| Pengarang |
Topik: teams and double accounts |
891 balasan
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ January 13th 2012,05:36:35 )
There are a lot of laws in many countries for which there are no means to enforce them... this doesn't make them invalid. Occasionally, you will hear about someone breaking them and getting charged with breaking them...
It is all about trust and honesty. Just because a rule cannot be possibly enforced does not mean you have a carte blanche to blatantly break it.
Realy... what sort of defense is that? That is like saying it is perfectly ok to have a law that prohibits the murder of unicorns(as if animal cruelcy), despite the fact you will never be able to prove it.
How you can even debate this is appalling, but expected I guess. :P
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ January 13th 2012,05:36:35 )
The first section of TOS itself says this:
huh
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ January 13th 2012,05:36:35 )
Irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Leo, Chimnay's point is clear the rules have been broken in this case and I don't understand your attempted argument.
|
|
|
|
|
While Chinmay is correct that Laila/Darvex/Daneks is more than bending the terms of service (Chinmay is probably the only person that has read them :p), there is no question of a double account in their case so it has no relevance in this topic, and those that use this case as an argument for Elite's being treated differently are talking nonsense as that situation is very different from any other that it is being compared to.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ January 13th 2012,05:36:35 )
It is all about trust and honesty. Just because a rule cannot be possibly enforced does not mean you have a carte blanche to blatantly break it. Some rules can be stupid but you agreed with them when you signed up to play this game. The first section of TOS itself says this:
Then what is Your opinion about Your team leader, who changed his name and surname 2 times!? How do we know it's not 3rd person using the same account?
Everyone is okay with this but then the guy who is not so much liked in the community does the same, then everyone feels that there are used double standarts...
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Rimantas Sagatas @ January 13th 2012,11:15:55 )
Then what is Your opinion about Your team leader, who changed his name and surname 2 times!?
Good point. I forgot about that :p
|
|
|
|
There are two effects you are looking for in having rules/laws.
1. A normalizing effect, i.e. humans are social creatures and will, usually, try to conform to the society around them. Thus, having a law that cannot be enforced will still have a measurable effect. However, if the law governs something that the majority will not subscribe to, this effect fails. Copyright protection nearly falls into this category, it is somewhat enforceable but not on the grand scale of things.
2. Something to measure against when punishment is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Rimantas Sagatas @ January 13th 2012,11:15:55 )
Then what is Your opinion about Your team leader, who changed his name and surname 2 times!? How do we know it's not 3rd person using the same account?
As far as I am aware, he did not change it. It was changed without his permission...
e: Atleast, the latest change was. I am not sure what happened back in Season 6 or whenever the first change was. I wasn't even playing the game back then...
|
|
|
|
|
Cant wait to give this a good read.......
|
|
|
|
|
Ooooh, return of the Keeney :D
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Leonardo Bittencourt @ January 13th 2012,07:06:21 )
Realy... what sort of defense is that? That is like saying it is perfectly ok to have a law that prohibits the murder of unicorns(as if animal cruelcy), despite the fact you will never be able to prove it.
I disagree that no one will ever be able to prove this. As far as I can see it HAS been proven Laila/Daneks has broken it. How can you possibly say it cannot be proven???
Also, a law against killing of Unicorns is perfectly valid. And if it is proven that someone has killed a Unicorn (by their own confession after confirming that they were of sound mind when they made the confession) then they have broken that rule.
How hard is this to understand?
e: Ofcourse, when someone sane admits to killing Unicorns, it is a given that unicorns exist
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ January 13th 2012,13:52:07 )
e: Ofcourse, when someone sane admits to killing Unicorns, it is a given that unicorns exist
It ran out in front of my car - I couldn't avoid it. It was an accident though so did I break the law? :p
|
|
|
|
|
Ooooh, return of the Parko :D
|
|
|
|
|
Wehn can the return of the Kubski?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Shoaib Mohamed @ January 13th 2012,14:09:11 )
Wehn can the return of the Kubski?
The will is strong with this one! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michał Kubski @ January 13th 2012,14:06:19 )
Ooooh, return of the Parko :D
Shhhhhh! Don't want everyone knowing. :p
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Chinmay, but I disagree. Are you saying that two people, are not allowed to share an account.
If my wife decided to join the game (please no I beg you) then would you prefer that she shared my account or that she started her own account. I would have to get her to use her maiden name, I can hear the DA accusations already.
And if after a few seasons of sharing the account, I decided I needed a rest from the game (or the forums :p ) are you saying that she could not carry on my account either in my name or hers ?
I'm not letting my team access the account, I havent sold the log in to some advertising firm to plug all sorts of gadgets & websites, its just me and the wife, sharing in a 'hobby'.
|
|
|
|
|
Right Ashford, what have you been told about going off topic! Sort it out! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon, a cynic might say.... ah forget it :)
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon, Chin isn't arguing over whether sharing should be allowed or not. All he's saying is that a rule was broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Michael Keeney @ January 13th 2012,13:22:30 )
Cant wait to give this a good read.......
Oh lord, he's back...
God, save us !
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Shoaib Mohamed @ January 13th 2012,14:14:34 )
All he's saying is that a rule was broken.
And I am arguing that it hasnt been. "Any Other Person" in my opinion is anyone that is not 'running the account'. If two people choose to share the account then I dont believe that is breaking the TOS.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ January 13th 2012,14:11:15 )
And if after a few seasons of sharing the account, I decided I needed a rest from the game (or the forums :p ) are you saying that she could not carry on my account either in my name or hers ?
If she carried on the account in your name without you wouldn't that be 'using a false name?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me quote a couple of other things from the TOS..
You further agree not to:
• Use any incomplete, false or inaccurate biographical information or other information for purposes of registering as a user of the Service, or for purposes of registering for any promotions offered through the Service;
• Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a GPRO web master, or moderator, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
Concerning the impersonation affair of your wife, as in a recent case. I would say that would be in breach of the above.
|
|
|
|
I was about to type out a long post concerning:
-the fallacy of extending a valid argument to ridiculous proportions involving unicorns;
-the absurdity of relying on legal boilerplate clauses as giving a fair representation of site policy, particularly when admins have clarified the position numerous times
but then I realised I just didn't give a damn.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Pål Göran Stensson @ January 13th 2012,14:21:56 )
Concerning the impersonation affair of your wife, as in a recent case. I would say that would be in breach of the above.
Why exactly....let us assume that as soon as my wife decided (for it is obviously her idea :/ ) to share my account I made it public. Then lets say that when I take a step back she changes the account (a the earliest possible time) to be in her name.
What rules exactly are broken ?
Although frankly I agree with Sion, I just arguing :)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Sion Francis @ January 13th 2012,14:27:01 )
but then I realised I just didn't give a damn. Quote ( Gordon Ashford @ January 13th 2012,14:35:36 )
Although frankly I agree with Sion, I just arguing :)
And without that attitude the forum would be a much quieter, and less interesting place. Don't care but still argue - that's my motto (or it may be if I was to ever have a motto!)
|
|
|
|
I honestly don't care either and I'm fine with what happened. However, saying it isn't in breach of TOS just seems wrong.
Well, for one, the biographical information would be wrong if two people share an account. Secondly, in the case we have had, impersonation must be the very definition of what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 13th 2012,14:37:23 )
Don't care but still argue
meh...i just can't bring myself to be interested in the question if it's laila/Darvex/misc third person/pet donkey or whatever playing.
I can see why people care about DA's...that's what site policy is there to cover and it does it best it can. The rest is just ambiguous wording.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Pål Göran Stensson @ January 13th 2012,14:45:08 )
the biographical information would be wrong if two people share an account
So we could include a "couple" option in the bio information? Or just ban all partners. Probably just ban all women as none of them are real on the internet anyway :p
|
|
|
|
Or you could simply remove relevance of biography for example. I would guess a weight audit on managers given the amount of beer some people drink (Shoalb) would lead to half the managers being banned.
Along your motto I wanted to argue the point of breach of TOS. To me it is rather obvious that it is in breach. However, does it matter?
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Dansk
Pirate
