Arbitraries

[snus]

I have not played for 3 months.I went back into the game.What do I see?My account under the nickname-shur blocked.I'm an example player and never broke anything.Please unblock my alt account -shur!

[death911]

This is what i talked about many times in forum. How will a player know about any rule change if logged after a long time?not many keep in touch with forum and not many read all the rules in forum. they just click ok and log in. it also never came as a SYSTEM MESSAGE. Sharing accounts is sure against rules that's for sure and deserves punishment that's also sure. But maybe temp jail on 1st time rule break and perm jail for further repeat offences. that's what i have suggested many times.

[Leone]

That idea does not hold water, I'm afraid.

Why?

Generally, if a player ticks to say they have read the rules and haven't actually bothered then that's their problem, their fault and their responsibility.

In the case of this particular player, the rules were enforced on 5th March 2018 - which is over 3 months ago. Here is the forum message for clarification.

https://forum.dmgamestudio.com/viewtopi ... =2&t=15261

I do agree that a system message would be a useful reminder, however.

[blitzcraig]

What rule change are we talking about here?

[LostKnight]

What rule change are we talking about here?

New Rules on Shared and Traded Accounts
Post by DaHobbit » Mon 5 Mar, 2018 @ 08:31

[death911]

I am totally against sharing accounts . i am just not in favour of permanent jailing for 1st time rule break. I just in favour of permanent jailing for 2nd time/ Repeat offenders.1st time offenders should be given just 1 chance to reform. But that's just my own opinion.

[madmaniacal1]

If Snus left FT around the time the sharing enforcement began, he may well have not known it started. That's really an issue for the GMs to figure out. Idk

As for death911's point, I don't know if I can agree. If records/logs showed circumstances such as original player left before rule enforcement, and came back unknowing of changes, I could see POSSIBLE leniency, but that would have to be a case-by-case basis, if it were ever considered. Even then, players who return have to click the same rules box as the rest of us.

Any account that claimed such, and was proven wrong, I would advocate punishment under rule 4, to prevent BS claims.

This is just my opinion.

[blitzcraig]

So to be clear, we're talking about the rule change of the rule that has never changed... ever - sharing accounts is against the rules. Always has been. OK, got it. Thanks for clarifying

yes, I'm purposely being kind of a jerk here, I'm just so tired of people acting like it was OK to violate that rule for the last 5 years just because it wasn't strictly enforced - it has ALWAYS been a rule of FT, and frankly, of pretty much all mmorpgs since they first were created.

[death911]

Yep Sharing accounts was against rules but on 3rd March 2018 the punishment to Sharing accounts was changed or in other words strictly enforced. So that's the change being discussed. it's a good change .no doubt about that. Its definitely not OK to violate rules and share accounts. But the punishment does seem harsh to me for 1st time offenders. one ( and only one ) chance should be given for 1st time offenders and on repeating even once they should be permanently jailed. Just as in autoclicking they temp jail for 1 week and then perm jail for repeat offence.( Autoclicking is also against rules )

[blitzcraig]

I get what you're saying, but we just simply disagree about what is too strict and how much leeway players should be given when cheating. If players would simply follow the rules, there would be no such problem lol... of course, that's not going to happen - Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on this. We're both certainly entitled to our own opinions, and I respect that you've thought through yours and voiced it appropriately and repeatedly - All I'm hoping for in this conversation is that we stop acting like it's a new rule; or an unknown, hidden rule change, rather than acknowledging that it's an old rule (perhaps one of the first)