Serious question for moderators, Gree, regarding the terms of service

Let's keep this on topic, guys. The real issue Monte is bringing up isn't the morality of transferring accounts; behind the thinly veiled jabs and couched words, he's pointing out another instance of Gree giving the top team, and only the top team, an advantage. Remember that war where Lights Out completed the steak and FC didn't, yet both teams got the prize?

Practices like that are what this discussion should be about, not quibbling over details on what's already been decided. It's in the TOS, people; there's nothing you can gain by whining about how unfair it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OffensivelyNamedGuy

The thing about buying a decent account is that it actually encourages the buyer to use gold to protect his initial investment in the account.

---

One huge exception is if they're buying an overpowered account; I can tell you first hand that stat inflation is a very minor problem at the bottom, and my top 50 account, though it's been stagnant for over a month, still has stats 50x that of puerile I come across in wars. Buying a big account for a lower ranked syndicate is a one and done deal; set it up as the DL and watch the defensive wins pile up! Feed all your RB gold to it and watch it singlehandedly take down bosses your syndicate couldn't. Nothing in it for Gree then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sister morphine

And what of the allegation that TAW have already (selectively) reported transfers? Does that taste better or worse.

---

To real people, it just sounds like like the usual whine, lacking credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dat Guy

Gree did not do ALL of the creating though. Gree can create the blank hoods and level one characters. It is up to others to do the rest. The characters that are being sold have been "created" by those that have spent, in most cases, YEARS and LOTS of MONEY.

Why shouldn't the creator of those accounts be allowed to be compensated for their effort if a market exists for such creations?

---

"Doing the rest" does not involve creating anything. Gree is the creator of every account.

If possession is 9/10 of the law, and 100% of the information pertaining to any given account is stored on servers owned and opereated by Gree, Gree is also the sole owner of every account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Locke

Let's keep this on topic, guys. The real issue Monte is bringing up isn't the morality of transferring accounts; behind the thinly veiled jabs and couched words, he's pointing out another instance of Gree giving the top team, and only the top team, an advantage. Remember that war where Lights Out completed the steak and FC didn't, yet both teams got the prize?

Practices like that are what this discussion should be about, not quibbling over details on what's already been decided. It's in the TOS, people; there's nothing you can gain by whining about how unfair it is.

---

According to montebore, the top team has always been SAS.

Gree handles issues on a case by case basis, always have. There is no proof of any favouritism, only what is sometimes perceived by crybabies as special treatment.

The details of any given issue are not shared by Gree, so unless the affected party/parties clearly and fully explain the issue to people who have no part in resolving the matter, the best anyone has is speculation.

And with montebore/SAS, it always devolves into a ridiculous game of broken telephone. An additional problem there is that whatever the original message delivered to them, it was likely intentionally broken to begin with.

Pulling SAS puppet strings has been the real game for a lot of people for a long time. It's cheaper than paying Gree, and while being far from challenging it does provide the same if not greater enjoyment than the actual game itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weasel

Gree handles issues on a case by case basis, always have. There is no proof of any favouritism...

---

Thanks for that; I need a good laugh today! If you genuinely think companies don't treat big spenders differently than others, you're in sore need of some quality one on one time with the business world.

TheJess: Assuming you feel my accusations lack credibility, many TAW members have basically told me that they think the rat is in TAW, they just don't know who it is.

Weasel: Don't confuse the words "top" and "best". SAS has rarely been the "top" team. They have always been the "best" team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John_Locke

Thanks for that; I need a good laugh today! If you genuinely think companies don't treat big spenders differently than others, you're in sore need of some quality one on one time with the business world.

---

Not entirely relevant to this situation.

A player report is a player report. If a sold account is reported to Gree and an investigation determines the report to be true, the origin of the report is not relevant. OP is just going on about some next "TAW did.. Whatever" rant because that's what he does.

Monty may be a tool who's wedded to his overspending second-ranked team, but he's (coincidentally) probably right about this. It may be human nature to bend the rules for your best customers, but as players of a game we should expect even-handed application of the rules.

I hope to see many more accounts deleted as the policy is enforced uniformly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weasel

Not entirely relevant to this situation.

A player report is a player report. If a sold account is reported to Gree and an investigation determines the report to be true, the origin of the report is not relevant. OP is just going on about some next "TAW did.. Whatever" rant because that's what he does.

---

Yes, it was probably those damned molly maguires who reported the accounts. Could never have been TAW!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dipstik

Monty may be a tool who's wedded to his overspending second-ranked team, but he's (coincidentally) probably right about this. It may be human nature to bend the rules for your best customers, but as players of a game we should expect even-handed application of the rules.

I hope to see many more accounts deleted as the policy is enforced uniformly.

---

You said it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dipstik

I hope to see many more accounts deleted as the policy is enforced uniformly.

---

This, I agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montecore

Yes, it was probably those damned molly maguires who reported the accounts. Could never have been TAW!

---

Whomever is responsible for sending a player report is irrelevant. Sold accounts violate the TOS regardless of the spend level of the person or persons who report them.

You're just mad because maybe TAW (or someone, anyway) reported some accounts that you would have preferred to keep amongst your group. That's TS for you. Get over it. People buying and selling accounts should be aware of the risks. Buyer beware and all that. Ignorance is not the same as innocence.

And that is why, I am stating very publicly, that SAS will as always take a higher road than TAW did.

IF you are in TAW, or thinking of joining TAW, with a transferred account, leave before battle.
IF you do not, there is a very high likelihood that you account will be reported. There is a higher likelihood that all of the sordid details will be published to the community, and it will be left up to them to report the account or not.
IF TAW tries to do something cute and claim a technicality, such as several players all going to start a new syndicate or join an existing one, the same thing applies.

This gives anyone who bought an account a fair chance to protect it, something TAW never did, and also makes it clear that TAW will only benefit from having transferred accounts on their syndicate if the owners wish to risk them being banned. It also means SAS won't necessarily have to report anyone, which was a revolting prospect. If the game has devolved to a point where it's a matter of which team can screw over more people who bought accounts, I really don't know why anyone would want to play.

Blah blah blah.

Reporting accounts that violate the TOS is within the rules of the game. If that's become an effective strategy in defeating your rivals, so be it. The ones doing the buying and selling of accounts have only themselves to blame for that. What you're saying is both syndicates knowingly violate(d) the TOS, but only because that is being used against you as an effective strategy do you have an issue with it.

Fight fire with fire, in this case. Forum tears certainly won't do much, if anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weasel

Blah blah blah.

Reporting accounts that violate the TOS is within the rules of the game. If that's become an effective strategy in defeating your rivals, so be it. The ones doing the buying and selling of accounts have only themselves to blame for that. What you're saying is both syndicates knowingly violate(d) the TOS, but only because that is being used against you as an effective strategy do you have an issue with it.

Fight fire with fire, in this case. Forum tears certainly won't do much, if anything.

---

Glad we agree on something. Yes, they violate the TOS. Yes, there are transferred accounts on every syndicate in the top 400. SAS has higher standards and would prefer not to act like rats, but as you have said, that may be the only recourse. A shame TAW had to bring it to this.

Don't act like SAS has some moral high ground to stand on. Violating the TOS is violating the TOS. In other words, cheating is cheating.

And you're as guilty as those you are naming and shaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weasel

Don't act like SAS has some moral high ground to stand on. Violating the TOS is violating the TOS. In other words, cheating is cheating.

And you're as guilty as those you are naming and shaming.

---

As guilty as every other syndicate in the game, including yours, which happens to have more than one transferred account. Also worth pointing out that trading uzis for in game cash, bricks for in game cash, bricks for uzis, etc is a TOS violation. Know any players that do this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montecore

As guilty as every other syndicate in the game, including yours, which happens to have more than one transferred account. Also worth pointing out that trading uzis for in game cash, bricks for in game cash, bricks for uzis, etc is a TOS violation. Know any players that do this?

---

I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure GREE gave us an official position once that said trading in game stuff for other in game stuff is kosher. You just can't bring real money in or glitch the commodities youre trading.

Snitches get stitches and left in ditches where I come from. But anything's fair in love and war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dipstik

I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure GREE gave us an official position once that said trading in game stuff for other in game stuff is kosher. You just can't bring real money in or glitch the commodities youre trading.

---

So it's OK to buy an account with in game cash, uzis, or bricks?

And in any case, whether a forum moderator said it was OK or not, it's still a violation of the TOS, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montecore

As guilty as every other syndicate in the game, including yours, which happens to have more than one transferred account. Also worth pointing out that trading uzis for in game cash, bricks for in game cash, bricks for uzis, etc is a TOS violation. Know any players that do this?

---

More verbal diarrhoea. You have no clue which syndicate I'm in or what goes on there, there's no sense in pretending like you do.

As for the in game trades, you may have noticed an entire subforum dedicated to precisely that. Enough said there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montecore

So it's OK to buy an account with in game cash, uzis, or bricks?

And in any case, whether a forum moderator said it was OK or not, it's still a violation of the TOS, isn't it?

---

http://replygif.net/i/114.gif

Thanks weasel... I was going to respond to that, but you summed my thoughts up nicely.

Wouldn't it of been easier to just send tickets about the accounts instead of coming here and saying about it, you wouldn't of had to worry about everyone knowing SAS was ratting and all the other bs in this thread. Although the part about Uzis and bricks was pretty entertaining. The real funny part is you are telling said accounts to leave to be protected while at the same time whining about them being used

Monte you seem like a straight shooting, straightforward, good ole fashion, god-fearing 'Murican......can we be friends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weasel

More verbal diarrhoea. You have no clue which syndicate I'm in or what goes on there, there's no sense in pretending like you do.



http://replygif.net/i/114.gif

---

For a guy that hammers on Gree for mispellings, you might consider spellcheck youself....LOL!

Ironic that an unserious thread, having only relation to OPs usual paranoid trolling on TAW, is titled, Serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

For a guy that hammers on Gree for mispellings, you might consider spellcheck youself....LOL!

---

Spell check is on. No errors were caught. Some words legitimately have more than one correct spelling. Unfortunately for Gree, their typos have never been such words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diarrhoea

I could swear I did originally spell tha sans "o", so spell check must be responsible for that. Funny how my spell check inserts a variation of a spelling of a word, and someone tells me to use spellcheck. Having a Gree moment this morning yourself, sir? Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

For a guy that hammers on Gree for mispellings, you might consider spellcheck youself....LOL!

---

You're picking him up on diarrhoea vs diarrhea? There's nothing wrong with either, though as a European I have to say the second (presumably) US spelling looks odd to me. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Weasel

Spell check is on. No errors were caught. Some words legitimately have more than one correct spelling. Unfortunately for Gree, their typos have never been such words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diarrhoea

I could swear I did originally spell tha sans "o", so spell check must be responsible for that. Funny how my spell check inserts a variation of a spelling of a word, and someone tells me to use spellcheck. Having a Gree moment this morning yourself, sir? Lol

---

LOL...as I was typing that, I was thinking to myself, "just my luck there will be a goofy international spelling for this".

And there is.

I get a lot of manuscripts from international authors, and I have never seen it spelled that way. Don't do many books on that affliction, fortunately.

Lol this thread is now about diarrhea. Or did it start out about diarrhea and we were unaware? Its all bulldiarrhea

^^^^ Started that way with the OP. It's just not circumspect any longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

LOL...as I was typing that, I was thinking to myself, "just my luck there will be a goofy international spelling for this".

And there is.

I get a lot of manuscripts from international authors, and I have never seen it spelled that way. Don't do many books on that affliction, fortunately.

---

For what it's worth, I try to make sure I look up a word's correct spelling before pointing out a typo to Gree. And to be honest, I think minor spelling errors on an internet forum are usually insignificant. I certainly don't put them at the same level as spelling errors in a live virtual product run by people who are being paid for their skills. Or lack thereof, in some cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by legalious

Please refrain from attacking each other. If you find that someone has purchased an account from other players, please send in a ticket with any available screen shots and information. Sharing, Selling, Donating accounts that do not belong to you is a breach of the TOS and Gree takes that seriously.

Gree does see from other forms of communications (Line/Groupme), that other people are purchasing accounts and has been banning those.

---

http://www.joeclifford.com/wp-conten.../04/InwJbP.jpg

Someone good at photoshop should make the police car some kind of Greemobile!

:-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokey77

Everyone in this game should have to start at the same place, level one with a blank hood and no stats. If someone has enough of the game and quits then they're account should quit with them. The selling of accounts goes on in an industrial scale. When I was looking for a new syn to join recently,I was told by two people that my stats were bad but that wasn't a problem as I could join a room and buy a low level account for $50!! People are so lazy nowadays they want the world and they want it yesterday. It just makes a joke out of the people who actually put the time and effort in to build their player/hood.

---

QFT

Great post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HavingFun

The fact you felt that you needed to add the word serious in your thread title made me chuckle.

---

My chuckle has transitioned to laughter. Discussing the word diarrhea seems fitting for this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by t12pm

Wouldn't it of been easier to just send tickets about the accounts instead of coming here and saying about it, you wouldn't of had to worry about everyone knowing SAS was ratting and all the other bs in this thread. Although the part about Uzis and bricks was pretty entertaining. The real funny part is you are telling said accounts to leave to be protected while at the same time whining about them being used

---

I don't want to ban any accounts. I am doing this, and putting it out there, so the transferred accounts can find a syndicate other than TAW, and keep playing without being banned.

Not interested in stooping to the TAW level and anonymously banning accounts.

Stop ratting and play the game. If you want 1st place join TAW instead of crying after every war

Take away all the sold accounts, and it's a whole new ball game.

SAS reported 4 taw accounts in one war.if I remember correctly ... Why wait to ban them during war montecore? Why not report them now?
Banning in war clearly shows SAS wanting a win and will stoop to new lows to get there.

Can those trolling this post separate their animosity against the man/guild (montecore/SAS) from the serious question posed?

The fact that you resort to taunts and name calling, rather than deal with the topic, tells me you're not standing on any moral high ground here.

Interesting question...caught my attention from waaaay over there in another section ;) Truthfully, i hope they ban all transferred accounts equally. It violates TOS. This happens in more than one game, and the rules should apply equally. Period.