WTF is staff doing ?

[Garfunkel]

Just like whitekidney couldn't accept that someone was better/faster than him and had to EXPLOIT!!! some players cannot believe that a dedicated player with full knowledge of how to power-level could go 1-60 in 5-6 days.

[Shiggs13]

Just like whitekidney couldn't accept that someone was better/faster than him and had to EXPLOIT!!! some players cannot believe that a dedicated player with full knowledge of how to power-level could go 1-60 in 5-6 days.

Was whitekidney banned?

[Zyfire]

Just like whitekidney couldn't accept that someone was better/faster than him and had to EXPLOIT!!! some players cannot believe that a dedicated player with full knowledge of how to power-level could go 1-60 in 5-6 days.

Was whitekidney banned?

Nope

[Vod]

The owner posted an answer, we are still waiting for moderators to validate it... Maybe all the hater who get raped in their child hood will shut their useless mouths ?

And we get Cakes the winner, dont be mad at me, I'm not the one who abused you. (cheat and do shit that was illegal in vanilla) Hope you GM's are not forging your opinions on people who dont even know what they say.
Anyone is merging everything here, we hear cheat, acc trade, acc sell, doing shit, high price, but stay on the ground, it's only account sharing, then now we all know that the owner will get back his account and you'll continue to hate me because you get a 30 years old pain in the ass.

I think at this point, this guy has proven to be a piece of shit, and if I had my way, I would remove him from the gene pool, so that he couldn't breed his low intelligence garbage.

Also, the GMs should just ban both accounts at this time, because both involved, admit they "were sharing", and this "donking" guy has been proven to be unworthy to even breathe our oxygen, let alone play on this fine server.

[donking]

Ofc I must face so many insults and accusations but when I try to answer like that I'm a piece of shit... You just join the group against the weak one, so easy.

[nervous]

Didn't read any of the thread but account trading even for free amongst friends is prohibited.

[JimboPete]

Didn't read any of the thread

Listen up guys, we have an authority figure in here

[donking]

Then, will moderators validate the owner post ? Thanks.

[Rgn]

Hello Donking,

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8

You may not purchase, sell, gift or trade any account, or offer to purchase, sell, gift or trade any account

The account will be given back to the original owner once he request it.

So I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment because everyone here is simply stating things without actual reasoning behind their assertions.

So, it is against ToS to buy, sell, gift, or trade any account. Let's assume for the moment that it was not bought or sold, as we haven't seen any evidence beyond speculation and perhaps the changing story that would substantiate such a fact. Do note, however, that the obvious language barrier should be a significant consideration in determining whether the story actually changed--did it really? In my opinion, no. Gift, given, share, etc. don't really have much difference for those who have English as a second (if not third, etc.) language.

Now, let's again assume that the Facebook convo is legitimate, and let's use that as the foundation for any dispute. If it is legitimate, that's the only conversation that should have any weight, and there shouldn't be any need for these forum explanations or in-game discussions with GMs. So, did that conversation evince an offer or acceptance of a "gift" or an offer or acceptance of a "trade" for that account. It is not a trade, for sure. A trade amounts to a quid pro quo transaction--an exchange of goods or commodities between two or more parties. What was the "something for something" exchanged here? There was nothing of the sort. The question of "can I borrow it ... ?" without any consideration attached to the request doesn't amount to trade. There was no expectation from "Mo Lu" to receive anything from "Reda" when he provided the supposed account information. Not a trade.

Now, was that conversation evidence of a gift? This one, unfortunately for the guy complaining, has a lot of room for subjective interpretation. But, in the legal sense (which is what should be considered first given the legal focus of all ToS agreements, for anything), a gift is a voluntary transfer or conveyance of some property without consideration. Which is what this is, almost. The thing with gifts is, from a legal standpoint, is that they are, in the vast majority of cases, irrevocable in nature. And that, in my opinion, is probably the biggest sticking point in calling this exchange of account information a "gift"--the plain language of the conversation says it's not: "just take it until I'll ask you when i need it". This "Mo Lu" guy obviously wasn't giving away the account forever and had an expectation that it was going to be given/taken back at a time of his choosing. In my opinion, not a gift.

So what is this? It's account sharing. It's somewhere between a trade and a gift. But, at least from the language that was quoted by the GM (?) here, and which I assume is the basis for restricting the account, account sharing is not prohibited. If it is explicitly prohibited in some other part of the ToS, which I'm not going to read because, despite what I've typed here, I actually don't care that much, then sure, can't argue further against it. But given that the quoted language was the primary reason for removing access to the account to begin with, the GM's got it wrong.

Now, as to the followup of something to the effect of "well your conversation shows that you were going to multi box," that's just silly. For one, there's a fundamental difference between what we colloquially think "multi boxing" is and alt-tabbing or putting your characters on follow behind each other. Multi-boxing requires 3rd party programs to effectuate its goals. The other, just two clients and alt-tabbing. Which type of act was he going to do? You don't know. Secondly, preemptive action to punish someone upon reliance on their past or present statement, without actually seeing the act in question, is a little too thought-policey for the subject matter at hand.

Whatever, though. Just my perception.

[donking]

Hello Donking,

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8

You may not purchase, sell, gift or trade any account, or offer to purchase, sell, gift or trade any account

The account will be given back to the original owner once he request it.

So I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment because everyone here is simply stating things without actual reasoning behind their assertions.

So, it is against ToS to buy, sell, gift, or trade any account. Let's assume for the moment that it was not bought or sold, as we haven't seen any evidence beyond speculation and perhaps the changing story that would substantiate such a fact. Do note, however, that the obvious language barrier should be a significant consideration in determining whether the story actually changed--did it really? In my opinion, no. Gift, given, share, etc. don't really have much difference for those who have English as a second (if not third, etc.) language.

Now, let's again assume that the Facebook convo is legitimate, and let's use that as the foundation for any dispute. If it is legitimate, that's the only conversation that should have any weight, and there shouldn't be any need for these forum explanations or in-game discussions with GMs. So, did that conversation evince an offer or acceptance of a "gift" or an offer or acceptance of a "trade" for that account. It is not a trade, for sure. A trade amounts to a quid pro quo transaction--an exchange of goods or commodities between two or more parties. What was the "something for something" exchanged here? There was nothing of the sort. The question of "can I borrow it ... ?" without any consideration attached to the request doesn't amount to trade. There was no expectation from "Mo Lu" to receive anything from "Reda" when he provided the supposed account information. Not a trade.

Now, was that conversation evidence of a gift? This one, unfortunately for the guy complaining, has a lot of room for subjective interpretation. But, in the legal sense (which is what should be considered first given the legal focus of all ToS agreements, for anything), a gift is a voluntary transfer or conveyance of some property without consideration. Which is what this is, almost. The thing with gifts is, from a legal standpoint, is that they are, in the vast majority of cases, irrevocable in nature. And that, in my opinion, is probably the biggest sticking point in calling this exchange of account information a "gift"--the plain language of the conversation says it's not: "just take it until I'll ask you when i need it". This "Mo Lu" guy obviously wasn't giving away the account forever and had an expectation that it was going to be given/taken back at a time of his choosing. In my opinion, not a gift.

So what is this? It's account sharing. It's somewhere between a trade and a gift. But, at least from the language that was quoted by the GM (?) here, and which I assume is the basis for restricting the account, account sharing is not prohibited. If it is explicitly prohibited in some other part of the ToS, which I'm not going to read because, despite what I've typed here, I actually don't care that much, then sure, can't argue further against it. But given that the quoted language was the primary reason for removing access to the account to begin with, the GM's got it wrong.

Now, as to the followup of something to the effect of "well your conversation shows that you were going to multi box," that's just silly. For one, there's a fundamental difference between what we colloquially think "multi boxing" is and alt-tabbing or putting your characters on follow behind each other. Multi-boxing requires 3rd party programs to effectuate its goals. The other, just two clients and alt-tabbing. Which type of act was he going to do? You don't know. Secondly, preemptive action to punish someone upon reliance on their past or present statement, without actually seeing the act in question, is a little too thought-policey for the subject matter at hand.

Whatever, though. Just my perception.

I think he exactly described my feelings but I'm not enough strong in english to express myself lik he did, thank you, I hope people will stop hating me for free and maybe a moderator can agree with us.