Account Sharing

[le harry]

Hi,

Young Thomas would never dream about doing anything to bully, intimidate or hurt another member of the forum through verbal abuse, however a simple misunderstanding with his god-awful brother led to Crag gaining access to Tom's account and getting FlyingJesus banned permanently :'(. No clue how that warrants a ban, but I thought I may aswell put a poll up to see how many people agree / disagree with the ban and situations such as this should be punished with a permanent ban.

I can see the risks with staff members sharing accounts, and I have no sympathy. But honestly, Tom's account was banned for apparently an incident involving a friend logging on Tom's account months ago and then getting punished for it several months later after it even happened? Even so, if the user starts to cause trouble which would be punishable with a ban then so be it - but I fail to see the harm in Tom's case.

Anyways.. vote Yes / No to whether you would like to see Tom unbanned and whether this whole account sharing business is much too strict on occasions like this. I'm incredibly tired so excuse moi if my sentance structure and spelling is horrible. :P

Ta x

[Earthquake]

The account is now unbanned, thank you for your corrporation in this issue, we will contact KKK with issue of warrent to search the premesis for his brother and hold him for as long as we can for information regarding this situation

Damien, KKK.

[Superman]

ROFL oh Harry you're a babe. Don't know about getting the whole rule changed as I can see why they banned the account, but yeah I'd like my own ban reviewed due to circumstance haha. As I've said elsewhere I've sent off to Contact Us twice now with no reply, be interesting to see what the members think lol. Loving you xoxo

[le harry]

Haha, wasn't implying the whole rule to be change, just altered with situations like yours x.

[Catzsy]

Well I do believe that the ban was way too harsh myself.


FlyingJesus was an extremely established account which is nearly two years old and Tom, to my knowledge, has never been in much trouble with it. He is also an asset to the forum being very proactive, helpful and contributes both intelligently and articulately.

Link to profile:

http://habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24753

Have you also noticed someone had voted no without saying why? Awful if they can't back up their own vote IMHO.

Now lets consider the rule he was given a perm ban for.

A36. Do not sell, trade, donate, share or buy forum accounts. - We will not tolerate accounts being shared, sold, traded or donated. Any accounts that are for sale or have been sold or traded or given away will be permanently banned.

This was introduced if my memory serves me right because somebody(anonimity preserved)traded/ sold of the highest rep accounts to somebody else on the forum who used it to spam and I do believe, if my memory serves me correctly, to use the good reputation and standing of the account to scam several people in trading. No doubt at all that completely deserved a perm ban.

In this situation somebody got on the account without Tom's knowledge via a third party. It doesn't matter if it was his brother who gave the pass away or not it was still without his knowledge. This equates to a hacking basically where surely a safety ban could have been an appropriate option until the circumstances had been looked into.

Also the rule does not cover this even if it was to be considered to be account sharing - it only says that those that are for sale or have been sold/traded will be giving a perm ban.

I hope the person who got onto his account,without's Tom's knowledge, probably with no malicious intention, and did it for a laugh, will support this thread too.

This was really bought home to me yesterday when I couldn't access my account and I was really panicing thinking that if somebody had got on it how could i prove I wasn't account sharing myself? Luckily Jay(OSH) and Jimi were around to help me swiftly.

This has been in the complaints forum but seems to be slipping away as its on the second page now so I really support this thread and the benefit of the doubt should be given to this member who is a very valued member. Thanks:)

Link to Tom's thread:http://habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=437262

[L!nK..]

Unban him :'(

[GhostFace-]

unban him pls.

[dannyisnotamazing]

I hereby am with Harreth on this matter.

[WarezKid]

Ye it going somewhere isnit ;/

[Pat McGroin]

I think it should be reviewed cos Tom's brother is a prat. Also, it was many months ago and nothing bad happened to it, no trouble or anything was caused when I went on it. I don't even think I posted on it.

If you perm Tom, then there's plenty of other accounts you need to perm. Tom never got banned I don't think?

[WarezKid]

I think it should be reviewed cos Tom's brother is a prat. Also, it was many months ago and nothing bad happened to it, no trouble or anything was caused when I went on it. I don't even think I posted on it.

If you perm Tom, then there's plenty of other accounts you need to perm. Tom never got banned I don't think?


you went on it?

[Pat McGroin]

you went on it?

Nor! I just said I did cos I could. :rolleyes:

[Roboevil]

What exactly happened? By what I've seen, although it seems an unfair ban on FlyingJesus' part, it was done through reasonable rules. It just seems an unlucky coinsidence to me.

[Catzsy]

Yes the rules are reasonable if you intentionally share an account particuarly if you are staff but basically anybody whose account is accessed without their permission is at risk of a ban if this ban is upheld. I hope it can be re-considered.

[buttons]

shouldn't the person that went on his account be permed not him?!

[Roboevil]

Yes the rules are reasonable if you intentionally share an account particuarly if you are staff but basically anybody whose account is accessed without their permission is at risk of a ban if this ban is upheld. I hope it can be re-considered.
If that's the case then it's his own fault for exposing his account to other people.

shouldn't the person that went on his account be permed not him?!
There's no way to factually prove who did it though is there?

[buttons]

they could check the ip's? :S idk.

[Superman]

Yeah it was proven to be Craig and he admits it anyway lol - in fact it was by going through his IP that I got banned in the first place because he kept making new accounts haha. Anyway I didn't expose my account, my brother was keylogging the family computer which I obviously didn't know about. Gonna PM Sierk I reckon because I've had no reply from Contact Us and I've sent off twice through that and been told the message isn't there

[Pat McGroin]

What I don't get is why other people never got permed. I posted on someone elses account a lot.

[Catzsy]

Yeah it was proven to be Craig and he admits it anyway lol - in fact it was by going through his IP that I got banned in the first place because he kept making new accounts haha. Anyway I didn't expose my account, my brother was keylogging the family computer which I obviously didn't know about. Gonna PM Sierk I reckon because I've had no reply from Contact Us and I've sent off twice through that and been told the message isn't there

Well not a bad idea. Give him the links to the relevant threads. :)

[nvrspk4]

Hey,

I've edited the thread (as you can see.)

Bans are not up to appeal by committee. If you wish to discuss possible rule changes for situations like these, you can suggest rule changes and explain them. That's all well and good.

However you shouldn't start a discussion thread on the specific ban. Its against the rules ;)

nvr

[sierk1]

I agree that members should only get banned for account sharing when they deliberately give out their password to somebody else. Not when they stay logged in on their pc and a family member goes on, or when they get hacked.

For staff members we are more strict though, it's their duty to make sure that nobody, including family, gets on their account.

[Alkaz]

maybe their can be a feature when you make an account that says you are a shared account? and its aloud on them accs but not on others?

[fweggy]

EdHawks got banned because a friend went on is account just to say good luck to BobX. How is that a banning offense?

[sierk1]

EdHawks got banned because a friend went on is account just to say good luck to BobX. How is that a banning offense?

If EdHawks gave out his pass on purpose to his friend he should be banned for it, it is clearly against our rules (and I think it's the same on a lot of forums / websites).

[fweggy]

He didnt, his mate was at his house, and wanted to say good luck to bobx....

[sierk1]

He didnt, his mate was at his house, and wanted to say good luck to bobx....

If he didn't give out his pass but somebody went on his computer while he was still logged on I don't think he should be banned for it, maybe warned to be more careful.

[Neversoft]

He didnt, his mate was at his house, and wanted to say good luck to bobx....

Huh, what are you saying? He got banend because he let his friend go on his account, but his friend was at his house? Surely it would be on the same computer then, the IP would still be the same, no one would have known his friend was on his account.

Unless you mean to say his friend went on his own account on the same PC. Then it would look like the IP's are same on both accounts. If so, thats unfair.

[dannyisnotamazing]

I don't understand why sierk says "I don't think he should be banned for it.. " etc. It's your forum :S If you think it's unfair, unban them.

[FlyingJesus]

I saw no sense in making a new thread about it, but just a quick note of thanks to Sierk and management for getting this swiftly sorted (once I'd managed to get a message through :P) and also thanks to those members who have been supporting me, love@you :)

[Catzsy]

OMG! Great to see you back FJ! *Love* +welcome back rep when I can for thanking everybody:)

[L!nK..]

Welcome back ;)

[bo$$]

Hey,

I've edited the thread (as you can see.)

Bans are not up to appeal by committee. If you wish to discuss possible rule changes for situations like these, you can suggest rule changes and explain them. That's all well and good.

However you shouldn't start a discussion thread on the specific ban. Its against the rules ;)

nvr

Telling people they broke the rules is also breaking the rules :eusa_whis

[reindeer.]

dunno what prat banned him.

and yeah.
@ above, this shows what a load of **** the rules are.

[nvrspk4]

EdHawks got banned because a friend went on is account just to say good luck to BobX. How is that a banning offense?

Because his friend shouldn't have gone on his account, and EdHawks shouldn't have permitted it. That's account sharing :P


He didnt, his mate was at his house, and wanted to say good luck to bobx....

Why didn't his friend log onto his account then? Especially when a member is staff, we can't have them allowing others to log onto their account. Btw it makes me a tad suspicious that you say you were at his house and he says he was at your house ;)


Telling people they broke the rules is also breaking the rules :eusa_whis

Not when you're as uber as I am :8


dunno what prat banned him.

and yeah.
@ above, this shows what a load of **** the rules are.

In case you didn't notice, we recognized and fixed the mistake. At the time of ban we had no way of knowing a sibling was involved ;)

[Orangeesh]

bit like bush

bomb first, ask questions later
with you its ban first, ask questions later

[le harry]

for the people who voted no - care to explain why? =/

[bo$$]

Not when you're as uber as I am :8


o thats lame. So rules are only really in effect for people who aren't staff?

[dannyisnotamazing]

o thats lame. So rules are only really in effect for people who aren't staff?
I'd say the one about telling people the broke the rules doesn't apply to mods/high staff because moderators have to tell people they've broke rules lol..

[---MAD---]

o thats lame. So rules are only really in effect for people who aren't staff?
Not all staff. Moderators, administrators, super moderators and management ;). I would have thought thats pretty obvious myself.

[nvrspk4]

bit like bush

bomb first, ask questions later
with you its ban first, ask questions later

No, but if we stopped to ask everyone, well, did you have your brother give your password somehow to another member on the forum who then accessed yoru account? People would make up stories all the time. All the evidence pointed towards the ban to be fair.

However, we have the ability to "ban first and ask questions later" because we have the ability to reverse that ban and get rid of all side-effects.


o thats lame. So rules are only really in effect for people who aren't staff?

Well obviously Mods, SMods, and Administrators have to be able to tell others they broke the rules. Otherwise I couldn't edit people's posts. However the other rules do apply to us. Just the don't tell others that they have broken the rules doesn't apply to us:


B4. Do NOT comment on others breaking the Forum rules - Only Administrators and Moderators are allowed to deal with posts breaking the forum rules and only by editing the post in question. Do not post a message in which you tell another forum member they have broken the forum rules. Don't post a message in which you ask for another forum member to get banned or unbanned. If you think there has been a rule broken, click on the "Report Bad Post" icon at the top right of that post and explain the problem. If your problem is not about one particular post, you can also PM (private message) a Super Moderator with a brief description and some details of the problem (add a link if possible) then he/she will look into it.

[Ed.]

Yeah EdHawks got banned for this very reason :)

REVIEW IT and UNBAN people who were banned for it :)

[Pat McGroin]

Yeah EdHawks got banned for this very reason :)

REVIEW IT and UNBAN people who were banned for it :)

Is there any evidence? Because his "friend" used EdHawks' PC.

[Ed.]

No there's no evidence, except for my word and his (Me and Fweggy)

[FlyingJesus]

Not when you're as uber as I am :8

:o staff members being allowed to tell normal members what a rule is? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE.


bit like bush

bomb first, ask questions later
with you its ban first, ask questions later

It's not exactly a wonderful idea to find every troublemaker and sit them down for a chat about it before banning them, it's a precautionary measure. As I've said throughout, I didn't dispute the fact that the ban happened, it was just an occasion which I felt needed to be reviewed separately due to circumstance (luckily they agreed :D). It's not the same as bombing as clearly I'm back with no damage done.