Please read our terms of use for that you are aware that we do not support account trading.
wrote:
What I am saying is that the character Invictox comes from the same guy and hasn't been banned, nor the people who used it, that is bullshit...
You deliberately omitted the fact that the alleged connection with that character happened X months ago. While the user of character "Inso" logged on the cheater's main character ("Okzark") on the exact same day as the cheater did, and this was only 3 days before the cheater was caught (and of course he continued logging on that account). So please, don't make such stupid argument, because no one has ever got banned due to connections from a year ago or so. It's always been said that it doesn't work like that.
Also, please refrain from comments suggesting that when it comes to enforcing the rules we may be guided by whether we like someone or not. This is simply not true, and the list of exiles is full of evidence. There were many similar cases to this one, which we judged exactly the same. The only difference is that you never cared when it was not about your friend. Let alone mention "Wozkowy" case, which was very similar. The actual player behind that character was the top 1 purchaser of premium tokens, and we used to talk friendly but it could not save that account, because the rules apply to everyone equally.
Morever, we have been many times warning everyone that we do not support account trading nor sharing and whatever you do - you do it at your own risk. That risk includes possible banishment of your own accounts if you happen to have been logging on the cheater's account, consciously or not (or if the cheater logs on yours, of course). This is nothing new, and you are very well aware of it.
wrote:
The real issue here is that Government had a situation with a player known as "Kaisher". He was on almost all of our chars for government, and broke a rule with a big chargeback. Kay SHOULD have deleted all the chars associated with him (based on rules) but instead he chose to msg a few of the ppl in our team and talk about it first. Would it have been fair for all of us? Nope. But thats the risk you take when you sharing chars.
There is no ground to make a claim how we SHOULD behave in such situation. If that guy was caught using a macro, you could expect it to end the same as it always does when it comes to cheating. But as you have mentioned, this had nothing to do with cheating. He withdrew the money (or most likely paid with a stolen card, and the rightful owner canceled all payments), which is a violation of the sales agreement, in which case we use the right to block the purchaser's accounts until clarification.
That's also how we always dealt with similar cases, as some people decide to cancel the chargeback or cover the loss and therefore eventually have their accounts unlocked. However, that person chose to keep the money, and so the accounts he bought premium on and the accounts where he kept the premium piggies remain banned. That being said, even if he used other players' accounts for those purchases (or kept those piggies on other players' characters), they would be given a chance to cover the loss on their own, but this was not the case. Eventually, we also decided to exclude that person from the game permanently, and so I warned other players that should we see him log on any account, that account would be banned.
Several users have been excluded permanently for various reasons other than cheating and it is not anything unusal that we make other players aware then. For example, the player known as Goryl (note that this is not the actual character's name) had been excluded permanently and his teammates were also warned not to let him use their accounts. And this was even before the case you're bringing up here
I understand your disappointment for seeing your friend banned, but this does not justify such accusations you're guys making here. Again, there is no analogy in your examples, because:
1. What Orc brought up is not any recent connection, but from several months ago, and those never got anyone banned. Not in this case and not in any other.
2. The case Burst refers to was not about cheating, but withdrawal of payment - those violations were never treated the same and nowhere it says they should. We also dealt with it the same way as we usually dealt with other chargeback disputes.
