ALL Your Character Names: Gifflar Last thing you did: Spoke in the shout box. Why do you think you got banned?: Perhaps this is about lifting Dezperadow’s ban appeal. Apparently, I was banned form the shoutbox of 'glorifying' rule-breaking, such as RWT (Real-World Trading), which couldn’t be further from the truth. Since I don’t know the actual reason behind Dezperadow’s previous ban—whether it was for RWT, vote abuse, account sharing, or something else—it’s hard for me to understand exactly what I was supposedly glorifying. What I did was agree with Dezperadow on some points he made in his own ban appeal (which, by the way, was deleted). I stand by my belief that some rules should be reconsidered when it comes to permanent bans. As Dezperadow rightly pointed out, for the server to thrive in the future, we need active players. Some of our current rules are, to be frank, counterproductive to the server’s long-term sustainability. As TimK mentioned in his staff recap, he doesn’t believe the server is dead (and it isn’t), but it still needs active players to sustain it. Ban message when attempting to log in: Dave PM'd me in my inbox saying I got banned from the shoutbox. What GM banned you (optional): Dave Deviluke
You were not banned for glorifying rule-breaking; my shoutbox comment of "We do not allow content that intends to promote/glorify rule-breaking" was specifically directed at Dezperadow due to the questionable claims made in his Ban Appeal. The shoutbox ban was issued because of the statement: "He does have a good point about the existing rules." In Dezperadow’s deleted comment, he essentially argued that ban evading should no longer be prohibited and referred to the banning of him again as witch-hunting. (I will not repeat his misleading claims about why ban evading should be acceptable.) Spoiler: Ban Evasion "The act of circumventing a ban that exists on a player through the use of any means with the intent to, or accomplishing, access of the game on any account. Punishment: Identical to the consequence of which the player attempts to, or already has, circumvented." Given your clarification that your intent is focused on the importance of maintaining "active players" and not advocating for the abolishment of the "Ban Evasion" rule, I will proceed to lift the shoutbox ban. (My initial understanding was that your stance aligned with Dezperadow's position on abolishing the "Ban Evasion" rule, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.) Note: If you have concerns about the permanent bans outlined in the Terms & Conditions, you are encouraged to submit feedback suggesting how they could be improved.
Yes, as you understood from the previous comment, that is what I meant with that reply. I do not support ban evading at all. I just think that some of the underlining rules which makes a person ban evade is poorly formed. That's not how I interpreted it. However, I was reading it while I was in Horntail, and by the time I refreshed the page, you had already removed the reply, which is quite unfortunate. From my understanding, the majority of his comment was addressing the idea that some of the current rules are essentially driving the server's population away for good. Whether it's about ban evasion, RWT, vote abuse, account sharing, or other permanent rule-breaking offenses, the strictness seems excessive. For example, a permanent ban for account sharing? That's absolutely absurd. Most people who join this server for nostalgic reasons don’t even thoroughly read the rules. Take this scenario: you join the server with two of your friends, playing together on a LAN every Friday night for a few weeks. You share the same internet connection or even the same computer, logging into separate accounts. Under the current rules, this could result in a permanent ban—completely barring you from ever playing on this server again. Seriously? Bruuuuh That’s correct—I would never advocate for the removal of the "Ban Evasion" rule. What I’m suggesting is that the staff consider alternatives to some of the other permanent bans (though I firmly agree that RWT should always remain a permanent offense).
This is false. Simply sharing an internet connection or device does not result in an account-sharing ban. For example, friends or family playing together on the same LAN is entirely acceptable under our rules, provided each person only accesses their own account. The staff team makes every effort to differentiate between account sharing and situations involving shared internet or devices. We have access to extensive logs and tools that allow us to identify and confirm cases of account sharing, and the scenario given would be easily confirmable within those logs, and in the rare instance where a misunderstanding arises, a ban for such scenario would be easily rectified once appealed.
Given the scenario, I'll share a similar situation I experienced when I was younger (not on Royals but on actual GMS). My best friend and I used to play together a lot, sometimes even on the same computer. We had separate accounts, but we shared the same password because we created our accounts together. Considering these factors, how would you differentiate between the two accounts, given that the password hashes would be identical? To add complexity, my PIN was 111111, while his was 555555. With overlapping elements like the MAC address, password hashes, and PINs, it would be challenging for you to verify that these were two distinct users—especially without additional verification methods or factors. Feel free to remove or modify this comment as you see fit if you think parts of it are unnecessary or inappropriate.
An investigation would take into account many many more factors, however I cannot go into explicit detail for obvious reasons. Additionally, passwords are hashed and salted, so we are unable to determine if somebody is using the same password for multiple accounts, this is for your security.
