mightyoz wrote:

DREDD wrote:Im not the 1st to sell account and wont be the last. Game accounts are sold all the time in every game I ever seen. Built xtreme account from day 1. I even bought that speed account. Got busier RL....accounts had to go...so sold speed:) Kept the accounts I built myself. Too bad to see it (VB) like that when I put a lot of work into it fleet and defense wise. With resources stockpiled with future earnings.....it was just about ready to start building RIPs into the tens of thousands with a big fuel reserve:)

Is the switching of accounts the issue here? Or is it the crashing of fleets?

We need to be specific in term. There is no account switching involved in this case. Account switching rule is mandatory when the buyer already has an account in the universe where he is buying the account.

What is involved in the DREDD case, since he willingly posted that he is involved, is:
A)Account Trading
B)Fleet Crashing on Retirement


Administration still recommends Account Switching rule in all cases, especially when there is account trading. Here is why:

1)Let's suppose that a seller requires payment first. The buyer sends him the payment. The seller then sends false login info or none at all. At this case, if buyer protests to administration, there is no rule to help the buyer. Administration does not recognize account trading at all. It is a private deal between two parties, not something we involve ourselves in. In this case, the buyer will be left on his own to recupate/work out a deal with the seller.

2)Let's suppose that the buyer insists that he receives working login information first but he never pays. Administration then, will recover the account for the "seller" under the Account Ownership rules.

3)Let's suppose that the buyer gets the login info and the seller the payment. The "seller" can still reclaim his account through administration, again under Account Ownership rules. Again, we have no interest if there was some trading deal behind the whole issue.

So, using the Account Switch rule, you can claim account ownership. Any other method, is not enough and can be problematic if the seller decides to reclaim his account.

So to confirm.... I can buy an account even if I already have an active account.....I can then crash the paid for account with my existing account. The rules of then owning two active accounts on same server are now null and void as I and everyone I spoke to see it......even if one account is to be "retired"......I see so many issues with this in the future.

Two active accounts permitted as long as one is paid for, never been switched (including change of ownership) and one account is to be retired...

Correct?

As a Moderator I have always tried to promote the game.

However I reply here as a player... I am somewhat bemused as to the stance on this current issue...Player A approaches player B and purchases player B account directly, for a supposed friend player C, even though Player A has an active account in the same server. Now upon payment of said account, player B passes account details to player A.

These details are then passed to player C who logs into the account and in less than a week (6 days) Player C decides to retire said fleet into player A who originally purchased account from player B. Surely this can not be classed as a retirement hit. The account was purchased by player A with the sole intention of crashing it, as we can all see. No matter how you word this action it is in my opinion a deliberate breaking of the "Milking rule".

Based on some of your own comments (listed below) ...Therefore my question is how can an account be purchased, purely to to be crashed, be classed as a retirement hit...?

Zorg wrote:It is worth noting, that administration (as in all cases anyway) ALWAYS reserves the right to ban involved accounts if it feels that it is over the top.

Zorg wrote:The rules are the boundaries. When someone gets to close to the borderline or does something that is not described in the rules but still a cheat in our thinking, then we do not need a rule to issue a ban.

Why call it the DREDD case? I sold account login info...like many before. Whatever happened after that to that account...is out of my hands:)

Sprog wrote:So to confirm.... I can buy an account even if I already have an active account.....I can then crash the paid for account with my existing account. The rules of then owning two active accounts on same server are now null and void as I and everyone I spoke to see it......even if one account is to be "retired"......I see so many issues with this in the future.

Two active accounts permitted as long as one is paid for, never been switched (including change of ownership) and one account is to be retired...

Correct?

The way you put is a violation of the multiplay rule.

If you can find a tool, a middle man, to help you with the control of the bought account, then yes, you can buy the fleet of another player as long as he is not a switched account. This way, whenever you do this, 3 players are involved at least and one account ends up banned (removed from the game).

Or in other wording, when you retire ZE, you can get some money back from your retired fleet.

Gozar wrote:As a Moderator I have always tried to promote the game.

However I reply here as a player... I am somewhat bemused as to the stance on this current issue...Player A approaches player B and purchases player B account directly, for a supposed friend player C, even though Player A has an active account in the same server. Now upon payment of said account, player B passes account details to player A.

These details are then passed to player C who logs into the account and in less than a week (6 days) Player C decides to retire said fleet into player A who originally purchased account from player B. Surely this can not be classed as a retirement hit. The account was purchased by player A with the sole intention of crashing it, as we can all see. No matter how you word this action it is in my opinion a deliberate breaking of the "Milking rule".

Based on some of your own comments (listed below) ...Therefore my question is how can an account be purchased, purely to to be crashed, be classed as a retirement hit...?

Zorg wrote:It is worth noting, that administration (as in all cases anyway) ALWAYS reserves the right to ban involved accounts if it feels that it is over the top.

Zorg wrote:The rules are the boundaries. When someone gets to close to the borderline or does something that is not described in the rules but still a cheat in our thinking, then we do not need a rule to issue a ban.

Truth is that we could have issued a ban if we wanted. We consulted with each other to decide how to handle this as we were aware of what this means.

We decided that the fleet is owned by the player, and the player should decide what to do it - just like we ended up years ago when we created the retirement rule. If the player wants to sell it, we are not going to interfere. We will just ban the gifting account, like we do in retirement crashes.

By the way, this surely has happened in the past again. This time is simply more outright and public. I cannot believe that no one ever crashed his bought account. It is the "bought" that annoys you I understand but we cannot interfere to this.

Zorg wrote:

MegaMedes wrote:Maybe you misunderstood me, I was asking if there is a rule against alliance mates crashing each other just so no one else can get the fleet? Both players continue to play the game.

There is no such rule as to whom you can attack. Save the scripted limitations.

An addon to this, as I am not sure I realized the question well. I was pointing out that alliance tag plays no role in administration decision. The following apply for all hits between players:

If the hit is legitimate, then its fair game.

If fleet crashes are deliberate, fabricated then it falls into the milking rule.
It is worth noting that hits where the DF is returned to the loser, are an exception as this is a way to recycle/rebuild fleet. There have been cases like this before for example.

The best practice whenever you spot such cases, is to send a message to administration and we will investigate.

Zorg wrote:-

If fleet crashes are deliberate, fabricated then it falls into the milking rule.
It is worth noting that hits where the DF is returned to the loser, are an exception as this is a way to recycle/rebuild fleet.


The first line, fine. Agreed. It is milking.

The second line, not so clear. Some fleets are considerable in size. It would infringe the milking rule in many cases to return the df as this amounts, probably in most cases to more than 24 hours production.

mightyoz wrote:Zorg wrote:-

If fleet crashes are deliberate, fabricated then it falls into the milking rule.
It is worth noting that hits where the DF is returned to the loser, are an exception as this is a way to recycle/rebuild fleet.


The first line, fine. Agreed. It is milking.

The second line, not so clear. Some fleets are considerable in size. It would infringe the milking rule in many cases to return the df as this amounts, probably in most cases to more than 24 hours production.

Cases like a fleet recycling are pretty obvious. All transports are logged. So when an admin sees a big dispatch, he will look in combat history. You can override the 24hour production in such cases. You need to do it fast though and close to the combat time. Not two days later.