No multi rule

[sheepofdumb]

Now I'm fine with the no multi rule but the only reason stated for the no multi rule is so that people will not have thier multi's team up in a game. Now if someone creates a multi for forum use and never uses the multi in a game then there is no harm done right? That's the only reason no multi's are allowed right? You don't state very clearly your policy towards multi's. My only multi, the infamous Master Sheep only violated the general no multi rule. He did not join any games which would give me as a player an unfair advantage. Even if he did join any games because of your cheating policy he would be fine as long as he did not play with Sheepofdumb. Please state your policy more clearly. I looked into it and found nothing.

[AK_iceman]

1. No multiple accounts.

How is that not clear?

[wicked]

How is "NO MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS" not clear? It's pretty black and white. It doesn't matter your reason for creating a 2nd account, it's not allowed. Period.



ooh fastposted!

[pancakemix]

Actually, playing with multis even if they're not playing together is theft, because you are using a new account to play more that the alloted 4 games per non-premium member, which normally costs $20.

[Dancing Mustard]

Actually, playing with multis even if they're not playing together is theft, because you are using a new account to play more that the alloted 4 games per non-premium member, which normally costs $20.

Whoops! Steady on with the word 'theft' there. In a nutshell, multi-ing isn't a theft (legally or in a moral sense); but I don't really want to turn this thread into another ranting festival (we'll chat about it in PMs if you want though). But calling people 'thieves' is fairly offensive, and not really warranted this point in time.

I'm afraid I agree with the mods though. It says no multis, so regardless of why (and we all know that it's an anti-cheating policy with financial motivation) that is; multis are just forbidden, simple as.

[wicked]

I'd have to agree it's technically "theft" if you're making it to get around the 4-game limit. If you're getting unlimited games for free, which everyone esle has to pay for, then technically, that's theft.

[Coleman]

I think it is always theft regardless of the reason for having more then one. Although it is a little sketchy seeing as how you can't buy more then one, at least not for yourself. The whole ethical argument of stealing something that nobody sells in the first place. Anyway, ignore me, I'm sure you already do anyway.

[El capiton]

it is pretty easily stated there are no multi accounts and i once too did have mutliple accounts for he same reason as you just so i could play more games without paying 20 bucks so i could play alot of games but i will say this to coleman, calling someone a thief for that is pretty ignorent and your part should take the dick out of your ass

[AK_iceman]

i once too did have mutliple accounts

QFE

[wicked]

please bust me, I'm a dumbass

[Gary30060]

since when is not paying for something...that everyone else is paying for.......and you know you should....not theft?

[sfhbballnut]

Never ceases to amaze me what people will admit in postes

[Zepy12]

it is pretty easily stated there are no multi accounts and i once too did have mutliple accounts for he same reason as you just so i could play more games without paying 20 bucks so i could play alot of games but i will say this to coleman, calling someone a thief for that is pretty ignorent

Oh my...this HAS to be either the funniest or the dumbest post on CC ever.

[AAFitz]

since when is not paying for something...that everyone else is paying for.......and you know you should....not theft?

thank you...i was thinking of a way to post that...and I see you already did
stealing a service is the same as illegally downloading a song, stealing a candy bar, or stealing a car. The consequenses are the only thing different, but morally its all the same.


multis cheat others, steal from lack, and perhaps more importantly ruin other peoples games many who pay for them. To them it may just be a game, but to lack its a business, so you are cheating a real persons customers, stealing from a real person, and annoying people who would otherwise be able to play and have fun.

It is just a game, but you are kidding yourself if you think its ok to go against the rules. Justify it to yourself however you want, but thats what multis are doing. The fact that they dont see it that way is irrelevant.

[AAFitz]

How is "NO MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS" not clear? It's pretty black and white. It doesn't matter your reason for creating a 2nd account, it's not allowed. Period.



ooh fastposted!

and bestposted...his was much better

and dont ask me what bestposted means...you get the idea

[sully800]

lawl at this entire thread

[Nephilim]

Actually, playing with multis even if they're not playing together is theft, because you are using a new account to play more that the alloted 4 games per non-premium member, which normally costs $20.

Whoops! Steady on with the word 'theft' there. In a nutshell, multi-ing isn't a theft (legally or in a moral sense); but I don't really want to turn this thread into another ranting festival (we'll chat about it in PMs if you want though). But calling people 'thieves' is fairly offensive, and not really warranted this point in time.

you ain't quite right, son

[Dancing Mustard]

I'd have to agree it's technically "theft" if you're making it to get around the 4-game limit. If you're getting unlimited games for free, which everyone esle has to pay for, then technically, that's theft.

Well actually, that's where you'd be wrong...
What do you even mean by the word 'technically' wicked? Are you citing some actual legal or jurisprudential source? If not, then there's nothing technical about your opinion at all. If we're going to debate this clinically, then let's not try to dress up our own opinions as legal reality, because that's not going to get us anywhere.

you ain't quite right, son

Well you ain't quite backing that up with any logical argument yet, so you'll excuse me for treating that as a bald assertion of your opinion. I'd love to discuss this civilly with you all, because I know it's a controversial topic. But if we're going to do this, then let's be logical and sensible and not just shout unsupported one-liners as if they were gospel. Eh son?

since when is not paying for something...that everyone else is paying for.......and you know you should....not theft?

Heh, best try so far, nearly.... but not quite.

Let me preface this by saying two things:
1. I don't really want to get involved in another mass ranting session, but I feel like a more thorough answer from me is required.
2. I disagree with multiple accounts entirely.

I'm firmly of the opinion that labelling the practice of 'multi-ing' as 'theft' is too crude an analysis. You're all right, you've identified the practice as 'bad', but your labelling of it as theft isn't accurate.

Multi-ing is dishonest, it's indulging in a good/service that you're not entitled to. But it's too simplistic to regard that alone as constituting a theft. The part that your analysis has missed is the fact that there's no element of deprivation inflicted on another. It's this that stops 'multi-ing' from legally being a theft, and in my view, keeps multis clear of the moral stigma of thievery.
Sure, what they're doing is a breach of a contract. You might deign to regard it as some sort of electric-trespass. You could even attempt to construe it as some sort of fraud (although that's fraught with its own difficulties). But it's not a theft.
It's easy to draw an analogy between multi-ing and theft, both of them are dishonest interferences with property, but the fact remains that multis aren't actually 'removing/appropriating/making-off-with' anything from anybody else; they're just taking advantage of a service that they're not entitled to (and at no/negligible detriment to the owner or others).
You're right to rankle at such conduct. But dubbing the conductees of such behaivour as 'thieves' is too clumsy an analysis.

Without deprivation (appropriation, unconsented-taking, etc) an action isn't a theft.

I appreciate that you're probably about to try to argue that multis are depriving Lack of $20 that he 'ought' to have as payment for the service that they've used. But this argument fails on deeper analysis.

Lack's entitlement to the money arises when a bargain is struck for premier membership rights; and in the absence of any such bargain, he has no entitlement. Using the service without paying for it isn't allowed, but doing so without such a bargain beng struck gives rise to no entitlement to funds. To play more than four games is going to cost you, and you can rightfully be denied access if you don't pay; but by trying to circumvent the agreement you're not depriving anybody of any right that has arisen, or ought to arise.
In short form: You're not allowed to indluge in the service without paying; but finding a way to indulge in it without paying does not deprive any party of any prior entitlement. Thus, there's no theft.
I see why you want to argue the way you do; if every multi paid lack the money for the service they used, then he would have more money. But the fact that they don't does not mean they have deprived him of anything.
Speaking simply as possible: You can't deprive somebody of an intangible right to finances if that right to finances has not yet arisen. (Even when that right would have arisen had you gone about your actions in a different fashion).

To use an analogy, if I played music in a concert hall, charging an entry fee to people who wished to listen to more than four songs; it would not be stealing for somebody to listen for more than four songs. I doubt either a lawyer or a layman would dub him a thief. He would have deprived nobody of anything; his actions would be both stingy and dishonest, but they wouldn't be stealing. I would of course have every right to evict the non-payer if I became aware he was staying for more than four songs.
It isn't the indulging that creates an entitlement to money, it's the agreement to pay. You can't appropriate that before it's arisen; but you can be prevented from indulging without making it. Attempting to circumvent the agreement isn't theft, because it doesn't deprive anybody of anything.

Perhaps a better analogy to draw is somebody who sneaks into a cinema without paying. I can't imagine you'd call that person a 'thief'; they don't take anything, they simply find a way to indulge in a service without striking the required 'access-bargain'. It's imoral, but it's not theiving.
The point is that it's nigh impossible to steal an undepleteable intangiable good (like CC), thus there are few 'thieves' of such items.


In conclusion:
If I asked you to define what you thought thievery was (before you'd considered this question) then your definitions would almost certainly not have caught multi-ing. The practice is wrong, but you need some other word in your vocabulary to dub 'multis'; because thieving isn't what they're doing, and therefore it's unfair to lavel them thieves (however wrong their practice). It'd be like labelling accidental killers as 'murderers' simply because you hadn't invented the word 'manslaughter' yet.

So Multi-ing is 'bad'. I suspect I agree with you all when you argue that. My problem really is with false labelling, either because of an unsophisticated analysis, or as a result of an inadequate vocabulary for defining miscreants. Multi-ing certainly isn't something people should be doing. But labelling such people thieves is overly simplistic, unfortuneatly inaccurate, and consequentially unfair.


Whew, good god that was long. Feel free to PM me if you've got any questions about that mini-essay.
But just remember: I don't support multi-ing, but I don't like inaccurate-labelling of offenders either.

[AAFitz]

cheating thieves...every one of them

(and at no/negligible detriment to the owner or others).

you mean like using resources like moderators that have to eliminate them. You mean taking time out of lacks schedule of programing to deal with people that agreed not to make more than one account when they were given access to play.

Also, every time you post or play you use a little server memory and a little electricity to store it. Further, there's 37 pages of complaints about cheating and multi accounts...Id say that brings it up just a notch above negligible.

If you click a box that says I will have only one account. Then are given access to a game...and then create another account....you breached your contract, took time, computer resources, and personel away from the regular duties of management....ie there is significant detriment to the owner, and others being the mods, and the other players who have only one account.

nice try though

[Dancing Mustard]

Nearly, but still not quite. Cheating, yes. Thieves... still no.

Fitz, you're aware that you just tried to argue that the thing multi's 'steal' is time and effort. I think that's fairly perverse; it's a gallant effort to salvage the original proposition that multis=thieves. But it dies in a similar way to the other attempt to expand the definition of "what property is being appropriated", because it too is a complete fiction.
For one, time and effort isn't the thing that multi's set out to 'take'. Which disrupts any attempt to conventionally define their actions as theft.
If I walked into a cinema intending to watch a film for free, but was ushered out by a security guard for not having a ticket, have I stolen? I've used up the cinema's time and effort. But I haven't deprived them of anything, or taken anything from them.
The time that multi's take up isn't the thing they set out to 'deprive' CC of. The time taken to remove them is part of the site's security, it's regular maintenance in order to ensure that contracts are being adhered to, and in order to regulate all manner of other problems. But using up that time doesn't make you a thief.

Two further examples serve to illustrate this:
Is Hecter a thief? He takes up mod time when they delete his spam. Is he stealing from CC? In your analysis he is, because he's taking up mod time and effort.
Would a trespasser be stealing from a farmer who shouted at him to get off his land? By forcing the farmer to expend effort he must have been stealing, right Fitz?
The problem with your analysis is that you're desperate to stick to your 'they're thieves' guns. But by widening your definition of deprivation (or widening the scope of what it is that you believe multis deprive CC of), you leave yourself open to absurd examples of 'thievery' which are obviously misnomers.

Your argument about using up little bits of 'electricity' and 'memory' are also going to fall by the wayside to this argument I'm afraid.

If you click a box that says I will have only one account. Then are given access to a game...and then create another account....you breached your contract, took time, computer resources, and personel away from the regular duties of management....ie there is significant detriment to the owner, and others being the mods, and the other players who have only one account.

Contract breach = yes
Took time away from management = not so much 'deprivation', that'd make anybody who wasn't a model user a 'thief'. Are spammers thieves? People who start threads in the wrong forum? People with technical questions? Seriously, they have to be depriving Lack of money, or something else tangible, if you try to shift the goal-posts of deprivation, then your argument falls down; unless you're going to call half of the site 'thieves'.
Detriment to the owner = Yes, but causing somebody a detriment isn't 'stealing', it might be a lot of other things. But your analysis is too crude if you're classifying all detriments as 'thefts'.
Detriment to other players = No, not really. It's annoying to play against a multi, but only because that's cheating at a game. They're not stealing anything from them either. It's upsetting to know people are jumping the 'paying for prem' gun. But being annoyed at other people getting something you paid for, for free, isn't stealing.

I have great respect for you posts Fitz (and several others here). But the point is that your definition of the harm that multis commit, is wrong. It's just not sophisticated enough to accurately describe what it is that multis do to CC.
Trying to shoehorn their conduct into a sensible definition of theft is just a non-starter. We all agree that multis are dishonest; but dubbing them thieves is just not correct. There's an analogy between multi-ing and thievery; but you need some sort of new label to dub them, otherwise the position is indefensible. I'm sorry.

Once again, Multis = Bad. But you really can't sensibly classify them as thieves.

[Gary30060]

ok then......lets call what it is.....theft by decption......

[AAFitz]

actually, im just wasting your time...i didnt read any of that...or the first one except for the one quote I used.

but they are still thieves

Ok..i read a little...Ive used up my $20 worth time and time again. Granted, I paid another $20 for a game with lack, and Cd paid her $20, so I dont feel too bad about it...but thats all part of the service provided. If I play by the rules, and have one account, any amount of games I play, or post...are fine, until they tell me otherwise...but if I post once with my multi, Im a thief.

I get comcast, I pay for a certain amount of channels. If I alter my box and get more thats theft.

If I pay for a ski ticket for one day, and pass it off the next day, thats theft too...and would be prosecuted if caught. now I weigh 150 or so, so my impact on the mountain is slight, with the exception of risk....I ski fast, and moving a lot of snow around, but its theft pure and simple, the second I get on the chair lift. If I choose to climb the mountain, and ski down...thats different.

And the person in the movie theater is stealing. He/she is stealing from every actor and producer and stage hand in the movie. They are stealing from every stockholder in the company. They are stealing from the owner of the movie theater. Especially if they drop a piece of popcorn, a sip of soda etc.....Except in this case if they bought the soda and popcorn there...the theater still turned a profit...

[Dancing Mustard]

ok then......lets call what it is.....theft by decption......

No, you're going to need to do better than that. I'm afraid a one-liner packed with periods doesn't really shift my argument. Neither does adding two words onto the end of 'theft'. All you've done is distinguished it from stealing with force (robbery), or stealing through stealth. That's not helpful, we already knew it wasn't either of those things.

The point is that it's not a theft by any means. Sure multis are deceitful; but slapping 'by deceit' onto the end of 'theft', doesn't bring their actions into a sensible definition of 'theft'. They aren't 'thieves', therefore they can't be 'thieving by deceit'. Sorry.
In other words: It is deceitful. But it's still not a theft.

I appreciate you've got an opinion and all. But if you're going to hang around and debate this, then at least spend the time and effort the subject deserves; one-liners just don't do enough to shift my propostion, and they don't really assist Fitz's.

actually, im just wasting your time...i didnt read any of that...or the first one except for the one quote I used.

but they are still thieves

Prove me wrong

Just did; guess you'll have to get reading to find out why...

[Backglass]

The point is that it's not a theft by any means.

You walk into a store and see a display of candy saying "Try some FREE!". Next to the large bowl are 10 cases of the same candy. You carry all 10 cases of the "free" candy out to your car.

Is this theft?

[AAFitz]

Understand, Im not arguing that they are technically thieves...I dont care either way...Im posting that I believe they are thieves in my opinion, as is everyone else. Perhaps we are all wrong, perhaps not, but we have the right to post said opinion. Id say there's at least enough gray area to justify it...if not...dont care....mutis are thieves pure and simple.