Cheating

Jsh2014

What gets me is that all you were arguing back-and-forth and very few were making positive sense.  Very few have made real points defending this supposed cheater The clearest point I've seen short sweet to the point that cheating is cheating lending selling gifting giving or all cheating according to the TOS and @Ducky  is the only one who is clearly defined it I went back and read it again from my own sense of knowing what I'm talking about and it says very clearly all the things that ducky I and several other people laid out that you cannot do what this player has been doing with his/hers account. It also says explicitly that if they change the TOS the Demi's  such as allow a player to lend someone else their account,   Their own TOS says they're required to post an amendment to the TOS which they have not done. Selectively enforcing rules is not healthy for the games bottom line all it's gonna do is upset all those players that see there being slighted. Like I Stated in my earlier post if I let my kids play do I get kicked according to the rules no I don't. so that point people of made is just  illogical. But somebody who's not tried not bad old that's offered that just hit the game handeded to him or her  is offensive. If they want to change the rules then change the rules period End of story controversy is over.  But these failures on multiple occasions for For the powers that be to consistently enforced rules for all players is going cause this game to lose wtoo many players. 

Peej13

Jsh2014 said:

What gets me is that all you were arguing back-and-forth and very few were making positive sense.  Very few have made real points defending this supposed cheater The clearest point I've seen short sweet to the point that cheating is cheating lending selling gifting giving or all cheating according to the TOS and @Ducky  is the only one who is clearly defined it I went back and read it again from my own sense of knowing what I'm talking about and it says very clearly all the things that ducky I and several other people laid out that you cannot do what this player has been doing with his/hers account. It also says explicitly that if they change the TOS the Demi's  such as allow a player to lend someone else their account,   Their own TOS says they're required to post an amendment to the TOS which they have not done. Selectively enforcing rules is not healthy for the games bottom line all it's gonna do is upset all those players that see there being slighted. Like I Stated in my earlier post if I let my kids play do I get kicked according to the rules no I don't. so that point people of made is just  illogical. But somebody who's not tried not bad old that's offered that just hit the game handeded to him or her  is offensive. If they want to change the rules then change the rules period End of story controversy is over.  But these failures on multiple occasions for For the powers that be to consistently enforced rules for all players is going cause this game to lose wtoo many players. 

Does it not say this? Am I taking crazy pills?
"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."

tiomono

Phumade said:

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.)

I absolutely agree they need some consistency. But the fact there is essentially a cop out clause for d3 in regards to anything in the TOS ties the players hands for knowing what to do.

And if you cannot deal with that, you probably need to find another game with a TOS you can wholly accept.

Phumade

tiomono said:

I absolutely agree they need some consistency. But the fact there is essentially a cop out clause for d3 in regards to anything in the TOS ties the players hands for knowing what to do.

And if you cannot deal with that, you probably need to find another game with a TOS you can wholly accept.

So ask them to post the new policy.

I'm okay with playing between the goal posts.  I just wanna know where they've been set, so that we know the boundaries.

This is like new golfing club technology.  If the club is against the "the rules" state the reason, the measurements and let the manufacturers and touring pros adjust.

Don't tell some people its okay to play one way and then tell other people you have to play differently and then not explain the reasons why.

I don't think this offends anyone's notions of fair play and decency to ask that

the rules be made public and universally applied to ALL players.

Not just the ones that the devs deem important.

Brigby

Hi Everyone. Without naming any names, I'd like to briefly touch base on this topic, and provide some insight.

We are aware of the situation where a well known player is allowing another player to temporarily access and play their account. Prior to this occurrence, the player had reached out to us and Demiurge to request permission to do so.

We normally do not allow players to play on another user's account, however this player has been an immensely loyal, long-time supporter, and various extenuating circumstances in their life convinced us to permit this very rare and temporary exception. I cannot stress enough that these were extremely unique, and extenuating circumstances, and that this exception is absolutely a rare and temporary occurrence. 

I hope this provides some additional clarity. Thank you for understanding.

Stax the Foyer

Thanks, Brigby.  Do you feel that the manner in which the account is being used is consistent with your expectations of how the account was going to be used during this (extended) temporary occurrence at the time that this unique authorization was granted?

Mercator

except the time that was stated by said player has passed .. and is almost doubled now

Rhycar

TL;DR spend enough money, and there are no rules.

Seriously though, if D3 would just let us find this account when cycling nodes, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I have a level 502 and 485 for my top characters, and I NEVER see this account unless nobody is out or I'm so far above that it doesn't matter. If nothing else, you should consider opening up MMR to allow more players to queue these level 550 rosters. I can easily best them ... when I can find them.

Brigby

@Stax the Foyer
While I do not have information as to the full extent in which the account is currently being used, my personal expectation at the time of authorization would be that the account is used in a manner that is civil and attempted to be reflective of the original player's behavior.

Rhycar

Brigby said:

@Stax the Foyer
While I do not have information as to the full extent in which the account is currently being used, my personal expectation at the time of authorization would be that the account is used in a manner that is civil and attempted to be reflective of the original player's behavior.

This is adorable.

Darknes21

Brigby said:

Hi Everyone. Without naming any names, I'd like to briefly touch base on this topic, and provide some insight.

We are aware of the situation where a well known player is allowing another player to temporarily access and play their account. Prior to this occurrence, the player had reached out to us and Demiurge to request permission to do so.

We normally do not allow players to play on another user's account, however this player has been an immensely loyal, long-time supporter, and various extenuating circumstances in their life convinced us to permit this very rare and temporary exception. I cannot stress enough that these were extremely unique, and extenuating circumstances, and that this exception is absolutely a rare and temporary occurrence. 

I hope this provides some additional clarity. Thank you for understanding.

This is disgraceful! In other words the guy spends a lot of money and the rules don't apply to him.....the same thing goes for the **nope**...the guy gets caught cheating, he get sand box,  his account gets rolled back, and everything's OK.....thanks for screwing over all the people who play this game Legit....you guys should be ashamed of yourself!!!!!

**Removed reference to another player - Ducky

Jsh2014

@Brigby while I do understand what you said, don't you think that a slippery slope has been started!!! And for people who have made purchases like myself who have supported the game might start freling slighted, personally IDC but I know someone who just left on a 18 month tour should he have asked for special treatment?? And are you not inviting people to get fed up and quit which in my opinion would be stupid to leave a game. 

acescracked

Jsh2014 said:

What gets me is that all you were arguing back-and-forth and very few were making positive sense.  Very few have made real points defending this supposed cheater The clearest point I've seen short sweet to the point that cheating is cheating lending selling gifting giving or all cheating according to the TOS and @Ducky  is the only one who is clearly defined it I went back and read it again from my own sense of knowing what I'm talking about and it says very clearly all the things that ducky I and several other people laid out that you cannot do what this player has been doing with his/hers account. It also says explicitly that if they change the TOS the Demi's  such as allow a player to lend someone else their account,   Their own TOS says they're required to post an amendment to the TOS which they have not done. Selectively enforcing rules is not healthy for the games bottom line all it's gonna do is upset all those players that see there being slighted. Like I Stated in my earlier post if I let my kids play do I get kicked according to the rules no I don't. so that point people of made is just  illogical. But somebody who's not tried not bad old that's offered that just hit the game handeded to him or her  is offensive. If they want to change the rules then change the rules period End of story controversy is over.  But these failures on multiple occasions for For the powers that be to consistently enforced rules for all players is going cause this game to lose wtoo many players. 

This makes no positive sense. Paragraph breaks would make it easier to digest at least.

Peej13

Stax the Foyer said:

Thanks, Brigby.  Do you feel that the manner in which the account is being used is consistent with your expectations of how the account was going to be used during this (extended) temporary occurrence at the time that this unique authorization was granted?

"the manner in which the account is being used" - uh, what? Good lord. Is he using the account to organize concentration camps?

acescracked

In almost every business exceptions are made for those that spend well above the norm.

You can't fault D3 for that. It may not seem fair but if I dumped a ton more cash with any business I'd expect VIP and plus treatment.

Pongie

Do you all really want to sandbox this account? think about it for a moment... If this player left the game, that will be a big financial hit to the bottom line and the longevity of the game. 

Phumade

Pongie said:

Do you all really want to sandbox this account? think about it for a moment... If this player left the game, that will be a big financial hit to the bottom line and the longevity of the game. 

Why?  That player's orginal account has 5* in the 470-480 range.  He's more than welcome to spend appropriately to get to 550 status and play the account in any fashion that his bankroll and whims dictate.

Ducky

@Brigby The only question I have, and I'm not even sure if you're able to answer it, is will this person be able to use said account indefinitely? Or have you guys set a cutoff mark?

Brigby

@Ducky
This is a temporary exception, however I personally do not know specific details of the given permission.

KinDM

I'm just going to be that guy for a moment. An issue was raised to Representatives of D3, and a reply was given by @Brigby on behalf of D3. Isn't the issue de facto solved, whether individuals like the response or not? I have to say imvho, if I were an "immensely loyal, long term supporter" I would take issue with any further details being disclosed, since the anonymous player in question is "anonymous" ;)

It may be time to end the thread before things go very, very sideways and the original question is lost amongst a sea of angry internet accusations...