Petition (poll) to reinstate olkok and smokespride

[e_i_pi]

As some of you have heard, olkok and his son smokespride were busted as multis as they use the same PC and hence same IP address. They have never played any games together, and no supporting evidence of multi action has been provided by the staff. olkok has written to the support staff, and has also commenced a thread in C&A explaining the situation. The thread has been closed. A large groundswell of community support has occurred, with no reply from the staff.

olkok's evidence in defence is that he and his son share a PC, share the same name (Senior and Junior), have similar (but not the same) email addresses, have never played any games together, and because olkok is premium there is no reason he would create an account to play more games. Furthermore, no accusation of cheating or multis was ever made against them - the bust was proactive, not in response to community complaints.

In the closed thread, olkok has received at least 15 messages of support. When my flatmate honeyspider was accused of being a multi, I came to his defence knowing full well he was not a multi, and the response I received from the staff was this:

Given that e_i_pi has offered an explanation for honeyspider's side and the fact that he also declared their 'relation' with each other to us in the past, his explanation is believable

Yet in the case of olkok, 15 peple have come to his defence, including myself, but nothing has been done to reinstate his or his son's account.

In my life, I always own up to mistakes I make, even if it means I can lose my job or lose my friends. I have publically apologised here on CC to a number of folk for falsely accusing them of things. In my experience, admitting and accepting your own errors, and acknowledging them with your peers and community is the right and proper thing to do. On the other hand, standing your ground despite overwhelming opinion that you have erred earns you nothing but disrespect.

The staff here have listened to my advice on a number of occassions, especially in regards to maths. Well, here's an equation to contemplate:

Silence = Arrogance

If you, the CC community member, believe that olkok and smokespride were unjustly busted, and deserve to have their accounts reinstated, please sign the petition. Don't just stand by and let yet another mistake become part of the ever growing pile - everyone has a right to voice their opinion. To quote Edmund Burke:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

[Moneymatt]

sign me up, this is in many situations, this included the hardy bro's who are bro's but were suspected of being the same people hensforth blocked.

so why not just block these guys and not bust them for multi's when i have to sometimes let my mates who play cc make moves when they stay the night at my house.
if its the petition thingy im for it.

moneymatt

[King_Herpes]

I don't think that this is as cut and dry as most would like it to be. If you're going to play off of the same p.c. then you need to explain this with an E-ticket prior to playing games. So I'm sure that's where the ruling will stand. Otherwise you will just have people fabricating stories of why they aren't multis. Not to call these particular players liars, it's just that they went about it the wrong way. A day late and a dollar short.

[reptile]

I don't think that this is as cut and dry as most would like it to be. If you're going to play off of the same p.c. then you need to explain this with an E-ticket prior to playing games. So I'm sure that's where the ruling will stand. Otherwise you will just have people fabricating stories of why they aren't multis. Not to call these particular players liars, it's just that they went about it the wrong way. A day late and a dollar short.

does it say somewhere that you need to explain that you will be playing on the same computer if that is the case ahead of time in an e-ticket kingherpes? i dont remember reading that anywhere.

[e_i_pi]

I don't think that this is as cut and dry as most would like it to be. If you're going to play off of the same p.c. then you need to explain this with an E-ticket prior to playing games. So I'm sure that's where the ruling will stand. Otherwise you will just have people fabricating stories of why they aren't multis. Not to call these particular players liars, it's just that they went about it the wrong way. A day late and a dollar short.

I understand your point of view herps, but it has to be accepted that rules include two things:

* Exceptions
* Being prone to error

It is very rare that so many people stand by someone who has been busted, and take into consideration that there are no community members calling for the bust. There are cases in the past where some has received a bust and community support, but a lot of the time the busts are due to trolling or abuse of the forums. This one is simply a case of people playing from the same IP. 3-4 other people have come forward and said that they also play from that IP at times (as they are family members). Should they be busted too? Is it necessary to announce that you are playing from a certain IP before doing so? I believe it is the right of paying customers to voice concern over busts that they think are unjust. I also think it is the right of paying customers to appeal decisions made by the staff.

[King_Herpes]

It may not say that, but wouldn't it be common sense? Two people playing from the same I.P. address looks like the same player to any administrator.

[ben79]

It may not say that, but wouldn't it be common sense? Two people playing from the same I.P. address looks like the same player to any administrator.

me and my roomate were being accused of being multi, since it was not true they blocked us from playing the same games, we had the same I.P. address but still are 2 different human person, so we may seem the same but we're not !

B.

[samuelc812]

*samuelc812 signs petition ;)

[MeDeFe]

sign me up

Free DaGip!

[e_i_pi]

It may not say that, but wouldn't it be common sense? Two people playing from the same I.P. address looks like the same player to any administrator.

me and my roomate were being accused of being multi, since it was not true they blocked us from playing the same games, we had the same I.P. address but still are 2 different human person, so we may seem the same but we're not !

B.

This highlights the inconsistency of the decision made in regards to olkok. There are many cases of people playing from the same IP, and those accounts are blocked, not busted. In light of the fact that olkok did not notify the staff of the accounts, I can see how it would be reasonable that he and his son would not be allowed to play team games together (me and honeyspider still can, as I notified the staff of the accounts). But I think a bust is going too far. A precedent has been set that accounts from the same IP that are different people results in a block, not a bust. olkok has a reasonable and believable explanation for the accounts having the same real name, and his family members have vouched for it.

[King_Herpes]

I don't think that this is as cut and dry as most would like it to be. If you're going to play off of the same p.c. then you need to explain this with an E-ticket prior to playing games. So I'm sure that's where the ruling will stand. Otherwise you will just have people fabricating stories of why they aren't multis. Not to call these particular players liars, it's just that they went about it the wrong way. A day late and a dollar short.

I understand your point of view herps, but it has to be accepted that rules include two things:

* Exceptions
* Being prone to error

It is very rare that so many people stand by someone who has been busted, and take into consideration that there are no community members calling for the bust. There are cases in the past where some has received a bust and community support, but a lot of the time the busts are due to trolling or abuse of the forums. This one is simply a case of people playing from the same IP. 3-4 other people have come forward and said that they also play from that IP at times (as they are family members). Should they be busted too? Is it necessary to announce that you are playing from a certain IP before doing so? I believe it is the right of paying customers to voice concern over busts that they think are unjust. I also think it is the right of paying customers to appeal decisions made by the staff.

Unfortunately, this isn't a democracy. They have ways of determining whether or not people are family members, friends, or multiple accounts and I'm sure they have honed those skills/tools to a T by now. I'm more than positive that they are capable of making mistakes and forgetting to cross those t's, for I've witnessed it on my own behalf with the blanket ban that was issued a while back. However, they reserve the right to make that call.

A little tip from experience, letting steam out of the collar in the forums will get you no where. E-tickets will most likely get you no where. It's best to just kick rocks and go make a mail bomb.

[e_i_pi]

Unfortunately, this isn't a democracy. They have ways of determining whether or not people are family members, friends, or multiple accounts and I'm sure they have honed those skills/tools to a T by now. I'm more than positive that they are capable of making mistakes and forgetting to cross those t's, for I've witnessed it on my own behalf with the blanket ban that was issued a while back. However, they reserve the right to make that call.

A little tip from experience, letting steam out of the collar in the forums will get you no where. E-tickets will most likely get you no where. It's best to just kick rocks and go make a mail bomb.

If only those pesky Tibetans felt the same way, eh herps?

[King_Herpes]

Amen

[King_Herpes]

I wish somebody would stick up for my brown honeyspider when it was being treated unfairly...

[ben79]

[quote="King_Herpes"]I wish somebody would stick up for my brown honeyspider when it was being treated unfairly...[/quote

and you're talking about .... ?

[oVo]

I would hope the facts of this "case" are reviewed again and this judgement is reconsidered.

A father and son who play from the same IP, but not in the same games
and with no complaints are [busted].

Two brothers playing from the same IP and are in the same game
receive a complaint and are [cleared & noted].

I don't see the intent to cheat in either of these circumstances and yet the least
suspect of the two situations was busted and stripped of a paid membership.

[owenshooter]

I don't see the intent to cheat in either of these circumstances and yet the least
suspect of the two situations was busted and stripped of a paid membership.

i'm going to go read that thread now... however, i wouldn't declare 15 people a "ground swell of support"... anyway, i see all the points being made, however i'd like to learn more before i side with someone... good luck!-0

[scottp]

If the standard for two people to play without interference from the proprietors of this business is that they must DECLARE in ADVANCE any friends/relations that play from the same computer, then that should be in the user's agreement... not just a check box saying "I will only ever have one account."

The former is far above and beyond the latter, and since there's a written policy that DOESN'T require the former but does require the latter, "common sense" tells me that the latter is sufficient.

Olkok is a paying customer of this BUSINESS. This unwritten requirement is arbitrary and silly. It's like ordering and paying for a meal at the McDonald's drive thru, and then being told you can't have your food because you didn't say "Praise the Giant Spaghetti Monster" when you ordered your food.

If this was me and this situation wasn't resolved in his favor, I would sure as hell be in contact with my credit card company to reverse the charges for my subscription.

[Fipa]

*samuelc812 signs petition ;)

so does fipa

[e_i_pi]

I don't see the intent to cheat in either of these circumstances and yet the least
suspect of the two situations was busted and stripped of a paid membership.

i'm going to go read that thread now... however, i wouldn't declare 15 people a "ground swell of support"...

Okay, let me clarify Owen. 15 people showing support in a closed thread, tucked away in Closed Reports forum, over a period of 2 days.

[oVo]

If people didn't notice that the [busted] above is a link and want to see it ?
They can read the closed report in the abuse/etc forum HERE <- clicky clicky

[equalpants]

Sometimes my sister and I take our turns from the same computer when we're visiting each other (or our parents). I hope nobody decides to bust us for no reason!

Seriously, though, this is the first I've heard about announcing in advance when people are going to be using the same computer. If that is in fact the rule, then it should say so on the actual "Rules" page, which currently says nothing of the sort.

I hope the moderators take the threat of expanding bureaucracy seriously. It's very easy for the loose guidelines that moderators use (like "different IPs = probably not cheating") to evolve into full-fledged rules without anyone noticing. There will always be some cases where the rules are difficult to enforce, and it's just so tempting to err on the side of punishment--"if I can't be sure within 5 minutes that they're not cheating, then I'll just assume that they are." But it sucks to be on the receiving end of that; to be punished not because you broke a rule, but because you unwittingly made a moderator's day a little more difficult.

It sucks that the moderators have a difficult job to do, and that it just gets more difficult as the site grows. Sometimes it becomes necessary to replace moderator judgment with hard and fast rules (feedback vs. ratings, for example). But it's easy to go too far, and then you wind up with a Kafkaesque nightmare like Wikipedia, where the actual reality bears no resemblance to the written rules. So I hope the moderators are conscious of this problem; I hope they take the written rules seriously, and try to picture themselves in the customers' shoes.

[Serbia]

Serbia signs up

[dividedbyzero]

I detest the multi problem here as much as anyone. But I also think that given precedence (as e_i_pi noted in his post), that since there is no evidence of cheating, and that there have been cases like this before, it should be handled similarly.

Block them from playing together. Note it. Ban both accounts if there's some other sort of infraction later.

1 shot 1 kill is great for sniper school, but tough for an online game.

I do not envy the job that the hunters do. it's thankless, probably tedious, and time consuming. This sort of guidance, though, I would think needs to come from above...perhaps our community manager will pipe up if he hasn't already ?

[jbrettlip]

they should be reinstated. I take my turns when traveling for business. Therefore any other business traveler playing from a Courtyard or Marriott hotel is going to now be considered my multi. I know of one husband and wife team that plays from the same computer.

BTW, can I make a second account now that this site is cutesyclub?