A very difficult situation indeed. The distance threads make it clear that moving HQs creates a ramp down effect, however they do not address the setting up of a non-CL in a different or the selling/rebuying of an HQ. I'm quite sure other people have used that wording/code loophole to set up in a city other than their original one before - whether or not it was intentional I can't say. I can say that Dominick was most certainly unintentional - he set up in the wrong city because he is a nub.

In the past, when bugs have been found, the status quo has always been to fix the code and leave things as they were - perhaps give those that suffered from it some compensation. I'm fairly shocked at the change in policy here, it would have been much simpler for you to just leave things alone and close the loophole. I understand you want to be fair and keep everyone happy but honestly that's just not possible when things like this happen. Coding is a difficult beast to tame and things go awry, that is the way it is. 

It should be pointed out that Bacon and Lancelot were 1%s and therefore did not die to the apparent bug. Even if there had been no bug they still would have been taking pros and the risk of 1%, they should be excluded from any potential revivals.

I hope everyone does indeed remain civil throughout this - I doubt there will be a solution that is fair to everyone but that is no reason to be rude.

If it's safe to say that Macarena and Imashe_Korbinchenko would have been killed in all simulations and thus aren't being revived, is it the case that Dominick's killer would have missed their shot in a scenario where the features were working as they were intended?   

In those two cases, I believe that the events prior changing would have caused a change in when/if the pro wacks took place, changing the microsecond of when the pro wack takes place, changes it to a pro in 99 out of 100 simulations.

I get that, but now we're opening a whole new can of variables and what ifs. If Dominick had been aware that he would be missing those shots he would have certainly chose different targets, yes? Had he set up in PH or NY as planned he would have stuck to the original plan of targeting those cities - is he to name who those targets would have been and they die? Will you roll pro attempts on those potential targets who had stopped taking pros because he couldn't hit them outside of the central cities? This is precisely why it would have been better to just leave things as they happened in my opinion, the game is complex and multifaceted and even the slightest change effects so many other things.

The status quo is not always fix the code and leave things as they were, each situation is different, and is treated as such.  This is going to be played our similar to the last time we had to roll back a war because of unforseen circumstances, and set future pro/wack times.

That is fair to say - I shouldn't say that it is always the status quo - it would have been more accurate to say usually. As you said, every situation is different, it just seems to me that rolling this one back is going to cause too many issues for not only yourself, but a good chunk of players who were involved in the fight. 

I think this highlights that there should probably be multiple people making these decisions when it comes to these sorts of scenarios as for me, the whole idea of reviving every single person is unfair. It's nobodies fault but the admins that the code is rigged, based on that, those who are dead should stay dead, as we have seen happen in the past. 

If this was a war, I might be able to get on board with the idea of this whole revival situation, but as it's just one guy who worked his ass off over a 24 hour period, I think the odds are stacked too highly against him.

The element of surprise, the fact that not all of his pro'ers may be accessible, the knowing of who he wanted to target, he himself may not have the time to do what he just did and ultimately, it all ends in his death anyway. I know if I were him, I'd be hugely disappointed by the response here. A lot of time and effort down the pan because Izzy's case by case decisions went in favour of everyone but the rogue...and Spikes, I guess, heh.

So back to the original point, I think it's high time we had some form of board to make these kind of decisions, where actual discussions can be had around it. This is very much a case of, "I'm not around so this is the best I can do.", or at least that's very much how it feels.

Disappointed, man. Very disappointed.

Yea, plus the fact that posts not exactly agreeing with the decision or asking questions you don't want answered are being deleted.  All seems sort of disappointing to be honest. 

My concern comes with reviving accounts that have already moved on and made new characters, or trying to revive a crew leader that already was replaced or given the chance for any of their members to set up in their place.

Reviving all these specific characters, especially after how many proers or associates with Dominick who have died as a result, will never go over well. Things have already been established enough to try and account for the future. What do you think will happen if suddenly all this work and effort put forth by all sides is suddenly thrown to the waist side because of a couple errors in the code? It's already been revealed who sided with who and the effects have already been felt. Bodyguards and forts have been killed off to a degree.

I'm not laying blame on anyone. I just view this as trying to fix something you truly can't fix enough to satisfy all sides.

If the revivals do go through, compensation would be needed. But it would depend on who gets revived. If the CL's/people who Dominick should have missed on are revived, that's throwing aside the hours and hours of waiting and proing and refreshing done by people. If everyone is revived, we've essentially just wasted two days for nothing.

Whether similar situations have happened in the past or not, the ramifications of rolling back a war period are that it'll just happen again. Ain't nothing stopping people from just redoing all the effort put forward to try and regain what they decided to go for in the first place. Rogue and kill some CL's? Might as well do it again now that everyone already knows your motives and desires.

A lack of communication might also be present, what with the effects of distance being too vague or confusing or, really, specifically unknown.

In those two cases, I believe that the events prior changing would have caused a change in when/if the pro wacks took place, changing the microsecond of when the pro wack takes place, changes it to a pro in 99 out of 100 simulations.

Am I misreading this? Aren't all protection wacks going to be "a pro in 99 out of 100 simulations"? That's sort-of the nature of the 1%. The protection wack that happened should have been a pro in 99/100 situations, but that one time it wasn't. In the cases of shots that Dominick took that were calculated correctly/incorrectly, I think the majority simulation approach may be sufficient for concluding the outcome with new math unaffected by the bug. But, if we're using this method, under what circumstances could a 1% from a protection wack not be overturned?

If anything, the conclusion that it's still a kill in 1/100 simulations is as much proof as we'd need to know they shouldn't be revived- because that's the 1% doing exactly what it's supposed to do. They took a pro that had a fair 1/100 chance of killing them (as verified by the simulations), and they died to it. Case closed.

Plus, as Mr. Pritchett has pointed out, if we're going to take these sorts of anomalies into account ("I believe the events prior changing would have caused..."), it makes sense that Dominick's choices in targets, and arguably the entire course of the rogue event, would have also changed if so many of his earlier shots had missed.

This, to me, seems to be the only real conundrum here. It seems like there's allowance when there is visibly no distinction in a player's decisions or their outcomes based on the consequence of the bug (the people dying to 1%s still taking pros), but for others where the consequence of the bug had huge implications on both their decisions and the outcomes, there's little more than a shrug and a handshake available as compensation.

Meanwhile, the intangible resources that were spent during the rogue event that make it potent and significant are completely gone- the element of surprise, their choices in targets, their network of proers and spies, and so on- have now been depleted and cannot be resurrected nor made good. The rogue is forced to accept the complete obliteration of these resources while nearly all those who were negatively impacted by his shots (those he killed and the 1%s) are all set right as rain.

I think this is a poor judgment and resolution, and I think the summoning of "simulations" as justification is little more than hand-waving to make it seem statistics-driven. Things happened as they did, not as they statistically should have. Raising the dead because they got a bad shake while the rogue whose hundreds of hours of work (and a legitimate sum of money on credits) are now completely undone by a bug well outside of his control is as distant from a fair outcome as I think it could be.

The game didn't change from when Dominick started his rogue event to when he died- all players were participating in the same game state and enduring the same chances of life and death on every wack attempt. Dominick chose to rogue with the wack math as it was, shrouded from the players as it has always been. 

To undo only the wacks that you've perceived to be "unfair" is demonstrably inconsistent- the players have no perfect knowledge about the state of the wack math and choose to play the game accepting the odds of whatever is in the code when they click the wack button.

The action isn't yours, and neither is the reaction. Everything can be undone if it's not quite right. MafiaReturns.