Cappy

It's the OOC deception that's the issue. If a player wants to walk around and sell fake tomes by deceiving others in-character, that's up to them. But simply slapping a false name on a book and selling it through a plugin with impunity is not permitted any more.

If that's the case I'll have Sporadic rectify that ASAP.

G'day, ladies and gentlemen. Today I come to address an issue that has arisen with the otherwise fantastic Auctioneer plugin, courtesy of Sporadic. Most of you are probably aware, in fact many of you have probably been a victim of of "scam" or "trolly" books that have been popping up for sale all over the place recently via the auction house plugin that are given a seemingly legitimate title to fool unwary buyers. For example - After a quick discussion amongst GMs and admins, we have come to the conclusion that this is an infraction of our rules! Specifically, the following rule: "If attempting to falsify an identity and take up a mock 'position' of importance or value (such as a guard), your name cannot simply be changed in order to perfectly emulate the role (such as "Guard_Jeff"). Instead, it should be through deceptive roleplay and not simply a /setname change." This rule applies to all kinds of deception, not just false identities. You are not allowed to decieve other players through out-of-characters means, such as a legitimate-sounding book title on a trolly book. Henceforth, selling "scam" books like these in the auction house will be treated as a violation of our rules. This is up to GM discretion so if you're unsure about your book, take the safe path. For the near future, we'll be offering refunds on "scam" books such as these, but make sure to screenshot every step of your purchase, or we won't be able to do it! Your screenshots need to clearly demonstrate what you bought, for what price and who the seller is. This is so we can validate your purchase, refund you the correct amount and catch the seller. If you have bought a book such as these, and have the evidence, all you need do is submit a modreq and wait for a GM to assist you. This is the amount of evidence we'd like you to take when you buy a book, just to be safe! If you're using 1.7.2 and can't use F2 to take screenshots, you can press Printscreen to grab your current screen and paste it into any image editor to get screenshots. If you want to sell "scam" books like these, you have two options! You can either travel around and sell them in-character (instead of via the auction houses) so you can actually RP deception, or you can put some more work into them so they're no longer worthless. The choice is yours! Keep reading everybody, it's good for you. Cappy out.

Enchanted weapons don't come from lore posts, they come from the enchantment plugin which is available to everyone.

Player Whitelisted

Player Whitelisted

Player Whitelisted

Player Whitelisted

Player Whitelisted

Player Whitelisted

For the record, the reason it displays "other" as the warn reason and you can't see the note is because they were made before we updated the forums which changed how warns worked so all old ones look like that now. The warnings I gave you were for necroing a thread and posting on someone else's ban appeal.

The problem is, alts aren't the root of these problems. I've argued against this before. Let me break this down... This is entirely incorrect. People create and develop characters at their own pace. Someone who does not develop characters well won't develop characters well, regardless of how many characters they have or how many they're restricted to. It falls onto the player and no one else to develop their character, and while they can be encouraged to do so by other role-players, restricting characters doesn't make people better at developing their characters. What does make them better at developing characters? Role-playing. Doesn't matter what character they're role-playing, just role-playing experience is what makes someone better and role-playing and subsequently developing characters. In addition, restricting alts based on accounts owned is a silly prospect. I have more Minecraft accounts than most people, so for some reason that entitles me to play more characters simply because I spent more money? That's effectively charging $30 per character card. Going down this route it makes a lot more sense to make them a VIP perk, but I'll elaborate on why I think that's a bad idea later. This has nothing to do with alts. One player online and role-playing is one player online and role-playing, no matter where they're role-playing. It's hardly spreading role-play, and in fact encourages people to make reasons for people to role-play in their city. If someone isn't role-playing in your city, it's not because they have alts, it's because somewhere else is more interesting to role-play for them. If people enjoy playing in wars they can play in wars. Running around in a large PvP clickfest is hardly character development. Now this is more reasonable, however it's still flawed. You're trying to argue why alts are bad, then suggesting giving them to people who pay money. Assuming your reasons above are valid (which I do not believe they are), how does someone paying money make them a better role-player who will develop characters better and make them more trusted to role-play multiple characters correctly? Money should have no connection to alts at all because, well, it doesn't. Race: Elf/setinfo Actual race is human, ignore above. This is what happened when /setrace was restricted (remember Aegis/Asulon when card resets were a VIP perk?)

Player Whitelisted

If you log into the account Angrygorillaman in-game and message me, I'll give you the email the account is registered to.

Did you try resetting your password?

What exactly is the issue? Do you no longer have access to the account's email?

Can you link the profile of the account?

Enough.

This players questions have been answered and the situation resolved. Should you wish to have this reopened, please PM me your reasons why it should be so.