Latest Threads
Hot Threads
Top Posters
4540 Posts
4470 Posts
4310 Posts
3224 Posts
2667 Posts
2650 Posts
2497 Posts
2353 Posts
2316 Posts
2313 Posts
Best Posters
8765 Votes
6768 Votes
4728 Votes
4595 Votes
4329 Votes
4321 Votes
4258 Votes
3861 Votes
3847 Votes
3163 Votes
Before you partake in the Crimson Ingot Forum - ensure you are aware of our Forum Rules
Page
of 2

Selling Accounts

16 replies
Posts:
1,511
Points:
+580
Votes:
+4,329
You still haven't refuted the central claim that CI has always treated accounts as people. You just keep repeating, "It's not the same person, blah, blah, blah". For all intents and purposes, it is the same person and it always has been on CI. IPs aren't reliable. Gem and I played from the same IP for years- we might have appeared to be alts. I'm currently living with someone who plays from the same IP. Are those people just automatically labeled alts and when they relocate their sold accounts? In the first place, staff shouldn't stalk players by IP in my opinion. Let bois have some privacy. From what I hear about the server's financial situation, the only money issue that exists is that Oreo is a bit stingy with all the loot he's wrung out of preteens over the years. It's a non-issue.

While it may be the same person quality of writing and critical thinking skills may change, hence the swapped-Madisel theory. In terms of value added or gained, I would put it at neutral. As for the account's price, let a boi get for it what they can get for it. It doesn't concern you unless you're looking to buy or shit on a boi's need for some cash.

There's a net gain for the player because they got something they wanted. There's a net gain for the buyer because they got something they wanted. It doesn't help or harm the community at all, necessarily, you are correct. If they want to take your other proposed routes for their imagined purposes, they'd do that. If they're actually buying an account then they want an account.

You're right, new players should just get screwed by accounts sold behind closed doors.

Players already share accounts and use accounts on loan all the time and it's a non-issue. Far_Lander is a good example in recent days. Funnily enough, 896Down has been handed around in three stages, from the first characters (Aeneas, Rabol) with someone who's no longer with us, the 2nd characters (Rand, Rabol a second time), and then the current run of characters (Ulysses, Aromai). This has allowed players to use accounts that fit their preferred character builds and has done so with some success. Buying and selling an account is completely OOC and has zero roleplay ramifications. Any ramifications would exist outside of the buying and selling of the account anyways. The only mechanical benefit of interacting with the gods is your creed, something new players get rather easily. There's plenty of story you can build in the outlands to justify stats and classes, something any one of us does when we create a new character on top of an existing account.

You may not like it but the whole point is that it doesn't affect you. If you go back up and reread our exchange you may realize that YOU ARE MORALIZING THE BARTERING OF AN ACCOUNT ON A VIDEOGAME RIGHT NOW. We could talk about this forever, if only because you continue to ignore the fact that the server has always treated accounts like individuals and ignored the actual persons behind those accounts, and that it's far more beneficial to the server when the community knows when an account switches hands. It's not feasible or polite to stalk players in hopes of catching them switching accounts, especially considering how often its done. It's not a negative impact on the server. There sure as hell isn't a moral weight to any of this- it's morally permissible if you're really so concerned.
wrote:
I did not actually say this. Down is misquoting me.
Posted Nov 9, 18 · Last edited Nov 9, 18 by 896Down
Like
x 1
x 1
List
Undo
Posts:
408
Points:
+4,070
Votes:
+2,283
I haven't addressed your central claim because you've not answered any of my questions through the whole exchange. So from that I have to infer the following;

You don't see anything wrong, on any level, with people selling their stats and perks to someone who has not put in any of the time to get those benefits.
You don't see any potential problems with anyone buying an account with the express intent to capitalize on others not knowing that the account changed hands until after they had been able to grief or steal.
You don't care about the fact that it is already a known scam that people sell their accounts then turn around and tell Mojang they have been hacked to get the buyers money and their account back.
You don't care if people buy accounts, grind, and sell accounts for profit over and over.
You don't see a long term balance problem in encouraging the purchase of stats, from a third party, or if they were available from the server store.

And I didn't think I had to explain this one, but I guess I do. In my opinion it is dishonest to violate the EULA after agreeing to it. That is the moral issue I see. But apparently you don't see that as an issue either. Yes, it's a thing no one really reads and no one really thinks about most of the time. But in principle it is still an agreement. And yes, I would take less of an issue with it if someone was simply giving their accounts away, or selling them for less than or equal to the amount of an account purchased directly from the company. You're absolutely right, it doesn't effect me except in the most indirect way but that doesn't suddenly make it morally permissible. It just makes it morally impersonal.

I'll also point out that even if the community did encourage the open exchange of accounts, anyone with ill intent can still buy and sell accounts in secret. An open and welcoming atmosphere does not negate that risk. So yes, I'd still discourage it with the possibility of -removing- a good portion of the potential gain to be had, because none of the options available can actually prevent it. It's a punitive form of enforcement not an ironclad safeguard, just like the entire concept of law.
Posted Nov 9, 18
Posts:
1,511
Points:
+580
Votes:
+4,329
Clearly you're not reading. In every one of my posts I've literally gone down your claims one by one and responded to them. I'll order them properly here if that makes things easier for you.

1. There's no averse consequence to the server in such a case. The issue in selling perks on the website lies in the introduction of PvP-competitive accounts to the server without any labor being put in on the server to generate those accounts. That is not the case here. Again, the server has always treated accounts as individuals.

2. I personally don't have great issue with any account sales. If you're shacking up in a faction with somebody who's willing to sell their account so that someone else can screw you, then you've done that to yourself. Still, I have put forward the possibility of requiring that account exchanges/sharing be announced to the community in order to prevent such cases.

3. Again, it's not the server's responsibility to moderate account sales, nor is it the server's right to invalidate the work and money put into the development of an account. If you do business with someone that you shouldn't have, that's on you.

4. I don't care and, like most of your cases, this is an empty slippery slope. Believe it or not, allowing Hobae to pawn off a couple of accounts isn't going to spawn an entire business of account farming on CI.

5. Already addressed this, in this post and in previous ones.

7. Are you really trying to run a minecraft server with honesty as your guiding moral principle or are you coming at this with a deontologist or virtue theory perspective? That's well and good if you want to sit around talkling morality but for the effective management of anything let's please stick to consequentialism and actually consider how things will affect the server. The short answer: they won't. Account exchanges are as old as the server itself and account sales, though less common, are still nothing new. For real, though, how out of touch are you with the way the community treats accounts? Whole factions have access to shared accounts in many cases and alts are on loan all the time, whether someone is asking for compensation or not.

If you're so hot on agreements and social contracts, then why the hell have you engaged in our merciless derailing of a commercial thread with moral and policy debate? This is definitely a violation of Forum Rule 3 and possibly a violation of Forum Rule 4 with you coming in and screeching about EULA violations as if they affect anyone. What happened to the social contract of CI? You could have reported the sale to the staff if you felt it wasn't permissible on the forums and you could have created a new thread to discuss the topic but instead you and I are here doing this.

8. I'm pretty sure that in the history of CI there has, only once, been an issue wherein someone abused access to a shared account. In such a case, staff can investigate IPs and dole out punishment if they feel there has been a rule violation. Again, the server has always treated accounts as individuals. It may be that they don't find anything to punish, although they could probably slap something on about the DBAD clause.


EDIT: I'm away from computer all weekend, so I'll leave it here.
wrote:
I did not actually say this. Down is misquoting me.
Posted Nov 9, 18 · Last edited Nov 9, 18 by 896Down
Like
x 1
x 1
List
Undo
Zerokin tagtagOn Forum
Posts:
46
Points:
+405
Votes:
+391
Online on Site
selling acct for 500 v-bucks
Posted Nov 9, 18
Like
x 6
x 6
List
Undo
Posts:
346
Points:
+4,706
Votes:
+840
Admins
I’ll buy them.
Posted Nov 10, 18
Posts:
74
Points:
+622
Votes:
+242
wrote:
I’ll buy them.



maxresdefault.jpg
Posted Nov 10, 18
Like
x 1
x 1
List
Undo
Posts:
346
Points:
+4,706
Votes:
+840
Admins
Nope!

Lock’d.
Posted Nov 11, 18
Like
x 3
x 3
List
Undo
Page
of 2
NoticeNotices