about 103,000 in January through July, or about 14,700 per month;
66,945 in August and September, 33,472 per month;
and 114,237 from October to December 20th. Assuming they took the rest of the year off, 28,559 38,079 per month.
There’s no reference in your source to how many “phases” there are between updates. Maybe there are multiple banning phases per update. But I’d say “about 30,000 36,000 bans per month, since August” is a much more accurate description than “100,000 to 200,000 per phase.” It feels to me like you were exaggerating a bit, because it’s hard to guess that a “phase” is half a year 3-5 months.
Also Gnome is half-fibbing when they say banning efforts have been ramping up throughout the year. Bans per month dropped slightly after the August/September high point. But August/September was a sharp escalation from earlier in the year.
Still, that is over a thousand bots per day (since August 1st). One bot banned every 73 seconds, 24/7, on average.
October, November, and December, even if I concede your wrong assertion that the first part of October should be included, is a total of THREE months.
114,237/3 = 38k bans per month on average, which is still more than 33,472.
You are wrong to accuse them of fibbing.
But more importantly, the update we were given ignored October entirely because it said:
The only way that can be read is that the numbers only apply to the period between the linked update and the December post, which would mean they significantly ramped their efforts.
I have no idea why it is so difficult for you to admit when you are wrong, but you are clearly wrong.
You are right here, I divided by 4 for some reason which was incorrect. Math error on my part. I’ll edit the post.
I think that’s an overly literal and most likely incorrect way of reading that post. You might be correct, but I’d bet against it. The update in August said
which in the overly literal interpretation means at least 200,000 but given the year-end total of “over 284,000” implies a number between 100,000 and +284999 - 66945 -114327 =103817
So IF your overly literal interpretation is correct and the year-end update covers late October through late December, then in the first two thirds of October they banned between 0 and 3,817 accounts, inclusive. Slackin’.
But I don’t think Gnome is into the overly literal interpretations like you are, given the “hundreds of thousands” to describe less than 104,000.
Why would I need to specifically say they don’t ban their own purposefully created bots?
Isn’t that implied? You don’t ban something you purposefully create, you would instead remove them IF you didn’t want them.
Blizzard created bots are vastly different from user created ones. Blizzard bots aren’t ranking or seen in higher ranks and are only made for people with extremely low MMR so that they have something to face when someone in their own low MMR aren’t in queue. Player created bots are seen at all ranks, even higher ones and can be seen by any player at any time at all ranks, even at high legend.
You are guys are discussing the number of buckets of water (bots banned) instead of discussing the hole in the side of the ship that let’s the bots play.
The could ban 1.21 Gigawatts of bots and it doesn’t matter if they are letting the bots play.
You are correct, you are not a troll going by Blizzards definitions. You are a spammer, and should be reported as such.
Spam is, using Blizzards definition of the term:
This post is an advertisement, or vandalism. It is not useful or relevant to the current topic.
The bolded is 90% of your post history, bud. Sorta funny seeing you here when not too long ago you completely denied the fact that player bots even existed, yet here we are.
Not only that, you are abusing the report function - a violation of the CoC - by reporting anyone who calls you out.
Those who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.