Sign in to follow this  
Prophetears

Name and Shame - Necroedarkslayer

Recommended Posts

Sucks when people abuse trust and use underhanded methods to gain access to stuff they shouldn't or use what access they do have for personal gain. Best of luck getting things rectified. 

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

From the Wurm Rules:

Account Security
Keep your passwords secure at all times!  (You are solely responsible for the security of your accounts.)
 - Please read this thread on how to improve your account security: http://forum.wurmonl...swords-warning/

Account sales
A ) Code Club AB condones account and item sales, as we believe that you have the right to capitalize on your investment in Wurm Online.
B ) We do not offer support or service and will not be held responsible for any remedial action or loss that occurs.
C ) All such activity (sales, auctions, trades, sharing) is entirely at your own risk.
D ) Change the password and e-mail address of acquired accounts. (You are solely responsible for the security of your accounts.)
 
Shared accounts
A ) Code Club AB does not condone sharing or contracting accounts.
B ) You enter into any sharing agreements totally at your own risk.
C ) We do not offer support or service for sharing and will not be held responsible for any remedial action or loss.

 

@Enki

What determines GM involvement?  I don't have an opinion on this or other cases, but I just wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to let the consequences be the consequences... or update the rules to indicate Code Club's willingness to rectify these types of situations.

 

If I tell a kid he cannot have any candy from the checkout aisle, but then just buy him whatever he grabs, my making a rule does more harm than good.  All the kid really learns is that my rules don't really mean a whole lot.

If I buy him the candy, but not his sister, it's even worse.  Now he's learned that he in particular doesn't need to worry about the rules, but the rules will still apply to others.

What's even worse than that, is that now if I later want to actually make the rule count, I'm going to get tantrum after tantrum from the kid.  (Extinction Burst)

 

Simplest solution?  Ban the sharing of accounts and passwords.  If someone makes the mistake of sharing a password and gets bit... they can name and shame, but the lesson is pretty simple... do not share your passwords.  End of story, isn't it?

 

This particular case is somewhat peculiar in that the actually aggrieved party couldn't seem to care less, and @Xalloeven apologizes for even bringing it up.  How did @necroeactually get the password?  Is this a case of hacking?  Who gave him the password?  Is that the aggrieved party?  Would that person be reprimanded for sharing a password to an account that wasn't his/hers to share?

 

Seems more complicated than "we don't like this guy, and here's a chance to get him in trouble."  That's petty player stuff that GM's might want to stay above of, imho, for what little that may be worth. ;)

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mclavin said:

toxic player syndrome

Who's the toxic player?

 

Either way, TPS just makes me think of Tire Pressure Sensor... Disagreeable Player Syndrome, DPS... no, that won't work, Unpopular Player Syndrome... also makes great deliveries...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame, that's a real shame that we still have and encounter players like this. Trust, reputation, and community relations were and for me still are the greatest pillars on which Wurm stands. None amount of money should ever go over these. You can't buy trust or reputation. 

 

However i do agree, that if password was given, not stolen, then gms shouldn't be involved. Rules are the rules, and rules says that giving away passwords might end like that. Without consequences, we'd have such situations every year. And sadly, we have.

 

I feel sorry for those, whose trust was betrayed. I'd gladly help to repay them their lost if I could. That's only proving me that I'm doing right, not fully trusting anyone, even friends in game. Only a few can walk through my deed, theres maybe one or two, who can pick or do anything more than that in restricted areas. There are maybe 2 persons, who I'd borrow my money, drake, scales, and that's only because I'm accepting possibility of losing then and i can live with that. With passwords, thing should look the same, according to rules.

 Shame.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reylaark said:

 

@Enki

What determines GM involvement?  I don't have an opinion on this or other cases, but I just wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to let the consequences be the consequences... or update the rules to indicate Code Club's willingness to rectify these types of situations.

 

 

 

GM involvement has been known to happen whenever possible, the rule is there to cover cases where a solution cannot be determined. We had GMs also involved in the Niru case a while back, even though selling items for real life money is clearly stated to be at your own risk. For the case of the account(s?) that got banned after using peoples trust to get into their deeds and pickup items to sell lateron. Sometimes it's obvious who did what and they knew they weren't supposed that a ruling is easily made. Sometimes it's much more complex and a case of he said, she said, then a ruling may simply not be possible. The problem is when you write into a rule that you will try to help whenever possible, people will get more and more reliant on the staff to help, even when the staff can not.

 

This case also goes beyond stolen items from an account (which is a crappy thing to do, even if a password is shared with you). It goes to taking those items, then using unknowing third parties to flog them off, and then blaming other people for the theft of items. It affects more people than just the parties who had their stuff taken. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Reylaark said:

 

@Enki

What determines GM involvement?  I don't have an opinion on this or other cases, but I just wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to let the consequences be the consequences... or update the rules to indicate Code Club's willingness to rectify these types of situations.

 

If I tell a kid he cannot have any candy from the checkout aisle, but then just buy him whatever he grabs, my making a rule does more harm than good.  All the kid really learns is that my rules don't really mean a whole lot.

If I buy him the candy, but not his sister, it's even worse.  Now he's learned that he in particular doesn't need to worry about the rules, but the rules will still apply to others.

What's even worse than that, is that now if I later want to actually make the rule count, I'm going to get tantrum after tantrum from the kid.  (Extinction Burst)

 

Simplest solution?  Ban the sharing of accounts and passwords.  If someone makes the mistake of sharing a password and gets bit... they can name and shame, but the lesson is pretty simple... do not share your passwords.  End of story, isn't it?

 

This particular case is somewhat peculiar in that the actually aggrieved party couldn't seem to care less, and @Xalloeven apologizes for even bringing it up.  How did @necroeactually get the password?  Is this a case of hacking?  Who gave him the password?  Is that the aggrieved party?  Would that person be reprimanded for sharing a password to an account that wasn't his/hers to share?

 

Seems more complicated than "we don't like this guy, and here's a chance to get him in trouble."  That's petty player stuff that GM's might want to stay above of, imho, for what little that may be worth. ;)

Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.

 

I find it interesting how you dont seem to think its wrong that someone stole hundreds of euros worth of equipment from someone else to line their own pockets and used an unwitting person to take the hit from them, and on top of that blamed a third party for the theft.

 

Mclovin sold me an account fully geared with drake and mmws. He didnt say it was pmk gear. He didnt say I had to return it. I could literally turn around and sell all the gear and get my money back and let him deal with the aftershock of the missing pmk items. You know why I dont tho? Because he is my friend and he trusts me to do the right thing. That is, return the items to the kingdom if I decide to sell.

 

When you take advantage of your friends by stealing their items and selling their accounts, the GMs are right to ban you. This game is heavily based on trust, and taking advantage of someone's trust and it being allowed to continue can cause dire effects to the way we do business in this game. If enchanters could keep your supreme maul you mail them to enchant without consequences, then no one would trust one another.

 

GMs getting involved are a good thing. We shouldnt expect anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't necessarily surprise me, sucks for everyone involved, be a jerk in every way but do not ever abuse the trust of access to SOMEONE ELSE'S ACCOUNT they trusted you with. There is a fine line between being a scoundrel, and being a prick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have absolutely no idea what's going on, except that account sharing is, was, and will continue to be a terrible idea that ends poorly.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea either but all I ever heard about necroe was bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad they can't introduce a new field in the player's database called something like "Secondary password" and give that password only the ability to use the account, no ability to transfer ownership, change email etc.

 

Then people could share knowing that whoever held the primary password could always retake the account.

 

I imagine the login code would just need a slight tweak to check the password provided at login against two fields, the current primary password field and a secondary one.

 

It doesn't fix everything but maybe it preserves a key area.

 

At the end of the day people are only as good as whomever they are as people. No amount of technical things will overcome the root of who they are as a person.

 

When I left Epic for a break back when WU came out, I freely gave 4 deeds to my kingdom, asking nothing. I transferred mayorship of the fifth deed, a deed that I really liked and had spent significant time and effort on to someone I thought of as a close friend, with the clear understanding that if I came back to the game it would be returned to me. 

 

When I came back the deed wasn't returned. That's on me for trusting them and ultimately on them for lacking whatever it is that makes a person honorable and trustworthy.

 

At the end I lost the money, time (more then a year of steady building/terraforming) and effort put into the deed. More importantly I no longer had a friend that I had thought highly of. The key thing I didn't change (and had to make sure I didn't) was willingness to continue trusting others despite this event.

 

I have no intention of naming the former friend. They know who they are and what they did. It's just really unfortunate is all.

Edited by Nappy
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alyeska said:
Spoiler


GM involvement has been known to happen whenever possible, the rule is there to cover cases where a solution cannot be determined. We had GMs also involved in the Niru case a while back, even though selling items for real life money is clearly stated to be at your own risk. For the case of the account(s?) that got banned after using peoples trust to get into their deeds and pickup items to sell lateron. Sometimes it's obvious who did what and they knew they weren't supposed that a ruling is easily made. Sometimes it's much more complex and a case of he said, she said, then a ruling may simply not be possible. The problem is when you write into a rule that you will try to help whenever possible, people will get more and more reliant on the staff to help, even when the staff can not.

 

This case also goes beyond stolen items from an account (which is a crappy thing to do, even if a password is shared with you). It goes to taking those items, then using unknowing third parties to flog them off, and then blaming other people for the theft of items. It affects more people than just the parties who had their stuff taken. 

 

 

 

I get what you're saying but the rules don't read as such... Or at least I'm not seeing it. 

 

I'd then rather see a rule that better reflects how GMs want to handle these things.  All efforts will be made type of thing.  Or not even have it be a rule but just a disclaimer that solutions may not always be found.

 

Still, I think it's asking for trouble.  It's fine on a private server, but on a public server with personal relationships between players and GM's.... it's just a whole whoop ass can of worms.  Not so hard to corral on a small population but I'd imagine CC would operate on a different level.

 

Maybe it's because I've been studying a lot of Applied Behavior Analysis recently and it can be kind of harsh about consequences, but I really can't help thinking if there were no bailouts, at all, ever, for shared password issues... there might just be fewer shared password issues.

 

 

2 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

@Angelklaine

Angel, I think something was lost in translation as much of what you're saying has no relation to what you've quoted from me.

 

Assume I am not attacking you, anyone you care about, or protecting anyone you don't like... then maybe take another glance at what you quoted.  You're ascribing some rather unfortunate thoughts to me that I never said, not in this thread, or ever in any other thread.

I'd prefer it if you didn't do that.

It's as if I said, Stop saying baby dolphins should die!!!

You never said that, but anyone who reads only that and not what you said may just believe you want baby dolphins killed.  That simply wouldn't be fair at all.

 

1 hour ago, Cecci said:

I have no idea either but all I ever heard about necroe was bad.

 

Which kinda does beckon the question though, how did he wind up with the password to begin with then?

That is what we're talking about here right?  A shared password?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reylaark said:

 

I get what you're saying but the rules don't read as such... Or at least I'm not seeing it. 

 

I'd then rather see a rule that better reflects how GMs want to handle these things.  All efforts will be made type of thing.  Or not even have it be a rule but just a disclaimer that solutions may not always be found.

 

Still, I think it's asking for trouble.  It's fine on a private server, but on a public server with personal relationships between players and GM's.... it's just a whole whoop ass can of worms.  Not so hard to corral on a small population but I'd imagine CC would operate on a different level.

 

Maybe it's because I've been studying a lot of Applied Behavior Analysis recently and it can be kind of harsh about consequences, but I really can't help thinking if there were no bailouts, at all, ever, for shared password issues... there might just be fewer shared password issues.

 

 

@Angelklaine

Angel, I think something was lost in translation as much of what you're saying has no relation to what you've quoted from me.

 

Assume I am not attacking you, anyone you care about, or protecting anyone you don't like... then maybe take another glance at what you quoted.  You're ascribing some rather unfortunate thoughts to me that I never said, not in this thread, or ever in any other thread.

I'd prefer it if you didn't do that.

It's as if I said, Stop saying baby dolphins should die!!!

You never said that, but anyone who reads only that and not what you said may just believe you want baby dolphins killed.  That simply wouldn't be fair at all.

 

 

Which kinda does beckon the question though, how did he wind up with the password to begin with then?

That is what we're talking about here right?  A shared password?

 

It was shared, but people have already been punished for the same thing, and several have received permabans for doing what Necroe has done here.

 

incase you weren't aware.

 

Either way, this thread is neither here nor there about the punishment. Its just meant as a PSA that this player is very untrustworthy and unreliable.

Edited by Prophetears
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Reylaark said:

 

I get what you're saying but the rules don't read as such... Or at least I'm not seeing it. 

 

I'd then rather see a rule that better reflects how GMs want to handle these things.  All efforts will be made type of thing.  Or not even have it be a rule but just a disclaimer that solutions may not always be found.

 

Still, I think it's asking for trouble.  It's fine on a private server, but on a public server with personal relationships between players and GM's.... it's just a whole whoop ass can of worms.  Not so hard to corral on a small population but I'd imagine CC would operate on a different level.

 

Maybe it's because I've been studying a lot of Applied Behavior Analysis recently and it can be kind of harsh about consequences, but I really can't help thinking if there were no bailouts, at all, ever, for shared password issues... there might just be fewer shared password issues.

 

 

@Angelklaine

Angel, I think something was lost in translation as much of what you're saying has no relation to what you've quoted from me.

 

Assume I am not attacking you, anyone you care about, or protecting anyone you don't like... then maybe take another glance at what you quoted.  You're ascribing some rather unfortunate thoughts to me that I never said, not in this thread, or ever in any other thread.

I'd prefer it if you didn't do that.

It's as if I said, Stop saying baby dolphins should die!!!

You never said that, but anyone who reads only that and not what you said may just believe you want baby dolphins killed.  That simply wouldn't be fair at all.

 

 

Which kinda does beckon the question though, how did he wind up with the password to begin with then?

That is what we're talking about here right?  A shared password?

You are discussing the appropiateness of a rule to an individual on his callout thread. Ergo you are saying that the actions of staff on this isntance are not appropiate. I tend to disagree and I explained why.

 

If your intentions were to simply discuss the rule, then you should start a separate thread and do that there. If you dont agree with Necro being punished for his actions, then this is the right place, but know that your point of view is shared and will be discussed. 

 

If you tell me the pot is not hot and I get burned when I touch it, then you are partially responsible for me getting burned. You cant discuss the appropiateness of the actions of staff on the matter, and at the same time agree the matter should be handled by staff. Its an oxymoron.

Edited by Angelklaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

You are discussing the appropiateness of a rule to an individual on his callout thread. Ergo you are saying that the actions of staff on this isntance are not appropiate. I tend to disagree and I explained why.

 

If your intentions were to simply discuss the rule, then you should start a separate thread and do that there. If you dont agree with Necro being punished for his actions, then this is the right place, but know that your point of view is shared and will be discussed. 

 

If you tell me the pot is not hot and I get burned when I touch it, then you are partially responsible for me getting burned. You cant discuss the appropiateness of the actions of staff on the matter, and at the same time agree the matter should be handled by staff. Its an oxymoron.

There's no Ergo.

 

Just because you say Ergo doesn't make it so.  You're looking to involve yourself in drama of your own making here.

 

19 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

Its a case of trust betrayed. Don't share your passwords, peeps. This happens when you do.

 

I happened to take the same sentiment and included the rule stating exactly the same thing you are.  Feel free to argue with yourself if you're desperate for drama of some kind.

 

19 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

This is great news. Even though you guys dont have to, its great to hear that reason trumphs policy. Thanks for taking care of your playerbase.

 

You are discussing GM actions.  Just because you happen to not know or not care about the actual rule doesn't mean you get to discuss things while simultaneously telling other people not to.

 

At no time did I say Necroe should not be punished.  Not once.  Find someone else to argue with rather than having to make things up with me.

 

You're having a problem where there is none for the sake of having a problem.  Find another target, it's Friday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reylaark said:

There's no Ergo.

 

Just because you say Ergo doesn't make it so.  You're looking to involve yourself in drama of your own making here.

 

 

I happened to take the same sentiment and included the rule stating exactly the same thing you are.  Feel free to argue with yourself if you're desperate for drama of some kind.

 

 

You are discussing GM actions.  Just because you happen to not know or not care about the actual rule doesn't mean you get to discuss things while simultaneously telling other people not to.

 

At no time did I say Necroe should not be punished.  Not once.  Find someone else to argue with rather than having to make things up with me.

 

You're having a problem where there is none for the sake of having a problem.  Find another target, it's Friday.

No idea what drama are you talking about. This is a forum. Stuff posted on a forum is to be discussed and talked about. Its nothing personal. If you dont like your points discussed, then don't post?

 

I agree passwords should not be shared. But thats not the point of this post. We are talking about stolen assets here. That is wrong and immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

No idea what drama are you talking about. This is a forum. Stuff posted on a forum is to be discussed and talked about. Its nothing personal. If you dont like your points discussed, then don't post?

 

I agree passwords should not be shared. But thats not the point of this post. We are talking about stolen assets here. That is wrong and immoral.

 

Yes, wrong and immoral.  That's not even a point of discussion.

I don't mind discussing anything I post, so long as it is accurately and genuinely characterized.  If you're just going to make stuff up and pass it off as something I'm saying then no, that is not ok.

 

The OP himself has no problem with anything I've said.  He's pointed out there's precedent for how to handle this and handled it'll be. 

 

Alyeska points out the rule is somewhat of a cover your ass policy in case a solution can't be determined.  No problem with what I've said, yet able to discuss it just fine which we have.  No issue whatsoever and I appreciate the dialogue.

 

You, on the other hand, say I don't see anything wrong with things being stolen.  Considering that's completely your own invention and not remotely close to who I am or my own personal ethics, yes, that is personal.

You say just because one can do something doesn't mean they should while quoting me as if the two are related... implying I somehow don't subscribe to the notion.  Again, complete fabrication of your own.  Yes, I do take it personally when people put words in my mouth for their own vanity.

 

If you wish to discuss my points, then understand my points and stick to my points.  Otherwise, take it elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reylaark said:

 

Yes, wrong and immoral.  That's not even a point of discussion.

I don't mind discussing anything I post, so long as it is accurately and genuinely characterized.  If you're just going to make stuff up and pass it off as something I'm saying then no, that is not ok.

 

The OP himself has no problem with anything I've said.  He's pointed out there's precedent for how to handle this and handled it'll be. 

 

Alyeska points out the rule is somewhat of a cover your ass policy in case a solution can't be determined.  No problem with what I've said, yet able to discuss it just fine which we have.  No issue whatsoever and I appreciate the dialogue.

 

You, on the other hand, say I don't see anything wrong with things being stolen.  Considering that's completely your own invention and not remotely close to who I am or my own personal ethics, yes, that is personal.

You say just because one can do something doesn't mean they should while quoting me as if the two are related... implying I somehow don't subscribe to the notion.  Again, complete fabrication of your own.  Yes, I do take it personally when people put words in my mouth for their own vanity.

 

If you wish to discuss my points, then understand my points and stick to my points.  Otherwise, take it elsewhere.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning yes. But this is why I misunderstood:

 

You said- "What determines GM involvement?  I don't have an opinion on this or other cases, but I just wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to let the consequences be the consequences... or update the rules to indicate Code Club's willingness to rectify these types of situations."

 

This gave to me the inpression that you want them to do nothing. Shrug their arms and say "you gave your password away" and let a toxic player that stole hundreds of euros go on with his rampage. Maybe thats not what you meant but its what I understood, given the thread its posted in. Which leads me to my next point.

 

You posted: "Who's the toxic player?" When people pointed out the rule that can be used to address this event. This implies you dont think he is a toxic player, even tho he stole, and lied and fenced stuff off and blamed others for his theft. If you do think its toxic behavior tho, then why pretend not to know who they are talking about?

 

When I said "Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should." I was posting what Enki said about a similar incident. It was not a critic against you, it was pointing out a ruling on a similar (and less egrarious) incident that happened in the past. A player (Mikhael) stole from his pmk and got a shiney new 30 day ban. Although I disagree with him having recieved the ban (my belief on how the rules should be are more similar to yours than you may think), I agree now that the matter should had been handled the way it did. I was a victim of that incident and even then I had different views of how it was handled.

 

By making those comments I understood that you dont belive anything should be done about this incident. And thats why I said what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FbZB6MI.png

 

Shouldn't Dagobert be pursuing this instead of the people who greatly dislike Necro?  It doesn't even seem like Dagobert cares.  Poor Dagobert.  Even if he shared his account, I hope the allegations are not true.  If so, hopefully he will get his hat back and the buyer his/her money.

Edited by Galatyn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning yes. But this is why I misunderstood:

 

You said- "What determines GM involvement?  I don't have an opinion on this or other cases, but I just wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to let the consequences be the consequences... or update the rules to indicate Code Club's willingness to rectify these types of situations."

 

17 minutes ago, Angelklaine said:

 

You posted: "Who's the toxic player?" When people pointed out the rule that can be used to address this event. This implies you dont think he is a toxic player, even tho he stole, and lied and fenced stuff off and blamed others for his theft. If you do think its toxic behavior tho, then why pretend not to know who they are talking about?

 

I asked "who's the toxic player?" because he posted that right after my post... I genuinely was asking if he meant I was toxic for some reason.  I mean, what I say isn't always going to be popular and while I don't necessarily need to be popular, I would rather think people don't find me toxic.

Insecurity on my part but Jeebus man, we need a shield overhead just to post in these forums sometimes.

 

I actually was literally asking if he was saying I was toxic! :lol::unsure:

 

In any case, I should have put more thought into how the OP must be feeling after what he just went through and how my ideas would affect him.  Welcome to ABA, great for pigeons, kinda cold for humans.

 

I'd offer to buy you a beer but, Miami prices... lemme check the 401k first. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Reylaark said:

 

I should show you what I paid for dinner tonight for a pulled pork sandwich and a keylime pie. You would cry yourself to sleep.

 

Hint: Over $20

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Galatyn said:

FbZB6MI.png

 

Shouldn't Dagobert be pursuing this instead of the people who greatly dislike Necro?  It doesn't even seem like Dagobert cares.  Poor Dagobert.  Even if he shared his account, I hope the allegations are not true.  If so, hopefully he will get his hat back and the buyer his/her money.

Money is long gone sadly. At this point unless Necro willingly gives back the money, there is nothing anyone can do to get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this