Dancing Mustard Skittles Snorri Simon Viviant

[jonesthecurl]

I swear, I've never heard the term posting abuse. The only bans I've seen made for posting under multiple accounts is the case of someone posting to avoid a ban. At least it seems things will have a resolution, but if the higher-ups can charge us large amounts of money for breaking unexpressed rules...

Norse, among many many others, was banned for posting abuse.

No: he was banned for posting something abusive, NOT for mis-using the mechanism of posting.
You know that too.

[The1exile]

Hey Dit, Thanks for the reasoned PM.

We've enforced this rule many a time before. The principle behind the rule is to keep people from abusing the use of more than 1 account, be that in the forums or in the games. "belonging to the same person" does not necessarily mean exclusively. When Skittles is logged into someone else's account, that account belongs to them to do with as they wish, and that is something that we wish to stop. In games it leads to scoreboard abuse, in forums it least to posting abuse.

This is a perfect case of where people used multiple accounts for posting abuse - they accessed and posted in private usergroups without the group leader or the group's permission, thus violating the trust and integrity of that group.

As with all players who abuse multiple accounts, we busted them, should the choose to return they will have formal disciplinary warnings waiting for them for the trolling aspect of what they did.

Just because they are popular does not make them immune to the rules. Just because they have built friendships and a community here does not mean that they can overrule the rest of the community. There are 20,000 people on this site, 4 people do not get to be exempt from the rules which govern all.

Feel free to post this to the forums if you so choose.

Twill

Hold up, what?

The rules as written against multi-ing have always been game related, never forum related - the rule page itself states "if you are sure they belong to the same person", which they don't - simple acceptance of account sitting will show that. '"belonging to the same person" does not necessarily mean exclusively' - you mean "belonging to the same person" doesn't actually mean "belonging to the same person"? Why write it then?

At worst, it was inappropriate use of account privileges, which I'm happy to argue the trolling point on (with reference to others who have made silly/joke posts while account sitting in the past), but multiple accounts? My posterior.

[PLAYER57832]

.

Thanks for the more complete explanation. It does explain a lot.

And I am sorry for what (admittedly small and innocent) part I had in the whole debacle.

[diddle]

I think the rule agaisnt multiple accounts is implied that it is relevant to the forums aswell, because there are those who have created multiple accounts in the past, only using them in the forums, who have been bannned. And if you can't learn form those experiences, which nobody protested against, then you should be more careful. That said, I do not in any way think that what those guys were doing has anything to do with multiple accounts.

[Frigidus]

I think the rule agaisnt multiple accounts is implied that it is relevant to the forums aswell, because there are those who have created multiple accounts in the past, only using them in the forums, who have been bannned. And if you can't learn form those experiences, which nobody protested against, then you should be more careful. That said, I do not in any way think that what those guys were doing has anything to do with multiple accounts.

There is a key difference though. There was no newly created account. There were four people and four accounts, this was a case of some sharing of those accounts. I'm not even sure if it's a step up from account sitting.

[GabonX]

I think the rule agaisnt multiple accounts is implied that it is relevant to the forums aswell, because there are those who have created multiple accounts in the past, only using them in the forums, who have been bannned. And if you can't learn form those experiences, which nobody protested against, then you should be more careful. That said, I do not in any way think that what those guys were doing has anything to do with multiple accounts.

There is a key difference though. There was no newly created account. There were four people and four accounts, this was a case of some sharing of those accounts. I'm not even sure if it's a step up from account sitting.

I believe that wilderbeast and his room mates were banned for sharing accounts under the Multi rule.

Just because their isn't precedent, because nobody tried to push their luck in such a ridiculous way before, doesn't mean that there won't be consequences.

[Frigidus]

I think the rule agaisnt multiple accounts is implied that it is relevant to the forums aswell, because there are those who have created multiple accounts in the past, only using them in the forums, who have been bannned. And if you can't learn form those experiences, which nobody protested against, then you should be more careful. That said, I do not in any way think that what those guys were doing has anything to do with multiple accounts.

There is a key difference though. There was no newly created account. There were four people and four accounts, this was a case of some sharing of those accounts. I'm not even sure if it's a step up from account sitting.

I believe that wilderbeast and his room mates were banned for sharing accounts under the Multi rule.

Just because their isn't precedent, because nobody tried to push their luck in such a ridiculous way before, doesn't mean that there won't be consequences.

It just seems to me that unless there are more accounts than there are people that there isn't a problem.

[pimpdave]

If I spend a week at a friend's house, it doesn't become my house.

Correct sir, because THIS IS NOT FRANCE.

[Frigidus]

If I spend a week at a friend's house, it doesn't become my house.

Correct sir, because THIS IS NOT FRANCE.

Clearly, socialism fails.

[pmchugh]

Now, let me make this last point perfectly 100% crystal clear.

They can buy back if they want. This is NOT a permaban. If THEY want to appeal this they can. If YOU don't like the way this site is moderated or run, vote with your feet and leave. If you don't want to leave, quit whining and deal with it.

Twill

LOL

ooooh conspiracy! it's soooo fun.

No conspiracy, no over arching plan to systematically ruin the world as we know it, just plain and simple busting.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but they get treated the same way as anyone else.

Sorry guys, shows over, move on, they can buy back or appeal if they want, just like anyone else.

Twill

These posts show what is wrong with the modding/admin on this site. You are incredibly unproffesional. Your turning into wicked, soon you'll have to kick yourself out.

[PLAYER57832]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

[mpjh]

Yes, unprofessional, that is the essence of the problem in this instance.

[pimpdave]

By the way hecter, you aren't supposed to make posts for people who are forum banned or busted.

Really? That's against the rules?

I mean, I guess I could see why under certain conditions, but if the text posted isn't offensive or breaking any expressed rule, I'm not sure I see the reason why, just by virtue of the text being authored by someone else, would be breaking any rules.

Maybe if I was receiving payment for the words, an incredibly weak argument could be made for plagiarism, but more reasonably, it would just mean that I'm a proxy or that I have a ghostwriter.

I'm not trying to argue with you Night Strike, I just really had no idea that would get one in trouble, and am glad I haven't found myself in hot water over it. I honestly don't think that should be a rule though, as proving it and enforcing it would be nearly impossible.

And so this just highlights how labyrinthine the rules are.

[Snorri1234]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

[jbrettlip]

Welcome back!!!

[GabonX]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

Or you could not secretly infiltrate a private usergroup which you were personally barred from joining. You might even consider just posting and playing with your own account as that is the intended purpose.

Just a thought

[Frigidus]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

At least this sends a good message to the community: Break the multi rule and you'll be bailed out and given UNLIMITED FREE GAMES!!!

[GabonX]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

At least this sends a good message to the community: Break the multi rule and you'll be bailed out and given UNLIMITED FREE GAMES!!!

Jealous?

[TheProwler]

If someone is banned, and then someone else makes posts on his behalf, that undermines the system of banning.

The admins of this site are intelligent and understand that if they give an inch, certain people will want to take a yard.

And when you try to take a yard right off the bat? Well, we know what happens then...

[Snorri1234]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

Or you could not secretly infiltrate a private usergroup which you were personally barred from joining. You might even consider just posting and playing with your own account as that is the intended purpose.

Just a thought

I've always played with only my own account. I did babysit once or twice, but none of those people got banned for that. Hell, why would I use Simon's account to play games? He only has games which I could easily fit on my own account too. It's retarded to claim either me or DM ever played for someone else. Skittles! hasn't played a game for over a month and only wants to check his usergroups.

[GabonX]

Hmm.

They ban a person so that they can't communicate or play on the site..

Someone begins communicating for them...

Ya, common sense would dictate that it would be a bad idea.......

[Snorri1234]

Hey, anyone remember that time Delia and ladidia or whatever abused the system by having ladi play games for Delia even when Delia posted (and therefore wasn't away)? Yeah, they got a block and THAT WAS ALL!


Really consistent enforcement guys.

[GabonX]

They can make whatever rules they wish. It would just be easier if it were clarified a bit more.

Or if they tell us they made the rule before this. This rule was never enforced prior to this. The only cases that bears some resemblance to this are of people posting under someone's else's account because they are on a ban. This was not the case here (none of us were banned) and even then people usually get a warning at first.

Or you could not secretly infiltrate a private usergroup which you were personally barred from joining. You might even consider just posting and playing with your own account as that is the intended purpose.

Just a thought

I've always played with only my own account. I did babysit once or twice, but none of those people got banned for that. Hell, why would I use Simon's account to play games? He only has games which I could easily fit on my own account too. It's retarded to claim either me or DM ever played for someone else. Skittles! hasn't played a game for over a month and only wants to check his usergroups.

I didn't say that you were playing games with two accounts, although there is no way to know whether you did or not.

I said that you could avoid such problems by not secretly infiltrate a private usergroup which you were personally barred from joining.

[pimpdave]

And now it seems that one of the people in the Fireside Tavern had whined to the mods. And you know just how trigger-happy the mods are, around here. All 4 of them permabanned for a rule that does not even exist.

Iliad, the meat of your post (from which this quote is taken) is tres good. However, you mention something here that I thought deserved a bit of expansion. First off, the last sentence quoted is erroneous, but not egregiously so. They aren't "permabanned", they are being "shaken down", or whatever it's called when the account is taken hostage and a user must pay a ransom to "free" it.

But what I want to expand here is the idea of the "trigger-happy mods". I'm not entirely sure they ARE trigger-happy, but I do get the sense that they play favorites. If the banning business is incremental and cumulative, then I should like to think that someone could work off some of those increments with time on good behavior. Think about it like points on your driver's license. Those points go away after time, if one is a good, law-abiding driver.

Here, however, it makes no difference if the previous offense was 24 hours ago, or 6 months ago, the punishment is the same. So, it hinges on the relative long-term memory of the mod levying the punishment. (Please, mods, correct me here if I misunderstand)

I think the best possible change to the site that could come from all of this, instead of further demands for clarified rules and the same old ad hominem attacks against the powers that be, is perhaps some kind of compromise on these rules and their enforcement. I would really like to see some clemency for good behavior.

I would like to see this clemency, because I am a human being, and thus I am fallible. I will probably screw up and offend someone down the line, and that helps motivate my desire for a system of clemency for all. This is the same reason why I truly believe that even the worst criminals deserve an advocate that will work his/her absolute best to provide a defense. While I wouldn't be able to defend someone like Osama bin Ladden, I still believe that he deserves the best defense his lawyer could provide. Why, you ask? Because if I was in the same position, I would really want to have at least ONE person out there going to bat for me.

This is not the same system, this is a privately owned website, not criminal justice. With that in mind, we should try to avoid making too many comparisons to the two. And why a system of incremental clemency would be a good compromise.

Now, of course, the slippery slope argument is going to get made after this post, saying that it'll just lead to people biding their time before engaging in the same antics, knowingly. And to that I say, if that turns out to be the case, then revisit the idea down the line, and modify it accordingly.

I might toss this out in Suggs & Buggs, if anyone here thinks it would fly.

[Frigidus]

Hey, anyone remember that time Delia and ladidia or whatever abused the system by having ladi play games for Delia even when Delia posted (and therefore wasn't away)? Yeah, they got a block and THAT WAS ALL!


Really consistent enforcement guys.

Apparently forum abuse is more heinous than point abuse, the problem the multi rule was originally put in place for.