New items facing abuse?

[No one]

So, we have new items. Cool.

 

Some (no all) are looking to gather/buy these items and others are selling. We've all seen this.

 

What about selling items from alts ? is this accepted / acceptable ?

 

And to help those in need, the next question is : how can one get an item ... legally, from his alt ? Would that be possible ? Would a minimum fee be acceptable ?

 

 

------------------

I am not interested into the new items (yet) but noticing the growing market ... it just came to me : is this happening ?

 

[Sasha Lilias]

It's always been said that as long as whatever is being traded, both to and from players, stays on that account, it's alright. So if I sold 20 items of an alt then it's that account that get's the profit, not Sasha.

 

I agree with the above.

 

 

And to help those in need, the next question is : how can one get an item ... legally, from his alt ? Would that be possible ? Would a minimum fee be acceptable ?

 

Before I attempt to answer the above; do you mean how can any player buy an item from an alt? Or, how can another account, of the player that own's the alt, get the item?

[Chewett]

You should not be trading between your alts. There have been very few cases that have been approved, but they have been directly approved. If you see people trading between alts then please report them. And this also refers to using an intermediary.

 

You can sell items on your alts, to other people. But the items gained must be given to that alt. If anyone is selling things from alts, and giving them to another account that is again abuse.

 

If you are unclear, ask here, or ask privately (chewett@magicduel.com).

 

We will be watching the logs, and "dealing" with people silently at first. Anyone dealing in such a trade will lose the item they gained, and the coins they paid, at least.

[No one]

You should not be trading between your alts. There have been very few cases that have been approved, but they have been directly approved. If you see people trading between alts then please report them. And this also refers to using an intermediary.

 

You can sell items on your alts, to other people. But the items gained must be given to that alt. If anyone is selling things from alts, and giving them to another account that is again abuse.

 

If you are unclear, ask here, or ask privately (chewett@magicduel.com).

 

We will be watching the logs, and "dealing" with people silently at first. Anyone dealing in such a trade will lose the item they gained, and the coins they paid, at least.

I wonder how can you identify all of this and I am talking about this case:

Player A1 wants item X from A2 so ... he will use player B( and player C and .... as many as he can deal with) like this :

A2 - sells X to B

B - sells X" to A1, where X" is identical but not the same as X

in this case, B would know what's he doing.

 

Now, lets do the same without B knowing :

A1 "borrows for a few days" X" from B

a few days later, B will receive a CTC with Item X by PM from A1 (the CTC would be from A2).

 

Now, can you tell me how can you identify this ? Unless I make daily item  dumps and check old transactions ... I fail to see how this can be done.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

From what I can tell, that's just going around the houses whilst not actually breaking any rules.

 

There are 2 identical X in the scenario, so X with ID 1 and X with ID2. B could give his to A1 and A2 could give his to B, that's a straight line of the system you've described? What's the problem? MD still gets 2 credits, there are still 2 items.

 

Its not swapping out that's the issue, it's passing items from one to the other in a way that detriments MD financially due to creating multiple characters to increase your own collection probability. I can't see that your scenario causes that. You scenario only indicates that by having alts, everyone's probability levels go up - which is unavoidable.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding?

 

Z

[Ary Endleg]

No, it's a sophisticaed fencing.

 

Basically No one is describing this scenario:

 

ChewA has Mechanical heart, but ChewB wants that item. Mur also has Mechanical heart (MH). So Chew makes a deal with Mur so that Mur passes his MH to ChewB, to compensete for Mur's loss of MH, ChewA will pass his MH to Mur.

Mur still has MH, ChewA doesn't have MH but ChewB now has MH.

 

Alt abuse can't be detected because MH that ChewA had isn't same as the one that ChewB got, due to different item ID which is used for tracking in logs.

 

So yes, as far as I see it, No one is right to be concerned.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

Then I haven't misunderstood, the scenario is exactly as I thought it was and described initially - and I still don't think you're right. The game isn't detrimented as I said, the argument is faulty logic.

 

You are arguing about a probability factor that is inherent in having alts in any way shape or form, not about an abuse. If you don't think alts should be allowed at all, that's something different.

 

Z

[Ary Endleg]

I don't understand you. In my eyes that's cheating the game out of 1 credit at least.

 

To me it's a straight alt abuse, one account got something from another for nothing.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

In the game we have the facility to trade for coins etc, or to pass items. People get items for nothing all the time without paying credits. One account getting something from another for nothing is not alt abuse unless it's from an alt, which, as there are two separate versions of X, this is not.

 

The game still received the necessary credits, items simply got passed around. Nothing was directly handed through from an alt to an alt to the game's detriment. It's a clever scenario, granted, but in actuality because there are 2 different versions of X, neither of which at any point hit all 3 people involved, there is no abuse, as the movement is in pairs and the pairs are never alts.

 

Z

[Ary Endleg]

LOL?

 

So lets say I get a Morph on my alt and want it to go to my main. I arrange a trade with my friend, he gives his morph for my main and my alt gives him my morph. Technically I transfered Morph from alt to main. Same thing I explained above with items. I don't understand how that's not an abuse.

 

Basically if I were to use that same method to tranfer gold coin from alt to main. You would claim it's not an abuse because coins had different ID. By your logic money laundering is totally legal.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

By the definition of 'technically', then lets be clear here 'technically' you didn't transfer a morph from your alt to your main, that's the point. 'Technically' your alt transferred a morph to another character, and that character transferred a different Morph to your main.

 

Non-technically you can argue your point, but it isn't one of rules and logic, its one of emotion and your personal morality system. Which is fine, but it isn't against any rule.

 

You are using a term that has no relevance to try to justify false logic. Money laundering is where ill-gotten means get funneled via a business to appear legal. The items in question are not ill gotten in any way, it isn't comparable. The alt bought or acquired the item legitimately, the middle man also bought or acquired the item legitimately, the two people then made trades in pairs. Its more comparable to a bank than money laundering.

 

Z

[DARK DEMON]

Just to point out, creature trades have also probably been conducted for years via this "middle-man" method, Ary.. its definitely not limited to RP items and it didn't start now. Are you gonna go back and undo all those now?

 

 

I definitely agree with Z, its not something that can be called a direct abuse as such, its just a clever workaround and its something that's difficult to prevent (just like in RL, there are always crimes that you can't prevent). On the other hand, its also a risk because if someone who spends enough time and effort to check logs for such cases catches you and has evidence, you can get into trouble (again, like in RL, you have to try and make an effort to prevent a stealthy crime, its not all automated). So yeah: you _have_ the ability to prevent these middle-man trades, but you're too lazy to make an effort to do it and blame the system as usual. Stop complaining, make it fun in some way, turn this into a role, whatever!

 

(The above is meant to be encouraging, not degrading. Its kind of obvious that if you want to prevent "middle-man" trades through coding or automated method, a _lot_ of trading will become restricted and it might cause major problems later on, eg: I award Azrafar a silver coin for a quest and two years later he buys a creature from my alt and happens to give back the same silver coin...)

Edited February 14, 2015 by DARK DEMON

[dst]

Idiotic thinking (if by hazardous means I can call that thinking)  as always, dd. That is ABUSE.

With the new items the chances for "illegal" tradings which DO cost money (money that can be spent on server/ads/etc) are higher. It would be perfectly fine if we would NOT have the free credits.Especially now that the incentives have been raised.

 

There are people in this game who used alts to vote daily and gain credits which they used for all sorts of stuff including buying crits/items in the shop and then trading to main (some were caught, some were not due to the fact that it happened when logs did not exist) etc etc.

 

And yes, I am all for the restricted trading. The coin example is petty.

[Jubaris]

Z, Ary is right.

By the current rigirous anti-alt admin system of beliefs, the situations you are describing are alt abuse.

 

You can justifiably argue that it shouldn't be that way, but not that it isn't that way because it is.

 

Z, you argued:

If you don't think alts should be allowed at all, that's something different.

 

 

The game indeed wants you not to make alts. It's not openly forbidden, but it encourages you not to with a long list of announcements that go into that direction.

 

In the situations you were describing, you can make countless alts and get countless "free shuffles" thus 'robbing' the game of those credits. Not to mention credits bonus for new accounts (not sure is that being taken care of).

How did ChewB get that item in the first place that ChewA wants, that is the question that can save or condemn all Chew models.

 

There are cases where items are passed along via alts when it's not abuse, or that can be argued to be safe from prosecution.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

Rhaegar, show me the rules that back up your stance and I will agree with you, but for now, what I know is alts cannot trade between each other directly or via a middle man.

 

That rule above, does not include two separate items. It is about a singular item and it is for the reason you mentioned surrounding shuffling, personal probability increase, and MD profit gains. 

 

I agree with DD in what he said.

 

Additionally, if two individuals managed to work together to get the same items en mass on two accounts to create a factory line of 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 transfers, then a) id be impressed, that would take a lot of work, and b) it would still generate a ton of money for MD with all the necessary shuffling.

 

I fail to see how this breaks any existing technical rule, nor how it is detrimental. It is as I said, an inherent situation caused via having alts in a game at all.

 

Z

 

ed: just seen your post dst - the free credits thing is true but with the sheer volume of items, coupled with how long it would take for two accounts to get the same sets of items for this singular purpose. I don't see it as relevant.

Edited February 14, 2015 by (Zl-eye-f)-nea

[dst]

 

ed: just seen your post dst - the free credits thing is true but with the sheer volume of items, coupled with how long it would take for two accounts to get the same sets of items for this singular purpose. I don't see it as relevant.

 

What stops an alt to trade for what the main wants? It EASY to get same items on 2 accounts.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

I could go on forever saying why it is or isn't easy and that would take up waaaaay too much time over something that frankly I think is not a big issue and shouldn't have been raised in the first place. If you feel its easy, and its wrong, as I said its a moral opinion. I'm not going to care one way or another if it becomes against the rules for the record - but I do think the logic is faulty personally - and unless someone can show me a rule that states otherwise, currently it isn't breaking any rule.

 

Z

[dst]

Maybe it's time for a new rule since the alts transfer one has a loophole.

[DARK DEMON]

The loopholes were there for a long time.

 

What stopped alt A from paying for a creature and getting the CTC, but using the CTC and getting the creature on alt B?

Edited February 14, 2015 by DARK DEMON

[Sunfire]

Logs of item/creatures

[Jubaris]

Z: It includes two singular items as an abuse as well via "common sense" rule appliable to everything, depending of the whim and mood of the one who is calling the shoots. If the subject somehow catches Mur's interest, and we get a concrete case of this, I doubt that the accused one would succeed to explain to Mur that the deed wasn't cheating, and that two separate items/morphs/whatever are a whole different matter.

 

MD perspective is that we should try to prove people aren't alts, rather than proving they are alts. I'm not assuming is this right or wrong, just that it is so. 

 

http://magicduel.com/page/Announcement/view/1214

 

This internet caffe and student campus thing is quite eye catching in that direction, I'm not sure is the same thing applied to regular alt checker system, if it is then it is clear that MD is preventing advantages of having an alt on the expense of the possibility of people encouraging their close ones to play MD with them.

Maybe I'm jumping with the conclusions too much, I need to get some infos on that alt checker, but I felt it was implied it used whatever means it could to connect two players.

 

No adepting, no attacking, no trading... Etc. Basically, you want an alt, you have to cut it off from your other character as much as possible, no interaction, that's the way I see it in regards to MD rules.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

Whilst you think this is "common sense", I don't, at all. In fact I find the whole thing completely ridiculous if I'm honest. To me the flaws are patently obvious. To me, your version of "common sense" is insanity caused by group hysteria. That's not me being offensive, that's just my personal opinion, not on you, but on the topic.

 

When someone is abusing something, it is clear. It is, as you say, something we all see based on "common sense". This, I'm afraid, is not one of those times in my eyes. Not with the current stipulations that have been made. Currently, proponents are arguing that there should be no alts, without realising it. I'm totally open to a view that changes my opinion also for the record - dst made a very fair point about free credits for example, and discussions about how easy multiple item acquisition is may well help change my opinion.

 

One example: A1 gives B a Morph in 2009. B gives A2 a different Morph in 2015. Clearly not abuse to my "common sense", but to some of you, it is. Yes this is an extreme example, but that seems to be one of the only ways to get the point across right now.

 

Z

[dst]

The problem is not really about crits. It's about those new items. Hence why the idea was brought up for discussion now and not when the alts trading was forbidden.

[Sasha Lilias]

I'm so tired of reading about alt "abuse".

 

Firstly who is to say that using an alt account is "abuse". If I wish to spend time on two or three accounts to power up my main account, then I should be able to. Just like anyone else could. What I do on three or four alts could quite easily be reciprocated by a hundred others.

 

Games are not fair. If fairness was a part of the game then the MDShop items that grant insane bonuses (when used correctly) would not be there.

 

It is through the complaining and whining of others that it's become such a "bad" thing to do. (Yes! Just like depleting; before someone else brings it up.)

 

Obvious things such as giving Wishpoints to alts, yes, I agree that's ridiculous (yes I'm fully aware I've done so in the past.) But spending time, effort and money to make one account amazing? I'm sorry that's not "abuse" that's called using the system to your advantage.

 

There is no unfair advantage from using an alt, anyone is more than capable of doing so. Also, considering the amount of effort that would be required to change anything drastically on a main account...Kudos to them for trying.

 

---

 

I'm aware this'll probably get a load of neg reps or whatever but this "alt abuse" nonsense is ridiculous. Use what you have at your disposal in life...it'll make things a heck of a lot easier.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sasha Lilias

[Ary Endleg]

 

You are using a term that has no relevance to try to justify false logic. Money laundering is where ill-gotten means get funneled via a business to appear legal. The items in question are not ill gotten in any way, it isn't comparable. The alt bought or acquired the item legitimately, the middle man also bought or acquired the item legitimately, the two people then made trades in pairs. Its more comparable to a bank than money laundering.

 

 Not if the sole acquisition of that item by alt was to circumvent the shuffle mechanism of shop or alt restriction when voting. Moreover the whole trade chain was done for purpose of bypassing alt trade system.

 

Excuse me for using the word "technically", I wanted to say "basically". Technically/literally, Z you are correct, but I highly doubt this reasoning would stand if it were reported on MD Court. You can argue technicality in here but if such situation were to happen, Mur, Chew, BFH and Grido would definitely call it abuse.

 

Bigger issue is what when situation is more foggy/complex?

 

That rule above, does not include two separate items. It is about a singular item and it is for the reason you mentioned surrounding shuffling, personal probability increase, and MD profit gains.

 

Items are SAME only thing that makes them different is ID. Which means that this is "laundering". You exchange the "dirty" item for SAME/IDENTICAL "clean" item. My alt gives you gold coin, while you give my main other gold coin with other ID. This is "clearly" against rules. It might not be said explicitly but there are many ways courts IRL interpret laws, literal interpretation is the only one that agrees with you. Luckily courts know that legislative tends to be clumsy when writing laws that's why there are logical, systematical, scientifical, caustical, lingvistical, historical, etc. methods of interpreting laws. You can just call this a loophole as dst said. Rhaegar explained it further.

[hr]

 

All I know that issue raised is against the rules, if not by literally, or to some of you not logically, it's definitely in spirit because there's certain behavior it's meant to prevent. That's all it matters.

 

Z pointed out some nice examples and reasoning. So yes I agree making more restrictions would make it only harder for abusers but can't prevent them in end while it would restrict player freedom more and more.

 

Unfortunately although I'm against all this abuses, I know very well that MD is powerless to prevent them.

 

They can't stop many of those abuses. I could list a dozen of high profile abuses that "can't" get you caught, unless they are monitoring you for a year and making a detailed investigation and have all the reasoning for each of your transactions etc. (Basically it would take resources of a whole police station on murder investigation).

 

[hr]

 

 

There is no unfair advantage from using an alt, anyone is more than capable of doing so. Also, considering the amount of effort that would be required to change anything drastically on a main account...Kudos to them for trying.

 

How about using alts for grind farm? Creature aging? Multiplication of free creds which results in increased buying power and then getting those items laundered to main?

 

Sasha you spent a large sum of money on shop, right? So would it be fair if I cheat out the system for 1000 credits without donating a dime? I don't think so.