@chris wu aka alco omgggg I just saw your chat log with chris. No sk peeps are not calm. we have a group chat and everything is settled there.. and no, they're not just after lance's money. haahahhaahaaa. @ty no he wasn't talking about you. SK peeps know best.
Also, can anyone explain to me how vote abusers get a more lenient punishment as compared to account sharers? I think vote abusing does more harm than account sharing. is it because there are more people who vote abuse than share accounts? Just wondering.
Don't forget botters and glitch abusers! That shit is child's play compared to logging onto a friends account.
Matt has made it clear that rule 24 is not a rule against account sharing. Phishing is not the same thing as giving someone your account info. Sharing account information is prohibited earlier on in the ToS and does not specify a punishment length and apparently does not merit having its own line in the rules list or even being under the Game Use & Restrictions. It is prohibited under the 3rd part of the Registration section.
I think the rules should be clarified a bit in this regard. Nonetheless, it was mentioned in the TL; DR version. The right thing to do would have been to CLARIFY with a GM if unsure. I think the rules were at least clear enough for anybody who has read them to be aware that it wouldn't be a good idea to account share. In addition, Skadi and Mantouks were quite aware that people have been banned for account sharing. They are regular visitors to this forum. Threads such as this would still exist even if it was clear in the longer part of the rules.
Threads like this exist because the punishment is extremely harsh relative to much lesser violations. The TL.DR rule of "Don't account share," is exactly what the problem is here. Many people consider account sharing to mean something different than just moving items around or pressing brandish 3 times. Back before vote abusing was clearly defined in the rules list, people often did complain about the unfairness of their bans because it was not clear that it was not allowed. Eventually the staff did recognize that the rules were not clear and made the necessary changes. I don't think I've seen a single thread complaining about this since the rules were updated. There used to be frequent arguments on the forums about what merited a ban for saying certain profanities. Once the staff addressed this issue and clarified the rules, we stopped seeing these complaints. It is absurd to immediate dismiss the points that people are making by saying something blatantly wrong like this, Tentomon.
How does the detection of account sharing actually work? Let's say my GF was playing MapleRoyal and normally played on her own PC and on her own internet. But this time she wanted to play tonight at my place, and while I was at work she would use my laptop which we share and login to her own character on my internet in my house, that would trigger a ban right? As it would appear if I had logged into her account. But no account sharing would have taken place, I still wouldn't know her info, and she still woulnd't know mine, how do you guys avoid this?
Let me express my opinion about the incident: If you can't change something you don't like, then stop wasting a second on it, Just keep everything sweet and simple. I've been hiding something since I've joined Royals: The *SKians knows that Lance or Skadi isn't really a person, because..
That arguement I will accept. I thought you were trying to imply that the reason people are making a fuss is because the rules are unclear. When in fact it is because they disagree with the rules. I suspect there hasn't been many vote abuse bans lately.Most of the abusers were caught out in that major crack down on it, and obviously have not reoffended as they realise the staff won't tolerate it. Anyway, my thoughts on the arguement you raised... Vote abuse carries the punishment of potentially having NX/items deleted in addition to the ban. I'd support the removal of characters where severe botting/glitch abuse has taken place. I'd also support the removal of accounts that were shared, although allowing the creation of a new account rather than IP ban. Sound fair?
I dunno, I was looking at your post history earlier and it seems you are quite involved with the forum or at the very least have never been afraid to voice your very colourfully expressed opinions! http://royals.ms/forum/showthread.php?t=4643 http://royals.ms/forum/showthread.php?t=4660
Just to add a little base to some things that were mentioned before... In my opinion the rule should be revised and state the punishment for account sharing. A punishment should not be applied if there is no law that precedes it (heck, there is even a general principle of law that states this: nulla poena sine lege previa). As to this, I simply suggest that: i) add to that clause that a perm ban will be the punishment for its violation, or; ii) that those instances will be managed in the same manner as Rule 24 or whatever rule you wish to apply. If this has been included already then disregard this post. I would be cautious with leaving the amount or type of punishment to a case-by-case basis, or even less, to precedent since no were in the Rules (I think) it states that people are complying with previous decisions established by the Staff nor that those apply to everyone at the same time. The option of simply stating the punishment is to prevent this type of occurrences where people are not acknowledging the fairness of such a ban. After all, be it really harsh/unfair/unjust, those Rules were agreed by the parties the moment they registered into the server and we have all accepted to be governed by them.
:/ retro-something something {Just to emphasise, incase i get more personal attacks. T.T} Okay, so after reviewing the arguments, there are still issues unaddressed. Unfair gameplay What about cases whereby there is no unfair gameplay? What about other offences that cause unfair gameplay? Then explain why vote abusing carries a much lighter penalty? I know of people who spend time and effort to vote everyday. Vote abusers gach more than others and that would give them an advantage over others too. Even if nx were deleted from their accounts, the mesos they have made from the sales of apresets, pgc, ws, etc etc, would still be unfair gameplay. Likewise for botters and glitch abusers. Why not perm ban for all offences? F3 Dont get caught? This had been brought up a lot and I feel that it's unfair especially when the penalty is perm ban. Like John mentioned earlier, he will only investigate when someone suspects foul play. And also, Ty mentioned revenge-reporting. Which might be the case for Lance.. :/ Inconsistency/ Bias Also, I don’t understand why this cannot be used as a precedent. Also emphasizing my point that if the penalty is so heavy and that it’s a serious offence, then why is it not that nothing is done to pick out account sharers. I also understand that GMs cant do much about it due to the limitations of the logs and they do not have the time to come up with a method to enforce this rule. All in all, i think account sharing that affects gameplay is wrong and the account should be deleted. However for minor cases (mentioned by ty), i think it’s a personal responsibility who you entrust your account info to. The GMs’ hands are tied for this issue and the only sustainable solution is to perm ban any account sharers. That, I understand but I do hope they come up with a way to make this more fair. Side note : (if someone can teach me how to spoiler all this or spoiler it for me, that will be great. ) Personal attack. ^ Personally find the word "useless" very offensive especially when used to describe a person. And in this case, I'm not pretending. What's there to pretend.. Uh, sure. As mentioned, not tryna get us unbanned so calm yo tits. High level doesn't make me a pro. Just like how low levels doesn't mean you're a nub. And yes, I'm a nub. Played MSEA many years ago, got stuck at lvl 18. He knows how i arranged my inventory cos we talked about that before? And I was not worried about the state of my inventory, I barely play anymore. We did, but it was ruled unofficial.
I understand that account sharing is unfair , and this is why the rule was made. But please ask yourslefs gm's , is it really unfair that someone helps his girlfriend to do hp washing? Is that really a reason to ban someone? So , I just wanna say last thing that I do support the rule but think it should be changed a bit.
As already stated before... The problem with partially allowing account sharing is that it opens up so many loopholes and it would be basically impossible to monitor. Like John said, we would need to keep logs of every single movement that happened on the account from each IP and MAC that the database would quickly fill up with so much unnecessary problematic logs. It would be an incredible waste of a GM's time to have to monitor something like this. The easiest and simple way is just to not allow account sharing of any kind. There really is no need to log onto somebody else's account to 'help them organise their inventory' or 'help them HP wash' which are both very simple things. We will never know if that is all that happened or if there is a lot more to the story. If we start making exceptions for one person, others would try to use this precedence to do things and then get themselves unbanned by saying that is all they did. The rule is there and has always been there. The skype chatlog of the issue in question showed obvious negligence by a GM (who is no longer with us) but that GM also explained that it was against the rules and it seemed that they were trying to help them by trying explaining a way to get around the logs which was both incorrect and obviously wrong of that GM to do so. A better way of asking for clarification would have been publicly on the forum rather than privately to a GM 'friend' on Skype. We can, however, change the Terms & conditions to make it a lot more clear.
This is exactly what i'm getting at, we are looking at the rules too much. You should be looking at what is 'fair'. Is it fair that a boyfriend gets perma'd for doing a sweet thing, while botters and glitch abusers get a week? Is it fair that this rule is really broad? People can do a 'tiger' and get perma'd and just switch items and get perma'd. But then you hit the wall, where it's too hard to control. But does that not mean the GMs can use common sense to decide themselves? They have a clause: But again the GMs have the finale decision: Players agree that Game Masters and Administrators ("GMs") have ultimate discretion and authority in applying, construing, interpreting, acting or omitting of the Game Use & Restrictions ("Rules"). GMs should be able to give 3-7 day bans to players that account share but don't cause harm to the server, even though it says a Perma-ban on the rules. Just because it doesn't seem 'fair' in some cases to give such a harsh punishment for something so small. You guys are coming up with so many reasons for why people shouldn't account share, but the reality is, over 30% of the server does it, so i'm pretty sure there is some reason why people do it. You guys are coming up with a cody/duey solution, but do we have that? No, so currently people account share. Guild mules for skill books and a GPQ mule? Might be harder than gMS, but it's still easier than starting one from scratch. You guys say that ZJQ and AP resetting is easy? But some people might not get it, for example, 14 year old kids, or people that have ADD, etc. This 'Do not get caught' pisses me off so much, because so many people do it, and yet people only get banned when they get reported. So now a bunch of people are going to go about revenge reporting each other to get each other banned, etc etc etc.
The shareable storage system has never been asked for before. If we knew that this was something that people would want then we could look into it. But as it has never been mentioned then we have no reason to believe that it is something people would want to see added to the game. We could probably add a system to alert us of any suspicious logins rather than having to browse for them ourselves but the amount of false alerts we would get would be very high. The 'Don't get caught' merely serves as a warning to those who may have done it in the past and managed to get away with it unnoticed. It does not mean that it is okay to do so. It just means you are risking your account getting permanently banned by doing it.
