Troll in albion!

[ImLestat]

I agree with you Brannor, #3 is imo uncalled for.

 

[old.Atrox]

#3 are a tad bit to hard IMO
ohwell now we know how GOA thinks

 

[Pixie.Pebr]

Originally posted by Brannor McThife
Conclusion:

3) Account now has a black mark against it. Meaning that should I do anything wrong, my account will be terminated. (They don't care that it wasn't me, even though they know it was somebody else, I still pay the 1-strike price)

So before any of you dumb shites start thinking that I or any other E&E person gets special attention, remember this thread.

-G

No special treatment???!
I think you are being treated very special indeed.
You are put on paroll for being found innocent to the crime you were charged with having commited!

Putting you on the black list, even after they have said they know you didn't do it?
They have even said they know who did do it for christs sake, GOA aim your gun in the right direction!
It's outrageous, what the hell are they thinking?!

"Innocent until guilty proved."? No.
"Guilty until innocent proved."? No.
"Guilty despite being proved innocent."? YES!

I know this isn't a courtroom.
I also know that we do not own our characters in any way whatsoever. They could delete my chars ..."because we felt like it." and I couldn't do shit about it except terminating my subscription and move on.
But them abusing that power (invested in them by The Holy CoC) like this, be it out of stupidity or merely being too uptight to recognize one of those cases where you DO NOT follow your own policy, makes me sick!

 

[old.Morchaoron]

You are right pixie, I would love to tell how disgusting it is but I think I will get a black mark aswell

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by Pixie.Pebr

....being too uptight to recognize one of those cases where you DO NOT follow your own policy, makes me sick!

Leave me out of that, pixie.boy.


Have to agree with Peter Pan, though - Kemor comes here and states that GOA knows Brannor's account was hacked...

- the suspension, one could argue about that one.
- but black marking it? Ridiculous.

*boos and hisses for GOA*

 

[old.Psi]

People in GOA probably think it's unfair too, but they have a policy to follow. What if it was your friend on the account and he did this? Would that be alright?

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Well... reason this policy to me.

Somebody is obviously (proven) innocent and gets punished.
*shrugs*
I don't get it.

 

[pudzy]

rofl - I have checked and this is definetly not Plankton - the RR is wrong.

 

[Turamber]

I thought that suspending his account was over the top, having a black mark against it has my blood boiling. Sure - have policies to follow, but not independent of the facts of each case. Not good customer relations at all.

But wait, isn't GOA based in France? The same country that burned Joan of Arc at the stake? Ahhh, I sense a pattern forming here...

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by Turamber
I thought that suspending his account was over the top, having a black mark against it has my blood boiling. Sure - have policies to follow, but not independent of the facts of each case. Not good customer relations at all.

But wait, isn't GOA based in France? The same country that burned Joan of Arc at the stake? Ahhh, I sense a pattern forming here...

In 1430 she was captured by the Burgundians while defending Compiegne near Paris and was sold to the English. The English, in turn, handed her over to the ecclesiastical court at Rouen led by Pierre Cauchon, a pro-English Bishop of Beauvais, to be tried for witchcraft and heresy. Much was made of her insistence on wearing male clothing. She was told that for a woman to wear men's clothing was a crime against God. Her determination to continue wearing it (because her voices hadn't yet told her to change, as well as for protection from sexual abuse by her jailors) was seen as defiance and finally sealed her fate. Joan was convicted after a fourteen-month interrogation and on May 30, 1431 she was burned at the stake in the Rouen marketplace. She was nineteen years old. Charles VII made no attempt to come to her rescue.


... the English did it.... basically

 

[Pixie.Pebr]

Originally posted by old.Psi
People in GOA probably think it's unfair too, but they have a policy to follow.

I pray to higher powers that you never, ever is granted any form of authority in your life.

/em shuffles Psi into the "uptight" category

 

[Blood]

i bet its more like a "grey mark"

 

[old.Psi]

Originally posted by Pixie.Pebr


I pray to higher powers that you never, ever is granted any form of authority in your life.

/em shuffles Psi into the "uptight" category

Well you understand what I mean, if they start making exceptions for this, who decides when it's right or not to make an exception? The only solution would be to change the rule so that if it can be proven that the account holder wasn't responsible then they don't get the black mark, but unfortunately that's not the rule currently in place.

 

[Lanc3l0t]

so should the culprit still be allowed to be an op in #daoc.prydwen... seems a bit off to me

 

[Brannor McThife]

Originally posted by Lanc3l0t
so should the culprit still be allowed to be an op in #daoc.prydwen... seems a bit off to me

Eh?

You throwing accusations around now too?

-G

 

[Pixie.Pebr]

Originally posted by old.Psi


Well you understand what I mean, if they start making exceptions for this, who decides when it's right or not to make an exception? The only solution would be to change the rule so that if it can be proven that the account holder wasn't responsible then they don't get the black mark, but unfortunately that's not the rule currently in place.

Yes, I understood what you meant.
That's why I hope you never get into a position allowing you to make descisions affecting other people.
Besides, it is not a Rule, it is a Policy.
Policies can be sidestepped or changed as appropriate, depending on the situation, something GOA obviously have no clue about.
"We have a rule that accounts tied to a character entering other realms via cheats/exploits should recieve a warning and get 'tagged'. We have a policy to not 'tag' them, if it is proven that the account was hacked and the character was played by the hacker at the time of the offense."
That's not a real quote from any GOA source, merely to show you the difference between a Rule and a Policy.

Again, it sickens me...

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Ban pixie.pebr! Ban them all!!11

 

[Brannor McThife]

Ok. Time for me to get my "CoC-Nazi" stance in order.

While I do honestly feel sorry for the perp that did this, in that he has has his account closed/deleted, he had more than enough time to think about what he was doing. From Sunday to Wednesday. From the time it took him to exit DF, make his way through Hadrian's, the Pennines, Forest Sauvage, all at warrior speed, to the time he took to try cover his tracks and place my warrior back in DF where I had logged out.

Not only that, but he knowingly went to the Subscriptions page to retrieve the new password I had had made.

This was not a spur-of-the-moment action. But something that extended over a few days.

To the Perp:

You have payed a very high price for your actions. What you do from here will trully define your human, real life, character. You can get upset at the world, and set out apon a life of blaming everyone else for your troubles. Or, you can stop, think for a minute, and accept that there is nobody else but yourself to blame, and that you need to learn from this.

To everyone else:

Let's put this behind us. Yes, I know exactly who did it. GOA did not tell me, but I had a pretty good idea from the word go. I don't expect, and hope that nobody does, names to be named. We all learnt from this that there are people that will use others' accounts to do "evil", and that perhaps we all need to examine our PC security a little.

-G

[EDIT:

PS. Whoops. The stance bit... Should it come to light, that you have created another account, or are using somebody else's account(s) (with their consent), I think you can expect that/those account(s) to be closed as well.]

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Bloody CoC Nazi.

 

[SFXman]

Originally posted by Brannor McThife
PS. Whoops. The stance bit... Should it come to light, that you have created another account, or are using somebody else's account(s) (with their consent), I think you can expect that/those account(s) to be closed as well.]

Just a question, how is this justifiable? Imho it is not.

 

[Brannor McThife]

Originally posted by SFXman

Just a question, how is this justifiable? Imho it is not.

Not really my call. (in fact, nothing is. )

Just saying that GOA may take a particularly heavy stance against people that do this kind of thing, and that when they put a ban in place for this, it isn't against just the account, but the person behind the account.

Kinda like the inverse of what they did with my account. For me, they don't care about who was behind the account. For him, it matters who the person is and not the account.

All this is, of course, my speculation, since I'm not GOA (c).

-G

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

GOA aer teh cwoss!!1
*removes Jupitus' title and hands it to Brannor (who is in no way affiliated to GOA or Wannado*coughs*)*

 

[old.Immortal]

Wow. 10 pages. I guess my comment won't hurt, so here I go

Firstly, I'm glad Kemor & the GOA lads found out who it was, and I hope he gets what he should get, and everyone know that what he deserves is a shared cell with Bubba

Secondly, I'd like to comment GOA suspending Brannor's account.. I fail to see what is gained by this, and if the "hacker" is caught he/she shouldn't be able to do it again, or someone has failed something at some point. Brannor, don't say you don't disagreed to getting suspended, or you wouldn't had that sad face hanging about. Turamber is absolutely correct about this. And last, if the "hacker" found out Brannors account get banned, that would deffinately be a bonus to him/her. Scenario "fuxoring brannor i ams g0nna f00k h|m 00p". Gets pw, logs in, attempt to fuck up his rep. by breaking CoC, finally gets caught (I guess?), and then it turns out Brannor gets more punishment from GOA. If i was this hacker I would enjoy myself reading this thread.. anyway personal opinion that. I can understand that GOA doesn't wanna make exceptions etc, but

GODDAMN

the man needs some luv!

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by old.Immortal


GODDAMN

the man needs some luv!

Uhm.... *runs off*

 

[SFXman]

I'd say that the person behind this has most certainly learned their lesson by having their account permanently banned or whatever GOA did.
Not allowing them to play on other accounts again is just a bit too much imho. I mean like Brannor said that was a very high price to pay for their actions...

 

[- Pathfinder -]

Originally posted by SFXman

Just a question, how is this justifiable? Imho it is not.

You're taking the piss right?

 

[SFXman]

Originally posted by - Pathfinder -
You're taking the piss right?

As to not allowing the person to play another account, I am serious.

 

[- Pathfinder -]

Originally posted by SFXman

As to not allowing the person to play another account, I am serious.

You want to allow someone caught comitting what is basically a criminal action to be allowed back? Nice going

 

[Fafnir]

Not even the bank is this harsh when someone use you creditcard number to shop on the net. And getting that number is even easier. And the guy that did this against me was convicted to 1 year in jail in France. Where this took place on my holidays.

And all i suffered was 1 day without cash.

 

[Greyheed]

The european union has laws against this sort of thing. It's basically a subset of the UK "Computers Misuse Act" which means that anyone aware of it has to report it to their local police authority. This isn't a civil law, it is a criminal law. What was perpetrated was a criminal act.