[Toft]

[Zebruh]

Hm. It is true. This rule has been broken before. I think an asterisk should be placed on rule 10, post-haste.
_________________
ಡ u ಡ
Ræp time.

[Farah]

[Zombie]

Whether I'm a GM or not is irrelevant, Players and GMs alike must follow the rules.
I've fully comprehended everything. But the situation is no reason to break the rules. Whether it's been done in the past or not.

I understand that Luzz may have said he would allow it if enough people backed it up, but it's still breaking the rules. Even if he was the one to create them, or at least have a hand in creating them.

Trying to insult my intelligence will do nothing, please stop.
I've done nothing to deserve it. I'm only voicing my opinion.

Rules should not be broken, no matter the situation.

[luzz]

Let me offer some clarification, since the original post and subsequent posts left out important details that I have mentioned in private.

1. The previous person who claimed items from a banned account had multiple screenshots as proof that was sufficient for proving ownership of the items. This included screenshots of ownership and the 'lending' trade. I check the chatlogs that matched the timestamps on the screenshots, and the screenshots were consistent with chatlogs. All in all, due to the screenshot proof, it did not take me long to verify the story was true, and thus the items were returned. All such previous similar situations were handled in similar ways.

2. What Toft had requested was that the banned person be allowed to verify Toft's ownership of the items. The response was that a banned person is not to be trusted and cannot be used as a source of verification. A banned person has nothing to lose, and no incentive to state the truth. We stated that IF the community agrees that a banned person is a reliable source, then we will consider going that route for return of the items - NOT to ask the public for 'proof' of Toft's ownership of said items.


The issue at hand is proof of ownership. None was presented other than a player stating he owns some items from another account. This is insufficient.


Now, to answer the people who claim preferential treatment: Here is how it works:

It is CLEARLY stated that any items loaned out are at the SOLE responsibility of the owner. In many, many cases, they will lose their items. And in many cases, that is what happens. HOWEVER, because we, the Staff team here at Reign Online actually want to help its players, in cases where players have sufficient PROOF of ownership, we spend the time to verify their story by shifting through millions (currently about 150M) lines of logs (this takes at least one hour per case). If what is stated is true, and the logs verify and matches the claimant's story, their item is returned.


Let me state the purpose of this thread. It is not for the public for verification as to who owns what because honestly, the public does not know, and deals can be made transparently among players. The purpose of this thread is to ask whether a banned person can be used for verification in a case like this, and my response was No. Apparently, the original poster felt strongly against this, so I requested that he get the public's opinion on this, and should the public agree that a banned person is a reliable source, then I will take 4 hours out of my day to shift through the logs to verify that the item(s) were not sold or traded to the banned player.


You are all free to continue discussion on this issue with this information.
_________________
Support Reign Online by voting!

[Zombie]

[Toft]

I'm sorry Luzz, I guess I missunderstood what you said.

EDIT> And I don't think that only St0rM has the items, his brother might have them too, I don't really know since they could've traded them between eachother.

EDITEDIT> Ok, only St0rM has my items, I just talked with him.

[Sir Nick]

Ok well, St0rM was seriously immature. I would NEVER lend him my cards, because I already knew the sad future he was heading towards.

However, it is exactly because I never lent him anything that I do not know if he is trustworthy or not. The only thing I know is that Toft should get a second chance.
_________________

The sir sticks to my name.

Sir Lancelot- 255 Sniper
Darkest Aura- 255 High Priest
Tuff Pimpy Nerd- 255 Assassin Cross
Sir Nick- 255 Biochemist

CREDIT GOES OUT TO OWL FOR MY AVATAR.

[Zebruh]

I've had more than a few quarrels with St0rm, and personally, I don't like him.

But I don't believe he's ever lied, on the forums. He's even changed his point of view(for the better) in some situations. Not for his benefit, either.

He gets my vote of validity.

Good luck, Toft.
_________________
ಡ u ಡ
Ræp time.

[GlitchyVirus]

I would have to say that, chances are, a banned person could say no because they DON'T have anything to lose.

But that isn't only the case. Some people are trustworthy, some people are kind enough to be HONEST in a situation like this. It's no skin off their back, they can just say no. But on the other hand, it's no skin off their back, so they can say YES.

I didn't know these people/this person long enough to know whether or not he/they ARE trustworthy people, but I would say to give him a chance.
_________________
SUPRISE BUTTSEX. PREPARE!

Jasmine's drawing of me! <3

[LordShadow]

storm did use his cards and his account to get the cards i think it was awhile ago toft was not playing so storm used his stuff and yes storm is trustworthy he wold not lie about a freand lending him items even if he is ban storm was only a ^%^&% in pvp it is pvp pvp is ment for killing alot of u did not like them of pvp but to ther freands thay help them alot.

[Black Sheep]

I finaly found a way to get on this forum....

I do remember Toft lending me the cards as he stated in this topic.

It's not because you're banned, that you aren't trustworthy. It's not true that banned people have nothing to loose. I've never lied on this forum or In Game. I was simply an PvP'olic.

It wasn't about immaturity, but simply that most people were taking things way too serious, and yes I have to include myself into that group of players.

PlayerVersusPlayer, shouldn't have any rules there. What do you expect by going in a room made to kill other players ?

Drama is a part of the reason why your server was so popular...I do remember people saying they were going to leave because of the drama, but they never left Lol .... If there's no action, then people leave because it's getting boring.

In the end, Luzz, aren't Snowie, and Oppa still playing on your server, on other accounts ? You call yourself fair ?

For those who were curious about what happened to the all mighty St0rM & Gylnark, We are playing on another server, no pvp dramaz, and we're having fun there, but i'm still nostalgic when i'm thinking about ReignOnline. Old days....old days ....

Good luck everyone,

~St0rM

[Glenfiddich]

I liked storm, he was fun to duel. He made things interesting. Now isnt he banned for something we allow in pvp now? I dunno...

Tofty baby,

As for the gr toft, i am pretty sure one of the several gr i have atm is yours O.o unless you absolutely remember giving it to storm...
_________________
Characters-

Glenfiddich; 255- Professor
Jager Bomb; 255- Creator
Rammstein; 255- Creator

[Stiffler]

This is quite an old thread. Apart from the temper tantrums I agree as well. He was fun to pvp with either way. Brought something to the table. I dont know how trustworthy he was though. =o
_________________
Ryan's Back >=3
/trollolololol
Knives-255 Champion
Legato-255 Sinx
And all the others. =]

[Zebruh]

Haha, Farah's retarded. <3
_________________
ಡ u ಡ
Ræp time.