| Author | Violation of General Rules 3.8.1 by CGSMCMLXXV and Anita2008 |
|---|
It has come to my attention that the characters CGSMCMLXXV and Anita2008 seem to be in breach of General Rule 3.8.1
From CGSMCMLXXVs profile - For admin(s): Anita2008 is my gf's account. We play from the same PC (in different browsers) / local network (if I bring my laptop home). We play also from some other IPs (because we travel pretty much).
From Anita2008s profile - CGSMCMLXXV is my bf and we are playing from the same pc/network (sorry for confusion).
To the knowledge of other curious people, we have at home two laptops and each of us play from their own laptop. As I know it's not forbidden to have two laptops.
If you examine the first 5 pages of CGSMCMLXXVs Combat Log -
https://www.lordswm.com/pl_warlog.php?id=4437569
you will see that there are many examples of both characters participating in fights together.
Closer examination yields startling results. In pages 2 to 5 of CGSMCMLXXVs Combat Log (currently covering the period from 23 June 2009 to 18 July 2009) there are no less than 24 peculiar combats. In all of these combats the characters CGSMCMLXXV and Anita2008 have both been ambushed together by a single thief. I repeat, in a period of less than a month, *both* characters were ambushed together by a thief on no less than 24 occaisions.
Below you will find links to these incredibly unlikely combats -
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=481086298
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=481075432
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=481056348
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=481027832
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=481025041
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480996313
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480964948
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480962863
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480900255
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480899921
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480896839
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480683518
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480497642
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480497388
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480467383
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480465588
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480458652
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480456966
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480410285
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480409142
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480375943
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480352927
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480352557
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=480351173
Thief ambush combats similar to these continue on until at least page 17 of CGSMCMLXXVs Combat Log (9 May 2009). The chances of such combats occurring naturally are astronomically remote. A quick glance through the rest of CGSMCMLXXVs (and ANITA2008s) combat log reveal literally hundreds more combats involving mutual participation.
It is obvious that very close coordination between CGSMCMLXXV and Anita2008 would be required for such combats to occur.
Coupled with their profile statements it is almost certain that they have participated in many battles from a single computer/IP. Thus the breach of General Rule 3.8.1 |
There is no way that anybody could prove that they are playing from the same computer (or that they are the same person). This is like 2 friends playing from the same internet cafe (same IP), on two different computers, side by side and cooperating. There is no rule against that.
If they are gf and bf there may be password transfers and collective account managing but how can you prove all this? |
In addition the Transfer Logs of both characters seem highly suspicious.
CGSMCMLXXV - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_transfers.php?id=4437569
Anita2008 - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_transfers.php?id=4430478
It seems likely that General Rule 3.9 has been breached, although with the limited resources available to me I cannot *prove* such a breach. I request that the Admin dealing with this matter also examine the transfer logs of these characters for such a breach.
What I can see is that since 6 May 2009 Anita2008 has been exclusively paying for Smithing services from CGSMCMLXXV. This is not necessarily a problem. The fact that Anita2008 has been paying 100% of the repair cost for all the repairs that I have seen, is slightly suspicious (although not impossible). When taking into consideration that for much of this time CGSMCMLXXV has had a very low smithing skill to be receiving the full rate, it seems highly unlikely, however it is still conceivable.
What convinces me that this is a breach is a post made by CGSMCMLXXV on 17 July 2009. https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1859609
In this post CGSMCMLXXV offers a repair service of 50% for 50% of the repair cost.
Despite this offer of cheaper repair, CGSMCMLXXV *still* receives full price for his repairs from Anita2008. It seems unlikely that someone would charge their Girlfriend *and* best customer more than they would expect a complete stranger to pay. I request that the person handling this request examine this situation very carefully for possible breaches of the general rules (such as 3.9).
Thankyou for your attention.
Grunge |
Response to Post #2.
Please examine the statements provided in their profiles.
They admit to playing from the same computer on a regular basis. Considering the substantial occurences of mutual participation in combats, it is almost certain that they have participated in many combats while playing on the same computer/IP.
Grunge |
Oh - and links to their profiles -
CGSMCMLXXV - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4437569
Anita2008 - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4430478
Grunge |
It's not against the rules to use the same computer. It's against the rules to use the same computer when in combat. And like I said before, the problem is how to prove it.
I'm not saying that he/she is a cheater or not, bur the rules have loopholes, and, sadly, anybody could take advantage of that (and probably many do). |
Additional possible contravention - General Rule 3.7
Close examination of CGSMCMLXXVs and Anita2008s combat and transfer logs have yielded another possible General rule breach.
Examining the Combat Logs of Anita2008 and CGSMCMLXXV before 12 December 2008 shows what you expect of 2 accounts managed independently. They fight with and against a wide range of opponents. When they do encounter each other the battlelogs show that they invariably greet each other and chat throughout the combat.
After 12 December 2008 this does not seem to be the case, or at least not in the combat logs I have checked. Not only is there a significant increase in both characters being involved in combats together, but the banter between the 2 that was present before then seems absent for combats after (at least, those that I have seen).
Closely coinciding with this is the beginning of different behaviour in CGSMCMLXXVs and Anita2008s transfer logs. Starting from 6 December 2008 Anita2008 regularly transfers money to CGSMCMLXXV for the purposes of having items repaired. CGSMCMLXXV achieved level 6 in the early hours of 24 November 2008 and built his Blacksmith immediately. However this behaviour did not begin until around 2 weeks later. This repair activity also appears to occur before Clan #209 was created - which seems to have happened on or around 14 December 2008, so claims that it was begun for purposes of a designated clan smith would seem to have carry less weight.
I request that the Administrator assigned to this case examine CGSMCMLXXVs and Anita2008s Transfer and Combat Logs for possible contravention of General Rule 3.7
Grunge
--
Combat Log of CGSMCMLXXV starting from 12 December 2008 - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_warlog.php?id=4437569&page=31
Combat Log of Anita2008 starting from 12 December 2008 - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_warlog.php?id=4430478&page=39
Transfer Log of CGSMCMLXXV starting from 6 December 2008 - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_transfers.php?id=4437569&page=94
Transfer Log of CGSMCMLXXV starting from 6 December 2008 - https://www.lordswm.com/pl_transfers.php?id=4430478&page=116 |
1. Violation of the rules in combats is the other subsection (you started with that).
2. https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1855934 - Read Shebali's post.
3. https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1860153 - regarding smith assist, I gave already the explanations there and I told you already about that thread
4. And the problem with December might be...? You imply that Anita2008 is my secondary character? Please, administrators, I even created a post in which I am asking for help from you:
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1860195
You are the only ones who can stop such players to spread such accusations. I am not looking for vengeance, I just want the truth to be proved. |
|
Hmmmm.... Typo.
That should have been Look through 221 pages of transfers.
Grunge |
Post #9 it is the proof of player's lack of documentation. The rule 3.8.1 invoked here is implemented in the software of this game. There were threads in the "General game forum" in which this information was given (even by me once or twice).
Moreover, the clan was created on 12.07.2008
12-07-08 16:25: The "The Shadow of Death" clan has been founded by CGSMCMLXXV
which supports my affirmation that Anita2008 is supporting the clan, and not me personally. Once again, lack of documentation.
In addition, the player is mixing different accusation in one thread instead of creating two threads in the two subsections of the CaA, by adding all the time new "findings". That is a proof of seeking revenge.
I have nothing against a player to post a complaint about my way of playing (and I even encouraged them to do that) because I have nothing to hide (e.g., see Xerfer's thread https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1860153). But this is a clear case of seeking revenge. |
Hmmm.... So your clan was created on 16:25 12-07-08?
12-07-08 13:57: Received 1200 Gold from Anita2008 : for repairing
So this transfer for repairing happened before you were aware that your Clan had been granted, correct? And therefore could not have been a Clan decision, now could it? As I said, I now am *really* familiar with your transfer log. Perhaps you should have a look before any further posts?
I'm having a look in the General Game forum. Will be back to address more presently.
Grunge |
you can't be logged in with two differend acc in ONE browser...
From thread - https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1850173
Admittedly an older thread.
We play from the same PC (in different browsers) I think we've seen this quote often enough to know where this comes from.
I speculate that it would be possible to run two instances of LWM from 2 different browsers on the one machine (say Firefox and IE)? I don't know if this works (as I don't have 2 characters) but I can't think why it wouldn't.
I'll ask and see if it can be done.
Grunge |
Check this topic to see what I was speaking about (related to rule 3.8.1):
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1858843
About the clan, maybe you don't know, not your fault here even if you should read more often the forum because there are many threads about, but once you apply for a clan, there is a dead time until you get the approval for it. I considered I fulfilled the clan creation requirements, so, yes, I knew it would be approved. And, by the way, I fulfilled my clan description as I wrote it in my application (admins could prove that, but I am not asking them to do that just for one player). |
I've read the forums well enough to know that. I also have read the forums more than enough to know that it can take *quite* a *long* time to receive final approval for a clan.
I still don't see how you can claim it as a clan decision to support you becoming Clan Smith when your clan hasn't been approved. Is this truly an example of a democracy, where somone decides what is going to occur before the clan even exists? We have a democracy inside our clan and I don't take decisions for anyone, they decide for themselves. It seems that your claims in this thread contradict your claim of democracy in your clan made in anther thread, don't you think?
Grunge |
| No, it's not a contradiction. Look who were the first players to have entered the clan. Also, as long as you don't belong to the clan, you have no idea about how the clan is ruled. Just thinking that it is otherwise, that's not a proof, but exactly what I wrote in my complaint about this topic. |
That's odd. I don't seem to be able to find the exemption in the financial assistance rules for Clan Smiths. It's almost as if the Admins expected *everyone* to follow the rules.
I'm also fairly sure that most clan smiths offer discount to their clan members when performing smithing duties for clan members. If 100% is the discounted rate for your clan members, I'd hate to see your rates for non-clan members.
What? The non-clan rate is 50%! O.o
Grunge |
Please, check my previous answers to that accusation. Do not repeat them if you don't bring something new.
There is no rule against a clan to support a smith and many clans are doing that in one way or another. In my clan, being democracy, I left that decision to the members. We don't have any tax, so, if the members decide to contribute to the clan smith, I won't stop them. I posted that advertisement on forum for the outside players when I started to have enough money to support that proposal. This is another proof that Anita2008 and Haran, respectively, are not support characters.
So, please, read all the information already posted by now and don't repeat them just because you think it's otherwise. |
In the interest of saving other forum readers from further to-and-fro "discussions", I will leave this subject and the other related ones to be determined by the Administrators.
Good day all.
Grunge |
| I respect and agree with your words from post #19. |
