Revising the rules about Account Sharing

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by Alcolizzato, May 6, 2014.

?

Do you desire the revision/removal of the provisions apropos of "Account Sharing"?

  1. Yes

    72.4%
  2. No

    27.6%
  1. Alcolizzato
    Offline

    Alcolizzato Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    The Democratic State of Denial
    IGN:
    Balthier
    Level:
    66
    Guild:
    Bystanders
    There is not much I can add, as the issue has already been largely fleshed out in the thread linked below.
    ->Aforementioned thread.



    Whereas the following is a Skype log I had with a friend discussing the issue. Please note that the conversation was held in the ignorance prior to reading the linked thread, so there may be a few inaccuracies.

    I have blotted out player names and personal assumptions which should be neither propagated nor perpetuated amongst the public.
    [​IMG]

    Please vote as to whether or not you would like having the provision about Account Sharing be revoked, or at the very least, revised.

    --

    I, for one, won't be playing Maple Royals until Lance and other victims are unbanned. I'm not trying to stir things up here (as who cares about one less level 70 Valkyrie?), for despite realising that stirring things up is a possible outcome, that is in no way my agenda; instead, I am abstaining from the server for the unjust nature of the aforementioned provision in the ToS and its consequent ban of Lance (Skadi), Mantouks, Model and others; to show them solidarity and to emphasize how strongly I, and I'm sure many others feel about their ban. It's entirely possible that Lance will never be unbanned and I, bound to my word as it is, will never be able to return; and so be it, as the server would not be the same without him, and a server which spits in the face of its most loyal members over the most laughable, and irrelevant of matters is not truly a server which I would enjoy playing on anyway.
     
  2. Alcolizzato
    Offline

    Alcolizzato Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    The Democratic State of Denial
    IGN:
    Balthier
    Level:
    66
    Guild:
    Bystanders
    I'm sorry, Afee, but I hardly think that 1 minute was sufficient time for you to even skim through all the material before you voted "no".
     
  3. Afee
    Offline

    Afee Donator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Aux, Aotearoa
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    Afee
    I believe revision and removal are two different things. In this case we are talking about the rule number 24: Attempt to obtain a password or other private account information from any other person or user of the game. Punishment: Permanent ban. For one, I think blatantly and continuously asking strangers for their personal details for is and should definitely be a permanent ban, for their arrogance and straight up invasion for privacy. The current rule 24 in the game is very hazy and can be innocently punitive as what had happened above.

    I personally believe that the rules should be revised not removed, and clearly stating on what a player can or cannot do, while punishing the perpetrator, not the victim (dang it where did that law pro GM Neal go, he'd know more about this)!

    Having a reliable way to transfer items between players, such as that NPC Cody? would help reducing the trouble of sharing accounts, but of course that would be extra work. How about having a place on the website where you could register an alliance between two players at a time (only), where they are allowed to fully control each other and play normally (dunno just another idea).

    Edit: Sorry Alcolizzato my net got cut out as I was typing

    Edit 2: Please don't get mad at me for posting this >.<
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
  4. Alcolizzato
    Offline

    Alcolizzato Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    The Democratic State of Denial
    IGN:
    Balthier
    Level:
    66
    Guild:
    Bystanders
    They are different things, indeed, which is why I added an "or" clause. It's such a problematic rule that unless there were some form of ingenious revision, removing it would be the only possible solution.

    Thing is, I do not think that trusting someone enough to give them your account details, to play out the skills with/transfer items is wrong in the slightest (in fact, it's quite lovely if you asked me). Obviously, the issue here is that people who share accounts *may* joint-train a single character and thus gain an "unfair advantage". If you asked me however, the work and effort is real in the latter case, and whilst frowned upon should not be illegal.

    If the server were truly paranoid about the contingency of a pair of players joint-playing an account, then by all means make that illegal. Do not have its incompetence of spotting such cases be a reason to punish people who account-share but do not commit what you consider to be a crime. The same goes for multi-clienting and leeching multiple characters.
     
    Aliysium likes this.
  5. Sybe
    Offline

    Sybe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2014
    Messages:
    803
    Likes Received:
    802
    Location:
    Fryslan
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    Sybe
    Level:
    #1
    Guild:
    Fryslan
    Even if it were to change now, he had still broken the at that time.
    If I get a speeding ticket today for driving 120 km/h where only 100km/h is allowed and tomorrow they change it to 120 km/h, I still have to pay for my ticket. So I don't think an unban would be justified.

    Back on topic; I for one wouldn't mind if this were removed, but if not, oh well.. So be it.
     
    Liek, mantouks, Amy and 2 others like this.
  6. Tentomon
    Offline

    Tentomon Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2014
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    1,357
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Australia/ New Zealand
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    CaptainHeidi
    Level:
    162
    Your thread brings up 2 completely different issues.

    1) Should the account sharing rule be changed?
    2) If so, should it be applied retroactively (unbanning people who were banned under the current rule).

    1 is a reasonable request that is worth discussion. 2 is a lot less reasonable, and few online games/ forums would consider such a thing for any rule because of the can of worms it opens. You unban people who broke that rule, and people who broke other rules will be jumping up and down and demanding that the rule they broke be changed and then that they should get unbanned due to the rule no longer existing.

    It is childish to "threaten" the staff with "If you don't unban so and so then I will quit!". That's your choice. Just don't use it as a "threat".

    Do we really need to change account sharing rules for reasons as stupid as there being girls that are apparently incapable of doing their own HP washing without their boy's assistance in clicking a few buttons? (as was Skadi's defense in his ban appeal) Think critically, forget about WHO it is, and consider WHAT their defense is, and recognise the fact that this defense is quite frankly, pretty lame.

    If I see a compelling argument as to why the rule should be changed, I might change my vote. But the arguments in this thread are all for the retroactive unbanning issue which like I said, is a different issue.

    And there is no way that Skadi should be unbanned just because he is level 199. If he was unbanned, then the reason should also be applicable if he was only level 50.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
    Amy, Aliysium, illuminate and 9 others like this.
  7. Kerners
    Offline

    Kerners Donator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    415
    IGN:
    TeddieDuckie
    I'll just recycle some arguments from the previous similar case for you guys to ponder about

    Argument 1: Punishing people for mild cases of account sharing does not serve the original purpose of the rule's creation, which was to stop unfair play.

    So given that most instances of account sharing, especially those that have gotten banned recently, don't fall under "toxic activity" or "unfair play", it has failed to serve the rule's original purpose.


    Argument 2: Mild cases of account sharing don't do harm or affect the server negatively in any way. Especially if it only involves simple tasks like item transfers.

    From Alicatt

    Solution 1: There needs to be more clearly defined parameters of what constitutes serious abuse of account sharing and what doesn't.

    And from there, adjust the punishment according to the severity of the transgression.
    For instance, #1 & #2 can carry no punishment, #3 a 1 week ban, and #4 a Permanent ban.


    Solution 2: On another server I played before, account sharing was permitted on the grounds that you inform the Staff first and fulfill their "account sharing criteria", which could include things like the account's purpose (to store and transfer stuff) etc.

    toodles~
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
    Vivienneex and Yaoi like this.
  8. Afee
    Offline

    Afee Donator

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Aux, Aotearoa
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    Afee
    Yes, I do agree with you Alcolizzato, it is often difficult to find a fine line of what is right and wrong. There are many loop-holes in the current Terms and Conditions system that I believe many have already been bypassed by many. But I would not blame the wording of each paragraph; heck, many people find loop-holes to most civil and criminal laws in real life, to decrease the punishment when or if the persecutor is charged. Law, is definitely not the be-all or end-all to summarise cases, and moral and ethical reasoning are also required to correctly? (I use that term lightly) conclude real life incidents and cases.

    So what am I saying here.. hmm... I guess GM's should have more power to do what they think is the 'right' thing to do and rely a little less on hard coded rules in predicaments or dilemma such as this one, to give players more flexibility on what they are allowed to do, reduce hefty punishments when less can be beneficial to players and also to educate those players who are unaware.
     
    Aliysium likes this.
  9. Rob
    Offline

    Rob Donator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,548
    Likes Received:
    2,642
    Location:
    Westeros
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    Robb
    Level:
    999
    Guild:
    Lubs
    The short answer is no, for the reasons listed above among others. I don't want to go into to much detail at the moment (it's 5:30 am and I'm just waiting for the sunrise so I can go back to sleep) but I will give a little input right now.

    First if all, this has always been against the rules, it comes up every few months, people get mad about it, and the rule never changes. Someone who's been around as long as Lance should know the rule, and should know that there are no exceptions.

    Second, the rule needs to be stated MUCH more clearly. There are rules 24 and 6 (I think) that touch on the subject along with a couple other small print easily forgettable places. But the rule is never stated clearly except in the TL:DR version of the rules. And there it gives no details about what's considered account sharing or the punishment for it.

    That's all for now, when I'm fully awake I'll give a few more cents on the matter though.
     
  10. maggles
    Offline

    maggles Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Location:
    a ranch
    Guild:
    synergy
    I'm voting yes for a revision of the rules, but keep in mind, a revision of the rules will result in a lot of work for the GMs, since it will be hard to distinguish between real cases, and cases like Lance.

    Reasons not to change the rule:
    1. Stop being from sharing HS/HB/SE Mules.
    2. Stop friends from stealing other friends stuff, and have them whine about it to the GMs. "omg ebonics stole my stuff, because I shared my account with him." "gm help please".
    2. Stop instances like Tiger, where you have more than one person grinding on your account.

    I think that the instances that don't result in the above (i.e. Skadi), should not result in a permaban, however it's hard for the GM's to know if you are breaking one of those rules or not. Basically it's hard to regulate, and it will cause a lot of hard work, which is why the rule can be seen as sometimes necessary. The ideal solution would being able to examine the damage done (maybe with time logs?) and dish out a lighter penalty.

    Instances to allow account sharing:
    1. Really close friends like to share equips, and account sharing helps them access that (especially with INT equips).
    2. Zakum Jump Quest.
    3. HP washing for someone.
    4. Guild mules for skill books, scrolls, etc
    5. GPQ/CPQ mules

    Again, I would like to highlight that this would be EXTREMELY hard to regulate. And GMs would probably have to base the ban off what the accused SAYS, which is harshly biased. So maybe a 7 day ban for the lightly accused.

    I also think it is kinda wrong to LOOK out for people that are account sharing. (when they are no suspicions of foul play).

    You guys need to stop thinking about why the rule is bad, and think of a new rule yourself and present it to them. You are forcing them to come up with a solution to your problem. Because we all know removal isn't an answer, so a revision is a must, however you haven't come up with a revision or an answer to the question.

    But in turn, I think was Afee said, was very nicely put.

    edit:
    nice to see my name.
    [​IMG]
    I like how people talk behind my back without even having talked to me once.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
    Unmagical and Kerners like this.
  11. Sarcasm
    Offline

    Sarcasm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    UK, England
    IGN:
    Sarcasm
    Level:
    135
    Guild:
    Aria
    Account sharing were never allowed when i used to play almost a year ago, no clue why the rules may have changed at though. when someone was caught the first time they would have a several day ban or so as a warning, i didn't see them repeat that again after because they learned there lesson, account sharing always causes shitty problems like when people will claim to be inactive and then jew off there so called friends. if that was a first time ban(which was permanent) then i'm unsure why there would be such a drastic change, the method at the start was simple and effective. you get a taste of losing hard work and effort for several days for account sharing, and in result i doubt it would happen again.
    however if this was not the first time round of the account sharing to occur with them people then i can understand a permanent ban, otherwise if it's a first time thing then switch it to a several day thing atleast.
     
  12. John
    Offline

    John Donator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2013
    Messages:
    15,140
    Likes Received:
    8,199
    Gender:
    Male
    The account sharing rule is one that will not be changed. As Ty alluded to in the post above mine, if account sharing were partially allowed, we would run into similar issues such as those stated. GMs are not your parents who should be spending hours going through our logs to figure out if the account sharing was a case of two people grinding or someone signing on to trade items between two accounts. (Not to mention, the one person could multiclient and log onto both accounts at once).

    Additionally, this is not an argument for the server's position, but rather an observation. While I am sure there exists servers that allow account sharing, before I made this post I visited two other private v62 servers which have the exact same stance on account sharing (no account sharing is permissible under any circumstances).

    As someone else had said, it is well within your right to "protest" and not play until someone is unbanned, but do not use it as a threat. It is unbearable when someone attempts to use a threat to get their argument through and overturn a prior decision.
     
    Amy, illuminate, Matt and 3 others like this.
  13. Kerners
    Offline

    Kerners Donator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    415
    IGN:
    TeddieDuckie
    While I completely agree that it is unfeasible for the staff to monitor shared accounts thoroughly, I've came up with a suggestion that could perhaps balance that and the needs of the player (in terms of sharing accounts for item transfers, for instance).

    Account sharing is permissible if the fulfilling criteria are fulfilled:

    1) The owner of the account must seek official approval from the Staff, perhaps a subsection of the forum could be made for this.
    2) By submitting an application, they automatically agree to the Terms & Conditions for the shared account made. They must also disclose the identities of the people sharing the account and abide by that strictly. The owner must inform and seek approval from the Staff if there are any changes made to who are sharing the account.
    3) There will be no character level 31 and above allowed on the account at all times.

    Any violation of the above will result in a punishment and the immediate termination of the shared account.

    Some advantages:
    1) This allows guilds and friends to use it as a storage mule to transfer/store items.
    2) This allows guilds to use as a GPQ mule.
    3) It is easier for the Staff to verify when needed because they can quickly look up if a character above level 30 in that account exists, and swiftly dole out the punishment.
    4) With the level cap of 30, it cannot be abused for unfair co-op levelling, nor as a HS/leech mule.
    5) Since a formal application has to be made, it is easier to check on the account if any suspicious activity is suspected.

    Personally, things like a CPQ mule or helping friends do Zak Jump quests/HP Wash are things that a person can do by themselves, albeit with more difficulty, so there is no need to raise the level cap or adjust the criteria for that.

    As for people who lose items due to abusive friends misusing the shared account, the Terms & Conditions could also include a clause that indicates that those who own the account are entirely responsible for any loss of items incurred that is caused by abuse of the account. This way, the Staff need not be involved with such disputes.

    Some disadvantages
    1) Staff has to now deal with the shared account subsection.
    2) Things can get complicated if the shared account runs into issues (autoban, bug reporting) . In cases like this, perhaps the designated "Owner" could take responsibility.

    It would be great to hear the input from others about what you think of this suggestion and how it could be improved/revised/problematic.
     
    Unknown, Vivienneex and maggles like this.
  14. maggles
    Offline

    maggles Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Location:
    a ranch
    Guild:
    synergy
    This is a good temporary solution in my opinion, but it still doesn't free up Lance or Model, which was the cause of this thread.
     
  15. Kerners
    Offline

    Kerners Donator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    415
    IGN:
    TeddieDuckie
    From Tentomon
    I'm afraid Lance and Model cannot be freed, because that is retroactive unbanning (2), as Tentomon has mentioned above.

    However, as that is a separate issue, let us focus on what could be done in future (1).
     
    mantouks likes this.
  16. mettzi
    Offline

    mettzi Donator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2013
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    197
    Gender:
    Male
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    QueenBee
    Level:
    15x
    Guild:
    XIII
    That wasn't about you.
     
  17. Gags
    Offline

    Gags Donator

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    929
    Location:
    Israel
    Ugh, another thread about changing the rules. Don't we have them like every two weeks? If you honestly wanna know what I think, I think that it's wrong to ban someone permanently because of accounts sharing. I think that there are other punishments that can be implanted (a roll back & a 3 weeks ban maybe?)
     
  18. Alcolizzato
    Offline

    Alcolizzato Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    The Democratic State of Denial
    IGN:
    Balthier
    Level:
    66
    Guild:
    Bystanders
    It was no threat, merely a comment on how strongly I feel about Lance's ban. I barely know anyone anyway, and am a level 70 gunslinger; I am in no position to threaten people.

    I am not arguing against Skadi's ban because he's level 199. Good gods, to be frank I don't even harbour any particular affection for him (you'll notice that I included "the others"). I am here because I simply don't find it right to permanently ban somebody for an action which did not grant him any unfair advantage or cause any harm to others.

    And indeed, it is a can of worms if a revision should be applied retroactively; but it is a can of worms that this overly harsh rule created in the first place. In any event, the people who were banned by this rule were few and far in between, and once revised, I promise you there won't be more than 10 people "jumping up and down" for an unban. Surely taking the time to unban 10 people for being unjustly removed from the server is not too much to ask?

    Just because something was always done one way is no reason that it should keep being done.

    Lol I don't even know you (despite wishing I did), it was not about you.

    Multiclienting could be similarly abused, and yet multiclienting itself is legal. Do you see the inconsistency?

    So you make something which doubles instrument in joint-account training illegal, and punish players who do no harm with a permanent ban? That is, expelling students who own magic markers because you were paranoid they'd scribble all over the bathroom walls?

    ---

    I did not have time to read through all the posts in great detail, but will do so and reply soon (especially to Maggles, you raise many interesting things I need to take time to ponder over).
     
    maggles likes this.
  19. Mekansm
    Offline

    Mekansm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    150
    Do we even have a rule against account sharing?

    Rule 24
    Giving someone your account info is in not the same thing as someone attempting to steal someone's account info. This rule is clearly to prohibit phishing. Where is there a rule saying you cannot share accounts? I'm so fucking confused as to how account sharing is even a bad thing. If all the players are abiding by the rules, why is it bad for people to powerlevel one character instead of making new ones? This is exactly what happens in-game anyways. You might as well make leeching others a bannable offense.

    This rule doesn't even make sense to the GMs, and now you're permanently banning people for it? It's absolutely absurd to see certain members of the staff 'sticking to their guns' about account sharing (which is not even against the rules) while others on the staff are fully aware of players who account share without harm.

    If you want a 1 account per person rule, make one. This wouldn't be the first server to do it. But yeah, I really don't see how logging into a friend's account is any better than triple clienting, which no one has any issue with here.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014
  20. Matt
    Online

    Matt Administrator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Messages:
    11,055
    Likes Received:
    15,180
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Country Flag:
    IGN:
    Matt
    Level:
    N/A
    Guild:
    Staff
    This is stated in the Terms & Conditions which covers account sharing:

    Logging onto another users account is different to multi-clienting your own accounts because you are assisting the other person with their gameplay which is unfair.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2014

Share This Page