Okay, who is this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'shaeman',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193514#post 193514

I figure, as in most situations involving two parties, the truth lies somewhere in between.

I've been thinking about it (and I'm assuming that the six characters on the alliance side are Prepared's until he says otherwise), if he was shouting instructions from his horde characters to his fellow horde battlegrounders his key relaying would send that yell to the alliance characters also. So from an alliance point of view, you see alliance characters yelling "west side of the base" and all of a sudden you have a bunch of horde there. So it might look like he was giving information the other way.

Now on to the turret issue - I've not done wintergrasps so don't know how spaced out the turrets are, but does it seem possible that a multiboxer could get and take all the turrets before solo controlled characters could. He might get one of them but in the same time I'm sure the other players could grab the rest.
Likewise with the tanks.

So in that respect I'm questioning the original accusations.

Now, if those alliance characters are Prepareds all he is guilty of is battleground AFK'ing (which i don't condone), but let's face it other multiboxers have done that in the past.

Either way I do think that prepared might find his accounts under a lot more scrutiny from now on.

---

Interesting comment. Your IQ must be pretty high. :thumbsup:

The general chat would only go to all windows if PAUSE was not on during that time.

However, a multiboxer cannot take all of the turrets (I call them cannons because that's what it says when highlighting them in the game) and the reason is because of the problem of right clicking in multiple windows on either Windows XP or Windows Vista. If the multiboxer had separate computers for each account and used full screen, it probably could be done but that would be very expensive just to break the rules and possibly get a warning or ban. There are usually players around the cannons at the start of the defense unless the portal is not up for the defensive side.

In any case, here is part of a conversation I've had with a GM two days ago when players submitted their reports from the original post that did not tell the truth in the Customer Support forums:

[IMG=http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4300/1wowscrnshot04060914474.jpg][/IMG]

[IMG=http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1912/2wowscrnshot04060915064.jpg][/IMG]

So all of the discussion about stop doing whatever it is that I was reported for doing is a moot point because as it clearly shows, I can bring in opposite faction characters and multibox them in Wintergrasp as long as I do not hold any cannons or vehicles. Given that players dreamed that up because they were losing 80% of the Wintergrasp battles in my realm, clarification here shows no action will be taken against me and that I'm free to bring in any amount of characters on either side faction as long as I don't hold vehicles or cannons. Any further questions about this matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Prepared',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193596#pos t193596

However, a multiboxer cannot take all of the turrets (I call them cannons because that's what it says when highlighting them in the game) and the reason is because of the problem of right clicking in multiple windows on either Windows XP or Windows Vista. If the multiboxer had separate computers for each account and used full screen, it probably could be done but that would be very expensive just to break the rules and possibly get a warning or ban. There are usually players around the cannons at the start of the defense unless the portal is not up for the defensive side.

---

This is inaccurate - I control 5 turrets every day in "Shoot em Up - For the Horde!" out in icecrown. Utilizing the mouse broadcast in Innerspace I can easily control all 5 mice in a realtime broadcast, it's beautiful to see syncronized cannons rotating and obliterating targets left and right.

That said, thanks for clearing things up, the GM SS's are priceless as well.

Fur your bias is so obvious it taints everything you say.

Most resonable people look at the facts then make conclsions based upon those facts.

You decide that Prepared is wrong before you read anything and then look for facts to support yur position.

We have a GM ss ending the situation, speculation on what he did or didn't do is meaningless, even if he did it who cares ... the rulz have been clarified and he will be playing within the rulz in the future. As if an allience 2 boxer hasnt taken a horde turrent ever lol ....

You know that instance boosting isn't working "as intended" yet you would recomend others to instance boost or do so yourself. Is that fair?

/offtopic

Sorry I'm late to the Samjacked thread. The crap has been removed. Continue valid discussion.

I come late to this post after a long week of internet-less home remodeling, but I do have one thing to emphasize...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prepared

Since the subject has come up again about my account names, I'll state it again for everyone to see. My accounts have different names on them as the owner. I created them that way. Is there a problem? None whatsoever as long as I am secure in the account information. I have all secret questions/answers, blizzard authenticator attached and all keys used in all of the expansions and the original game because I bought them from the store or online at the Blizzard web site. Different names on accounts does not mean you are sharing accounts. Sharing of accounts is against the Terms of Service of the game and there are ways of determining if that is happening such as tracing TCP/IP addresses, etc.

---

While you are somewhat true (Different account names does not imply that you are account sharing, though account sharers will typically have different account names), there IS a problem with using alternate, false, or non-legal names on your accounts, as KvdM pointed out...

Quote:

---

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html

"Establishing an Account.
Prior to (or in lieu of) creating a user account on the Service (a "WoW Account"), or using an existing WoW Account, you may be required to establish a separate account (a "Blizzard Account") on Blizzard’s centralized account system. When creating these accounts, you may be required to provide Blizzard with certain personal information, financial information and an unused Authentication Key provided to you by Blizzard. You agree that you will supply accurate information to Blizzard when requested, and that you will update that information promptly after it changes."

---

(emphasis mine)

False names are still a ToU violation, and while some have found Blizzard to be relatively benevolent in their dealings with accidental or non-accidental missteps in this policy (allowing "Santa Claus" to be changed to the correct legal name), it is by no means a guarantee that you're absolved from having to follow or from reaping any repercussions from that ToU violation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fat Tire',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193101#post1931 01

Otherwise, you are fine if you just made a name up i.e. Preparedis anidiot and you are the only ever person to pay for said accounts and logged from same IP address as your other accounts.

I got hacked about a year ago and blizzard makes you fax in a copy of your driver lisc. to prove you are the owner of the account. Wonder how that would work.

---

So Fat Tire is somewhat correct -- in the case of having to prove ownership of your account, a fake name isn't going to cut it. However, he's mistaken in that "you are fine if you just made a name up". In the case of some quite-obvious false account names, people were able to get the issue resolved and the names updated to their own. However, if one cop lets you off without a speeding ticket, it doesn't mean that the next will or that it's OK to speed at all times.

Just a clarification, since I think the issue was skimmed over without solid resolution. I can't say to whether Prepared has or hasn't done in WG, as I (and pretty much none of us) were there when it happened, but I can say that having different names on your account is certainly not "fine" and I'd suggest querying Blizzard to see if they'll let you update those names properly (as you're required to do from the ToU agreement) to the correct information before you end up in a spot where you'll actually have to work to prove your ownership of those accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fursphere',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193615#po st193615

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Prepared',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193596#pos t193596

So all of the discussion about stop doing whatever it is that I was reported for doing is a moot point because as it clearly shows, I can bring in opposite faction characters and multibox them in Wintergrasp as long as I do not hold any cannons or vehicles. Given that players dreamed that up because they were losing 80% of the Wintergrasp battles in my realm, clarification here shows no action will be taken against me and that I'm free to bring in any amount of characters on either side faction as long as I don't hold vehicles or cannons. Any further questions about this matter?

---

You were not accused of playing both sides. You were accused of playing both sides and taking objectives to throw the battle. (very nice attempt to completely dodge the question btw)

So you're admitting that those 6 alliance toons are in fact yours? Because you still are avoiding that question.

You went out and got GM clarification on the issue about holding objectives with opposing faction toons and how it is indeed illegal if you are multiboxing both sides. Were you actually doing it before hand?

I can only speculate here - but given the fact that you went and asked a GM this specific question - It appears to that you were in fact doing the behavior listed on the official forums, and now that you were caught - you are playing the "oh, I didn't know it was against the rules" game - and are now "correcting your misguided ways".

---

He was accused of two things:
1. Using the cannons with 6 alliance toons and therefore preventing other people from using them.
2. Monitoring the other faction's movements and strategy and relaying them into his own faction, thereby giving espionage-like advantage.

The GM SS has shown that #2 is okay, and you don't have to be Prepared to be able to do it. Even if you only have 1 account and your friend plays on the other faction, this is still possible.

For #1, presumably that when the conversation in the SS happened, he was being investigated if he did #1 or not. I am also going to assume that he didn't do it because he is not banned yet. Thus, the question whether all 6 alliance toons belong to him is irrelevant.

Ahhh....it was moved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193617#p ost193617

Fur your bias is so obvious it taints everything you say.

---

No, you're too pigheaded to understand that your defense of the behavior being discussed in this thread should warrant you being banned from these forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193617#p ost193617

Most resonable people look at the facts then make conclsions based upon those facts.

---

Whether or not Prepared is the one who was doing this isn't what people are pissed at you for. You want to encourage this sort of behavior even though it involves throwing a match (which is enough for a ban anywhere, IMO).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193617#p ost193617

You decide that Prepared is wrong before you read anything and then look for facts to support yur position.

---

Mostly, people are deciding that YOU are wrong. Big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193617#p ost193617

We have a GM ss ending the situation, speculation on what he did or didn't do is meaningless, even if he did it who cares ... the rulz have been clarified and he will be playing within the rulz in the future. As if an allience 2 boxer hasnt taken a horde turrent ever lol ....

---

The issue in this thread was NEVER the clarity of WoW's rules for Wintergrasp. The problem we ran into is that you, once again, decided to take the wrong side in a ToS compliance issue. Generally, that would get any other person here banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193617#p ost193617

You know that instance boosting isn't working "as intended" yet you would recomend others to instance boost or do so yourself. Is that fair?

---

Instance boosting isn't throwing a PvP match. We're not talking about instance boosting, either. We're talking about intentionally using alts to wreck other's ability to PvP. When does instance boosting compare to sabotaging PvP in order to force a loss for your own side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Svpernova09',index.php?page=Thread&postID=193648# post193648

/offtopic

Sorry I'm late to the Samjacked thread. The crap has been removed. Continue valid discussion.

---

You're not going to fool anyone into thinking you're not uneven in your moderation efforts just by removing posts in which a certain member of the community repeatedly violates our CoC in more ways than pretty much anyone I've ever encountered. Why is it that you left his post up just before yours. It seems as though you're allowing some people to get away with some things and others are just SoL.

Bas, no offense, but why don't you post your blatant personal attack and post dissection in the *other* thread, the one tagged samjacked or whatever.
this current topic is not about sam, it's about Prepared and his possible off-play in some WG games.
Posts like yours not only derail the topics, but also put the focus on Sam (who will most probably reply to a personal attack) when what you want (and many others possibly) is to not have sam reply.
just ignore him already if you don't like him, that message you dissected was mostly about how Fur responded to Prepared, not about Sam. sigh.

[edit]And regarding the moderation from supernova, i think he did a great job, as he removed the insulting and derailed topics, not those that are actually ON topic.

(i'll delete this message if i see the above messages moved)