There is no way you can tell me that the perpetrator of the 'account hack' (for want of a better term) worked alone. Too many coincidental events to convince me of that.
From what i know, and from what ive been told. the "perp" didnt work alone and thus the "helper" has alse received just punishment.
Tyilin
xxx
Tyilin (formally known as Anatti, who was formally known as Tyilin) - Currently Playing Alt.
iphdrunk wrote:
PS: so this is what happened then?:
A and B share accounts. C shares acct with B, so B gets C, shared, maybe C gets B, doubtful. Later, C is no longer playing just to keep C active, B gets C,owned, regardless of C had B or not. So B has A and C, and A has B. then A and B (but not C) accts are shared with D, so A and B have D, C has not D, but since C is B, it's as if A, B, C have D, and D has A and B, but not C, but who cares, since B is C. A uses B, with knowledge from B, and B uses A with knowledge from B, C .. C is B, remember?, D uses A, but rarely, and B also rarely. E says E does not share, but shares, with D, but not D only, but A and B, E gets A B (and C but doesn't matter) and D, and no one gets E. A uses B and B uses A to do things A and B agree and know, but neither A nor B complain. C uses.. C is B, dang..D uses A, rarely as I said, but A does not complain neither C but A uses D, with knowledge form A and B, maybe D but definitely not E and D complains but not to A or to B, but to E and E uses A, B, C (dang C, always around), D and of course E with knowledge from (of course) and D but not C B or A, and A and B and C complain.
It is sad to see them go, but i dont think they would of got life if it was only account sharing, I doubt we will ever know exactly what happend, but im sure the devs done what was best
----
It's Prttey fnuny how we can raed tihs einrte snetnece wtih all tehse ltters all out of palce, and we can cnotniue to keep raednig and sitll mekas snece of waht we are raeding. No mttar how mnay tmies you raed tihs oevr and oevr you can sitll mkae snece of it.
How is taht pssoible?
kye/yaffle and fasinus only faults where account sharing- being too trusting a bad thing- i guess
Ishamael | [size=-2]Arispotle[/size] Master Heavy Armorer | Master Lakeland Forager Master Of The Blade | Avatar Of Destruction | Master Prime Roots Forager *NEXUS*
not to sound spitefull or anything but....
sais them.
----
It's Prttey fnuny how we can raed tihs einrte snetnece wtih all tehse ltters all out of palce, and we can cnotniue to keep raednig and sitll mekas snece of waht we are raeding. No mttar how mnay tmies you raed tihs oevr and oevr you can sitll mkae snece of it.
How is taht pssoible?
soulsnatcher wrote:Sounds simpler than what I had to unravel
Hmmmm far too cryptic Souls.
You could do the community a big favour by quashing the rumours and back biting and actually giving us some hard facts you know. We're mature enough to take it, well most of us anyway.
Elder Of Atys (ask nicely and I'll do the breakdance for you!)
All posts are In Person (Not IC, not OOC, not Rp, just me!)
katriell wrote:You can't "complete" the mainland. If one thinks one has seen or done everything there, one is kidding oneself. But be prepared to "get out what you put in," because the mainland does not coddle or hold hands.
Proof that Anissa actually does leave mat merchants long enuf to dig . . . and for considerable and mind altering lengths of time:
A and B share accounts. C shares acct with B, so B gets C, shared, maybe C gets B, doubtful. Later, C is no longer playing just to keep C active, B gets C,owned, regardless of C had B or not. So B has A and C, and A has B. then A and B (but not C) accts are shared with D, so A and B have D, C has not D, but since C is B, it's as if A, B, C have D, and D has A and B, but not C, but who cares, since B is C. A uses B, with knowledge from B, and B uses A with knowledge from B, C .. C is B, remember?, D uses A, but rarely, and B also rarely. E says E does not share, but shares, with D, but not D only, but A and B, E gets A B (and C but doesn't matter) and D, and no one gets E. A uses B and B uses A to do things A and B agree and know, but neither A nor B complain. C uses.. C is B, dang..D uses A, rarely as I said, but A does not complain neither C but A uses D, with knowledge form A and B, maybe D but definitely not E and D complains but not to A or to B, but to E and E uses A, B, C (dang C, always around), D and of course E with knowledge from (of course) and D but not C B or A, and A and B and C complain.
I am sorry it had to go this far for Fasinus and Yaffle.
But this incident should also serve as a reminder that there are rules we have to abide to. It's not a matter of personal ethics like: I do not hurt anyone, and never will by doing this.
Think of it as the Laws of Nature
Like many many others, I liked Fasinus...and it's hard to see him go.
But.....
Anyone that read Souls post knows... he said there were accounts suspended, accounts banned and 'heavy warnings'. I'm sorry but we have to assume that those that received perma-bans did *more* than just share an account. NO game company wants to have to ban players (especially when they've already been losing players left and right). So it had to have been a pretty darn hard decision to ban one of the most popular, and LIKED, Kami players.
I'm truely saddened to see Fasi go (but I trust Nevrax's decision)...I'm also saddened to learn Padawan was the type of person that could do what he did. I think there was a WHOLE LOT more deception going on than ANY of us (players) knew about, and therefore not up to us to judge whether the bannings were deserved or not.
Good-bye to all of those banned. As much as I came to like the characters these people played in-game, I will not stand in line to make a martyr out of any of you. You seriously broke the rules, you got punished. I hope you learned from it. End of story.
