Jump to content
PLAY NOW

not loza

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

not loza last won the day on October 21 2020

not loza had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah I agree ultimately this will be used mainly in the GIM community. I can see the pros and cons to restricting account sharing to certain game modes.
  2. @Izay Again from my perspective I don't know what account monitoring measures are available to you guys and I don't want you to hint at them or anything. but if accounts are already being monitored for IPs that they log in from. I fully understand that there will be some grey areas that would arise from the introduction of account sharing. There would be no way to accurately predict the number of malicious use to legitimate use. I believe that the legitimate use would far out way the malicious and have a better effect on the community. Either way its a personal choice to share data as much as its personal choice not to look after your online data. Hackers will still exist whether account sharing is allowed or not. My example of how to differentiate between the two: Account sharing example: Day 1: IP 1 - IP 2 Day 2: IP 1 - IP 2 Day 3: IP 1 - IP 2 Day 4: IP 1 - IP 2 Day 5: IP 1 - IP 2 Day 6: IP 1 - IP 2 - Account owner reports to staff that his account/items have been compromised. In this example its clear that the account has been shared and then staff would respond that with the rule change the risk of sharing account details is held with account owner and nothing would be done about it. Manicous example: Day 1: IP 1 Day 2: IP 1 Day 3: IP 1 Day 4: IP 1 Day 5: IP 1 Day 6: IP 1 - IP 2 - Account owner reports to staff that his account/items have been compromised. This would be a clear example of malicious intent. (again this is based on speculation of staff powers to monitor accounts)
  3. @Flux So my counter point against these would be as follows: Why should the staff have to deal with people if there account details are compromised in the first place? If a player chooses to allow other player to share their account then they would accept that risk of the account/items being hijacked as they have been distributed. In the cases of accounts that have been hijacked maliciously the probable cause of this will be down to the account creators failure to secure the account in the first place. If that is from a PC that has been compromised (RATed/keylogged etc). Using compromised emails and passwords which have been affected/compromised by database leaks all of which are prevalent in the RSPS community and have been for years. In the terms of staff tools available to the team, I don't know if you would be able to track IPs against accounts and be able to distinguish between; A - an account which has had a history of people sharing over a period of time and B - an account which has been accessed by 1 person and then an event of another player accessing the account and harming said account. In terms of player account recovery I believe players can't change their email address through the website (correct me if I am wrong just had a quick look through the security settings). So players if they have registered a valid email address will be able to reset their password via this method. So overall in conclusion: If we was able to account share: Add a sticky post educating players on better online data security, (I would be happy to help with this) as this would be the most probable cause of a compromised account. Players would own the risk of account sharing. Depending on staff tools available I believe IP activity would be able to be used to identify patterns in account activity and distinguish between an account which has been shared and one that has been hacked.
  4. I support the monitoring of accounts if the staff are running events for prizes that will help maintain competition. This would just be monitored for the period of the event as they having to currently with all the accounts in game to check for account sharing.
  5. Thanks for the support! I would like to see what some of the staff members would think about changing these rules as well!
  6. Yes i can see the difficulty in managing the account services if they would not be allowed. I do not see any issues with services myself especially as items such as the inferno can be gained by most players with early game gear and are not that exclusive among the player base.
  7. Defiantly. If you give your info to someone you don't 100% trust don't be surprised if you get scammed. Plus there is also a rule to cover scamming in game as well.
  8. Agreed the main thing would be not to increase work load on staff members.
  9. I am proposing a change to rule 10 regarding account sharing. After discussing with a number of discord members in the suggestions chat I am formally proposing a suggestion to amend the rules around account sharing. Currently account sharing is against game rules, I suggest that that we should amend this to allow players to share there account information with people if they so choose too. Conditions: This will be 100% at the players risk and the staff will not aid in issues regarding hijacked accounts/stolen items when the account details have been shared. A larger emphasis on rule 11 on multi logging. This will ensure account sharing can't be abused for GIM team gain etc. Reasons for this suggestion are: Allow GIM easier access to shared items if they have not been put into the chest. But obviously if there is a team that does not wish to share items the chest is still a viable option. This will bring it into align with other popular servers and also OSRS. Even though it isn't condoned on oldschool, its over looked as people often share different accounts for pk builds etc. Possible issues: Increased risk of scamming. (this would be combatted by the condition of the player accepting 100% risk if they choose to share account information.) People may encourage players to start to offer account services such as Inferno. (my opinion on this issue is that if somebody is looking for an account services currently they will get said services no matter the current stand point on the issue. If the changes to rule 10 were implemented we could have a poll whether to allow the services or police them like the current rule 10 is being policed.) Conclusion: Overall I believe that account sharing should be allowed. This is down to the judgement of the player if they want to share the information and accept responsibility for the account and the actions of players who have access to it. To help gauge how players feel about this proposed change I am going to link two polls. The 1st poll will be whether players would like to change rule 10 and allow account sharing. The 2nd will be whether players would like to allow account services into the game. Poll 1: https://strawpoll.com/ybou34jyb (account sharing) Poll 2: https://strawpoll.com/of4ca3f32 (account services) Any feedback, further suggestions or possible issues please leave a response below. Not Loza
  10. I have attempted to log into my group iron man account "not loza" which has been disabled. The reason for this will have been under the issue of account sharing. I understand how this can be detrimental to the game integrity of a group ironman account eg farming supplies on one account to supply another ect. The reason that I purely logged into a group members account was to put a shared item into the group chest as the member wasn't online. This was to no personal gain of the group. It wasn't used to farm items or xp just simply share items. I understand that this is currently against the rules but there are far bigger issues in the GIM community such as selling items.

Powered by Invision Community