Originally posted by NordlysFrom what I understand , no $$$ are refunded .
Which means less than eight persons were banned.
One thing I am wondering about though - do they get a refund, too (those who were subscribers)? In that case, I fear people will start creating multiple accounts when they want to leave TFC, so they get some money back...
there's a bullet on the removed players page for
"Section 3(c) : The Red Hot Pawn administration team have concluded that a person has unreasonably harassed another member of this site."
but no removees yet ... wonder who'll be first ...
(da DUM! da DUM! ... da DUM! ... dum dum DUM dum, dum dum DUM dum ...)
Originally posted by zeeblebotwait til no1m gets down to ONE game ... then ... BAM! TOS'd on section 3c! ....
there's a bullet on the removed players page for
"Section 3(c) : The Red Hot Pawn administration team have concluded that a person has unreasonably harassed another member of this site."
but no removees yet ... wonder who'll be first ...
(da DUM! da DUM! ... da DUM! ... dum dum DUM dum, dum dum DUM dum ...)
1 edit
Originally posted by Nordlyserm-they were multiple accounts, many of whome were having a conversation about whether to subscribe yesterday with themselves. i think they may only be 2 people tops...
Which means less than eight persons were banned.
and skeeter, how many families staying in the same house log on from different IP's? and the problem also occured with people using LAN's. i have no idea how it works now, but when it was first implemented these people were basically chucked and only one was allowed to return.
Originally posted by geniusWhy are you asking me?
erm-they were multiple accounts, many of whome were having a conversation about whether to subscribe yesterday with themselves. i think they may only be 2 people tops...
and nyxie, how many families staying in the same house log on from different IP's? and the problem also occured with people using LAN's. i have no idea how it works now, but when it was first implemented these people were basically chucked and only one was allowed to return.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 04
- Moves
- 262571
A quote from the page "Section 3(b) : The Red Hot Pawn game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminated".
It seems a bit silly for an article to refer to itself, while (a) and (c) clearly explains why a user is banned. Why doesn't (b) say it was due to cheating with chess engines?
Originally posted by Aiko3. YOUR REGISTRATION OBLIGATIONS
A quote from the page "Section 3(b) : The Red Hot Pawn game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminated".
It seems a bit silly for an article to refer to itself, while (a) and (c) clea ...[text shortened]... y explains why a user is banned. Why doesn't (b) say it was due to cheating with chess engines?
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction. You also agree to :
(a) You will not create more than one account.
(b) You will not use chess engines, chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game. Chess books and databases can be consulted during play
(c) You may not threaten or harass other users of this Service.
1 edit
Originally posted by AikoI agree. In its original form it made sense (before (a) and (c) were added). Now it should say:
A quote from the page "Section 3(b) : The Red Hot Pawn game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the following players have violated the Terms of Service, Section 3(b), and in doing so, have had their accounts terminated".
It seems a bit silly for an article to refer to itself, while (a) and (c) clea ...[text shortened]... y explains why a user is banned. Why doesn't (b) say it was due to cheating with chess engines?
Section 3(b) : The Red Hot Pawn game moderation team have found overwhelming evidence, and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that a player has used a chess engine, chess software, a chess computer or consulted a third party to assist them in a game.