im pretty sure my little brother has come on here a few times when i wasn't home and lost me 50 points on a 0 table does that make me a cheater?

also, just out of curiosity where can I find this list of rules that says sharing accounts is illegal?

not gonna lie, im gonna have to agree with my man Veta and say Bone-Roller is stupid and just wants to flex his new mod muscles. i dont really care though because I don't share accounts, but i dont see how a few kids sharing an account (regardless of their motives) affects ME as a kdicer and makes my environment any different. When it does, then a ban or reset at the end of the month does the same thing that this fascist psycho PERMA BAN (zomg) would do, accept it would skip all the fun.

B-R you need to change this rule so that only the people involved in the cheating get a perma-ban. In 2007 I gave one of my alts to veta at 0 points and he brought it to 120k.. but he was the only one that earned the points and it was only played by 1 person that month. Should either one of us had our main account banned?

What if someone uses an alt that I gave them access to 2.5 years ago to win a 0 table because they're bored one day (while at the same time I'm in a members tourney on fiero600 account).

By your logic I would have my main account perma-banned for this?

sup Jesse.

To be honest, all of this discussion the prohibition of shared accounts is tangential. The penalty of permaban for shared accounts preexists my tenure as a mod and is well established. My corollary to this rule is simply that, in addition to banning the shared account itself, the people involved in running the shared account will also be punished.

Everybody knows shared accounts are against the rules, so don't create them. As to an account that was sold, traded, stolen, or given away a long time ago, its behavior at this time would be that of a solo account. As long as only one player is operating the account, there should be no cause for concern.

@ Greek: my advice to you with regard to your login info is the same that Gandalf gave to Frodo concerning the One Ring, "Keep it secret, keep it safe." The rule is that each account is played by only one player. I didn't create that rule, but it is my job to enforce it.

My policy is simply that alts do not commit offenses, players do. If a player commits a serious offense, then he/she should be punished across the board, not simply by banning a single alt that may have been created as a throw-away in the first place. If you want to play, then "be nice".

Don't steal, disseminate, or use other player's login data. That is not nice.

Don't create accounts that impersonate other players and appear to be intended to make other players believe that the original player is operating the fake. That is not nice.

Don't PGA. That is not nice.

Don't use hate language, go on excessive vitriolic rants that continue unreasonably, spam the chat box during games, post excessively nasty things in the forums that have no purpose other than to offend. None of that is nice.

Don't conspire with other players to game the system and create a disadvantage to the general player population. Conspiracies are not nice.

Don't use proxy ips. While it is not necessarily cheating, the presumption is, and will be, that you are doing it to cheat. Proxies are not nice.

Don't funnel points. While it may be nice with regard to the recipient, it is not nice to the players competing with the recipient.

And for those who wish to argue that anything not specifically forbidden is allowed, let me state the Germanic version. ANYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED IS FORBIDDEN. Adhering to that perspective will keep you out of trouble. Loopholes that are exploited will be closed. Don't try to work outside the system. Play within the confines of the basic rule: BE NICE.

Finally, for those of you that believe that legal decisions must always be strictly objective, let me state clearly that my rulings and those of my fellow mods will always be subjective. There is no way to avoid that fact. When we make a ruling and take action, we are interpreting both the letter and the spirit of the rules. If legal decisions were always strictly objective, then no initial rulings would ever be overturned on appeal and Supreme Court decisions would always be 9-0. Obviously they are not and the opinions of the judges and justices always influence their decisions. That being said, I will always seek to act impartially and will strive to never impose any punishment capriciously. I firmly believe that the same is true of all of my fellow mods.

In the end, if you disagree with any ruling, you may always appeal to the ultimate arbiter of justice: Ryan.

well, that was a nice wall of text. i skimmed thru it. i guess i gotta agree, although i don't know if permanently banning people is ever a good idea. we're a tight knit community here, and everyone likes each other, including the cheaters. without them, kdice wouldn't be the motley crew that it is

bones a shitty mod, nuff said

look how just about every little kid who has to win so bad at an on line game, they cheat is squirming right now.

proof enough to me its a good precedent.

veta is the kid on here who probably needs to grow up the most. just shut the fuck up kid. you make no sense. your analogies are logically invalid. you care way too much. just stop cheating. its really not that hard. whiny little shit trying to compare sharing an account in a free game to owning a gun. jesus christ. you're retarded.

ok i read everything.

permaban greek, his brother played a 0 table on his account. i always knew he was a cheating scumbag.

> If legal decisions were always strictly objective, then no initial rulings would ever be overturned on appeal and Supreme Court decisions would always be 9-0.

Interesting to see you invoke comparisons to the US legal system to support your backwards logic.

> ANYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED IS FORBIDDEN

Too bad for you your comparisons are inconsistent. Check the out 9th amendment.

Analogies by their very nature are flawed. My suggestion: Try not to poke holes in his analogies. If you disagree, disagree with the actually point. For the record (not that anyone cares), I support BR