UO's 13th birthday and accounts' offenses....

[popps]

Marks against your account don't really affect you until you get caught doing something else. It's a cumulative effect, like Baseball's three strikes and out rule.

People are asking what you did, but I'd be more interested in what you have planned.

Neither did nor planned, actually.

It ain't practical when marks can build up over the years and ring the "3 strikes and out" bell..........

My concern is that since minor offenses marks can be given for a number of reasons sometimes even inadvertedly for a player (like a bad character's name or trash talking etc.), letting them build up to 3 without anything to wipe them off after a few years, eventually CAN get players to hit that 3 marks even when they felt not doing anything much wrong.

For example, I have heard of instances of players playing the game without ANY intention to disrupt others' game play and eventually ending up with a 24 hour ban and a bad mark for luring critters when they just were trying to play the game and seek shelter.

As others have pointed out, while there may be marks deserved, there also may be marks not deserved and yet received.

They ALL build up to 3.......

And with a game 13 years old, how hard it is for older accounts to end up having 2 marks, perhaps both undeserved, and closing up to the 3rd one, who knows, perhaps also undeserved but yet received ?

Some said the 3 strikes and out is not a policy. Well, as a starter, it would really be nice to hear whether it does is a policy or it is not because as it is now, it looks to me like a grey area where it "might" be a policy or it "might not be"....

Which is which ?

If it is not a policy well, then fine, minor offenses stay what they are, non perma bannable minor offenses.

But if it is a policy, then I think that as years go by marks should wear off as it looks unreasonable with a game so old to have 3 marks determine the fate of an account, especially when minor marks can be received, as many have pointed out, undeserved.

 

[Connor_Graham]

My concern is that since minor offenses marks can be given for a number of reasons sometimes even inadvertedly for a player (like a bad character's name or trash talking etc.), letting them build up to 3 without anything to wipe them off after a few years, eventually CAN get players to hit that 3 marks even when they felt not doing anything much wrong.

It's not possible to "inadvertently" give a character a bad name or "inadvertently" trash talk. If you did the crime you do the time. If you're both dumb enough to get caught, and stupid enough to do it in the first place, you're well aware of what you're doing and deserve the consequences when your actions catch up to you. It's amazing that people can go 13 years without a single mark on their account, yet you seem to think people "inadvertently" break the rules in a blatant fashion and deserve a break from their own stupidity.

I vote most idiotic idea ever. Well....maybe 2nd most idiotic. It's a toss up with one of your other idiotic ideas.

 

[Surgeries]

I am, no doubts. But my argument wants to favour the players who occasionally got a mark, not the systematic cheaters.

I will explain my thinking so that you may understand better my point.

If the statute of limitation is a good number of years, say 5 or 6, and we still have the 3 strikes and a player is out policy, this means that if a player does 3 bad actions over these many years the account is gone.

Now, having a statute of limitation still keeps the player wary of his or her account under some "check" since marks will not all go away, but 1 by 1 as years go by.

Cheaters.

For cheaters, I personally refer to players who do it quite often, daily or at least several times in a week. Not actually the player who once in a blue moon trained a skill unattended or made am occasional mistake for some reasons.

Players who often cheats, would not get any benefit from a statute of limitations for marks since the years needed for them to go away would be far more than their usual habit of cheating in the game.

Bottom line is, the way I see it, is that chances are that for players who cheat often, it easily might be that they would get to their 3 strikes (and be out) before any statute of limitations kicks in.

So, my argument is more directed to regular players who occasionally might have erred rather than to systematic cheaters.

I guess you aren't familiar with the precept that those who start small in cheating often escalate that cheating, right until they get caught. Then, some will continue on to a perma ban. Some will stop, and some will find ways to cheat that escape detection.

Not to mention that if you cheated and got caught, it means you don't habve that small voice in your head telling you not to, that is strong enough to override the will to get "Something for Nothing".

"Vice is a monster of such awful mien
That to be hated needs just to be seen
Yet seen too oft, familiar with it's face...
At first abhorred, then endured, and at last embraced"

Your logic is poor at best Popps.

Places that handle cash typically don't hire folks that have a history of thievery or embezzlement.

Games that ban cheaters should NOT let "Small Time Cheaters" back in.

What an insane idea. You try to demonstrate Logic...

This is a Major Fail in that regard, Popps.

Please go find another crusade.

I have three windmills and a horse...you can use this toothpick as a Jousting Tool...now get out there!!

 

[Wilde1]

no thanks, popps

 

[LordDrago]

Must...resist...replying...to...popps...thread..............m u s t.....r e s i s t.......

aaaarrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!

 

[Aran]

It's not possible to ..."inadvertently" trash talk.

You ought to see my infraction history here. Piles of things taken the wrong way and me getting in trouble for it.

 

[Viper09]

I am, no doubts. But my argument wants to favour the players who occasionally got a mark, not the systematic cheaters.

Occasionally getting marks? Lmao.

I'm sorry, but if someone is occasionally getting marks on their accounts, then they are obviously doing something wrong and know it. You should NOT occasionally be getting marks on your account. In fact you should never even be getting marks in the first place. If you are then you obviously never learned the lesson from the first mark or you got an incredibly crappy GM multiple times, which would mean you're obviously pissing off some player to get paged on so often.

But in the case of a crappy GM, you are completely in your rights to dispute the mark and get it removed. I know many people who have done this.

 

[popps]

It's not possible to "inadvertently" give a character a bad name or "inadvertently" trash talk.

I disagree.

What for some might be a bad character's name for others could not. Same as for talking or other examples.

That is, some might just pick a name or make use of some words in a discussion thinking it as very fine when for others it is not.
That is, inadvertedly, isn't it ?

It's amazing that people can go 13 years without a single mark on their account, yet you seem to think people "inadvertently" break the rules in a blatant fashion and deserve a break from their own stupidity.

Hmmm......stupidity ?

I have met in the game players very smart and clever who, nonetheless, had their marks or "minor offenses" on their account for one reason or another not necessarily due to any stupidity at all.........

I cannot possibly agree on the assumption that a mistake might necessarily be due to stupidity. There can be a whole lot of reasons differing to that.

 

[Connor_Graham]

I disagree.

What for some might be a bad character's name for others could not. Same as for talking or other examples.

That is, some might just pick a name or make use of some words in a discussion thinking it as very fine when for others it is not.
That is, inadvertedly, isn't it ?




Hmmm......stupidity ?

I have met in the game players very smart and clever who, nonetheless, had their marks or "minor offenses" on their account for one reason or another not necessarily due to any stupidity at all.........

I cannot possibly agree on the assumption that a mistake might necessarily be due to stupidity. There can be a whole lot of reasons differing to that.

Pure BS. That's it. Just....Pure BS.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

No its not, hes completely right, many marks are given for no other reason than the GM being wrong and unwilling to admit it. GM reviews is no option for things that happened years ago where the details they ask for are no longer remembered.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

You want to clear the marks off an account? Pay $20 to officially transfer the account to a trusted friend or relative. Marks cleared. Then simply re-take the account and continue on. Walla.

Oops, looks like the fee increased to $30.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

Yeah because we're all going to bother with that aren't we, over something an incompetent GM did years ago.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

Yeah because we're all going to bother with that aren't we, over something an incompetent GM did years ago.

Hey, it works. If you have no other recourse there's the solution. We all know EA is not going to change their policy.

 

[Lord GOD(GOD)]

We all know EA is not going to change their policy.

I agree.

 

[popps]

Hey, it works. If you have no other recourse there's the solution. We all know EA is not going to change their policy.

My argument is not about EA needing to change their policy about accounts' offenses.
Players would still be getting marks if they did things in game as per what the current policy says (bad names of chars, trash talking, luring and blah blah).

I am merely and simply asking for a small adjustment of the policy by introducing a statute of limitation for minor offenses marks.
After a few years have gone by, marks get wiped off from the account, automatically.

To me, it looks like an adjustment of the current policy, not a change of it.

Someone might even see it, rather than a change, just and merely a completion of the current policy missing something, the wiping of a mark from an account after x years of playing.

 

[Ezekiel Zane]

popps, adjustment and change are the exact same thing. Look em up.

 

[altarego]

I dunno. I got banned for a few days because I got pissed off and started invising the Luna banksitters. 90% of them were afk macroing, but that other 10% paged on me for griefing. Since when is casting an invisibility spell in a public place griefing? If it's so disruptive, why is it even allowed in a Tram ruleset?

So, I get a mark on my account for interrupting some fraker's UOA macro. That's the kind of thing that popps is talking about. Not the intentional dupes and cheats and whatnot.

I wholeheartedly support his request.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Hey, it works. If you have no other recourse there's the solution. We all know EA is not going to change their policy.

The thing is, what *is* their policy? I don't know, do you?
Where, in EA's documentation, does it say they implemement a 'three strikes and out' policy?

The whole of this thread is mere speculation. As Poo has said, many minor mistakes over several years will not lose you your account. When a complaint against your account is received they will review the record of the account.

Before you start speculating over my offences, my character has been in jail twice. Both during efforts to help me correct a problem with my character, number of marks on my account, to my knowledge, nil.

 

[Aran]

I dunno. I got banned for a few days because I got pissed off and started invising the Luna banksitters. 90% of them were afk macroing, but that other 10% paged on me for griefing. Since when is casting an invisibility spell in a public place griefing? If it's so disruptive, why is it even allowed in a Tram ruleset?

So, I get a mark on my account for interrupting some fraker's UOA macro. That's the kind of thing that popps is talking about. Not the intentional dupes and cheats and whatnot.

I wholeheartedly support his request.

So you got banned for being an asshat, the system works.