Account sharing?

UrQuan

ZOS_AlanG wrote: »

Hi everyone, please remember to keep any discussion civil and constructive. It's fine to critique, debate, and disagree - but it's important to be respectful of each other, and the forum rules.

UrQuan wrote: »

So... this thread got re-opened? Does this mean that it is OK to ask questions about what is and isn't allowed under the Terms of Service and the rationale behind them? Because that's what was going on here when the thread got locked.

Generally speaking, it is acceptable to ask questions about the TOS and the forum rules. However, the query can't be tied explicitly or implicitly to a specific incident. This thread was locked for the latter, and we were also getting a large number of threads explicitly discussing the ban at the time.

OK thanks for the clarification @ZOS_AlanG - to me closing and locking the other threads made sense because they were directly talking about a specific incident, but closing and locking this thread didn't because it was a genuine discussion about what is and isn't allowed. It just happened that the question arose because of a particular incident.

Having said that, since this thread has been re-opened it has become all about that particular incident. If it was me I'd probably lock it again now lol.

UltimaJoe777

UrQuan wrote: »

ZOS_AlanG wrote: »

Hi everyone, please remember to keep any discussion civil and constructive. It's fine to critique, debate, and disagree - but it's important to be respectful of each other, and the forum rules.

UrQuan wrote: »

So... this thread got re-opened? Does this mean that it is OK to ask questions about what is and isn't allowed under the Terms of Service and the rationale behind them? Because that's what was going on here when the thread got locked.

Generally speaking, it is acceptable to ask questions about the TOS and the forum rules. However, the query can't be tied explicitly or implicitly to a specific incident. This thread was locked for the latter, and we were also getting a large number of threads explicitly discussing the ban at the time.

OK thanks for the clarification @ZOS_AlanG - to me closing and locking the other threads made sense because they were directly talking about a specific incident, but closing and locking this thread didn't because it was a genuine discussion about what is and isn't allowed. It just happened that the question arose because of a particular incident.

Having said that, since this thread has been re-opened it has become all about that particular incident. If it was me I'd probably lock it again now lol.

Actually it's about people getting special treatment now. It's still valid. The discussion that is lol

Recremen

Komma wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

People get banned and then given second chances like every week, all ZOS did was explain why they were given a chance in this particular instance. Normally when people are given second chances nobody bats an eye, but since it's a high-profile instance everybody and their mom (Hi mom!) has heard about it, so of course they're going to come forward with their rationale. This isn't special treatment, it's just the only time so many people felt the need to scrutinize.

Except that they admitted it was special treatment. Other than that I agree.

I think you missed the thrust of my argument. Their rationale is not equivalent with special treatment, it is a valid reason to consider giving an account a second chance. Like idk if you know anyone who's been given a second chance after violating TOS, but sometimes the rationale is as simple as "this CS rep was in a good mood so they threw me a bone". It's all judiciary discretion, so without any kind of ledger of acceptable reasons for giving second chances calling it "special treatment" doesn't hold any water. There's nothing to go on to compare it to.

Tomg999

Nestor wrote: »

I changed my video card and had to do the account verification email. Which really sucked as I check my email on my laptop, and this was the day I left it at work......

Off topic, but I had the same thing happen to me. It went on for weeks and ZOS support swore changing the video card couldn't have caused it.
It was fixed eventually.

Lokey0024

Where do you people come off thinking a buisness wouldn't give preferential treatment to someone who streams this game almost daily, interacts with the community, and basically free advertising for this game. They told him he messed up and that was that.

Komma

Recremen wrote: »

Komma wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

People get banned and then given second chances like every week, all ZOS did was explain why they were given a chance in this particular instance. Normally when people are given second chances nobody bats an eye, but since it's a high-profile instance everybody and their mom (Hi mom!) has heard about it, so of course they're going to come forward with their rationale. This isn't special treatment, it's just the only time so many people felt the need to scrutinize.

Except that they admitted it was special treatment. Other than that I agree.

I think you missed the thrust of my argument. Their rationale is not equivalent with special treatment, it is a valid reason to consider giving an account a second chance. Like idk if you know anyone who's been given a second chance after violating TOS, but sometimes the rationale is as simple as "this CS rep was in a good mood so they threw me a bone". It's all judiciary discretion, so without any kind of ledger of acceptable reasons for giving second chances calling it "special treatment" doesn't hold any water. There's nothing to go on to compare it to.

Again...I agree with their decision to reverse the perma ban for a one time warning. I feel a perma ban for this issue was/is a little much without the warning first. This has nothing to do with... "In this case, we made a one-time, final exception for those involved due to the years of contributions they have provided the ESO community and team."

Now, we have no way of knowing but if this hadnt been who it was and he wasnt live on stream with 2 zos employees watching the stream, would it have been handled the same way with such speed?

So...imo the correct decision was made. The handling of how it was made is what is being called out here.

FLuFFyxMuFFiN

If only there was something they could do instead of banning and unbanning shortly afterwards that would let the player know they should probably stop what they are doing or they will ban them. What was that called again? I believe it was something like "STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!" or something like that. Perhaps if ZOS did that instead they would have avoided this whole thing.

Joy_Division

God_flakes wrote: »

So "special people" get "special treatment". Nice to know.

I find this misleading.

Part of the basic jurisprudence is the make laws, rules, and regulations ambiguous because every instance and every person is different. That it why we have judges and juries, so these cases get decided on their own merits according to the specific circumstances. Every defendant is judge on the basis of their character, the motives involved, and their previous actions/standing. That is perfectly fair and reasonable; something that is almost universally recognized in legal systems across time and cultures.

DHale

I think if you let others gets final exceptions you should not permanent ban ppl without a warning. Up until you permanently banned someone while I was in team speak just a few days ago I thought it was fine. I happened to be on many a twitch stream while they were playing on another person account. It is not just one time. I hope that you can find it in your heart to give these ppl a second chance and unlock thier accounts. These ppl have appealed but the same person keeps copying and pasting responses without someone actually looking at the specifics. @ZOS_JessicaFolsom

drekryan

I feel this thread warrants being locked.

Lysette

Sharakor wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

How they detect it, is none of my problems, I have agreed to the TOS and I am not going to share and that's it. If that is detectable or not, is irrelevant to me, I am not doing it, period.

im sure someone else with your mindset will care when they are wrongfully banned for playing at an internet cafe or lan party
But thats "irrelevant" to me i dont do either, except for those poor souls who dont have the means to game at home...

See, the license is the account, not bound to a specific computer. It is absolutely no problem to play from other locations on a different machine. The email verification pops up and I have to insert the code, which was send to me via the registered email, and then I can play. I don't see, where you see a problem with it. That case, you bring up above, is not what leads to this.

I can as well not see, why you think, that my mindset would be questionable. I stick to the rule, regardless if a violation could be detectable or not. There is nothing wrong with this mindset, but if you think it is, yours is questionable.

SirAndy

I want to be special too ...

UltimaJoe777

SirAndy wrote: »

I want to be special ed too ...

Lettigall

I have nothing against persons involved but ZOS making precedents is not a good thing. You can't divide players in privileged and in non privileged. Now everyone who planing to break Terms of service or who are banned for same issue can appeal to this incident as a jail free card.

There should be punishment for breaking Terms of service, but how severe punishment should be looked individually!

ginoboehm

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Normally we do not discuss disciplinary actions taken on ESO game accounts, but in light of this particular situation’s public nature we’d like to explain a few things.

We do not allow account sharing to protect our players from the following:

• Gold Farmers/Sellers
• Account Hacking

When a Terms of Service violation occurs, we do reserve the right to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. In this case, we made a one-time, final exception for those involved due to the years of contributions they have provided the ESO community and team.

Anyone whose ESO account is suspended or banned may appeal the decision via our Support Portal. We can and do give players another chance when the situation warrants it.

You should at least go for the intend of the Rule not the text.
Account sharing is to prevend 2 Users using 1 account to save money or use it to farm gold in shifts. Nothing like that is remotly happening. You should clearly state that it is perfectly fine that @Sypher is doing it on stream(and only then) for the sole purpose to play with his eu fans. Anybody that is saying oh special people are getting special treatment are silly because they do not understand the difference between intend and word for word following a rule.
@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom
If we as players would follow every word you said and call you out on everything you would have a way harder time too.

Jim_Pipp

Glad they are appreciating what certain members have given to the community. It would be a duller game without him, although cyrodil would be much safer.

RaXZon

When you buy a game with policies, you also stick to these policies.

Don't whine about how someone got banned because of sharing an account, it's written in the policies that you can't share an account and if you are banned because multiple IP-addresses. Well explain your situation and voila, you got your account back.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the frustration, but come on guys. Be reasonable.

Saturn

God_flakes wrote: »

So "special people" get "special treatment". Nice to know.

They give exceptions to most people. I've seen it a lot before and it actually bothers me. Especially when people get banned for scripting / account sharing to get on leaderboards of vMSA / exploit / etc. and then get no disciplinary action taken against, and simply continue doing what they've been doing before. There are quite a lot of people in the NA Megaserver playerbase that are "known" to be scripters, exploiters or account sharers, yet nothing ever happens to them.

TheValkyn

ContraTempo wrote: »

I would think that letting someone try ESO by creating and playing an alt on your account would be a great way to get them hooked. If they are a good enough friend that you are willing to let them do that then before long you will want to play together, and that means separate accounts and sales (at least of the game) for ZoS, so I suspect this would actually help rather than hurt their bottom line.

This isn't often the case for account sharing though. What you're suggesting is an honest and innocent scenario but let's be honest with ourselves here - it's not the behavior the terms are there to prevent. It's there to prevent account theft, account power leveling services or commercial use.

Players that know 100% that account sharing is a breach of the code of conduct should not receive a 2nd chance. Ever.

Whatzituyah

Saturn wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

So "special people" get "special treatment". Nice to know.

They give exceptions to most people. I've seen it a lot before and it actually bothers me. Especially when people get banned for scripting / account sharing to get on leaderboards of vMSA / exploit / etc. and then get no disciplinary action taken against, and simply continue doing what they've been doing before. There are quite a lot of people in the NA Megaserver playerbase that are "known" to be scripters, exploiters or account sharers, yet nothing ever happens to them.

A small team of people can only do so much! Its not like they have a whole office building full of people who just looks at every single case and gets them done on the same day! Theirs so many tickets for support coming from games like these.

TheValkyn

Sypher wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

@Sypher I have no issues with you, bruh. None. And I know tons of people like you, and respect you. I find a few of your videos on YouTube insightful myself. But, n'ah bro. There are people who don't get a second a chance, for FAR less serious offenses. And because you're basically an e-celebrity, and helped ZO$ advertise their game — you get a second chance? No. Absolutely no. No. That is NOT okay. You should be banned, and remain as such. But, because you're putting money you are putting money in their pockets, you get another shot? Really? Because you're a "poster boy" for ESO PVP? No. Absolutely no.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_RichLambert

Basically what you are saying is BECAUSE of all these things I have done I should NOT be given a second chance. So, no one should be given a second chance is what you're implying? Because plenty of people have been given second chances in the past, including today. (not just me)

Why are second chances to be rewarded to those that knowingly break the terms of service? You of all people have always known the rule. Here's a post you wrote from October 2014.

Sypher wrote: »

Sharing accounts is against the Code of Conduct. If you feel someone has broken a rule, feel free to use the Report function in the game.

Thank You.

Source:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/1334444#Comment_1334444

daemonios

TheValkyn wrote: »

Sypher wrote: »

Ch4mpTW wrote: »

@Sypher I have no issues with you, bruh. None. And I know tons of people like you, and respect you. I find a few of your videos on YouTube insightful myself. But, n'ah bro. There are people who don't get a second a chance, for FAR less serious offenses. And because you're basically an e-celebrity, and helped ZO$ advertise their game — you get a second chance? No. Absolutely no. No. That is NOT okay. You should be banned, and remain as such. But, because you're putting money you are putting money in their pockets, you get another shot? Really? Because you're a "poster boy" for ESO PVP? No. Absolutely no.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_RichLambert

Basically what you are saying is BECAUSE of all these things I have done I should NOT be given a second chance. So, no one should be given a second chance is what you're implying? Because plenty of people have been given second chances in the past, including today. (not just me)

Why are second chances to be rewarded to those that knowingly break the terms of service? You of all people have always known the rule. Here's a post you wrote from October 2014.

Sypher wrote: »

Sharing accounts is against the Code of Conduct. If you feel someone has broken a rule, feel free to use the Report function in the game.

Thank You.

Source:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/1334444#Comment_1334444

"Do as I say, not as I do" much?

Eiagra

I admit to being a bit ignorant to some aspects of the login and lockdown systems and how they communicate. How verbose are the warnings and notifications given when an account is locked down? When a player logs in and finds themselves locked out, do players know the reason at the login screen? Or are they given a generic "This account has been blocked" kind of message?

If the message is generic, perhaps a more detailed explanation attached to the login message alongside encouragement to contact support would help make it more clear when a user was banned for outright ToS violation vs. an account being locked down to protect it from a hijacking.


In regards for perceived favoritism, it appears as though some of the strife here is due to how "in the public eye" this one person is. I'll admit, I don't watch ESO streamers, and I have absolutely no concept as to who the "celebrities" are in the streaming world. But since it's not company policy to openly discuss individual cases of account lock/unlock activity, it seems to me as though your average forum user or even your average "celebrity fan" sees a VERY small piece of the entire tapestry here.

What exceptions have been made? What graces have been given? Who has been deemed unrepentant and unforgiven? It is not for us to know or compare.

As players, we don't have access to, nor should we ever want to see, any form of blacklist, greylist, watchlist, etc. It would be a violation of privacy to disclose such information. As it stands, this thread's dialog encroaches on the privacy of the "celebrities" involved in the complaint -- them being in the public eye doesn't mean they're not entitled to privacy. But if they openly discuss private matters in a public forum/stream, they essentially waive that right of their own accord.

Thus, as your average player or stream viewer, I imagine what we actually see compared to what is going on behind the scenes is extraordinarily small.

It is an iceberg. Perhaps we should not pass judgments on the quality of the ice above the water when we are lacking insulated scuba equipment or icepicks to explore the entire thing.

KingYogi415

How could handing out permanent bans like candy be good for business?

What happened to the 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, before permanent ban model?

CaptainBeerDude

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Normally we do not discuss disciplinary actions taken on ESO game accounts, but in light of this particular situation’s public nature we’d like to explain a few things.

We do not allow account sharing to protect our players from the following:

• Gold Farmers/Sellers
• Account Hacking

When a Terms of Service violation occurs, we do reserve the right to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis. In this case, we made a one-time, final exception for those involved due to the years of contributions they have provided the ESO community and team.

Anyone whose ESO account is suspended or banned may appeal the decision via our Support Portal. We can and do give players another chance when the situation warrants it.

Basically it is to protect stupid people from themselves and also less stupid people from less than intelligent decisions and situations. It's not that bad though. Why let other people mess with your reputation?

Mickey_Ox

Everybody paid to buy this game
Everbody agreed to the same TOS
Everybody should then also be allowed a 2nd chance
Everybody HAS to be treated the same otherwise the whole thing stinks of coruption

Tyrion87

I really do not know what is this all about... I mean it's obvious that allowing other persons to log into my own account while I'm already logged in (if it's technically possible of course) just to be able to play together is against the rules as it is in other games. But if this whole 'account sharing' means also the situation where supposedly e.g. one man allows his wife to make a character on his account to play when he's NOT playing (the game is installed only on one computer, he's at work and his wife wants to play on his account with her character), I feel like his rights as a consumer, who OWNS the game and it's his property, are violated. It sounds to me like inadmissible limitation of exercise of property rights. Who the heck defines to whom each account belongs and who is sharing an account (in given example above, the man or his wife)?!

Docmandu

Sypher wrote: »

I admitted my fault.

Went through the same appeal processes that everyone goes through.

Got a second chance.

Streamer Privledge? Not really. Another player who isn't a streamer got unbanned within the same time frame and was under the same circumstances.

I apologize and will abide by the TOS.

Does that abiding by the TOS also mean you won't be exploiting bugs anymore or telling people to do it even if it's "just in PvE". (cfr. WGT Templar Spear Shards to bug out the Kena wall - screaming at the pug templar to exploit it)

Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax

djyrb

Perhaps this whole thing was just an elaborate way to demonstrate the rapid response time of the customer service team during an appeals process

Khaos_Bane

Really? I cannot use my sons account and he cannot use mine if we want to switch playing characters on our accounts? That is ridiculous.