I've received a sort of calming PM back from Kiara, only calming in the way I choose to interpret it. I'll not bother posting my original PM, as it is rather lengthy, but you can gather the jist of it from the response:
My analysis of this, biased based on her need to stick to relating policy:People wanted an answer, I got it from CS and gave it to you exactly as given to me.
I haven't interpreted anything. It isn't my place to enforce the EULA. It's CS and thus their call. That is and has been the official stance for as long as I have played EQII.
Nothing has changed in our policies.
Just because we err on the side of the customer and don't harshly enforce a rule, doesn't make that rule non existent. It's in place so that we can (and very often DO) get rid of plat farmers and those who abuse it.
Just because people don't like the answer doesn't make the answer wrong or invalid. Those who wish to do so, will still look for the loopholes and grey areas all they can. I can't stop that.
I've read the threads to which you allude and it makes no difference. As I said. Policy is policy. We err on the side of caution and leniency. But that still doesn't change the underlying policy that allows us to stop abuse of the system.
Happy Holidays!
Nothing has changed in our policies.
Just because we err on the side of the customer and don't harshly enforce a rule, doesn't make that rule non existent. It's in place so that we can (and very often DO) get rid of plat farmers and those who abuse it.I read this a few times. I see this as the EULA being grey enough for rules to be enforced based on personal decision (as expected). There are 2 instances where she alludes to the rules being enforced on those who are breaking another rule or abusing "the system". I've asked for a description of "the system", although I can probably guess.I've read the threads to which you allude and it makes no difference. As I said. Policy is policy. We err on the side of caution and leniency. But that still doesn't change the underlying policy that allows us to stop abuse of the system.
Quote 1 references the primary purpose of this rule, and this makes sense. I would guess SOE has no desire to ruin anyone's day, however, they will ruin the day of someone who is breaking this rule while ruining someone else's day.
All in all, it comes down to what the GM you are dealing with thinks is fair play. No EQ2 boxer has been banned yet (that I've heard of, and who are legit). If you currently multibox, don't change servers. If you are thinking of multiboxing, choose a server that is inhabitted by boxers. If you are going to PM a GM to ask about multiboxing, phrase it in a way that brings his personal view on the subject into play and avoids the request for a policy spew. I CERTAINLY would not play on PvP servers, as you will be banned FOR SURE, as GMs will just get tired of dealing with complaints about you and just get rid of you.
Good Luck.
Originally Posted by Lokked
Connect With Us