pearljamrox2 wrote:Yo Blitz, nice of you to stop by.
For the sake of having a conversation, I'll pretend I believe everything you've said is true.
Do you realize, that when you invited Jobi to your games, then took his password, logged on and accepted your invites, and then when Jobi never came around so you had to play all his turns in those games you accepted him to, that you really screwed up?
Do you realize that by controlling the entire process of joining and playing out a game without the original account holder involved at all, even though it wasn't your supposed intention, is essential running a multi?
Do you realize, that when you are THE CONQUEROR, and this second account is a 500 cook, and you are playing on a conquest map to point rape people, it looks EVEN WORSE.
Do you see how the two infractions go hand in hand? And how you admitted to the first one and were warned, but the second one was somehow overlooked?
Can you see how someone might say, to receive a warning for account sitting abuse, you would think a guy would first have to be account sitting, which you admit, you really weren't too worried about his "other games".
So is that what we have here? You, unknowingly if you want to say that, joined him to your games, and then, unfortunately for you, it turns out his account is dormant, and you unwittingly multi-ed yourself?
From All the Admins wrote: 2. Taking turns with Jobiwan account as a second communal account, in games in which the parties had a stake, to gain a tactical advantage.
>>It is clear that Blitzaholic and Leolou2 went beyond the normal scope of Account Sitting, by joining and playing games from start to finish knowing that Jobiwan would be unable to return, that is, the Account Sitting was not a temporary stopgap measure to maintain the account.
These are points that I was trying to make, and I am satisfied that the admins acknowledged this. I felt very strongly that this distinction needed to be made to the public.
Believe it or not, I have had mixed feelings as to what the punishment should be. I would take no pleasure in seeing Blitz get nailed to a cross(that was for you Robinette
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
). I think the punishment is significant enough, while not being too severe or permanent.
I believe the punishment is enough to make someone think twice about their actions, be it Blitz or anyone else. Whether it was his intention or not, it IS what happened.
A big THANK YOU to Andy for giving us all an opportunity to review this matter, and to all the admins who were involved with deliberating. And also some props for having the courage in the face of "witch hunting, lynch mobs" for not taking it too far the other way. In the end, I believe you got it right, and i am happy to move on from this matter.