🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 17, 7:44 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <slrnio3e0d...@stinky-local.trash.net>
>   Urbin <ur...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> >>  In message <4d7fec38$0$10198$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
> >>    Matthew <iamacat...@proudtoserve.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Polarhound" <polar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:vaRfp.31230$d46.26059@newsfe07.iad...
> >> >> On 3/15/2011 4:55 PM, Matthew wrote:
> >> >>> All over the forums people are talking about the Mass banning of bot
> >> >>> accounts and gold buying account.  Blizzard is definite to slow about it
> >> >>> sometimes
>
> >> >> Not at all.
>
> >> >> They have ALWAYS done them in large batches.  It makes for a bigger show.
>
> >> >> On the plus side, it gives me a near-endless supply of tears to feed on.
>
> >> > Oh I know they do it in large batches  but they need to do it more often ;-)
>
> >>  It is MUCH more effective to ban 10,000 gold spammers in one day than
> >>  1,000 a day for ten days.
> > Ah, but imagine if they banned 10k gold spammers a day for ten days. That
> > would get rid of them :-)
>
> But then it would be best to ban 100K in one day!
>
> > Of course, they might need to start banning normal players halfway through
> > day 7 if they run out of spammers ;-)
>
> Rule #1: You will never run out of spam.

>From what I heard, an Archaeology addon for a popular bot was easily
detectable, which led to the recent mass banning.

At least some people who claim to have been only botting Archaeology
for their personal use were caught up in it, and are annoyed. My
sympathy is limited.

pt