Forcing access to accounts for troop counts

DeletedUser

Guest
Hi everybody,

A short while ago my partner in real life was "told" by her Duke that she "must" allow access to her account for troop count verification.
She pointed out that her account is private and that she would not give him access but that he should have her villages scouted. He then insited that she allow him access and told her that she would be dismissed if she did not.

I am aware, through my own experiences, that there is a current "fashion" on all worlds for this type of thing to happen and indeed it is commonplace for tribes to insist on access to tribemembers' accounts to check on troop levels and when meeting with resistance to then "force" compliance.

Just so that everybody is aware of the rules i am publishing this Support Request question on many world forums:

Hi,
According to this rule:

"Any attempt of phishing will be strongly punished. This includes phishing for account information (like passwords) and ingame information (like troop counts). "


According to this it is against the rules to "force" access to an account by blackmail or threat or by any method?

Thanks for your help,
Blue

Bandit Jul 07,2009 02:07
Hello BlueAvenger,

Yes it is. Blackmailing for anything is illegal.

Sincerely,

Kim/Bandit of the West
Tribalwars Support

In passing: I would also point out that insisting on access to someone's account before they join a tribe is also likely to be considered breaking the rules but as yet i have not checked it out.

I hope that from now on everybody will be aware of the rule and report any such "forcing" by raising a Service Request.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
well, i'd be screwed as a leader then..

I operate a strict - no sitting session, no invite - policy.
As in, if you want to join the tribe, you let me sit you first.
For the following reasons:

-ensuring not a point whore (can be checked via ODA, but more accurate to see first hand)
-helping to ensure not a spy
-TRUST*


Anyway, my policy won't be changing. I do not force people to let me sit their accounts, nor do i keep any information on troop counts etc. I take a few glances to ensure things are as they should be.
The person has a choice - let the sit happen, or not. It's THEIR choice to make, although from the way you worded the situation it seems harsher than usual.


*Now, this is a big one in my opinion. If you're going to let someone lead you in a tribe, you need to be able to trust them. If they're going to lead you, they need to trust you.
An account sitting session allows just that kind of trust to begin. A simple sitting, and by the act of relinquishing your account to that leader for all of 5 minutes or whatever, allows them to know they can trust you, and since nothing untoward has happened to your account allows you to know you can trust them.
Of course the above only counts to a certain extent, but it's a step in the right direction.
 

frostyfingers

Guest
I have to agree with rancido that sitting an account in the effect of recruiting for your tribe, is a fine-line affair. I do not require it, but I encourage my members to allow me to sit for them now and then to make sure they are doing things properly and to assist them in times of need. If they have a problem with this, I cannot force them to do so. I would simply "TRUST" that they are not a spy and hope for the best...but this can be crucially vital to a tribe's success.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Simply put, it's a non-enforcable rule. We're not running on the tenants of Affirmative Action. No player or Admin can "force" a tribe to invite or keep any tribe member for whatever reason. So, if I want to sit someone before inviting them, then that's the way it's going to be. Further, if I want to sit a tribe member to ensure proper play, then that's what's going to happen. If they don't like it, then I kick them if I choose.

The blackmailing rule should be limited to things like demanding premium points under threat of attack or demanding someone's password. Checking troop counts is within the realm of the game.

Same thing with insults: If I call someone a cad for being a traitor withing the game, it's fine. If I call your gf a wet-blanket for her precious privacy issues in a silly game, that would be uncalled for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
It doesn't apply for sitting when someone wants to join, as if they won't let you sit them, you don't 'do' anything, but it IS against the rules to threaten to kick.

May i also point out, the amount of tribes that are rank 1 for a long time, most likely won't enforce sitting ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
BlueAvenger's interpretation of the rules and support request is simply untrue, as explained by my post from the W29 forums, quoted below.

I found the [OP's] statement to be highly vague and misleading, so I feel a further look at what the support request response actually meant is highly necessary.

The OP states that the duke requested "access" to the account in question. This could imply either that the duke wanted the password to the account, or that the duke wanted to be temporarily set as an account sitter.

With respect to the rules, there is a significant difference between requesting these two types of "access". The OP's argument is correct in stating that it would be illegal for the duke to threaten a player into giving a password. The rules state that "Phishing or blackmailing players for passwords in any way is strongly forbidden". This strongly implies, if not outright states, that obtaining passwords through threats of force is illegal. This interpretation is confirmed by the support request, which states that it is illegal "to 'force' access to an account by blackmail or threat or by any method". Obtaining a password by threat is thus illegal, as it is clearly obtaining "access" to an account, and therefore is prohibited by the support request.

However, the OP seems to imply that for a duke to require "access" to an account through account sitting is also illegal, a belief the rules and support request offer scant evidence for. The OP says that "it is commonplace for tribes to insist on access to tribemembers' accounts to check on troop levels and when meeting with resistance to then "force" compliance." Since the OP says that "insisting on access to someone's account before they join a tribe is also likely to be considered breaking the rules", they undoubtedly consider this practice to be illegal. It is indeed commonplace for tribes to do this, obtaining access by means of account sitting. However, I have yet to see a tribe that checks troop levels by obtaining a password. Since this "commonplace" practice is considered by the OP to be illegal, it is clear that this message implies the practice of requiring account sitting by force is illegal.

The rules state that "Any attempt of phishing will be strongly punished. This includes phishing for account information (like passwords) and ingame information (like troop counts)." The rules only mention phishing as being an illegal method of obtaining ingame information. Since phishing is generally done through either staff impersonation or a spoofed web page, the rules in no way state that obtaining ingame information via threats would be prohibited. In fact, the rules state that "Threats and blackmailing of other players are allowed only if the context is entirely ingame". Using ingame threats to obtain ingame information, such as the troop counts an account sitting would reveal, is thus almost certainly permitted by the rules.

Unlike in the case of passwords, the rules offer no special protection against obtaining account sitting via threats, only stating that "It is not allowed to abuse account sitting. Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished". Since obtaining troop counts via account sitting is hardly "intentional destruction" of the account, the rules imply no prohibition of it. The rules permit using ingame threats to obtain ingame information, and the rules give no special prohibition against doing so by demanding an account sitting, in contrast to the prohibitions they impose on demanding passwords. Thusly, the rules in no way imply that it is illegal to obtain an account sitting from a player via ingame threats.

The support request states that "it is against the rules to 'force' access to an account by blackmail or threat or by any method". As demonstrated above, this undoubtedly means it is illegal to obtain a password via threats, as the rules without clarification strongly imply the illegality of this. However, it is nowhere near clear that the illegal obtaining of "access" to an account is meant to include obtaining an account sitting. Since "access" could very well be limited in meaning to obtaining a password, and the rules the offer no evidence that obtaining an account sitting via threats is illegal, it is extraordinarily unlikely that this support request prohibits obtaining an account sitting by threat.

In summary: The rules and the above support request almost certainly demonstrate that obtaining a password to an account via threats is illegal, but utterly lack any persuasive evidence that using threats to obtain an account sitting is in any way illegal. Thus, it is almost certainly still permitted for tribes to require players to submit to account sitting.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
ya i'm thinking there was a BIG misunderstanding here

the leader wanted to account sit
which is done is "Settings" then account sitting on the left
you assign a person to account sit

they DON'T get your password
they just can look around, move troops, etc like normal

however you can log back in at anytime and it ends their account sitting
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Yeah, I had compulsory account sitting to join as a requirement for ELITE# for a long time. It's pretty standard practice. IF she doesn't want to be account sat then she doesn't have to be in the tribe.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
On rereading this, I think that mod needs to reread the rules:icon_eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top