falsely accused of being multis [Closed]

[Snorri1234]

The only potential motive that I am aware of is point padding. If there is another motive which arose in this instance, I'd be interested to learn what it is so that I might look out for it also.

Some people use a second account to learn maps or try different settings.

Yup, but judging from the games that smokespride has played that isn't the case. Mostly Escalating Sequential on different kinds of maps and most maps not even twice.

That is not true. There does not have to be any motive to break the rules.

I think laci_mae's point was that people tend to have a reason for creating a multi. There doesn't seem to be one here.

[delboy01]

A lot of people have jumped to the defence of this chap and his son. I have not seen one negative comment about him.

Stating that 'you can pay again to get your premium back' Is quite frankly sharp practice.

I would thoughly agree with the decision if they had even played one game together but they haven't.

The reason why so many people are jumping to this chaps defence is that he seems genuine.

So many multi's and cheats just re-purchase premium without a second thought and then do it all again that I find it somewhat gauling that when someone appeals a case where he has a good case and the appeal is rejected.

I would suggest that he sends the admins a scanned copy of his sons birth certificate and that once this is done both accounts are reactivated.

Gentlemen, in this case you appear to be wrong.

[king sam]

I back the post by AAFitz.

I wish I could have came up with his words myself, cause quite honestly I believe him to be right.

I want to believe that this case is a misunderstanding and it very well might be, but from the perspective I have on this is that it has derived several looks already from the hunters and something stands out to them that is familiar territory with other "multi busts".

I was actually thinking along the same lines, that he would log in take his turns and log into his sons, whatever his inhibitions were something he has done was all too familiar.

The hunters have the most unforgiving job on here, cause they must regulate the site for all of us to try to keep it enjoyable for everyone. Just look at the trouble their having right now with ramned/the egg.

They have a standard that they go by to ensure the fair gavel is hammered in every case. If something that has gone on with these 2 accounts has swayed them to swing it in a "BUSTED" side then we as the community need to support that.

Im quite sure if they let it go we would have dozens of posters in here complaining about that, and wanting their free ride as well.

We need to accept and trust their judgment, even if in this or any other complicated case similar to this in the future happens to be false.

Yeah it sucks for this father & son combo, I get that.

Best of Luck,
KS

[laci_mae]

The point I was trying to make earlier was that, for cheating or rule-breaking to occur, there has to be some type of motive.

That is not true. There does not have to be any motive to break the rules.

Rule #1: No multiple accounts

Multiple accounts are discovered by routine scans and community cheating reports. They are strictly forbidden whether or not they play in the same games. If you suspect certain accounts belong to the same person, please report it following the instructions at the top of the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum.

The only potential motive that I am aware of is point padding. If there is another motive which arose in this instance, I'd be interested to learn what it is so that I might look out for it also.

Some people use a second account to learn maps or try different settings.

The "No multiple accounts" rule was not established out of fear of proliferating account creators. It has implications for cheating or manipulating the system in some way.

This is true. I believe that you have not thought of the situation I posted above.

Simply having 2 accounts is not, in and of itself, a wrong to the community. Using those accounts in a way that deceives others is what is wrong.

That is not what the rule says. The rule is explicit in stating that you may only ever have one account. Period.

That's circular reasoning if I've ever heard it. You agree that the rule is aimed at people who are cheating. However, because it is a rule, it does not matter if the individuals are clearly not cheating.

I had considered that someone might want to have a couple accounts to act out different strategies. I just don't think that's a big deal. Perhaps it's the focus of hunting "multis" is logically flawed, when you already agreed that cheating is the main concern.

Again, I posted in the thread in GD, if these accounts are cleared, I will apologize.

I do appreciate your willingness to address this in the open forum. While it is important that the truth is recognized, I am also interested in the process through which these decisions are made.

Best,
L

[king sam]

Simply having 2 accounts is not, in and of itself, a wrong to the community. Using those accounts in a way that deceives others is what is wrong.

Rule #1: No multiple accounts
Multiple accounts are discovered by routine scans and community cheating reports. They are strictly forbidden whether or not they play in the same games. If you suspect certain accounts belong to the same person, please report it following the instructions at the top of the Cheating & Abuse Reports forum.

That's circular reasoning if I've ever heard it. You agree that the rule is aimed at people who are cheating. However, because it is a rule, it does not matter if the individuals are clearly not cheating.
I had considered that someone might want to have a couple accounts to act out different strategies. I just don't think that's a big deal. Perhaps it's the focus of hunting "multis" is logically flawed, when you already agreed that cheating is the main concern.

There is no circular reasoning at all, there is no rule that says you can have more then 1 account as long as you don't use it wrongly. The rule CLEARLY states ONLY 1 Account. Based on the efforts of the hunters they came to the conclusion that this was 1 user using more then 1 account. Their are many users that use the same IP address and use it in a manner that the hunters do not consider this. Obviously something was done with these 2 accounts that differed from that.

I do appreciate your willingness to address this in the open forum. While it is important that the truth is recognized, I am also interested in the process through which these decisions are made.

The truth is that a certain criteria was met that alarmed the hunters and enabled more then 1 hunter to review the case and conclusively say that by their findings evidence was there to suggest that this was the same user using more then 1 account. Sometimes, maybe in the instance, the truth did not prevail cause of different circumstances. But its their job to use a unbiased mind and rule off the facts, and the facts led them down this road. Obviously your not going to get the evidence that they found out of them cause then that allows everyone to know what not to do to get away with this type of abuse.

Regards,
KS

[laci_mae]

Let me start this response by saying that my views in support of olkok are clear. I am also satisfied that the mods will reach a fair resolve to the case. My endeavor now is to assess the "No multiple accounts" rule.

There is no circular reasoning at all, there is no rule that says you can have more then 1 account as long as you don't use it wrongly. The rule CLEARLY states ONLY 1 Account. Based on the efforts of the hunters they came to the conclusion that this was 1 user using more then 1 account. Their are many users that use the same IP address and use it in a manner that the hunters do not consider this. Obviously something was done with these 2 accounts that differed from that.

A problem (cheating) caused a rule (only one account per player). The rule is flawed in 2 ways: 1) does not fully address cheating and 2) affects other situations which are not actually cheating. King Sam's response is basically "it's okay because that's the rule." Sounds circular to me.

Said another way:
A problem arose which required a rule. Fine.
The rule is not sufficient in addressing the problem. Not fine.
The rule affects people who are not engaging in the original problem. Not fine.
It's okay that these people are punished because they are breaking a rule? Doesn't all add up to me.

That is the scenario if you are one who believes that there are multiple accounts being operated by a single user. I, for one, believe that the father/son/relative argument provided by olkok and Highlander is viable, rational, and, well, the truth.

Cordially,
L

[king sam]

This is as frustrating as trying to teach my 3 week old puppy where she can and cant pee.

I don't see what "circular response" you are obviously seeing, as the rules clearly state 1 account per person. Not one account per IP. You acknowledge that you will only use 1 account by clicking a box that says so when you sign up.

So when you know that is a rule, and you have that in mind and in some point it is found out that you violated that said rule what "circular way" is it that you are cheating?

A problem (cheating) caused a rule (only one account per player). The rule is flawed in 2 ways: 1) does not fully address cheating and 2) affects other situations which are not actually cheating. King Sam's response is basically "it's okay because that's the rule." Sounds circular to me.

Its really not that hard to see.
1. How is it not addressed fully? DO NOT MAKE MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNT PER USER
2. A situation arouse in this case as it has in many others, there are 2 accounts being accessed from the same IP configuration. The mods looked at it did their voodoo skills and delivered a verdict that "Hey guess what, these accounts in question show some typical signs of it only being 1 guy, being that as it may our standard actions on all accounts that fall within these categories get handled with the BUSTED tag" So here is our verdict "BUSTED".

No circular about it, its black and white, have 1 account if you show signs of having more you will get reported sooner then later and the mods have methods to catch and punish you accordingly for the violation of the rules that you agreed to uphold at time of creation of your account.

Said another way:
A problem arose which required a rule. Fine.
The rule is not sufficient in addressing the problem. Not fine.
The rule affects people who are not engaging in the original problem. Not fine.
It's okay that these people are punished because they are breaking a rule? Doesn't all add up to me.

1. A problem arose that required their to be a section and support to aid in the well being of all users on this site to help their gaming experience be the best that it could be. These are the hunters who dedicate their time to justly rule on cases brought to their attention by using methods that they are not / should not explain to the public.
2. The rule is plenty sufficient enough for the problem. You are required to cognitively check a box saying you agree to the rules and will up hold them at the accession of your account. If found in violation of those rules your account will be dealt with accordingly. Problem being in this case that you don't agree with the ruling that was handed out & without actually knowing the facts behind why it was handed out how can you say it is wrong? You choose to believe in the greater good in someone. By all means, I'm not breaking your bubble, and I have stated maybe the situation that olkok has put himself in is as he says it to be, but it doesn't change the fact that his account along with "his sons" have done something to raise the multi flag.
3. How does it effect people who are not engaging in the original problem? Their are plenty of accounts on here that share the same IP configuration and don't show signs of being more then 1 account.
4. And yes it is okay to punish someone for breaking a rule. why have a rule that you strive to uphold if you lack the enforcement.

That is the scenario if you are one who believes that there are multiple accounts being operated by a single user. I, for one, believe that the father/son/relative argument provided by olkok and Highlander is viable, rational, and, well, the truth.

Whether you choose to believe olkok and Highlander are 2 separate accounts or not doesn't matter.
The ruling came down and was reviewed again by another hunter in here who posted the same findings as well as probably at least one through an E-ticket.

Its obvious something was done on 1 or both accounts that showed similarities to multiple account users and I for one am glad that despite all the publicity this has gotten that the mods didn't turn a blind eye.

Had they we would have at least 10 posters in here quoting the rules and their "circular" ways with the way these accounts were let off despite evidence that suggested otherwise.

The only thing to make you feel justified that this was a solid BUST is for the hunters to derive their methods and inform you & others of how they came to this conclusion. Which aint going to happen. Nor should it.

I would suggest that if you truly feel strongly about how these accusations are handled make a valid suggestion on a better way to change it in the sugs & bugs forum.

Regards,
KS

[laci_mae]

This is as frustrating as trying to teach my 3 week old puppy where she can and cant pee.

I truly love being compared to 3 week old puppies. Thanks! In fact, I'm feeling the same about your perceptions of my point of view.

I don't see what "circular response" you are obviously seeing, as the rules clearly state 1 account per person. Not one account per IP. You acknowledge that you will only use 1 account by clicking a box that says so when you sign up.

So when you know that is a rule, and you have that in mind and in some point it is found out that you violated that said rule what "circular way" is it that you are cheating?

The no multiple accounts rule was created to address cheating. In this case, it's addressing an issue that was not part of the original purpose of the rule. Therefore, applying the rule simply because it exists does not meet the purposes for which it was created.

We don't want cheaters, so we said no multis. Now that the rule is no multis, we are not focusing on catching cheaters. We are chasing multis for the sake of enforcing a rule. The rule is clearly insufficient in addressing all the cheating issues and it also creates "rule-breakers" who are not cheaters.

Perhaps, circular reasoning is not the exact term. I just want to point out that the mods seem to have lost sight of the end goal. Instead they are just enforcing a rule because it exists.

1. A problem arose that required their to be a section and support to aid in the well being of all users on this site to help their gaming experience be the best that it could be. These are the hunters who dedicate their time to justly rule on cases brought to their attention by using methods that they are not / should not explain to the public.
2. The rule is plenty sufficient enough for the problem. You are required to cognitively check a box saying you agree to the rules and will up hold them at the accession of your account. If found in violation of those rules your account will be dealt with accordingly. Problem being in this case that you don't agree with the ruling that was handed out & without actually knowing the facts behind why it was handed out how can you say it is wrong? You choose to believe in the greater good in someone. By all means, I'm not breaking your bubble, and I have stated maybe the situation that olkok has put himself in is as he says it to be, but it doesn't change the fact that his account along with "his sons" have done something to raise the multi flag.
3. How does it effect people who are not engaging in the original problem? Their are plenty of accounts on here that share the same IP configuration and don't show signs of being more then 1 account.
4. And yes it is okay to punish someone for breaking a rule. why have a rule that you strive to uphold if you lack the enforcement.

1. No clue what the first sentence is saying. Aren't they paid employees, and why shouldn't they give the community better guidance as to what to keep an eye out for?
2. No, it's not. Accession, really? Fine. I didn't say it was wrong. Usually try to. Fine.
3. I would like to know a little more about these decision-making processes before the next time my friends come over and need to check their accounts. I agree there (not their) are many households w/multiple players. How do we know who is going to be accused next?
4. I agree. Why have a rule that doesn't meet its objectives?

I would suggest that if you truly feel strongly about how these accusations are handled make a valid suggestion on a better way to change it in the sugs & bugs forum.

Regards,
KS

Perhaps I will ponder some constructive thoughts, and do just that.

Best,
L

[sleepaholic]

This thread caught my attention because I'm in a similar situation.

I am currently a college student and recently decided to join conquerclub along with my roomate. In our dorms, a friend set up a router so that we could all use his wireless connection, and thus the same IP signal.
Back at home, we live down the street from each other and so when we go to each other's houses and play, we obviously share a same IP address once again. We like to go at the same time to co ordinate our attacks in freestyle team games.

Granted, I will be honest and say that we share passwords because we are busy, full time college students and obviously cannot always find a time for both of us to play at once. Now, as is in olkok's case, would this get me busted just because I share passwords? Would I be busted because we share the same IPs or, once in a while play from the same computer?

If olkok is busted on these grounds, then shouldn't CC ban me and my roomate as well and everyone else who play from the same wireless/computers? Where is the consistency in this?

[e_i_pi]

2. A situation arouse in this case as it has in many others, there are 2 accounts being accessed from the same IP configuration. The mods looked at it did their voodoo skills and delivered a verdict that "Hey guess what, these accounts in question show some typical signs of it only being 1 guy, being that as it may our standard actions on all accounts that fall within these categories get handled with the BUSTED tag" So here is our verdict "BUSTED".

Herein lies the problem with your reasoning. I wouldn't say it is circular so much as non-correlative.

Example:

Hitler was Austrian
Hitler was a Nazi
Mozart was Austrian
Therefore, Mozart was a Nazi

Now let's have a look at the reasoning for olkok being a multi:

Multi's log on from the same IP
Multi's create multiple accounts
olkok and smokespride log on from the same IP
There, olkok and smokespride are multiple accounts

Notice any similarity there? The first quote is ridiculous, but the second quote is something we are meant to swallow, and all the while say 'Yeah the staff has it right'. I don't swallow it. The staff have been evasive at every turn, and have even had the gall to say "It's not fair for you to ask us to explain because we can't, therefore our decision is right". I just don't buy this for a minute. I think the staff have made the wrong decision and are now doing everything they can to avoid owning up to their mistakes.

[Woodruff]

There are also instances of someone having multiple premium accounts.

This just kills me. I mean...really kills me!

[Woodruff]

Its still very possible that these are two separate people, and that the Dad really is just trying to protect his kid. Unfortunately, thats hard to know for sure, and I think the hunters are good enough to see if moves were made.

First of all, I also want to second laci_mae's statement that I am impressed that lance is discussing this openly with us. It does make me feel better about the situation, because I feel as though it's being treated seriously.

However, as a father myself who was (my kids are grown now) also very protective of my children online, I can easily see how the two would legitimately play back-to-back because "that's when dad is around to keep an eye on things". It seems as thought their playing back-to-back is seen as a proof of multi-hood, and I don't necessarily believe that's an accurate perspective.

[AAFitz]

Its still very possible that these are two separate people, and that the Dad really is just trying to protect his kid. Unfortunately, thats hard to know for sure, and I think the hunters are good enough to see if moves were made.

First of all, I also want to second laci_mae's statement that I am impressed that lance is discussing this openly with us. It does make me feel better about the situation, because I feel as though it's being treated seriously.

However, as a father myself who was (my kids are grown now) also very protective of my children online, I can easily see how the two would legitimately play back-to-back because "that's when dad is around to keep an eye on things". It seems as thought their playing back-to-back is seen as a proof of multi-hood, and I don't necessarily believe that's an accurate perspective.

Well, you are assuming that it was back to back playing that caused the problem. The fact is, we dont know everything that was looked at, how the two accounts were used, who was making the moves, or the timing of the loggins. What we do know, is that the Dad regularly logged into the sons account. Hes admitted that, and as I said, I dont blame him. Unfortunately, Its also possible that in a further attempt to protect his kid, he helped him out with some games, made some moves for him, and subsequently got busted. I personally dont blame him for that either. Despite the fact that it might not be the best lesson for a child...I more than understand the motive, and the stakes are realistically pretty low here. Now here I am completely guessing about what may have happened, but It doesnt seem anyone realizes that this is possibly what was happening or seemed to be happening, which is why there was an acutal bust made, in a case, that on the surface seems to be cut and dry.

Again, I know the guy is very possibly innocent. To me his story is completely believable. But Ive also seen many believable stories that turned out to be false, so I know enough to know that there is some pretty strong evidence that the dad was playing the sons account, and without a doubt, on more than one occasion. The hunters are very careful in cases like this. Fallable, but careful.

[AAFitz]

Let me start this response by saying that my views in support of olkok are clear. I am also satisfied that the mods will reach a fair resolve to the case. My endeavor now is to assess the "No multiple accounts" rule.

A problem (cheating) caused a rule (only one account per player). The rule is flawed in 2 ways: 1) does not fully address cheating and 2) affects other situations which are not actually cheating. King Sam's response is basically "it's okay because that's the rule." Sounds circular to me.

Said another way:
A problem arose which required a rule. Fine.
The rule is not sufficient in addressing the problem. Not fine.
The rule affects people who are not engaging in the original problem. Not fine.
It's okay that these people are punished because they are breaking a rule? Doesn't all add up to me.

That is the scenario if you are one who believes that there are multiple accounts being operated by a single user. I, for one, believe that the father/son/relative argument provided by olkok and Highlander is viable, rational, and, well, the truth.

Cordially,
L

Your logic is unfortunately just flawed on a basic level. You are assuming that cheating is the only reason for the multiple account rule. There are many reasons for the multiple account rule, cheating is at the top of the list, but there are many other reasons, and further, there are countless motives for them.

Further, I believe there is a father and son relationship too. However, I do not think that means that the father is not guilty of breaking the rules. Technically he has already admitted to logging into the account to check on the son. While I dont blame him, technically that is against the rules. Further, I do not believe the hunters would bust the dad for scrolling through the kids pms and games real quick. I believe they probably got busted, because the dad was making moves for the son. I would be very surprised, and honestly disappointed if this were not the case. Again, I dont blame him if this is the case, but it is completely against the rules, unless he was doing it for the kid who was going to miss his turns.

In any case, like you, Id love to see the father get reinstated, and believe his story. Id simply rather believe it and be wrong, than believe he is completely lying though his teeth. Unfortunately, ive believed such stories in the past that have not panned out, but that is outside of this case.

I only post here, because your argument as I said is just flawed because of its initial premise. You are wrong about the reason for the multiple account rule, and further are wrong that it actually matters. The only thing that matters in this case, is weather the father was making turns for his kid...which I would guess would be to just help him out...or making moves on a second account for himself, for the countless reasons that people do that, many which have nothing to do with any cheating for points at all.

The only reason this guy should realistically be busted, is if he was making moves for his kid when his kid could have made them for himself, or, if the kid is made up, which I truly hope is not the case. I cant imagine the hunters would bust him for anything else, so Im assuming they have some fairly strong evidence of this happening. I also hope, that if they didnt, that the father will be able to convince the hunters, and get reinstated.

[king sam]

The no multiple accounts rule was created to address cheating. In this case, it's addressing an issue that was not part of the original purpose of the rule. Therefore, applying the rule simply because it exists does not meet the purposes for which it was created.

We don't want cheaters, so we said no multis. Now that the rule is no multis, we are not focusing on catching cheaters. We are chasing multis for the sake of enforcing a rule. The rule is clearly insufficient in addressing all the cheating issues and it also creates "rule-breakers" who are not cheaters.

Perhaps, circular reasoning is not the exact term. I just want to point out that the mods seem to have lost sight of the end goal. Instead they are just enforcing a rule because it exists.

Not true at all. The no multiple accounts rule does not JUST exist to catch cheaters that are using 2 accounts in a way to pad 1 accounts points.

It also exists as a fair measure to play a game with the honest perception of who your playing.

If I get in a Freestyle game with King Herpes before I join I know that he is damn good at this. I get in the game and lose and lose 20 or so points to him, cause he at the rank he is wont take as much points from lower ranked players to compensate for his skill.

However I get in a Freestyle game with King Herpes new 2nd account that he just made
(not saying he has 1) and I loose. Hes a new recruit, I had no clue he had the skill he possesses and he wins, i lose 40 points once again cause of the point system. Its the same player I played against but since its an entirely different account I got punished more by one vice the other cause of this.

How is that fair?

Another reason 1 account rule is in place. Need we forget this is a business, that lets face it strives off of our enjoyment and happiness. Our wiliness to check this and play day in and day out keeps this place going. If I could create 5,6 (20) accounts and play 4 games with each of them why would I ever pay $25 bucks to have a premium one. Cause I like the look of gold on my rank? Not likely, this site takes money to maintain, by allowing users to use more then 1 account it would defeat the purpose of having a difference between a paid member and a non paid member.

And I'm sure there are more reasons this rule is in effect "ONLY 1 ACCOUNT" but I think you get my point.

Example:

Hitler was Austrian
Hitler was a Nazi
Mozart was Austrian
Therefore, Mozart was a Nazi

Now let's have a look at the reasoning for olkok being a multi:

Multi's log on from the same IP
Multi's create multiple accounts
olkok and smokespride log on from the same IP
There, olkok and smokespride are multiple accounts

Notice any similarity there? The first quote is ridiculous, but the second quote is something we are meant to swallow, and all the while say 'Yeah the staff has it right'. I don't swallow it. The staff have been evasive at every turn, and have even had the gall to say "It's not fair for you to ask us to explain because we can't, therefore our decision is right". I just don't buy this for a minute. I think the staff have made the wrong decision and are now doing everything they can to avoid owning up to their mistakes.

This is absolutely preposterous. How could you think that this is a good example of what I have said or what has transpired here?

In no way is it a guilt by association thing that has gone on. What has gone on is these 2 were reported and it was looked at. The hunters FOUND EVIDENCE that linked it to be 1 user using 2 accounts. Whether it is or not, the only one that truly knows is olkok. Maybe the actions he took to safeguard his sons internet is what contributed to the factors that led the hunters believe or at least provided them with the evidence that they couldn't ignore that he was a multiple account user.

But no matter what the reasoning was, as good as it may seem, something was done between these accounts that was familiar in the ways that they bust multiple accounts with, and being as fair as possible they ruled as they would have in any other case.

Your example is flawed by the mere fact that their was obviously supporting evidence that the hunters held in this conviction, and as I stated before you and others wont think this was right until you get the justification of why.

Which aint going to happen. You have to understand if they divulge their methods and let you or anyone else know why they reached this verdict it will show the public what they look for. If this gets out then others will continue to create multiple accounts and will take the knowledge that they have learned (what hunters look for) and go forth and continue to cheat and make it harder to catch them on.

The hunters do a good job, but they are foul able. When one thinks something was perceived wrong you go about the actions that this thread has served. Submit an E-ticket asking for further review or doing it in here.

Which was done and ruled upon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--please do not reply below this line--

Hi Kory,

After comparing the data that we have and the explanation you have sent, we still believe that the bust was correct and the verdict shall stand on these accounts.

If you want, you can upgrade your account once again and abide our rules and guidelines to avoid any similar penalties like this in the future.


Regards,
king achilles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lance came in here and backed up King A on his findings, and later gave this case another review by asking questions to help him derive his own opinion which later came back as this is a good BUST.

Just tell us once and for all, what he/they were found guilty of...

Having and using two accounts.

This case has probably got more reviews then most that ask for it, and has continually came back with the same conclusion. Just because you don't know the methods which were reached to make this true doesn't make it wrong.

So once again, my opinion aside from what has actually right or wrong with olkok and his son, this account has shown signs of abuse of rule #1 and the mods (PLURAL) have acted accordingly with it.

Regards,
KS

[laci_mae]

The "No multiple accounts" rule was not established out of fear of proliferating account creators. It has implications for cheating or manipulating the system in some way.

This is true.

Your logic is unfortunately just flawed on a basic level. You are assuming that cheating is the only reason for the multiple account rule. There are many reasons for the multiple account rule, cheating is at the top of the list, but there are many other reasons, and further, there are countless motives for them.

I based my initial argument on the statement made earlier by lance. I believe that the rule was at least established with the main target being prevention of cheating. Now that we are on page 5 of posts and the site has grown quite large, other benefits of this rule have been brought to light. Therefore, I acquiesce to there being multiple plausible motives for maintaining more than one account.

Even though that was not going on in this case.

L

[laci_mae]

The truth is that a certain criteria was met that alarmed the hunters and enabled more then 1 hunter to review the case and conclusively say that by their findings evidence was there to suggest that this was the same user using more then 1 account. Sometimes, maybe in the instance, the truth did not prevail cause of different circumstances. But its their job to use a unbiased mind and rule off the facts, and the facts led them down this road. Obviously your not going to get the evidence that they found out of them cause then that allows everyone to know what not to do to get away with this type of abuse.

Regards,
KS

So, sleepaholic should not bother to upgrade to premium. Perhaps his outing of his own situation with honest intent will get him banned from the site as well?

Blind acceptance of the rules is a foolish act. As a paying member, I deserve some instruction on how to play alongside my friends and colleagues without becoming suspected of multiple accounts. Many of the people in my office play, we take turns at each others' homes, etc. It is unfair for me to worry about my recently spent $25 being stripped away without any explanation of why.

I'm not asking the mods to turn state's evidence. However there should be some explanation as to how people within the same household can play with confidence.

L

[Woodruff]

Its still very possible that these are two separate people, and that the Dad really is just trying to protect his kid. Unfortunately, thats hard to know for sure, and I think the hunters are good enough to see if moves were made.

First of all, I also want to second laci_mae's statement that I am impressed that lance is discussing this openly with us. It does make me feel better about the situation, because I feel as though it's being treated seriously.
However, as a father myself who was (my kids are grown now) also very protective of my children online, I can easily see how the two would legitimately play back-to-back because "that's when dad is around to keep an eye on things". It seems as thought their playing back-to-back is seen as a proof of multi-hood, and I don't necessarily believe that's an accurate perspective.

Well, you are assuming that it was back to back playing that caused the problem.

Yes, I definitely am, because it's the only plausible explanation (other than the father's
own statement that he logs into his son's account to check up on him). Since I don't
for a moment believe that the mod's would BUST him based on his own statement in
that regard, it doesn't make any sense at all that the mod's would KNOW that the
father had ever logged into his son's account at all (or vice versa). It essentially
HAS to be based on the timing of log-ins and playing of games.

[king sam]

Blind acceptance of the rules is a foolish act. As a paying member, I deserve some instruction on how to play alongside my friends and colleagues without becoming suspected of multiple accounts. Many of the people in my office play, we take turns at each others' homes, etc. It is unfair for me to worry about my recently spent $25 being stripped away without any explanation of why.

I'm not asking the mods to turn state's evidence. However there should be some explanation as to how people within the same household can play with confidence.

Pm one of the hunters and explain your situation.

That you are requiring verification for you own sake so your name is never thrown out and forced to go down this road.

That you yourself may have some trends that are familiar with users that have multiple accounts
(or may not) cause you dont really know.

But that you play with friends in all different kinds of games & all different kinds of settings and utilize the site from numerous places, sometimes in the same places as other users right after they utilize their account. And seeing all the light shed on this one and lack of information on how these 2 accounts in question were busted you would like clarification for yourself and a NOTED stamp so if something is ever published about you in this sense that you can be credited to not doing anything wrong. I agree with you that the lack of reasoning mentioned to the community can be unsettling. But this is why I have split ties with playing with my real life friends, so I would not get caught up in a situation (again) that gave the impression that I was operating more than 1 account.

I am now the only user that logs in from my home IP and work IP, unless my friends are doing it on my computer without my knowing. But even then I have gone to not playing games with them nor discussing games with them for the same fear of discrediting myself by getting mixed up with the same thing.

Good Luck & hope there are no hard feelings
KS

[laci_mae]

Pm one of the hunters and explain your situation. . .

Good Luck & hope there are no hard feelings
KS

No hard feelings for sure.

If the solution to this situation (for the innocent) is to give the mods some sort of head's up, then that should be clearly stated somewhere. Perhaps, during account creation? Though I didn't know all my buddies usernames at that time.

Even if you don't find full credit in olkok's explanation, you should consider his situation on a hypothetical level. This father-son duo were essentially blind-sided with this judgment. There is no expectation that these relationships be published before hand. I, for one, think there should be. A forum thread or a specific multihunter mod in charge of tracking these. Perhaps this situation has not arisen before, but there should be lots of consideration about how to handle it better next go around.

Best,
Laci

[king sam]

If the solution to this situation (for the innocent) is to give the mods some sort of head's up, then that should be clearly stated somewhere. Perhaps, during account creation? Though I didn't know all my buddies usernames at that time.

There is no expectation that these relationships be published before hand. I, for one, think there should be. A forum thread or a specific multihunter mod in charge of tracking these. Perhaps this situation has not arisen before, but there should be lots of consideration about how to handle it better next go around.

I think that would be a solid suggestion to post in the Sugs & Bugs forum

The creation of a admin spot to help delineate cases like this or at least rules that can affect users in this manner and maybe even a forum that allows players to access to state out in the open this so they cant be pointed the finger at later. Obviously it wouldn't be 100% perfect but it would be a step in the right direction

[lancehoch]

The "No multiple accounts" rule was not established out of fear of proliferating account creators. It has implications for cheating or manipulating the system in some way.

This is true.

I based my initial argument on the statement made earlier by lance. I believe that the rule was at least established with the main target being prevention of cheating. Now that we are on page 5 of posts and the site has grown quite large, other benefits of this rule have been brought to light. Therefore, I acquiesce to there being multiple plausible motives for maintaining more than one account.

Even though that was not going on in this case.

L

I was agreeing with all of your statement, including the part that I have made red.

Laci, you currently have nothing to worry about, your account is not in danger of losing its premium.

Sending us (the hunters) a message that someone you know is going to be playing does help, but if it is made up we will be able to tell. I cannot just say, oh, my roommate will be playing as XXXXX and then create account XXXXX and play it as my own. That happened a while back and 5 or 6 "roommate" accounts were busted.

I cannot comment on how we detect multis or what you can do to avoid being accused. People like JR24 take this to an extreme level and refuse to allow anyone they know to get an account, but others, even moderators, have relatives and significant others on the site.

King Sam, I was actually the person who made the bust and KA reviewed it afterward when the eticket was submitted, not the other way around.

Also, I am not 100% positive, but I think that this is the first case where I have made a bust and the case has been overturned. As I have stated, if I am wrong, I will apologize. Whether I am wrong will be determined in the near future.

[Woodruff]

Whether I am wrong will be determined in the near future.

This is excellent news. And I don't mean that to sound as if I expect that you will be wrong...I have even less to go by than you do, obviously. But it does at least suggest that some sort of substantial and hard proof is in the offing, and that's good to see.

[Serbia]

This is as frustrating as trying to teach my 3 week old puppy where she can and cant pee.

I truly love being compared to 3 week old puppies. Thanks! In fact, I'm feeling the same about your perceptions of my point of view.

3 week old puppies are cute, so it might be a compliment.

[olkok]

If there is one thing I have learned from all of this, it is that you can check up on someone's account without logging in as that user. You can use the Game Finder option and look for that player's games whether it's all of them, or just active games. If it had been brought to my attention sooner, this situation probably would not have occurred. This is just an option for any parent that wants to check on their kids games. The only thing you will not be able to see is any team communication if they are in a doubles match.