If a "3rd party" was paid by another player to obtain an account then theoretically the person who paid "3rd party" now has two accounts as it is theirs...paid for with their money or rubies....there is the intent...there is the issue....Not much liking the deflection tbh....this is not just a personal issue with a certain player.....I would feel just as strongly about anyone who manipulated rules.

Sprog wrote:If a "3rd party" was paid by another player to obtain an account then theoretically the person who paid "3rd party" now has two accounts as it is theirs...paid for with their money or rubies....there is the intent...there is the issue....Not much liking the deflection tbh....this is not just a personal issue with a certain player.....I would feel just as strongly about anyone who manipulated rules.

So what, are you accusing him of theoritical multiplaying now?

Zorg wrote:

Sprog wrote:If a "3rd party" was paid by another player to obtain an account then theoretically the person who paid "3rd party" now has two accounts as it is theirs...paid for with their money or rubies....there is the intent...there is the issue....Not much liking the deflection tbh....this is not just a personal issue with a certain player.....I would feel just as strongly about anyone who manipulated rules.

So what, you are accusing him of theoritical multiplay now?

I call it "theoretical" to save myself a ban

Sprog wrote:I call it "theoretical" to save myself a ban

Save the poor excuses. No one is going to ban you. You have said worse things prior to this, in this conversation.

I appreciate your hard-work to find what we can punish in this whole deal but after all this try, if this is the best accusation you can get, then what can I say more?

I will give you a reply though. Just to prove that you are not acting out of game interest as you claim but out of hard feelings for the player in question. While I do not mind this, I tend to believe that emotions result in poor judgment.

With your logic, if you ask someone to act on your behalf in the game and attack someone constantly, then you are theoretically multiplaying.
The same one could say when this certain someone ends up to retire on you.

This is not a logic we can follow. To give you some credit, If one agrees to be a tool, then it is bad for himself. Not sinister for administration. Again, we enforce only what we can control.

I will rest my case .....it's the weekend and I have wasted too much time on this already as you also have. I'll leave it at this....Player A (for example) has had so many owners it's beyond belief....no-one will EVER see it as a top account......can we have a ruling on how often an account can actually change hands? Maybe once every 6-12 months? Thanks for your time Zorg...I'm out for now.

We have such a rule in fact.

Somehow you are confusing a retirement crash (where a long term friend or ally decides to leave the game, at this point rather than to just leave and let their hard worked efforts just disappear, they decide to crash their fleet they spent many hours building into such a friend or ally ).
There is a huge difference as this only happens rarely over a course of a game... Where as the current issue is if you have money you can buy any fleet that any one wishes to sell.... The 3rd party part is irrelevant in this case they did not even buy the account the benefactor did, the only action they did was to inform the buyer when the fleet was to return.. Which ever way you paint this it seems to me that the game is not allowing milking...and the more money you have the more you can cash in... I really do see this as a sad out come from the original game rules... I am just saying this from my point of view as a player... it is a poor way to end up with a top account...with no real skill or effort just cash...One thing I will say at least the fleet crash in question did not end up in the Union of Honour as that would have been a contradiction.

I agree it is poor play. We mentioned it in our announcement too.All kind of retirement hits.

If you want to retire, put your account in blue. Why you need to donate the fleet?

Hopefully this practice has been shamed anyone else not do it

Zorg wrote:We have such a rule in fact.

What is that rule please as I was lead to believe it was every 6 months yet this is not the case.....btw it's beer o'clock...just saying :0)