Is this considered boxing?
 

Hello,

Well first off, I havent done it and wont do it if its considered boxing lol.

If my friend and I pooled together enough plat to buy a druid account or something are we allowed to both share the account and take turns logging on to buff each other?

Example, His character and my character are in EC, druid is also in EC.

I log on druid while he is on his character, buff him and log off.

He logs off his character and onto the druid, while I log on my character and he buffs me.

he then goes back to his character to level with me.

Just want to make 100% sure that this isnt considered botting before we think about doing it. Would really rather not get banned haha.

Great server guys =).

Well, I'd consider it boxing. You are running 2 clients from one machine for the purpose of giving one character an advantage.

That is, assuming you could even get an IP exemption now that you've laid out your plan.

nah thats not boxing mate


boxing is using 2 seperate characters at the same time


i.e if you logged the druid in while your account was logged in and buffed yourself...thats bad





and no, its not boxing. his friend is buffing him hense why he logs off onto the druid and buffs HIS FRIEND then his friend logs into the druid and buffs HIM

Yeah i wouldn't need the IP lift.

Thats what I was thinking virt, just making sure =)

Virt pretty much summed it up, but just to confirm and clarify, one RL person per character at a time. Account hop all you want as long as they never coincide.

That's legit. Just know that there's a few minute window between logging out and when you can log on a different account.

sometimes its instant for me, sometimes its like 5 minutes. wahhh =)

This is how it starts.

Rotten to the core.

It's fair. Same if you were porting around with the druid.

The method in which you did it isn't boxing.

How would he get an IP exemption for the second of his accounts? I'm sure it's a fine distinction, but he/you would be lying to the server admins if he said it belonged to his 'roommate' or 'wife'.

That's the only problem I see.