Cheating

The rockett

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking. 

MissChinch

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

therightwaye

Sounds like to me that people should be raising hell that they can't reasonable loan their game out to another person while they take a damn vacation. 

tiomono

MissChinch said:

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

turul

Is it against the rules to hire someone to play the game for me? (authorising to play in the name of me)

Is it againt it hireing free?

Basically thats the situation. (?)

Phumade

tiomono said:

MissChinch said:

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

Except its explicitly against the Terms of service.,  Its an arbitrary rule, but its the devs rule and people are entitled to expect them to uphold their rules.  If it okay for us to rent out our accounts, state it clearly so we can do so without fear of reprisal from CS.

The worst part of dealing with Demi is that you never know which rule is gonna be enforced and which rules are conveniently ignored.

I'd love to rent out my account like those guys did.  I still don't know the criteria that was used to merge player accounts.  

tiomono

turul said:

Is it against the rules to hire someone to play the game for me? (authorising to play in the name of me)

Is it againt it hireing free?

Basically thats the situation. (?)

Yes that is in violation of the TOS. 

Hadronic

tiomono said:

MissChinch said:

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

you are correct.

Normally when an account turns on those players and starts grieving them, they put that account on a kill on site list and then they all basically skip and specifically target this one person and knock him down a few pegs. In this situation their standard method doesn't work so they have taken a new approach.

Perhaps D3 specifically agreed to let this account switch owners as long as the new owner did not participate in the usual shenanigans. Would be a creative way of trying to remedy the collaborative exploits that this group is using. What they are doing is not technically against the TOS, but it exists in a grey area at the moment.

Ducky

Hadronic said:

tiomono said:

MissChinch said:

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

you are correct.

Normally when an account turns on those players and starts grieving them, they put that account on a kill on site list and then they all basically skip and specifically target this one person and knock him down a few pegs. In this situation their standard method doesn't work so they have taken a new approach.

Perhaps D3 specifically agreed to let this account switch owners as long as the new owner did not participate in the usual shenanigans. Would be a creative way of trying to remedy the collaborative exploits that this group is using. What they are doing is not technically against the TOS, but it exists in a grey area at the moment.

The other issue is that accounts have been sandboxed for doing the exact same thing, being lent to someone else. If you're going to sandbox one person for doing it, you need to sandbox them all.

broll

tiomono said:

MissChinch said:

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

Essentially with one caviot on how you use technicality. If by technicality you mean how getting speeding ticket or DUI is a technicality. Otherwise it's not a technicality, it's just a breach of rules. Just because people do it without being caught sometimes doesn't make it any less illegal or a technicality.

PhantomSniper

And another thing......while you're all here, whining and complaining about someone playing another person's account, a person we ALL to know be the biggest whale, actually both players, you have an individual who hacked his account, was boxed and then D3 unboxed him and rolled his account back. What type of *tinykitty* is this? I'm in all the major buy clubs and this player has not bought any Starks or Lodes, even his own alliance has informed D3 of the cheating but what happens? they roll back his roster and that's it...

***Removed profanity and attacks on other posters - Ducky

Peej13

alphabeta said:

Fightmastermpq said:

alphabeta said:

Fightmastermpq said:

Why is this a big deal?  Why does this bother you?

Because I don't get to choose which elements of the rules apply to me and which don't so why should anyone else have this privilege?

Demi/D3 didn't have to put the rule in the terms of service making it cheating to have someone else play your account - they could have changed the terms of service tomorrow if they wanted an no one would have any recourse but while its in there and they ignore it I have a legitimate issue that I don't know which items of the terms of service will or won't be enforced therefore the entire ToS become irrelevant. 

And from a demi/d3 perspective in certain legal jurisdictions this game is played the entire thing become unenforceable because they have chosen to vary it unilaterally they can't then revert back at a later stage.

So I believe the reason you can't play another account is to prevent the sale of accounts.  The don't want new users picking up where old users left off, they want new users spending to catch up to where the old users are.  In this particular case, that isn't what is happening at all - one player is on a break and is letting someone else watch over their account until they return.

What if they got special permission from D3 beforehand and D3 said it was OK?  Would you still have a problem with it?

You believe and special permission are irrelevant from a legal perspective so yes I have a problem with it and frankly d3/demi should to because I don't think they understand the can of worms they've opened for themselves.

Contract law is very clear and simple - if one party chooses not to enforce elements of the contract they can not ever go back and enforce them at a later stage without the express agreement of the other party - there is not sub clause because it was for a valuable player who had permission - so whether they realise it or not they now have a legally unenforceable terms of service and frankly no route back to being able to enforce it in future.

This is also a high profile example but there are countless accounts being played that have been sold - I accept that this is not the case in the example I cited above but  the clause can't be said to be stopping that .... I wonder if enforcement on sales have slowed since the special permission for a loan was given?  Even if it hasn't this is the sort of problem a special permission gives because its now a legitimate question on how many other ToS violations are being overlooked that we don't know about?

Are you a 1L or a 2L? I think you should wait until you take remedies class before saying much more. Also, the TOS is not a contract in the traditional sense. It's more of a reservation of rights with respect to d3's IP. 


Also, maybe mind your own business instead of trying to get people banned.

MissChinch

tiomono said:

MissChinch said:

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

Yes, technicality being in the rules you're not allowed to let someone else play your account, this guy is...  There haven't been accusations that the account in question cheated to get it as powerful as it is... yet. 

ThePunishers

Jeez... some of you guys complain an awful lot.  You know there's starving children in Africa right...

I know for a fact no one could pay me enough to want to be cs.  Live and let live people.  There's 5 slices to choose from, go play in a different slice. 

alphabeta

Peej13 said:

Are you a 1L or a 2L? I think you should wait until you take remedies class before saying much more. Also, the TOS is not a contract in the traditional sense. It's more of a reservation of rights with respect to d3's IP. 


Also, maybe mind your own business instead of trying to get people banned.

Neither - already passed and practicing - in the UK where your comment is nonsense under UK law. (And thank God US consumer protection rules suck at protecting consumers vs a European model)

And as I play this game and am impacted by this is pretty much is my business so I believe I will continue  to mind my business right here.

As for other comments about this being a less important breakage if the TOS than other exploits that haven't been punished - what do you expect - Demi aren't enforcing TOS with any consistency so you can't say don't punish this but do punish that - they either punish everything or punish nothing.

Frankly I'm not convinced this rule should ever have been in TOS as laid out but it is and it's been enforced against others historically - consistent application of rules is not an unreasonable expectation what we are now left with is a consistent ingnoring of their own rules.

tiomono

Phumade said:

tiomono said:

MissChinch said:

The rockett said:

Here is the problem. There have been plenty of other players that have been sandboxed due to giving there accounts to somebody else.  I can name 3-4 I know of.  Also, I contacted CS last week because I will be out for 1-2 weeks and I ask if somebody else could play my account while I was out.  They said No you can't.  Reason I asked is because I wanted to make sure that if I did this, people find out it's not me, they would try and get it boxed.  So I went to correct route to ask if this was possible. If it is not possible for line and others have been boxed, then why an exception. Futhermore, D3/Demi have their rules that they are to uphold which in my opinion, they have been very very weak on. This is a small issue compared to the bonus hero exploit that happened with no repercussions. So does that mean that D3/Demi will not stand by there own rules?  I think that is the bigger question a lot of us here are asking.

This was already answered long before the thread went up IMO.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say it wouldn't have been an issue if the person in question let a different buddy of his play the account that wasn't stomping all over people...  that's the real reason this is being complained about which is why you don't see threads popping up wanting to burn D3/Demi on principle because kids are playing the game illegally.

So the issue is that a powerful roster is now not playing by arbitrary player enforced rules that have nothing to do with the actual gameplay and rules available to all players. So people are upset and immediately try to get the "offending" account banned based on a technicality?

Is that the tldr?

Except its explicitly against the Terms of service.,  Its an arbitrary rule, but its the devs rule and people are entitled to expect them to uphold their rules.  If it okay for us to rent out our accounts, state it clearly so we can do so without fear of reprisal from CS.

The worst part of dealing with Demi is that you never know which rule is gonna be enforced and which rules are conveniently ignored.

I'd love to rent out my account like those guys did.  I still don't know the criteria that was used to merge player accounts.  

Out of curiosity, do you read the TOS in its entirety before every time you play the game? If not then you are in violation of the TOS. 

Yes the account in question could have violated the TOS. I have not seen any evidence myself so I do not know. What I do know is if we take every part of the TOS so strict we would all be in violation of one or several parts of it and should all have action taken against us.

And the TOS states clearly that d3 will decide how or if to enforce any part of it. So they do not have to do anything and it would still be fine as per the TOS.

Find a more meaningful fight. This is not a good use of time or energy for any of us. There are way more pressing matters in this game than this.

Phumade

tiomono said:

Yes the account in question could have violated the TOS. I have not seen any evidence myself so I do not know. What I do know is if we take every part of the TOS so strict we would all be in violation of one or several parts of it and should all have action taken against us.

And the TOS states clearly that d3 will decide how or if to enforce any part of it. So they do not have to do anything and it would still be fine as per the TOS.

and If I get banned or sanctioned, I'll know Why and can look to the TOS as a ref point.
The fact that I play the game consistently means I accept their terms and the consequences of my actions. I don't think its too much to ask them to state what will get people banned or not banned and have them apply the rule uniformly. Its the uneven application of the rules that is so galling.

Bottom line,  Will CS allow us to "loan out" our accounts so someone can maintain the current roster. If so, let us make the private arrangements and let the free market decide the value of "loaning out" the account. All the whales will be more than happy to "loan out" their accounts for the right compensation.

 That can be as simple as a private pay pal transaction, buy a stark a month, or maintain a 1200 score. But the state rules clearly so ALL players have the same opportunity instead of:

 1. only some people get to merge accounts.

2. clearly state the guidelines on color swaps and train your CS people appropriately so that they actually understand when they can and can't swap covers. We've all heard the stories of CS swapping classic covers because they didn't understand their own swap policy.

3. Treating all players equally instead giving bonus compensation to spenders. (I have SS of CS authorizing significant compensation for game crashes solely because this guy was a spender.)

Peej13

alphabeta said:

Peej13 said:

Are you a 1L or a 2L? I think you should wait until you take remedies class before saying much more. Also, the TOS is not a contract in the traditional sense. It's more of a reservation of rights with respect to d3's IP. 


Also, maybe mind your own business instead of trying to get people banned.

Neither - already passed and practicing - in the UK where your comment is nonsense under UK law. (And thank God US consumer protection rules suck at protecting consumers vs a European model)

And as I play this game and am impacted by this is pretty much is my business so I believe I will continue  to mind my business right here.

As for other comments about this being a less important breakage if the TOS than other exploits that haven't been punished - what do you expect - Demi aren't enforcing TOS with any consistency so you can't say don't punish this but do punish that - they either punish everything or punish nothing.

Frankly I'm not convinced this rule should ever have been in TOS as laid out but it is and it's been enforced against others historically - consistent application of rules is not an unreasonable expectation what we are now left with is a consistent ingnoring of their own rules.

Due to the United States prevailing in the Revolutionary War, our laws preempt yours. 

Some things you may have missed:

"Prohibited Conduct: . . . D3PA reserves the right to determine what conduct violates these restrictions or is otherwise outside the intentions of this EULA or the Game and to take action as a result, which  may include termination of your account and exclusion from further participation in the Game."

Which means they get to decide what is considered cheating. Anyone asking them to hold themselves accountable may well be asking for a police state where any violation of law results in being tarred and feathered. You have no rights because you are using this game at their leisure. You want a world of absolute parity among everyone (*cough*communism*cough*). D3 is more than allowed to give their biggest customers a pass on guidelines that they are at liberty to enforce.

"Governing Law.  The laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law rules, govern this EULA and your use of the Game." 

Again, the Queen's laws don't matter. 

I fail to see how this impacts you. Others have mentioned that you have the option to move to a different shard, but, really, this would only affect you if the "offending" player were to take first in your bracket while you take second. Has that happened? As a side note, the "offending" player could take first in any bracket, with either account. Guaranteed. 

There is nothing I dislike more than defending D3. Well, except people who give my profession a bad name. And whiners. And the English (I am Scotch-Irish). And carnies.

Can you explain exactly how this affects you? I only ask because I'd like to expand on your earlier lesson in contract law. In order to recover for breach of contract (even though this is not the case here), you must have a valid, enforceable contract, performance of the contract by one party, a breach of the contract by the other party, and damages for which there are a legal remedy.

1. How is this a contract?
2. How have you performed on the contract?
3. we know how you claim there has been a breach.
4. How have you been injured?

Fightmastermpq

Ugh, carnies.....

Stax the Foyer

In the alternative, I'd love a Big Game Hunter checkbox option in my settings that would remove or extend the upper bound on MMR, and allow people to queue rosters well above their MMR range under normal circumstances.

At the moment, the biggest rosters are hidden from being queued by most people except under very specific circumstances.  Right now, the game mechanics hide players with giant rosters, which is a big part of the issue here.