Character Name: Twibs Last thing you did: A zak run like 2 weeks ago Why do you think you got banned?: "we cannot endorse two accounts belonging to different people online on the same computer playing (nearly) at the same time." - TimK (Re: Ban Wars 2) Ban message when attempting to log in: permanently banned Twibs: accountsharing What GM banned you (optional): TimK Me and CerzBbz got banned for breaking a rule that was enforced after our ban. Our appeals are being ignored on the basis that it's not possible that family could live close together, which is quite frankly ridiculous to claim. We literally live down the street from eachother. But 2 minutes 40-odd secods is seen as an unreasonable amount of time to pick up a laptop and walk around the corner so there's that. Quite frankly the claims made seem quite washy since the only evidence you have is login times. Which I can and will prove are feasible and possible if prompted to do so. Also the claim that it is unreasonable for multiple accounts to be logged in at the same time within a household is nonsense; it has implications for housemates, flatmates, family etc; games like this are built on community and you're turning around and saying "well yes but not if you're literally in the same building you little scamps, now back to play in our community." A sure-fire way to stifle your own game for purely illogical reasons. Not to mention that this became a moot issue as soon as the multi-client was introduced into the game client, a welcome addition for many to be sure, whose computers were not capable to run virtual machines, or simply lacked the ability or patience to do so. But the need to pursue it was ingrained so heavily that following through with minimal weight to the claim was seen as the best course of action. Y'know, it's ok to be wrong. Especially when you fixed the issue causing it to happen.
Hello, Your brothers' ban appeal did not get ignored, it got discussed and closed based on the unlikeliness of his explanation. The 2 minute 40-odd seconds log-in difference is just an example. There's also logs where Twibs logs in at 21:43:22 on that particular MAC and IP address and Cerzbbz logs in at 21:44:43 on the same MAC and IP. Could it be you were visiting your brother and you wanted to show him something for 30 seconds? possibly. I only provided login times as evidence since you got banned on suspicion of account sharing. This was mostly based on the behavior and answers that Cerz provided in his first ban appeal that was unrelated to this case and his previous forum posts where he claims to own the character Twibs. If we look at this for example we can see that Cerz claims to be Twibs: https://royals.ms/forum/threads/intentional-bug-abuse-door-dc.63148/ It was posted on the 4th of may 2016 at 12:13 server time, Twibs log-ins were indeed from Cerz' usual connection. on the same day this was posted: https://royals.ms/forum/threads/el-nath-pq-secret-world.63191/ yet another claim by Cerz that he owns the character Twibs. We're not claiming its unreasonable for multiple accounts to be logged in at the same time within a household, we're claiming the login time differences between you and your brother are too small between different locations suggesting that you know and use eachothers' login details. It would still be suspicious today if people from different connections suddenly log in (multi clienting) on the same MAC and IP shortly after one of the accounts logged out at a different location.
"If we look at this for example we can see that Cerz claims to be Twibs" Where? After watching that video, I don't see any such claim. The ban appeal was posted through his account as it was the first one that we had access to. I really don't see what's unreasonable about that, and we already explained this in a previous appeal. We used the perspective video from my character because when someone is committing a malicious act, recording it from the perspective on a person on a rope is devoid of context. Yet you wonder why we feel that the posts are being ignored? "yet another claim by Cerz that he owns the character Twibs." Again, where? It’s a video from Cerz perspective of encountering a bug at el-nath pq. You then "closed his thread based on the unlikeliness of his explanation." Yet, the last comment you made on the old thread was giving a completely different reason for the ban. Not to mention the fact the thread was straight up ignored until you needed any shred of ammo to back up your thinly veiled claim - if anything good comes out of this it's that people will gain knowledge of and start using this bug to get the quest-related skills, since the thread has been given a new lease of life through this, then maybe it'll get some attention for the actual issue. Here’s another example where you have banned based off of speculation, and found players story unlikely. https://royals.ms/forum/threads/banned-for-buying-mesos.58123/ Yet both of us have offered to prove to the best of our ability that what we're saying is true. You have asked for none of the proof that we’re offering, yet still have "banned us on suspicion of account sharing".
It's not the video, it's the fact that Cerbz posts a thread using your character name and explaining the story as if he were you. I'm surprised you didn't see that and focused on the video the whole time. The same thing goes for the second example. We had a reason to have a suspicion of you and your friend account sharing and thus you got banned, this ban appeal is here for you to prove us wrong. With that said you don't have to wait for a queue to provide us with proof, feel free to do so whenever.
This is what you have to read and agree with when you create a Character Issue thread: This is what Cerz posted: This means that Cerz is claiming that his character name is Twibs. At this moment you're still banned on suspicion of account sharing. Since I already told you we can't endorse two accounts belonging to different people online on the same computer playing (nearly) at the same time while one of the accounts is often played at a different address (but you weren't interested in that) I thought you might be interested in some elaboration of why we suspected this so I posted some on this appeal. You (and your brother) are trying to weave around the problem and compare yourselves to other members in the community with unrelated cases or focus on elements of my replies that shouldn't be taken out of their context because it would lose their meaning. This is your ban appeal where you will have to convince us that you are wrongfully banned. Your ban reason has not changed since your brother started ban appeal #2 (banned for suspected account sharing) and our evidence and suspicions have not been debunked by your posts.
I'll address both of you individually, despite both making the same point that was covered in the very first ban appeal. Dimitri: As you stated here we can see you addressing a forum post. "It's not the video, it's the fact that Cerbz posts a thread using your character name and explaining the story as if he were you. I'm surprised you didn't see that and focused on the video the whole time. The same thing goes for the second example." Well there it is, we're back on this topic that has been explained twice now. In this forum post there's a video of my character, and the post is written from that perspective. Why? Because I wrote it, I recorded it. And here we can see two times that it has been addressed. Twibs - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "The ban appeal was posted through his account as it was the first one that we had access to." Cerz - Ban Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Hacking "Nope, I posted that on behalf of Twibs, as we couldn't remember his forum account. Turns out he just had to use facebook login." To reiterate: It was my video, of my character, Twibs - the perspective of the actual map owner, so it was only logical to use my character name while making the post. We posted under CerzBbz account, as that's where the video was recorded, that's where the game was played, and finally, that is the first forum account that we had access to. "The same goes for the second example" https://royals.ms/forum/threads/el-nath-pq-secret-world.63191/ I've included a link, mainly because "I'm surprised you didn't see that and focused on the" first example the whole time. And because we're all into screenshots now too, lets blast one of those in, hopefully you can see it clearly. https://gyazo.com/fff3735eef306ad1ed309d20fddbdab4 Weird, that screenshot is CerzBbz, or as you aptly call him Cerbz, who is without doubt claiming to be Twibs. I understand the confusion you have made Dimitri, it's honestly quite clear really: You think that CerzBbz is actually called Cerbz, and that's a five letter name like Twibs, they also end in "bs" and "bz" which are pretty similar endings in terms of appearance. Thus, I believe that you watched the video, seen the character name was Cerbz, mistook that from Twibs and decided it was another video of my character. Honestly though, what is your problem with the thread above. You and Tim are throwing this at us as if it is proof, multiple times, honestly though, I don't think either of you have opened the thread. Each time I click the thread I see a bug report. I see a video of CerzBbz and myself doing El-nath Pq. I see that the recording is of CerzBbz character and when I read the description, I notice that it lines up with what he is stating. In the screenshot above, you can see the video paused at 0:25. At this stage of the video, the Character "CerzBbz" is using a Super Megaphone to recruit people to help us with this pq, as our party just failed at beating it. (With over 7minutes remaining). In the description we see Cerz state that "I was using a smega when Tylus was killed, this caused me to be left inside the PQ, when it kicked everyone else." The next 1m30s of the video you can watch me and Cerz talk to one another through party chat. "With that said you don't have to wait for a queue to provide us with proof, feel free to do so whenever." Proof of address was offered, however I am not going to be posting my full name and address and phone number on a public forum. Your rules also state not to contact GMs regarding ban appeals outside of the ban appeal forum section. (No Skype or inbox messaging) which is why that isn't an option. Tim: Oh, look, again we're looking at the abuse report. The one that we created and posted under CerzBbz forum account. If only CerzBbz had explained that two threads ago. Tim - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "This means that Cerz is claiming that his character name is Twibs." Does it? Twibs - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "The ban appeal was posted through his account as it was the first one that we had access to." Cerz - Ban Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Hacking "Nope, I posted that on behalf of Twibs, as we couldn't remember his forum account. Turns out he just had to use facebook login." I mean I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's not proof of account sharing. It's a recording I made while playing on his machine. When I went to post it I didn't have access to my own account, however as I was currently at CerzBbz house, guess who was there to give me access to both his youtube and forum account. - You guessed it, Frank Sinatra. Tim - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "At this moment you're still banned on suspicion of account sharing." Thanks for elaborating, I've been posting in the ban appeal because I find the conversations riveting. I hadn't even realised my account was banned. ... "Since I already told you we can't endorse two accounts belonging to different people online on the same computer playing (nearly) at the same time while one of the accounts is often played at a different address (but you weren't interested in that) I thought you might be interested in some elaboration of why we suspected this so I posted some on this appeal." I like how you say that I wasn't interested in that, isn't it the sole purpose of this ban appeal. In fact, I used it as the description for why we are banned. Because, even if we were banned for speculation of multi-accounting, you decided that to resolve that you wouldn't allow people to play through teamviewer. And of course I want elaboration, the reason this appeal exists is because you fail to elaborate or relay information effectively. Cerz has offered to spend a few minutes talking to you over skype or PM to try and resolve this, however the conclusion to that was everything had to be done through the forum. Tim - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "You (and your brother) are trying to weave around the problem and compare yourselves to other members in the community with unrelated cases or focus on elements of my replies that shouldn't be taken out of their context because it would lose their meaning." How are we trying to weave around the problem. We have straight up offered to prove what we can but that gets ignored. When you make a point, we have tried to address it to the best of our ability. The reason that we're now comparing ourselves to other members within the community is because seeing our ban appeal go nowhere is rather frustrating. Finally, taking your quotes out of context? You've said time and time again that we're banned under suspicion of account sharing. Yet your only evidence for this was log in times, which we explained was possible, and a forum post. Twibs - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "Which I can and will prove are feasible and possible if prompted to do so." Cerz - Ban Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Multi "As you are questioning the legitimacy of us living near each other, I'll go and get you pictures of letters addressed to us at each location. Using these you can use google maps to verify that we live practically beside each other. Note: if you do request these I won't be sharing them publicly as, but will PM them to you, as I do not feel comfortable releasing that information unless required." I can't think of otherways to prove it, otherwise we'd offer that too. Legitametly though, how can we prove that we're not account sharing? We're trying to address each point of 'evidence' that you provide, however, when you close threads without giving a reason why, it's hard for us to do so. Tim - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "and our evidence and suspicions have not been debunked by your posts." The only "evidence" you seem to have provided so far is login times - which we explained. And a forum post - again, which we explained. Both of your claims are based entirely off of speculation. As explained previously, all claims you have made we've refuted or attempted to explain. The real problem here is that you don't believe us, and there will never be concrete evidence for us to prove that we're not account sharing, as we do not record every second and aspect of our lives. As you stated, Tim - Ban Wars Episode 3: Revenge of the Tim'th "You (and your brother) are trying to weave around the problem" Here are extracts of the second thread where your points are addressed. CerzBbz - Ban Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Multi "we do live [literally] right beside each other." Tim - Ban Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Multi "Even if that were the case it still doesn't justify logging in on the same computer within minutes. Are you implying you and your brother live next door of eachother and he rushed over to your place after he logged out so he could log in again there? The IP addresses used indicate that you most likely didn't even connect from the same city." CerzBbz - Ban Wars Episode 2: Attack of the multi "Nope, I don't indicate that he rushed round, although, if I'm honest, I think he could arrive in roughly 3minutes if he did. In fact, the normally way in which I connect to one of my own computers is through teamviewer, and, any time he needs access to one of my computers he will do the same, as we have an account connecting all of our devices." Here we see Cerz comment on how we choose to play ... "I don't know the exact time in which this happened, but one night I remember it happening was when we were doing ToT quests. Twibs came round to my house to get food while we done ToT quests, later he left, but left his account logged in, on one of the computers in my house. Once he got home he connect into my computer and logged himself out. Now, honestly I'm mainly surprised it took him 2 minutes (and 42 seconds) to log in and out." Next he gives an example of how we utilize this. Stating that it is indeed and example as he didn't know the exact situation which you're reffering to. ... "As you are questioning the legitimacy of us living near each other, I'll go and get you pictures of letters addressed to us at each location. Using these you can use google maps to verify that we live practically beside each other. Note: if you do request these I won't be sharing them publicly as, but will PM them to you, as I do not feel comfortable releasing that information unless required." Followed by offering you proof to back this up. How did you respond to this? You ignored the offer of proof, you seemed to ignore how teamviewer actually works and you focused entirely on the example and used it as evidence against us. Yet you have the audacity to say that I'm quoting you out of context? You took an example and used it as fact, and stated how that example wasn't possible with the given circumstances. It seems like you put no thought whatsoever into your post as that was the only thing that you decided to address. An EXAMPLE of how we utilized teamviewer to play. Tim - Ban Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Multi "That's interesting because the example with the 2 minutes and 42 second I gave was when Twibs logged out at his usual location and was shortly after logged in at your location and computer. This would mean he didn't go home and log himself out from your PC to play again at home but on the contrary he logged out at his own place and logged in at yours shortly after." And in the same post you then question why we'd play like this. Why? Because you see no benefit in it. Yet, if we look back up Cerz had literally just explained this. ... "I don't see any benefit in moving to a leech location for example via a teamviewer connection through your computer after he just logged out on his regular setup." CerzBbz - Ban Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Multi "But, for him to move from his house to mine would have most likely been done through teamviewer. He could have even logged out at his house, then used teamviewer to log himself on my computer before coming around, or heading out to another location. There are endless different reasons to why he chose to do this." ... "There are many different reasons that Twibs may want to log in his account on one of my computers such as: He needs it logged in for transferring items and is already using his laptop/computer, He's being a ___ and wants to wake me up with the horrific sound of using genesis over and over again, He intends on coming over to my house, He is at my house, He wants to show me something on his account, He's at the library and his computer is off - and for some reason will not wake up using wake on LAN, His monitor is failing to display maplestory correctly, He's asked me to leech him, I've asked him to leech me, I've asked him to log on and HS me whilst I train my account, He's leeching himself so has logged in his ALT on one of my machines, He just wants to use my main computer as it's a beast compared to his" Cerz is literally addressing each point you made to the best of his ability. He has offered to proof where possible when you have based claims entirely off of speculation, yet you ignored it and moved on. Here's a picture of the teamviewer account in question: https://gyazo.com/57882d03cd808687f1e4f8d2c7ed073e I took this screenshot whilst I was out. As can be seen, I had access to 5 computers whilst not being physically near any of them. This concept seems to confuse you as your fall back seems to be login times. I personally don't see this as proof to anything, however at least it backs up the claims that we make. If you provide actual evidence to support your claim there's no way we can even attempt to object, however you have not. You have made washy claims based off of log in times and a forum post.
Alright, so I've done a lot of reading in the last little while and I think it's time to clarify everything. Please bear with me - I will try to keep this post as concise and straightforward as possible. I will start from the beginning and move to the end as logically as I can. Why this ban was handed out: This ban was handed out because two people, Cerz and Twibs, have claimed to be two different people, and were found logging into the same computers in rapid succession; one example is the given logging out of Twibs on one computer and then logging back into another within three minutes on a completely different IP. Because of this, we have suspected the owners of the two accounts of accountsharing. Using the same example, the change in IP is simply too fast for us to believe that any person moved from one computer to another on a different IP address legitimately. That is the reason you have been banned, that is our evidence - we are stating that we believe this is simply not possible unless you can prove with your own evidence that it is. Why this ban has yet to be overturned: You have provided that Twibs and Cerz use Teamviewer on a regular basis to access your computers, and often switch computers at your own convenience. You have provided absolutely no evidence of you being able to do that apart from your own word, which goes against our word saying that you have not been doing that. You need to be able to provide some sort of reasonable evidence to prove that you have used this software in order to multiclient. Because you cannot prove that this is what Twibs was doing, we cannot consider this any different from someone physically being at the other computer to log in - someone that was not Twibs, as we've deemed that time between logins to be impossible. Notes on the forum accounts: Other information that has come up in this case includes the unclear nature of your forum accounts - sharing forum accounts because of forgotten passwords is not something you should be doing, as you should know. This is not a reason that you were banned, this is simply a supplementary piece of information that causes us to be more skeptical of your claims. In the thread made by Cerz reporting door dc'ers, the character in the video was Twibs, and no attempt in the thread was made to suggest that the report was on behalf of a friend. This neither supports nor disproves any claim, however it is conspicuous when we have evidence to believe that you are account sharing. We do not ask Twibs to prove that they are not Cerz, nor vice versa, as a result of that thread. Our reason for providing a link to the thread was simply to show that there is a lot of reason to doubt what you are saying. I could also bring up that Twibs was once banned for botting (proof) as reason to mistrust your word, as you have once broken the rules before, however it's not conducive to this particular case apart from raising the fact that Twibs does have history of breaking rules. In summary, You have been banned for a legitimate reason: as far as your logs and information shows, the character Twibs has been shared between two individuals on IP addresses that are too far to reasonably be the same person. Your defense is that you used Teamviewer to accomplish this, however you have not provided evidence to support your claim, and therefore we have no reason to believe what you say is true, and so we have to assume that, like every other case we have ever had, it is another non-Twibs human who has logged into the account, thereby being account sharing. You will need to provide real evidence to support your claim if you wish for this ban to be overturned; an explanation is a start, however it is simply not enough. To provide a small analogy, a person banned for botting could state that they fell asleep at the keyboard and a button was held down as a result - this has been claimed many, many times. It's a reasonable explanation, but we need real evidence to prove that claim, else we cannot believe it. We cannot accept your word alone, unfortunately. I hope everyone reading has found this post informative of our thought process in this particular case.
Re: Teamviewer We have another video, is much longer and cannot be bothered editing. Is in a car at 2am proving you can access teamviewer anywhere.
Okay, so this is a good start. I now believe that you use Teamviewer, and use it to do at least one thing - open multiple clients. Our reason for the ban is still the same, however, that your login patterns give us reason to believe that it was not the owner of the account that logged in to the account, and you have already claimed in your discourse with us that you have been using accounts in a fashion that benefits both yours and your brother - sharing an HS mule, but not necessarily having the person who doesn't own it on it. So now we are at a point where it is simply your point against ours, and both sides have merit. After a lot of consideration and discussion on this, our end verdict is as follows: your permanent ban will be revoked, but you will instead be subjected to a 30 day ban which commenced on the date of your initial ban (May 20th) thus ending on June 19th, at the time of this post. Our decision is also circumstantial - as our new client fully allows multiclienting, you no longer have any reason to use Teamviewer for any purpose relating to our game. We are therefore requesting that Twibs only uses Twibs' computers to play the game, and that Cerz only uses Cerz' computers to play the game, and that you do not share computers between the two of you ever again. Should you be found to still be sharing computers, we will assume that you are abusing for a specific reason, and your permanent ban will be reinstated. Thank you for your patience and information on the issue.
