special skin criteria

[rearrow]

Now that a list of names and wether or not they get a special skin has been published in the special.skin request topic I am a bit confused.

Originally and recently confirmed by a few GM posts special skins are a reward for players for special.services and good conduct/standing. they can be requested at lv1500 and each next 500lvls.

So that would mean in my view not having shared (as decided recently) and not repeatedly having been jailed (ie convicted) forbreaking rules and using bugs.however looking at the names who get or not get this reward i see at least one who has spend quiet a few times in jail. even repeating the same offences several times.


Looking at that list it seems the criteria is now lv1500+ and not having shared ever.
although one name is not decided yet for being ubder current investigation.

Of cpurse i might also be wrong about these jail times in which case i owe someone an appology.


Otherwise this looks very much like using bugsand breaking rulesis not a serious thing, you serve your time (if you get caught) and ypur again an angel with everything forgiven. Unless you broke a certain rule which wasnt enforced for several years. If you did that your a devil and branded for life.

PS it was made clear not to post something like this in the same topic, but there is quiet a bit of interest in there written by players and GMs

[Cleopatra]

For 5 years, straight sharing was not illegal, (highly recommended not to share, but still not illegal)
I think if an account had a history of sharing but when the new rule popped up STOPED sharing they should still qualify for special skins.
They weren't cheating before because it wasn't illegal and they aren't cheating now because they stopped sharing. They should still qualify for special skins. Technically they didn't break any rules then and aren't breaking any now shouldn't be punished.
I am not a lawyer, but I know common sense and it doesn't make sense to punish someone who hasn't broken any rules....

[rearrow]

and it doesnt make sense to reward someone who repeayedly broke many rules sevetal times.
rspecially awarding him something whoch was created to reward special services to the game.

[rearrow]

one other question:
a special skin was found to have a bug (basicly slowing things down),a gm confirmed that, you still cant get it changed back to the previous one?

seems a bit strange.
even if its past 7days. i mean bugs are known to be unsolved for years here.
And theres been a few cases if no replies or weeks or ever to pms requesting refunds to accidental purchases or purchases on wrong account.


of course i only hear one side of this story so its a question, not a fact

[Arashiko]

Skins cannot cause lag. This has been confirmed by M.

[MadMikael]

For 5 years, straight sharing was not illegal

This is untrue.
There was a time, when accounts were getting jailed for sharing.
Some got perm jailed for it at the time.
It ended up being a large amount of work - especially with the quantity of false reports.

[Cleopatra]

For 5 years, straight sharing was not illegal

This is untrue.
There was a time, when accounts were getting jailed for sharing.
Some got perm jailed for it at the time.
It ended up being a large amount of work - especially with the quantity of false reports.

That's only if something was reported stolen... If nothing was reported stolen it was not enforced.
Nearly half of FT was sharing counts at one time or another. All the accounts that were shared, sold or bought, are not in jail. This law has never been fully enforced so those aren't sharing, buying, or selling accs now shouldn't be punished. The law wasn't fully enforced, therefore the ones who are currently following the laws now shouldn't be punished.

[Cleopatra]

When the new program is up and running (the one that points out shared accounts) this would be a perfect place to enforce not only the law but also the special skins.
As for kipper I don't really need the proof. His accounts are active, almost 15 to 20 hours a day. Either ur afk or sharing pick one lol

[MadMikael]

That's only if something was reported stolen... If nothing was reported stolen it was not enforced.
Nearly half of FT was sharing counts at one time or another. All the accounts that were shared, sold or bought, are not in jail. This law has never been fully enforced so those aren't sharing, buying, or selling accs now shouldn't be punished. The law wasn't fully enforced, therefore the ones who are currently following the laws now shouldn't be punished.

No, not only if reported stolen. They were jailed if they were found to be shared as well.
It was enforced for only a couple months. But so many would file reports against their rivals that many proved to be untrue.
It was so much work - and the admins at the time were spending almost all of their game work time looking into these reports.
After that, the rule was changed to a more vague rule of "simply forbidden", that was not enforced except in cases of them being "stolen".
However, internal things have been changing a lot over the past year or so, and the work is not as difficult as it once was (it's still a little tedious, but nowhere near what it was).

[rearrow]

the original teason given by gms in forum for the non sharing rule/recommendation ( was that it genetated so much work because accounts got stolen or reported stolen.
thats why the email registration was created. that solved the problem of stolen accounts. It was emphasized that buying /selling accounts was still forbidden though .It might very well be that within GMcircles it was very clear that sharng was still illegal, but that was not the message communicated to the ft players.
the theft problem had been solved, who was being shared was in many cases well known and since these werent even warned it was asumed by many that in fact it was not illegal.
especially since game and rules changed often without forum information being updated.

Still waiting for an answer on WHY A SPECIAL REWARD FOR SPECIAL SERVICES IS BEING GIVEN TO THOSE WHO REPEATEFLY BREAK THE RULES AND ILLEGALLY GAIN ADVANTAGES AT THE COST OF OTHER PLAYERS..