The laws are so restrictive that we could be in the line of the law allowing those things.
Wait what? I am now very curious how this is a legal issue.
The forum is part of TG and account names are used for identification. No real life ties are used for identification so why would it matter whether you are calling someone out for something against rules/ToS or something that is allowed but frowned upon.
Every nick is linked to an email, by law you can identify a person by an email.
So, it is something we have to be very very careful with.
So, just in case, we don't allow that type of behaviour to avoid issues. It is non negotiable as the laws are very restrictive, some are still untested and we cannot afford to fail in the wrong side of them.
Every nick is linked to an email, by law you can identify a person by an email.
So, it is something we have to be very very careful with.
So, just in case, we don't allow that type of behaviour to avoid issues. It is non negotiable as the laws are very restrictive, some are still untested and we cannot afford to fail in the wrong side of them.
So its more a case of "what if something were to go wrong". If something were to go wrong and emails could be linked to account names then people could figure out who the cheaters are. It won't matter if we openly talk about it or if it is being censored. Where do we draw the line? What is considered sharing facts about what is going on and what is considered an accusation of cheating?
Does this have anything to do with the company being based in Germany where privacy laws are extra restrictive?
I try to illustrate.
Saying something like "Joe Blogs did this", is wrong, a name is mentioned.
Saying something like, "I would like to see x practice banned because..."
Or "I believe some players do...."
Without mentioning who, or even hinting who it is, could be allowed.
I believe some players do have endless amounts of emails they use to get dual access to alot of accounts.
These emails makes no total sense and the avatars tied to these accounts most of the times have no single server played solo.
Display MoreI try to illustrate.
Saying something like "Joe Blogs did this", is wrong, a name is mentioned.
Saying something like, "I would like to see x practice banned because..."
Or "I believe some players do...."
Without mentioning who, or even hinting who it is, could be allowed.
Can someone from Germany ask this to someone that works in legal, perhaps a friend/ uncle because it sounds like excuses.
Why would we as player not be able to discuss a INGAME avatars name on forums. 'In case it got hacked'?
I believe some players do have endless amounts of emails they use to get dual access to alot of accounts.
These emails makes no total sense and the avatars tied to these accounts most of the times have no single server played solo.
I wouldnt say endless, i only have about twenty
I wouldnt say endless, i only have about twenty
on the same server at the same time?
Personally I look at it like this
I don't need to hear details of who & where (although the info usually gets back to me)
as long as we know something is being done to intervene and stop abuse wherever possible this is enough for me.
I would kinda like having a summary of how many abusers got removed in a time frame though, say like monthly
I think having some kind of insight around numbers could be beneficial to help show how much work the CSR team do & would in time perhaps act as a deterrent to stop people risking doing the same.
I wouldnt say endless, i only have about twenty
Some have almost endless, some has around 4 excel sheets he uses.
2 years ago i got told by support that they were aware of this trick, but so far i dont notice any indication that this way of cheating (yes it is..) is more watched or monitored.
Every nick is linked to an email, by law you can identify a person by an email.
So, it is something we have to be very very careful with.
So, just in case, we don't allow that type of behaviour to avoid issues. It is non negotiable as the laws are very restrictive, some are still untested and we cannot afford to fail in the wrong side of them.
So anonymizing the reports that we share and accusing the anonymized player is fine? Then we can use context to make very clear hints who we refer to.
Thank you Jak I will mention those suggestions as well.
I am not sure how feasible it would be, but it will be studied.
Thanks, I really think this would help improve things tbh
"from a Company point of view" it would improve consumer confidence, as players would see results of actions being taken.
"from a Player point of view" it could encourage more players to report suspicious activity, if they could see some transparency of the punishments (as much as is legally possible) It would also kill the myth that CSR team do nothing.
"and for the abusers" it could act as a deterrent to discourage future players from being tempted to do it.
I believe some players do have endless amounts of emails they use to get dual access to alot of accounts.
These emails makes no total sense and the avatars tied to these accounts most of the times have no single server played solo.
It is true, thousands of e-mails with "random" e-mail tags opened only for access to partnership and representative accounts, without even an avatar picture, and not played on any server, are registered in the game.
While registering, phone number confirmation or other solutions must be found, and these registered random mail accounts should also be deleted.
It is true, thousands of e-mails with "random" e-mail tags opened only for access to partnership and representative accounts, without even an avatar picture, and not played on any server, are registered in the game.
While registering, phone number confirmation or other solutions must be found, and these registered random mail accounts should also be deleted.
This is happening already for years. On some server 2 years ago we got messages by opposing players who said they regretted playing with a certain kingdom, because they were forced to set a email as dual.
They also abused this dual access to 'punish players', a normal gov by accident farmed a multifarm of a royalty. They decided to send his ww off on our ww and to kick him.
From a outside point of view, such emails should be easily detectable.
Phone confirmation is also evadable to some extent, but the more steps required to create multis, the better.
Unknown You can see that, a sitter added an account. That sitter hasn't played a single training phase ...
Whaaaaaaat? Essentially an unregistered sitter?
Whaaaaaaat? Essentially an unregistered sitter?
Yes, and the first few years it was believed to be untracable. Dont know about know though.
Unknown You can see that, a sitter added an account. That sitter hasn't played a single training phase ...
I don't understand, is that setting a sitter from a new account?
It cannot be un unregistered, may be a registered account in the lobby that has not played any game world?
I don't understand, is that setting a sitter from a new account?
It cannot be un unregistered, may be a registered account in the lobby that has not played any game world?
It is indeed a registered account, which didnt play any game world yet.
The moment it plays 1 server, there will be a avatar attached.
