Acct sharing legal?

[Tiger_King]

Let me break this down for you since you cannot seem to process what I said: remotely controlling a client from a is easily bannable as you are violating the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing on 2 characters or not.

This isn't to say you only control 1 doing it this way BUT for the mere fact that it's not verifiable leads to the bannable action.

There's no reason for mods/GM's to tolerate or even entertain dialog like "I told you I'm being honest mod and only playing 1 char you can't banz me!" Therefore, it is much easier to presume remotely controlling a client is for bad rather than the good. The bad (simplistically described) is that the only reason to remotely access to play is to multi-box weather you do or not!

[Tecmos Deception]

Ignoring the fact that you're getting snippy with me because you didn't actually say originally what you're trying to "break down" in your second post...

Lol. If everything that made boxing unverifiable without direct observation were bannable, we'd be banned from p99 for owning PCs.

[Tiger_King]

you just don't get it, and that's fine. Maybe if you think on it a bit more broadly in application what you're asking for then you'll understand.

[Smellybuttface]

Originally Posted by Tiger_King [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you just don't get it, and that's fine. Maybe if you think on it a bit more broadly in application what you're asking for then you'll understand.

How does remotely accessing a PC result in two simultaneous logins? You’re still only logging in via one account, albeit from a different modality than being actually at your physical desktop. This doesn’t in any way infer that the user is using two separate logins, though.

[Smellybuttface]

Originally Posted by Jubal [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Account sharing is not just legal and encouraged by the ruleset and /lists, you're at a massive disadvantage if you don't account share.

This.

You don’t want to trust your friends with your login information, fine. Your prerogative. Just don’t expect things to suddenly change to accommodate this choice. Sharing account information, anecdotally at least, WAS classic. Lists may not be, but people spending umpteenth amount of hours camping something sadly was classic.

To Tecmo’s point earlier, no I of course don’t think waiting on a list and getting a guaranteed item was classic. But back in true classic, with help, you usually ‘did’ have a pretty good chance of getting that item. It generally took longer than was reasonable for one person alone to camp, but with help, few camps were insurmountable. I think /lists is in keeping with the spirit of reliance on others that the original game required. Presumably the devs knew this, and as such the spawn rates for these items are almost artificially made longer than a single person could camp on their own, thus necessitating teamwork to acquire one.

Though I understand “reasonable” is entirely subjective....

[TripSin]

Originally Posted by Smellybuttface [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can say definitively that my friends and I account shared often in the true Classic era to do things like PL or trade items to-and-fro etc. I can't see this being policed, nor believe it should be.

No shit you don't think it should be policed lol. Who wouldn't want to get away with committing crimes and doing shady business. You admit to doing this shit, of course you don't want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure none of the people who account share want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure murderers wish murdering wasn't against the rules or pedophiles wish abusing minors wasn't against the rules either.

[Izmael]

Staff probably isn't too happy with account sharing but as someone stated, there's no even remotely viable way to enforce otherwise. The false positives would be a CS nightmare.

[Tethler]

Originally Posted by Tiger_King [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let me break this down for you since you cannot seem to process what I said: remotely controlling a client from a is easily bannable as you are violating the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing on 2 characters or not.

This isn't to say you only control 1 doing it this way BUT for the mere fact that it's not verifiable leads to the bannable action.

There's no reason for mods/GM's to tolerate or even entertain dialog like "I told you I'm being honest mod and only playing 1 char you can't banz me!" Therefore, it is much easier to presume remotely controlling a client is for bad rather than the good. The bad (simplistically described) is that the only reason to remotely access to play is to multi-box weather you do or not!

I get what you're trying to say here about it being an option for hard-to-detect boxing, but this could be achieved much more easily by just using a VPN if 2-boxing was the only intent. Anyone doing this could still potentially have to submit to a box text if suspicious behavior was reported.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Tiger_King [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let me break this down for you since you cannot seem to process what I said: remotely controlling a client from a is easily bannable as you are violating the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing on 2 characters or not.

This isn't to say you only control 1 doing it this way BUT for the mere fact that it's not verifiable leads to the bannable action.

There's no reason for mods/GM's to tolerate or even entertain dialog like "I told you I'm being honest mod and only playing 1 char you can't banz me!" Therefore, it is much easier to presume remotely controlling a client is for bad rather than the good. The bad (simplistically described) is that the only reason to remotely access to play is to multi-box weather you do or not!

I see where you're trying to go with this, but I have to agree with Tecmos that it doesn't seem like this would be enough for them to ban remote access and, if it is, it's somewhat odd. There are other ways to "violate the ability for mods to verify that you are not playing 2 characters" at once, but they're still legal. How is someone using a VPN on their second computer not violating the mods' ability in the same way? The answer is that it is, which is of course why they have the GM tests that are almost impossible to pass if you're boxing.

So why is remote access treated differently?

Also, I don't get why you came into this thread and immediately started being a condescending dick without anyone even having said anything to you.

[Smellybuttface]

Originally Posted by TripSin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No shit you don't think it should be policed lol. Who wouldn't want to get away with committing crimes and doing shady business. You admit to doing this shit, of course you don't want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure none of the people who account share want it to be made against the rules. I'm sure murderers wish murdering wasn't against the rules or pedophiles wish abusing minors wasn't against the rules either.

Committing crimes? Exaggerate much?

What crime is there for someone logging into my account, as long as it’s not more than one account logged in (i.e. boxing)? I’m not currently logged into it, and they’re not logged into an account they otherwise COULD be logged into. So it’s a zero-sum game.

I’ve never seen someone so nauseatingly use hyperbole to grasp at making a point.