HELP ME ROGEAN!! - Page 25

Glenzig · #**241** 08-13-2014, 11:39 AM

Quote:

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

I just don't see the harm in assisting people on a case by case basis. Even if it takes a month or three, people have spent a long time on their characters just to get it stolen from them it just doesn't seem fair. But all accounts need to be suspended until it is resolved at least.

They already knew they weren't going to get any assistance for account sales or trades. If the account is that precious to you, don't give out your account info.

Kika Maslyaka · #**242** 08-13-2014, 12:35 PM

Quote:

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

You're creating scenarios to fit the need of your argument. The only problem with that in this case is that none of that applies. Read Nilbogs post. There is your answer.

yeah the analogy for what has happened is hard to come up with because in real world the conditions do not change overnight. You try to come up with one that is in perfect match.

Kika Maslyaka · #**243** 08-13-2014, 12:37 PM

Quote:

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

risk : the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen

I said this in 2012:

Own risk. Who is responsible? The owner of the risk, I'd say.

That being said, I have nothing to do with GMing or player accounts. But, risk <> safe.

Own risk was based on conditions that existed at that time - and specifically - it was impossible to change account info or passwords. The shared account was perfectly safe. Or at the very least safe within acceptable amount of risk. The addition of SMS system brought that risk factor from 10% to a 100%. Players were responsible for the change in conditions. GMs were.

Kika Maslyaka · #**244** 08-13-2014, 12:39 PM

Quote:

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

Players were responsible for the change in conditions. GMs were.

Players were NOT, that is.

Glenzig · #**245** 08-13-2014, 12:39 PM

Quote:

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

yeah the analogy for what has happened is hard to come up with because in real world the conditions do not change overnight. You try to come up with one that is in perfect match.

There is no need. It doesn't need to be analogous to anything. It is what it is, and it makes sense within its own context.

Glenzig · #**246** 08-13-2014, 12:45 PM

Quote:

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

Own risk was based on conditions that existed at that time - and specifically - it was impossible to change account info or passwords. The shared account was perfectly safe. Or at the very least safe within acceptable amount of risk. The addition of SMS system brought that risk factor from 10% to a 100%. Players were responsible for the change in conditions. GMs were.

Nilbog: "That being said, there will come a time where this is against server rules. I hope that time is sooner than later, but heed this warning. Do not have your account in escrow, trade, or consignment for extended periods of time.

You might ask, how can we stop this? Whether it be through linked forum accounts, access codes, etc, I would prefer to prevent these situations than to seemingly condone them."

You either can't read, or are just trying to avoid anything that goes against your assumptions of how "safe" account trading was before the evil GM's "changed the rules". Its obvious that people knew that there was a definite risk of having all your accounts linked.

Faywind · #**247** 08-13-2014, 12:56 PM

Quote:

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

yeah the analogy for what has happened is hard to come up with because in real world the conditions do not change overnight. You try to come up with one that is in perfect match.

Read Nilbog's recent post in this thread. Your argument has now been made invalid as he clearly stated that the rules would change.

Also to the OP. You are getting everything back you asked for minus a character name. Take that offer and stop posting.

/thread

Kika Maslyaka · #**248** 08-13-2014, 12:59 PM

Quote:

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

Nilbog: "That being said, there will come a time where this is against server rules. I hope that time is sooner than later, but heed this warning. Do not have your account in escrow, trade, or consignment for extended periods of time.

You might ask, how can we stop this? Whether it be through linked forum accounts, access codes, etc, I would prefer to prevent these situations than to seemingly condone them."

You either can't read, or are just trying to avoid anything that goes against your assumptions of how "safe" account trading was before the evil GM's "changed the rules". Its obvious that people knew that there was a definite risk of having all your accounts linked.

change in Rules - such as forbidding of account sales - is not the same as change in condition of how account data is stored and secured. Why weren't sales forbidden from day 1? If they were not forbidden - they were effectively allowed. Since this is not a democracy and players do NOT make their own laws, the GMs are responsible for anything and everything that happens. Which includes both - creation of laws or lack of such.
When I do something, I base my actions on conditions that exist today or are foreseeable in the near future. I cannot possibly foresee such future where another country will start a nuclear war tomorrow, or a volcano with erupt under my house.
Introduction of SMS system completely overthrew previous system that people were basing their reasoning and risks on.
I do not approve sale of accounts in general. But if you are the GMs of the server - you take responsibility for everything that happens which is not explicitly stated in the rules.

Glenzig · #**249** 08-13-2014, 01:06 PM

Seriously man. Read Nilbog's post from 2012 again real carefully. The warning was given that they would most likely be changing the way account info was handled. The warning was given that if you didn't have your account secure at the time that the changes went into effect, you would just have to eat it. What are you still going on about GM responsibility for? If people can't listen to warnings, how is anyone else responsible?

Exmo · #**250** 08-13-2014, 02:18 PM

It was the GM's prerogative to Add a System Allowing PW recovery on Login Server Accounts, and had been a feature the community wanted for a long time.

The people who sold some but not all accounts on the same EMU's are retarded. That's the end of that. It doesn't matter that conditions changed, it should have been apparent from the beginning that EMU accounts (being associated to your Email) Should remain to 1 individual.