, in case of a second request, discarded the current request entirely. Reliant's principal developer, who has a very fast connection to NationStates, added the safeguard and tested to hit the safeguard, but was unable to. I suspect if I had tested that explicitly, I would have been able to, given that at the best of times my request latency to NationStates is in the 300ms range.

That safeguard was a good thing afterall, though: Since the second request is canceled/discarded, there was never an extra advantage to Reliant users. The only thing that happened is that there could be an extra request that did nothing, increasing server load but nothing else.

I've GHR'd a more detailed explanation of the above, plus a general overview of how the source code handles the parts in question. I sincerely don't mean to be snarky, but we could have been here three weeks ago if we had been told what was found server-side. Something like "multiple simultaneous requests to 'XYZ' were detected by Reliant users X, Y, Z but not A, B, C" could have led us (that know the code) to find the problem incredibly quick. That being said, however, right now, I'm most frustrated with myself for not seeing this two years ago when I initially reviewed the code.

[Sedgistan]

Thanks - that GHR has been passed on for admin to confirm.

I sincerely don't mean to be snarky, but we could have been here three weeks ago if we had been told what was found server-side. Something like "multiple simultaneous requests to 'XYZ' were detected by Reliant users X, Y, Z but not A, B, C" could have led us (that know the code) to find the problem incredibly quick.

Yes, but staff have to take care with what we initially disclose, as we have had to deal with uncooperative or deceitful coders in the past, and in such situations disclosing what we know can hinder investigations. That is why the original announcement didn't contain information on the nature of the violation.

[Roavin]

Ah yes, that is fair and makes sense. Thank you!

[Budgie Snugglers]

Hi, just wondering if after the additional information we gave on the code and potential identification of the issue, are we still expecting several more weeks before any judgement is passed? Did that help at all with finding the problem/determining if it's 3b or 3c, or would anything else from us be useful? (Sorry if this is asking too much, I completely understand if nothing can be answered before everything is completed, but over a month of having almost no information is rather anxiety-inducing )

[Sedgistan]

We're expecting to have a resolution to this soon. I am hopeful that will be next week, but don't hold us to that timescale.

[Budgie Snugglers]

It's been nearly seven weeks since the initial announcement (and presumably even longer since the investigation began). Is the technical review ongoing, or has this been passed onto moderators?

[Budgie Snugglers]

It's been nearly seven weeks since the initial announcement (and presumably even longer since the investigation began). Is the technical review ongoing, or has this been passed onto moderators?

To be clear: previously, it's been stated that unless a bot is intentionally malicious, admin will try and work with people to fix bugs (for example Storm), or at least communicate with them. Since I posted this, Sedge has posted elsewhere, and Elu has pinged me on Discord specifically to give me absolutely no information, so I doubt this thread was just missed. At first I thought it might be because we were so close to a resolution that you thought it would be pointless to post, but it doesn’t look like one’s coming any time soon. We have had almost no communication for seven weeks.

Sedge said that you couldn't tell us anything at first because we might be malicious or deceitful, and it might hinder investigations to disclose information. But we've already sent you everything we can, and I don't think it would even be possible for us to try and hide evidence now. And I don't think information like the state of the investigation would help us much with that anyway.

Even though I genuinely don’t believe the script was malicious, and I believe Roavin’s analysis of what the bug was is correct, we have been treated as if this is a 3c violation all along, and so because of how little information we have, we are forced to assume the worst. So we have to base our actions on that, too. Activity has dramatically decreased - how can you care about a game if you think you might get kicked off it any moment? We all refresh Technical multiple times a day desperately hoping for even a crumb of resolution. I personally resigned from my position as Delegate of TRR because I don't know if I'm about to be WA banned or DEATed and I don't want TRR to be unprepared for that.

This has been an incredibly stressful seven weeks on NationStates. Why can't you tell us even the tiniest part of what's going on?

[Mallorea and Riva]

It's been nearly seven weeks since the initial announcement (and presumably even longer since the investigation began). Is the technical review ongoing, or has this been passed onto moderators?

To be clear: previously, it's been stated that unless a bot is intentionally malicious, admin will try and work with people to fix bugs (for example Storm), or at least communicate with them. Since I posted this, Sedge has posted elsewhere, and Elu has pinged me on Discord specifically to give me absolutely no information, so I doubt this thread was just missed. At first I thought it might be because we were so close to a resolution that you thought it would be pointless to post, but it doesn’t look like one’s coming any time soon. We have had almost no communication for seven weeks.

Sedge said that you couldn't tell us anything at first because we might be malicious or deceitful, and it might hinder investigations to disclose information. But we've already sent you everything we can, and I don't think it would even be possible for us to try and hide evidence now. And I don't think information like the state of the investigation would help us much with that anyway.

Even though I genuinely don’t believe the script was malicious, and I believe Roavin’s analysis of what the bug was is correct, we have been treated as if this is a 3c violation all along, and so because of how little information we have, we are forced to assume the worst. So we have to base our actions on that, too. Activity has dramatically decreased - how can you care about a game if you think you might get kicked off it any moment? We all refresh Technical multiple times a day desperately hoping for even a crumb of resolution. I personally resigned from my position as Delegate of TRR because I don't know if I'm about to be WA banned or DEATed and I don't want TRR to be unprepared for that.

This has been an incredibly stressful seven weeks on NationStates. Why can't you tell us even the tiniest part of what's going on?

We understand the concern, and we understand the stress. Sedge has already shared as much as we are able to disclose at this point - that:

Reliant violated, at a minimum, the simultaneity rule. It also potentially "execute[d] a restricted action in any way other than by immediately responding to a user's mouse click (or similar input) at the ratio of one click to one action". I must note that in both cases, this does not necessarily apply to all usage of Reliant, whether recent or over its history, or by all those that have used it. Trying to determine that, as well as whether it was only those using Reliant in certain ways that violated the rules, is what requires significant investigation by admin.

Investigating the above is not a quick an easy task - it's highly labor intensive. If we had more final information to hand out, we would give it - but we don't at this time. It's very unfortunate that this is the situation, particularly as admin time spent investigating either a rogue script or abuse of an otherwise legitimate script is time that could be far more productively spent improving the game.

[Roavin]

Investigating the above is not a quick an easy task - it's highly labor intensive. If we had more final information to hand out, we would give it - but we don't at this time. It's very unfortunate that this is the situation, particularly as admin time spent investigating either a rogue script or abuse of an otherwise legitimate script is time that could be far more productively spent improving the game.

Both Haku and I remain on standby with any questions or help about the code, and have for the past 7 weeks.

For reference:

• When Koru had a simultaneity violation, a site admin DM'd its author on Discord. Its users stopped using Koru, and the issue was found within a day or two.
• When the issue with the rogue recruitment script happened, [v] communicated with its author via TG and the issue was resolved within 24 hours.
• When Storm happened, Elu was able to open a github issue within days and the issue was fixed within a further day.

These things were resolved quickly, because things were done as suggested by 3B - site admin and developers working together to fix problems, leading to quick solutions. But so far, neither Haku nor I have been reached out to by admin at all about the code, and my very detailed GHR detailing the possible bug that I found remains completely unanswered - in line with what would be expected of a 3C investigation.

That, in combination with the now second time we're being accused of wasting admin time, implies that Reliant is still considered to be malicious. But even here, there are mixed messages, because Sedge did reveal what kind of violation is being investigated, and in response to Souls' question if we're cooperating, referred to my post explicitly, which would imply that malice was ruled out.

I've detailed what we've done before, including given access to the actual source code repository used to develop Reliant, something that as far as I'm aware is quite unprecedented. Given all that, I don't know what else we can do short of promising our firstborns to show that we're acting in good faith, that Haku and I WANT to help, so that admin time CAN be spent productively improving the game.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Investigating the above is not a quick an easy task - it's highly labor intensive. If we had more final information to hand out, we would give it - but we don't at this time. It's very unfortunate that this is the situation, particularly as admin time spent investigating either a rogue script or abuse of an otherwise legitimate script is time that could be far more productively spent improving the game.

Both Haku and I remain on standby with any questions or help about the code, and have for the past 7 weeks.

For reference:

• When Koru had a simultaneity violation, a site admin DM'd its author on Discord. Its users stopped using Koru, and the issue was found within a day or two.
• When the issue with the rogue recruitment script happened, [v] communicated with its author via TG and the issue was resolved within 24 hours.
• When Storm happened, Elu was able to open a github issue within days and the issue was fixed within a further day.

These things were resolved quickly, because things were done as suggested by 3B - site admin and developers working together to fix problems, leading to quick solutions. But so far, neither Haku nor I have been reached out to by admin at all about the code, and my very detailed GHR detailing the possible bug that I found remains completely unanswered - in line with what would be expected of a 3C investigation.

That, in combination with the now second time we're being accused of wasting admin time, implies that Reliant is still considered to be malicious. But even here, there are mixed messages, because Sedge did reveal what kind of violation is being investigated, and in response to Souls' question if we're cooperating, referred to my post explicitly, which would imply that malice was ruled out.

I've detailed what we've done before, including given access to the actual source code repository used to develop Reliant, something that as far as I'm aware is quite unprecedented. Given all that, I don't know what else we can do short of promising our firstborns to show that we're acting in good faith, that Haku and I WANT to help, so that admin time CAN be spent productively improving the game.

No one here is accusing you of acting in bad faith. All of the GHRs been received and reviewed. The cooperation is appreciated, but I'm sure that you can appreciate that we can't act solely on what we're told happened - it's helpful context and detail, but we need to conduct our own review on the back end to analyze what specific players did, when they did it, and what benefit was conferred by it.

Sedge explicitly stated that the 3b vs 3c violation distinction is one of the items being investigated - that should tell you that we haven't decided that every rule-breaking instance of Reliant is categorically 3b. It's still being looked at.

Whether Reliant is malicious or not doesn't bear much on whether admin's time has been wasted on this investigation - whether it was malicious, abused, or just plain broken in certain instances, admin time has been spent investigating. It's not an ideal scenario for anyone.

[Altmoras]

Both Haku and I remain on standby with any questions or help about the code, and have for the past 7 weeks.

For reference:

• When Koru had a simultaneity violation, a site admin DM'd its author on Discord. Its users stopped using Koru, and the issue was found within a day or two.
• When the issue with the rogue recruitment script happened, [v] communicated with its author via TG and the issue was resolved within 24 hours.
• When Storm happened, Elu was able to open a github issue within days and the issue was fixed within a further day.

These things were resolved quickly, because things were done as suggested by 3B - site admin and developers working together to fix problems, leading to quick solutions. But so far, neither Haku nor I have been reached out to by admin at all about the code, and my very detailed GHR detailing the possible bug that I found remains completely unanswered - in line with what would be expected of a 3C investigation.

That, in combination with the now second time we're being accused of wasting admin time, implies that Reliant is still considered to be malicious. But even here, there are mixed messages, because Sedge did reveal what kind of violation is being investigated, and in response to Souls' question if we're cooperating, referred to my post explicitly, which would imply that malice was ruled out.

I've detailed what we've done before, including given access to the actual source code repository used to develop Reliant, something that as far as I'm aware is quite unprecedented. Given all that, I don't know what else we can do short of promising our firstborns to show that we're acting in good faith, that Haku and I WANT to help, so that admin time CAN be spent productively improving the game.

No one here is accusing you of acting in bad faith. All of the GHRs been received and reviewed. The cooperation is appreciated, but I'm sure that you can appreciate that we can't act solely on what we're told happened - it's helpful context and detail, but we need to conduct our own review on the back end to analyze what specific players did, when they did it, and what benefit was conferred by it.

You aren't acting at all. Sedgistan unambiguously declared Reliant illegal in the OP of this thread 7 weeks ago, since then all the users have submitted GHRs declaring their use and those who were asked have provided their copies of the script. Since the judgment on the legality of the script was already made before all that, one would think that you lot could decide what you were going to do about it in the intervening seven weeks, but you haven't. Imagine your local government declaring on TV that you've committed a crime and need to turn yourself in, then leaving you in the lobby of the police station for two months without charging you and barely acknowledging your existence, it's absurd.

[Roavin]

We need to conduct our own review on the back end to analyze what specific players did, when they did it, and what benefit was conferred by it.
...
that should tell you that we haven't decided that every rule-breaking instance of Reliant is categorically 3b

This phrasing made us ponder what could be so spooky in the server access logs, and we stumbled upon a possibility relating to benign VPN use by some players, some of which use Reliant, for latency reasons (a topic I've been in direct contact with [v] and Elu about as far back as February 2017 (!)).

I've GHR'd more info on that as well for admin to look at.