impersination

[00RA00]

Some1s created a multie of my acc.

[Juliette]

There is no other account currently named 00RA00, or Ezy-whatchamacallit.
No one is impersonating you. (The only account that came close; 00RA001, is not active.)

Your complaint is outdated and reeks of more attention seeking.

[00RA00]

There is no other account currently named 00RA00, or Ezy-whatchamacallit.
No one is impersonating you. (The only account that came close; 00RA001, is not active.)

Your complaint is outdated and reeks of more attention seeking.

Well two weeks ago Der was a 001 so ur stench is bias n giv a if its inactive, some1 was using it. So do ur job n work out the ip u dizzy 1

[Juliette]

Two weeks ago. See the point? When it starts posting again.. then it becomes a point.

[Zeratul]

User account is not directly linked to any other account. It is also, as mentioned deactivated, so it will not post again until it goes active once again.

[Jim]

no u is the impersoator coz i saw and there was the other one and her was der before you so sthu

[ƒëmmë]

There is no other account currently named 00RA00, or Ezy-whatchamacallit.
No one is impersonating you. (The only account that came close; 00RA001, is not active.)

Your complaint is outdated and reeks of more attention seeking.

now, now Miss O.. you know this user was banned and unable to post a complaint about someone impersonating him on forum until now.. actually he was trying to do this last time, which I believe led to his banning. This time he has brought it to the correct place to have the matter seen to

And it is still a rule violation is it not to pretend to be someone else on here?

[kaboom]

best quick and quiet solution would be to ban 00RA00 account and the 00RA00 IP adres ...

No more multies thats way or bug's for that matter

[Juliette]

now, now Miss O.. you know this user was banned and unable to post a complaint about someone impersonating him on forum until now.. actually he was trying to do this last time, which I believe led to his banning.

Fair enough.

This time he has brought it to the correct place to have the matter seen to

I could say many things about the way he brought it, but fine.

And it is still a rule violation is it not to pretend to be someone else on here?

Only if your intent is to convince people you are someone else. Simply having an account called '00RA001' (or 'Cersei Lanister', for that matter) without saying you are either '00RA00' or 'Cersei Lannister', is not something that is not allowed.
You could argue that the only reason someone would call themselves by a name almost shared by another is to pretend to be that other, but the only way that works is if the pretender alludes to his/her being the one their name is similar to.

For instance, when EMP and Turkeyman went at it together, there was complete matching of both profiles, and posts were made clearly intended to -at least- confuse people. Convincing them that a long-time forum user is actually another long-time forum user is not really going to happen, but people who do not read properly might be confused by it.

Now compare to the case of 00RA00 and 00RA001. 00RA001 started posting after 00RA00 was banned, so there was no conflict (people know 00RA00 is banned, so 00RA001 is obviously someone else; as a ban evading multi would have been banned on sight). Since there was no attempt at convincing users of 00RA001 being 00RA00, there was no impersonation.

Since there was no impersonation, no rule was broken (note the text of specifically rule 3.B). Ergo, complaint invalid.


tl;dr: The requirements for 'impersonation' set out in Rule 3.B were not met => no impersonation.

[Clarkey]

There is no other account currently named 00RA00, or Ezy-whatchamacallit.
No one is impersonating you. (The only account that came close; 00RA001, is not active.)

Your complaint is outdated and reeks of more attention seeking.

Well two weeks ago Der was a 001 so ur stench is bias n giv a if its inactive, some1 was using it. So do ur job n work out the ip u dizzy 1

Try being nice when you ask people for help.

The account 00RA001 was deactivated weeks ago and has not been reactivated since. Personally there is no good reason anyone would want to impersonate someone of your personality, therefore likely to be someone that was on the receiving end of your ingame abusive and sick messages.

However, the IP address on this ocassion will not help.

Don't try and make yourself out to be a victim because you have asked for everything you have received.

[GhostyGoo]

now, now Miss O.. you know this user was banned and unable to post a complaint about someone impersonating him on forum until now.. actually he was trying to do this last time, which I believe led to his banning.

Fair enough.

This time he has brought it to the correct place to have the matter seen to

I could say many things about the way he brought it, but fine.

And it is still a rule violation is it not to pretend to be someone else on here?

Only if your intent is to convince people you are someone else. Simply having an account called '00RA001' (or 'Cersei Lanister', for that matter) without saying you are either '00RA00' or 'Cersei Lannister', is not something that is not allowed.
You could argue that the only reason someone would call themselves by a name almost shared by another is to pretend to be that other, but the only way that works is if the pretender alludes to his/her being the one their name is similar to.

For instance, when EMP and Turkeyman went at it together, there was complete matching of both profiles, and posts were made clearly intended to -at least- confuse people. Convincing them that a long-time forum user is actually another long-time forum user is not really going to happen, but people who do not read properly might be confused by it.

Now compare to the case of 00RA00 and 00RA001. 00RA001 started posting after 00RA00 was banned, so there was no conflict (people know 00RA00 is banned, so 00RA001 is obviously someone else; as a ban evading multi would have been banned on sight). Since there was no attempt at convincing users of 00RA001 being 00RA00, there was no impersonation.

Since there was no impersonation, no rule was broken (note the text of specifically rule 3.B). Ergo, complaint invalid.


tl;dr: The requirements for 'impersonation' set out in Rule 3.B were not met => no impersonation.

LOL indeed, a voice of reason! Let us begin to count how many Gen O'Neil variations we have here? Or start punishing the System Lord X's? Cersei is quite right and as for this 00RA00/01 business, there was more going on there than i can prove.

Don't try and make yourself out to be a victim because you have asked for everything you have received.

From what i've seen, quite right. Why throw pearls after swine? The mods have far better things to be getting along with.