Jump to content


"Tank-sitting" and playing on same computer


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
8 replies to this topic

LigthWolf #1 Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:22 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11311 battles
  • 227
  • Member since:
    07-28-2011
It happens now and then, that my brother plays on his account from my computer. Are we both in risk of a ban?
What if we were to "Tank-sit" eachother? Like, he goes on a vacation, I do his daily doubles and vice versa - this seems illegal, but I want to know for sure.

ollonborre #2 Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:30 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16929 battles
  • 2,267
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011
I am not sure, in my mind it sounds alright, he is your brother after all and you are in the same house so it is not like you lend your account to someone in another country.

If I were you I would not tell anyone you are using your brothers account and just play. But if you feel the risk of getting both accounts banned, well then maybe the risk is not worth taking.

Aza1979 #3 Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15658 battles
  • 1,062
  • [FLUR] FLUR
  • Member since:
    07-13-2011
Quoted from the rules:

Quote

1.05. Players who decide to be involved with the game acknowledge and agree to these and all other relevant rules and will abide by them regardless of the circumstances. In addition players also agree that these Rules will apply to anyone that is allowed to use their Wargaming.net account or user ID. By allowing another user to use the account, the account owner is personally responsible for all the consequences (including termination of said account) which may result, if the above discussed person violates any of the listed rules at any time. The account owner will not be entitled to a refund of any currency or any form of credit.
So it seems to be illegal up to a certain point (violating rules while "sitting") and "sitting" risks your and/or your brother's account.

Edited by Aza1979, 04 April 2013 - 07:45 AM.


OmaiGodman #4 Posted 04 April 2013 - 08:03 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7556 battles
  • 428
  • [KIWF] KIWF
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
I'm sure it is illegal but I'm also fairly certain it's impossible to enforce because... Well, people with friends or family who play the game are bound to play from the same physical location at some point. I often hang out with friends and then we play WoT together, also since my friends live all over the country I login from a lot of different places. It's just really hard to enforce a rule like that.

No_One001 #5 Posted 04 April 2013 - 08:09 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32384 battles
  • 287
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012
I play from different computers all the time, and how do you think they can see if you or your brother is playing. The acoount can be played from anywhere in the world. These conditions are there to protect your acount against hacking by other people.

So  don't worry you get banned.

The only rule there is : If you let say a (friend) play on your acount and he makes a lot of problems like teamkilling, botting, spam, abuse of language, and foul language, with these breaking rules you are responsible and can never ask for refund of your account.

Odling #6 Posted 04 April 2013 - 08:19 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 220 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013
Frankly the EULA and Terms of Use that WG uses would not stand up in a court of law.
Firstly, any EULA or Terms that are presented in such a way that the user has to click them in order to proceed to the content is recognized as flawed by both the European Court and the US Supreme Court (see click-wrapped content and EULA enforceability).
Secondly, because the contracts are unalterable by the assenting party (e.g. line item veto, style), these 'virtual' contracts are deemed unenforceable because the party who clicked was not allowed the ability to cross out a particular clause before 'signing'.
Thirdly, you have not 'signed' anything.  You have 'digitally indicated' and this carries far less weight legally.

There have been several successful attempts at challenging EULAs and Terms of Use for online content in Europe and the USA.  The courts are entirely sympathetic to customers who fall foul of unreasonable clauses or content that is so long they cannot be reasonably expected to have read it all, despite disclaimers saying they have.  This falls under 'reasonability testing' guidelines.

Many companies like WG have often retained the right to withold content for 'any' reason in their EULA or Terms and this is challengable legally because it is considered far too broad a definition.

In the end, however, they rely on the inability of individuals to mount a sufficient challenge by themselves and rest behind their lawyers.  In the not too distant future, however, it is highly likely there will be a series of 'class-action' cases brought by groups of dissatisfied users against these unenforceable contracts.

One last note - far too many people on these forums talk about legal and illegal activities when referring to EULA and Terms... the adherence or non adherence to these contracts are not to be equated with legality as they are contract agreements only, NOT law.

OmaGretel #7 Posted 04 April 2013 - 08:43 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15023 battles
  • 112
  • Member since:
    06-28-2012
So you are saying we should sue WG if our account gets banned? :)

xWAVEBREAKERx #8 Posted 04 April 2013 - 08:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 12233 battles
  • 63
  • Member since:
    08-10-2012

View PostOdling, on 04 April 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Frankly the EULA and Terms of Use that WG uses would not stand up in a court of law.
Firstly, any EULA or Terms that are presented in such a way that the user has to click them in order to proceed to the content is recognized as flawed by both the European Court and the US Supreme Court (see click-wrapped content and EULA enforceability).
Secondly, because the contracts are unalterable by the assenting party (e.g. line item veto, style), these 'virtual' contracts are deemed unenforceable because the party who clicked was not allowed the ability to cross out a particular clause before 'signing'.
Thirdly, you have not 'signed' anything.  You have 'digitally indicated' and this carries far less weight legally.

There have been several successful attempts at challenging EULAs and Terms of Use for online content in Europe and the USA.  The courts are entirely sympathetic to customers who fall foul of unreasonable clauses or content that is so long they cannot be reasonably expected to have read it all, despite disclaimers saying they have.  This falls under 'reasonability testing' guidelines.

Many companies like WG have often retained the right to withold content for 'any' reason in their EULA or Terms and this is challengable legally because it is considered far too broad a definition.

In the end, however, they rely on the inability of individuals to mount a sufficient challenge by themselves and rest behind their lawyers.  In the not too distant future, however, it is highly likely there will be a series of 'class-action' cases brought by groups of dissatisfied users against these unenforceable contracts.

One last note - far too many people on these forums talk about legal and illegal activities when referring to EULA and Terms... the adherence or non adherence to these contracts are not to be equated with legality as they are contract agreements only, NOT law.

WarGaming are a private company, you play their content at your discretion, EULA the agreement you have cited, only refers to paying customers. The majority of customers, 75% of the player base I believe are not paying customers.

May I remind you, WarGaming refrain from outright 'banning' players, permanently, as this would be a breach of EULA. Therefore, for the majority of the time, chat bans are used.

WarGaming is also located in Europe, so the US Supreme court no jurisdiction over WarGaming.

View PostLigthWolf, on 04 April 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

It happens now and then, that my brother plays on his account from my computer. Are we both in risk of a ban?
What if we were to "Tank-sit" eachother? Like, he goes on a vacation, I do his daily doubles and vice versa - this seems illegal, but I want to know for sure.

As long as you remain playing from the same location, and are not 'leap-frogging', I see no way for detection or banning.

Edited by xWAVEBREAKERx, 04 April 2013 - 09:02 AM.


OmaiGodman #9 Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:04 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7556 battles
  • 428
  • [KIWF] KIWF
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostOdling, on 04 April 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:


One last note - far too many people on these forums talk about legal and illegal activities when referring to EULA and Terms... the adherence or non adherence to these contracts are not to be equated with legality as they are contract agreements only, NOT law.

You're right, when I said that it's illegal to "tank-sit" an account, I meant to say (or should have said) it's not allowed by the rules stated by Wargaming in their EULA and that in theory it's possible that they'll ban someone over it. But like I said, it's a rule that's nearly impossible to enforce for reason me and other people have stated earlier.

So yeah, don't worry about being banned over something like this too much, you still both have seperate accounts so I don't even think WG will care too much as long as you both pay whatever you're paying for. It's not like you're actually sharing an account all the time or anything.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users