2 and 1/5 Month Raid Ban

[Erati]

Disciplinary action may be enacted upon your account even if you yourself were not responsible for any rule breaking.

Does not infer larger guild wide punishments for rules broken on borrowed accounts and from what we have seen in the past are all done case by case basis. ( see Hyjal v Aftermath v Vulak )

[gredoo]

Originally Posted by Tupakk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It hits 1200 with bots and boxers.

I’d say single box is in the high 900s

Got any proof to back up that claim?

[Tupakk]

Originally Posted by Erati [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Disciplinary action may be enacted upon your account even if you yourself were not responsible for any rule breaking.

Does not infer larger guild wide punishments for rules broken on borrowed accounts and from what we have seen in the past are all done case by case basis. ( see Hyjal v Aftermath v Vulak )

Everything is case by case. With feelings clearly attached.

Assimilate or get fucked.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by Erati [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Disciplinary action may be enacted upon your account even if you yourself were not responsible for any rule breaking.

Does not infer larger guild wide punishments for rules broken on borrowed accounts and from what we have seen in the past are all done case by case basis. ( see Hyjal v Aftermath v Vulak )

If you are in a guild on that account you are subject to raid/guild server rules with that account. Regardless of who is playing on it.
This is true and can be proven due to the fact that people can't raid under a different guild tag while on a raid suspension. It's attached to you, your account and the guild you are in on that account.

It's YOUR responsibility not to let this happen. Don't boohoo and try to point at tempest for your lack of account security.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Foxplay]

Originally Posted by Rygar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can honestly understand other 2 extensions... don't give out account info, period. Shared accounts will get you in trouble eventually. IP trace may not tell the whole story and I'm sure there could be some way to always cry foul on it and try to use it to weasel out of a suspension.

This.

To expect the small server staff to play detective and track down the PERSON and not the CHARACTER is quite a lot to ask. You are still responsible for actions of your characters if you give out your login information. Is it possible? Yes IP traces and probably more that I don't have a full understanding of exist, but it's just more work and steps the GM's would have to deal with which is pretty unfair to hold them against.

[Cecily]

Originally Posted by Erati [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Disciplinary action may be enacted upon your account even if you yourself were not responsible for any rule breaking.

Does not infer larger guild wide punishments for rules broken on borrowed accounts and from what we have seen in the past are all done case by case basis. ( see Hyjal v Aftermath v Vulak )

Maybe I didn’t read the fine print when I asked you if it was ok for me to mess with Chardok AE.

[Tupakk]

Originally Posted by gredoo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Got any proof to back up that claim?

When you are at server select remember that number.

Then go in game and do /who all count (actual count of players)

Then goto EC and ping everyone standing still 1/3rd are bots

Another 1/3 is boxing

And the last is actually selling.

It’s rather obvious.

Maybe 1% of the boxers actually play the toons while they do it. Ballsy but doable.

[Erati]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's YOUR responsibility not to let this happen. Don't boohoo and try to point at tempest for your lack of account security.

No boo-hoo ing here Tempest did nothing wrong that triggered Core's extension, they were simply playing Everquest.

I was just pointing out that its the account holders responsibility to eat punishments for rules broken on their accounts not a group that is unknowingly associated with ced rule breaking as its been handled in the past. My example of Hyjal v AM v Vulak was a situation where Hyjal logged in an AM account to train AM during a Vulak attempt and after proving the facts he was individually suspended and AW was not held responsible for the train.

Case by case - do you know what this means? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Baler]

Originally Posted by Dad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Baler is the kid who would rat someone out for smoking in the bathroom.

We get the rules Baler, quit repeating them. The adults are trying to have a nuanced conversation. Sit, listen and learn while we work through this.

You're exposing yourself pretty openly today.
Guess all that time spent avoiding me on this 'dad' account really got to you. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[isiah]

Man, if RNF wasnt so heavily moderated, some great and juicy stuff could be posted regarding these issues.

I have no words at this point.