I said usernames, not alliances, and I'll see if we can add it.
I believe adding the alliance name would help differentiate between players with similar usernames, something you had mentioned as a concern.
Yes, that used to happen with usernames only; we'd do the same here. Even Alliances can have duplicate names, but the actions against cheating section is intended as more of an acknowledgement of catching bad actors, not a 'most wanted' wall.
Hell yea Harlems ! Definitely post names and alliance if banned player is not ashamed maybe their alliance will be. Plus this will help with players having same names without exposing the players ID numbers
Oh, absolutely not, that'd be crazy to shame an alliance for a cheater that they had no idea was cheating. Sure, there could be some instances of an entire Alliance being involved with cheating, but that's not 100% the case.
I acknowledge that you are banning players- it’s the accuracy and transparency that is a concern.
Yes shamming the alliance will put pressure on them to watch who they allow in or cheat . If alliance leader can’t tell someone is cheating then that alliance leader needs replace.
Great experiment. Chat GPT is unreliable and isn't something we use to determine a course of action. If I can get usernames, that's as far as we'll go.
I see your side, but not showing an alliance that is winning wars because of cheat accounts seems to be encouraging folks to have 10 to 20 cheat accounts in there alliance to climb to top and never get named seems like an all win for the alliance to have cheaters. Just sayingGreat experiment. Chat GPT is unreliable and isn't something we use to determine a course of action. If I can get usernames, that's as far as we'll go.
No reason to be so snarky…Great experiment. Chat GPT is unreliable and isn't something we use to determine a course of action. If I can get usernames, that's as far as we'll go.
1. Usernames are “personal data”That means usernames are not just innocuous labels—they're treated as information relating to a specific individual, protected under the policy.
2. Unauthorized public sharing violates policy terms
3. No scope for “legitimate interest” exceptions
4. Potential conflicts with rights under the policy
Summary: Why it violates the policy| What happens | Policy says |
|---|---|
| Usernames are published | They are personal data |
| No user consent | Policy requires defined, limited use |
| Data rights infringed | Conflicts with user rights to object or restrict publishing |
I disagree with you here.
Let's do a little hypothetical, and maybe I can learn something.
I do believe the way that BHG’s legal team have put together their terms and policies are to protect both their, and players interests, in alignment with relevant laws. However, there does seem to be some precedent out there for games publishing usernames in association with cheating, and even prosecuting them, per terms those games have put in place. I don’t think BHG has those terms explicitly defined currently- but I also think such a modification could be made.
ChatGPT is most definitely unreliable- even when asked for direct evidence / sources / word for word quotes, I find it often fails. Here’s what I asked it and what it came up with:
Prompt:
Can you explain how the developer would be violating their privacy policy, found here https://bighugegames.com/privacy-policy/, by publicly publishing usernames of banned player accounts for cheating in the game
Exact ChatGPT Reply:
Under Big Huge Games' privacy policy, here's what's relevant:
The policy explicitly states that user account information—including usernames or nicknames—is considered personal data:
That means usernames are not just innocuous labels—they're treated as information relating to a specific individual, protected under the policy.
The policy describes how and when user data can be shared. Anything beyond those permitted uses could be a breach. Publicly publishing usernames of banned accounts is not listed as a permissible use:
Publishing usernames for banning therefore contravenes the policy’s specified uses and lacks user consent.
- Data use is limited to internal operations, customer support, analytics, legal/compliance needs, or according to user consent.
- There's no clause allowing public shaming by posting usernames for cheating.
Even where “legitimate interests” might allow some data use (like fraud prevention), the policy requires that such interests not override users’ rights and freedoms. Publicly listing banned usernames:
- Does more than protect the system (e.g. names are stigmatizing).
- Likely violates users' privacy rights, since it isn’t strictly necessary for legal or safety purposes.
The policy gives users important rights:
Public naming of banned users can obstruct those rights. For instance, once a username is publicly displayed, erasing it fully may not be feasible.
- Right to object to processing that harms their rights and freedoms. reddit.com+5bighugegames.com+5wired.com+5
- Portability, erasure, restriction of personal data. bighugegames.com+2wired.com+2bighugegames.com+2
What happens Policy says Usernames are published They are personal data No user consent Policy requires defined, limited use Data rights infringed Conflicts with user rights to object or restrict publishing
Because usernames are expressly considered personal data and there's no policy basis for making them public in this context, sharing them constitutes a privacy policy violation.
If this actually occurred, users could raise a data privacy complaint via the methods listed (e.g., email support@bighugegames.com) or under relevant data protection laws like GDPR or CCPA.
——
This isn’t meant to minimize or take away from the point LuSt is trying to make- more so it illustrates how ChatGPT is fallible and no one should ever take it at face value.
Bottom line is, perhaps a Privacy Policy adjustment could help facilitate the publication of banned usernames; though there is much more to consider regardless from a business and community health perspective.
Definitely appreciate LuSt for bringing this discussion forward as I do think it’s one that speaks to accountability and transparency- and that is absolutely important to a lot of players.
Valid opposing point of view and I appreciate the respectable nature.I do believe the way that BHG’s legal team have put together their terms and policies are to protect both their, and players interests, in alignment with relevant laws. However, there does seem to be some precedent out there for games publishing usernames in association with cheating, and even prosecuting them, per terms those games have put in place. I don’t think BHG has those terms explicitly defined currently- but I also think such a modification could be made.
ChatGPT is most definitely unreliable- even when asked for direct evidence / sources / word for word quotes, I find it often fails. Here’s what I asked it and what it came up with:
Prompt:
Can you explain how the developer would be violating their privacy policy, found here https://bighugegames.com/privacy-policy/, by publicly publishing usernames of banned player accounts for cheating in the game
Exact ChatGPT Reply:
Under Big Huge Games' privacy policy, here's what's relevant:
The policy explicitly states that user account information—including usernames or nicknames—is considered personal data:
That means usernames are not just innocuous labels—they're treated as information relating to a specific individual, protected under the policy.
The policy describes how and when user data can be shared. Anything beyond those permitted uses could be a breach. Publicly publishing usernames of banned accounts is not listed as a permissible use:
Publishing usernames for banning therefore contravenes the policy’s specified uses and lacks user consent.
- Data use is limited to internal operations, customer support, analytics, legal/compliance needs, or according to user consent.
- There's no clause allowing public shaming by posting usernames for cheating.
Even where “legitimate interests” might allow some data use (like fraud prevention), the policy requires that such interests not override users’ rights and freedoms. Publicly listing banned usernames:
- Does more than protect the system (e.g. names are stigmatizing).
- Likely violates users' privacy rights, since it isn’t strictly necessary for legal or safety purposes.
The policy gives users important rights:
Public naming of banned users can obstruct those rights. For instance, once a username is publicly displayed, erasing it fully may not be feasible.
- Right to object to processing that harms their rights and freedoms. reddit.com+5bighugegames.com+5wired.com+5
- Portability, erasure, restriction of personal data. bighugegames.com+2wired.com+2bighugegames.com+2
What happens Policy says Usernames are published They are personal data No user consent Policy requires defined, limited use Data rights infringed Conflicts with user rights to object or restrict publishing
Because usernames are expressly considered personal data and there's no policy basis for making them public in this context, sharing them constitutes a privacy policy violation.
If this actually occurred, users could raise a data privacy complaint via the methods listed (e.g., email support@bighugegames.com) or under relevant data protection laws like GDPR or CCPA.
——
This isn’t meant to minimize or take away from the point LuSt is trying to make- more so it illustrates how ChatGPT is fallible and no one should ever take it at face value.
Bottom line is, perhaps a Privacy Policy adjustment could help facilitate the publication of banned usernames; though there is much more to consider regardless from a business and community health perspective.
Definitely appreciate LuSt for bringing this discussion forward as I do think it’s one that speaks to accountability and transparency- and that is absolutely important to a lot of players.
I think people are more focused on the more obvious cheats such as clearing top end 3D bases in under a minute where it is just not realistic. The one alliance gets reported over and over yet nothing is done about it.
Previously when something was reported to CS the response we would get is due to privacy issues they couldn’t disclose if the player was banned or what type of disciplinary actions were taken. This is where that concept originates from.
This^^^^^
