No multi rule

[Dancing Mustard]

The point is that it's not a theft by any means.

You walk into a store and see a display of candy saying "Try some FREE!". Next to the large bowl are 10 cases of the same candy. You carry all 10 cases of the "free" candy out to your car.

Is this theft?

Obviously.
But you missed the point in my first post about the dichotomy between situations involving tangible fungible goods, and intangible undepleteable goods.
Your analogy involved tangibles, CC doesn't. That's the problem with your argument here. Multis don't take anything with them, they don't deprive the 'store' of good from which they could make a profit in the future, and have previously paid to obtain. That's why it's not thieving, that's what I've been saying. Your argument would work if CC games were chocolate bars; but they're nothing like them, so it doesn't work.
You can try to re-jig your analogy if you like, but I honestly think you're better off thinking about the 'cinema' or the 'farmers field' analogies I laid out earlier.
Thanks for the input though.

Understand, Im not arguing that they are technically thieves...I dont care either way...Im posting that I believe they are thieves in my opinion, as is everyone else. Perhaps we are all wrong, perhaps not, but we have the right to post said opinion. Id say there's at least enough gray area to justify it...if not...dont care....mutis are thieves pure and simple.

Well that's cool.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion and all. I think multis are dishonest people, just like you do. I can't force you to change your mind.
The problem I have is that if they're not 'technically thieves', then it's unfair to call them 'thieves' at all. I mean, muggers aren't rapists, that's why it's unfair to call them that; regardless of what you believe.
You're right there's a grey area here. But you're wrong that multis are 'thieves pure and simple'; I think this discussion has proved that just isn't the case.

Basically there's three ways we can go with this
1. You agree with me, and I rejoice.
2. You don't agree with me, and find some logical way to prove me wrong; and I don't rejoice.
3. We just respect each others opinions (after all, we substantially agree). But you'll have to also respect the fact that I regard false labelling of miscreants as a harmful act in and of itself. It's unfair and its derogatory.

So feel free to keep disliking multis, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But calling them thieves is a bad thing to do; especially when you've admitted that their conduct lays in a very grey area indeed.
Would you call a mugger a rapist? No? That's because you know you'd be doing them an injustice.... But then why call a multi a thief when you can't logically explain how they are thieving? It's equally bad.

But anyway, I respect your opinions, and thanks again for the input

[Backglass]

Your analogy involved tangibles, CC doesn't. That's the problem with your argument here. Multis don't take anything with them, they don't deprive the 'store' of good from which they could make a profit in the future, and have previously paid to obtain. That's why it's not thieving, that's what I've been saying.

But then why call a multi a thief when you can't logically explain how they are thieving?

I disagree. Multi's use bandwidth and server connections, both of which are tangible as there is not an infinite supply of either. Lack pays real money for both and by using more than your "free" share, you are indeed "depleting the store". If enough people did this, Lack would have to purchase more of both, which would reduce his profit.

[AAFitz]

im not calling a mugger a rapist or anything else...he steals, hes a thief and violent one at that

and im saying that as in my other examples of stealing what you call intangible items are tangible. It isnt derogatory at all...its what it is. Your accepting your argument as proof that it isnt while discounting the time of the mods, lacks time, and the use of the server and computer system. I am not. It costs real time and money for each player and each player gets one account. If they set up another its stealing. It doesnt warrant captial punishment, but it is stealing. Im glad you believe your arguement, but I do not...It is tangible as is software that is stolen, songs that are stolen, movies that are stolen, etc. You may argue that downloading one song illegally doenst cost anything so it isnt stealing, but since record companies have lost billions since the technology and practice has become available, clearly there is a cost...youre just discounting it as a trivial expense that doesnt warrant the charge of stealing. I am not.

[Dancing Mustard]

At Backglass:

You're right of course, these are tangible things and multi-ing in excessive numbers might reduce Lack's profit.
But that's not enough to make multi-ing thievery. Sure you've identified a detriment to CC, but that on it's own isn't good enough to prop up your argument.
The tangibles you descrive aren't what multi's set out to deprive CC of. It isn't what they are 'stealing'. If you run with your line of argument then any conduct forbidden by your contract with CC, that takes up time/server space/bandwidth, is also stealing.
But this leads to perverse results; would lots of people spamming be stealing? That takes up server capacity, memory and bandwidth, just like your multis. Spamming is also prohibited by your contract with CC, just like multi-ing. Are spammers thieves? Your argument says yes, but common sense says no.

Have another go through my second post, I think I answered your argument there, and I don't just want to jam up this thread by quoting fat chunks of text over and over. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear, but I don't really want to repeat myself in a million seperate posts.

At Fitz:

I'm not sure quite what it is you're trying to argue with your last post, so apologies if this isn't quite what you were expecting to hear in response:

Do you understand what I mean by tangibles? I'm talking about seperate items that exist in only one time and place, and that can be physically picked up and identified. The things you're arguing are 'tangible', are clearly not either of those things.
You keep repeating that you believe multis are stealing; but I'm not getting any actual argument for 'why' that is. They're detrimental, you're right. But you can't magically turn that into 'stealing' because you feel like it. Sorry
As for your 'other duplicatable goods' argument; that's good, but it's not sophisticated enough to have recognised the effect that copyright and Intellectual property has on the area. Song downloading etc isn't 'stealing' it's copyright infringement, so your argument fails technically, although with some re-jigging it might be able to explain what Multis might be, since they aren't 'thieves'.
I'm afraid I didn't get much out of your last post because it wasn't particularly clear. No offence meant with that, but I'll try again if you edit it or if you re-word it in a new post.

[AAFitz]

Im not really trying to prove you wrong...your argument is so thin, i have no problem calling them thieves...but I cant believe this wasnt posted yet

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/86 ... 9268c.html

but im not calling spammers thieves...any more than we are for taking up this much space saying the same thing over and over. Im calling people who commit fraud to use an account against the rules of its owner a thief. And I see nothing derogatory about it.

[Dancing Mustard]

Im not really trying to prove you wrong...your arguement is so thin, i have no problem calling them thieves...but I cant believe this wasnt posted yet

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/86 ... 9268c.html

It's not thin Fritz. It's been strong enough to logically slap down any objections you've tried to raise against it. If you're reduced to just lobbing petty insults, then I guess we're done here.

Your article is interesting, but it's worth noting that the case hasn't actually come to trial. He's a suspect, but he's not yet been branded a thief; so don't go trying to use it as hard evidence yet. Unless of course you're a fan of scrapping fair hearings and the guilty-until-proven-innocent doctrine?

[AAFitz]

you missed the point of the article....look into it, and youll see why I posted it


Im not throwing out petty insults...youre using words like derogatory and judging people because you dont think what the multis is stealing is worthy of being called stealing whereas I do...your argument is only proving it in your mind....and again...I dont actually even care....If someones going to set up a multi account, Im almost sure they arent going to care if I call them a thief or not

and your comparing this to rapists, and talking about trials and innocence...they are guilty of creating multiple accounts...the only question is if its fair to call it stealing....i think it is...im not suggesting its fair to cut off their right hand, or prosecute them, im just expressing my opinion.

But you have seemed to skip over my analogies which are very close to the same situation. Stealing software, Stealing music, stealing movies, and even the ski area examples...all of which are prosecutable crimes....at the beginning of every dvd you will see a message that says downloading without paying is stealing....explain to me how downloading CC resources and using them without permission is different in any way except on scale.

[wicked]

It may not be able to be classified as theft in a court of law, but it is perceived by the community as theft. It's akin to people using HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes w/o paying the toll. They can be there if they pay the toll, but since it's congestion-based pricing, their being there unfairly taxes the system when they didn't pay for that right. People are more apt to not "steal" into the HOT lanes b/c it IS perceived as theft of services by other motorists, so they're quick to report it. That's why HOT lanes violation rates are significantly less than regular HOV lanes violation rates, although violation of either is a fine. When money is involved, and you take that which you are not entitled to, it is perceived as, and punishable as, theft.

[Dancing Mustard]

you missed the point of the article....look into it, and youll see why I posted it

No, I'm pretty sure I got it. Unless you care to explain what it is you think I've missed.

Im not throwing out petty insults...youre using words like derogatory and judging people because you dont think what the multis is stealing is worthy of being called stealing whereas I do...your argument is only proving it in your mind....and again...I dont actually even care....If someones going to set up a multi account, Im almost sure they arent going to care if I call them a thief or not

I don't think you quite understand my argument here.
It's not whether I think the property is 'worthy' of stealing, or whether I think the multis actions are 'worthy' of that title. It's about whether or not their actions are actually thefts, if they're not, then they don't deserve the label. It's not that I don't think a knife is worthy of being called fork, it's the fact that no matter how hard you look at it, a knife will never be a fork. This is a question of definitions; definitions with negative stigma. I'm just anxious that people here consider the stigma they are throwing around when they use terms inaccurately.
The point remains that multis are not 'theives' by any logical conception of 'theft' you choose to argue, and you haven't said a thing to disprove that assertion so far.
The only thing you've got to support your belief that they are are thieves, are these bizzare conceptions of what precisely it is that they're 'taking', which I keep demonstrating to be ridiculous.
My argument isn't just proving it in my mind, that's a poor aspersion designed to rattle my confidence in it; I thought you were above that.
So I'm sorry if you don't want to accept my proposition; the fact remains that you really haven't found anything to dismantle it with yet. When you have, then you can say what you like about it; until then, let's stick to debate.
No, multis probably don't care what we call them. That doesn't change the fact that it's mislabelling.

and your comparing this to rapists, and talking about trials and innocence...they are guilty of creating multiple accounts...the only question is if its fair to call it stealing....i think it is...im not suggesting its fair to cut off their right hand, or prosecute them, im just expressing my opinion.

Don't get so frustrated, we're just having a civil discussion here.
The analogies to false labelling of 'rapists' are purely illustrative, I don't see why you're getting so worked up about it?
Also I don't know why you're bringing this capital punishment thing into the question? We both know that multis are multis, but the thing we disagree on is whether they're 'thieves'. We've both got opinions on that (nobody is arguing for prosecution etc, that's why we're not lobbing criminal statutes/codes about), the fact is that you haven't backed up your opinion with logic yet. Do you have a better definition of 'theft' that doesn't involve deprivation?
Seriously, if you're not going to treat this as an interesting topic of debate, and it's just going to upset you, then let's just take our opinions and go seperate ways. Don't just get wound up and start ranting at me.
Either come up with a sensible counter-argument, or forget about this. It's not worth getting irate over.

But you have seemed to skip over my analogies which are very close to the same situation. Stealing software, Stealing music, stealing movies, and even the ski area examples...all of which are prosecutable crimes....at the beginning of every dvd you will see a message that says downloading without paying is stealing....explain to me how downloading CC resources and using them without permission is different in any way except on scale.

No I didn't. I just called your arguments unsophisticated and incomplete, and I explained to you that the actions you describe are not 'thefts', but 'copyright infringements' or seperate crimes labelled other things than 'thefts' (in the UK there's rafts of copyright offences that are quite correctly labelled things other than 'theft', so copyright infringers aren't technically 'thieves' here). Once again we're into the realms of black-letter-law though, different systems will label offences in different ways. I'm not interested in what happens in court rooms around the world, I'm interested in how you're going to define 'theft' in order to catch multis. Right now you don't seem to be able to do that.

I'm trying to be as good-natured as possible with this discussion, I don't want it to be an unpleasant flaming discourse. Please don't get frustrated. But if we're going to continue then you're going to need to explain to me what it is about my second and third posts that is incorrect, because you've started to repeat yourself.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this though.

[Dancing Mustard]

It may not be able to be classified as theft in a court of law, but it is perceived by the community as theft.

This isn't about courts of law. Please guys, get over that idea. It's just not what I'm arguing.
Yes Multi-ing is percieved by the community as wrongful, but they're still inaccurately mislabelling the wrong if they call it a theft. If the CC community percieved knives as forks, they'd still be mislabelling them if they gave them that title. The term theft is just too crude to describe the action. Sorry.

It's akin to people using HOT (High Occupancy Toll) lanes w/o paying the toll. They can be there if they pay the toll, but since it's congestion-based pricing, their being there unfairly taxes the system when they didn't pay for that right. People are more apt to not "steal" into the HOT lanes b/c it IS perceived as theft of services by other motorists, so they're quick to report it. That's why HOT lanes violation rates are significantly less than regular HOV lanes violation rates, although violation of either is a fine. When money is involved, and you take that which you are not entitled to, it is perceived as, and punishable as, theft.[/quote]
It's an interesting example, but I think it goes into the out-pile with the candy-bars and the stealing-bandwidth arguments. It's unlawfully using a service, but it isn't theft because nothing is taken, and the detriment inflicted isn't the thing that multis set out to take (people who trespass on your lawn aren't made thieves by leaving footprints on the grass for example).
Furthermore the difficulty with this whole 'taxing the system' argument is that it relies upon a perverse notion of what it is that multis 'take'. Before you started posting here would any of you have honestly described multi-ing as 'wrong' because it took up minimal amounts of bandwidth? I suspect not; because it's a perverse way to look at why multi-ing is wrong. The fact is that they're not really 'thieving' bandwidth at all, it's not what they set out to 'take', it's just an unfortunate by-product of their actions. It's the just like a concert-sneak, they might take up room in the stands making it uncomfortable for paying concert goers, but we're not honestly saying they're stealing the space. Just as they aren't stealing the time of the security guard employed to eject them.
I can't shift you off of your belief in this respect, but I can point out that it doesn't realisticly fit why people regard multi-ing as wrong, and the fact that it's not what you honestly regard multi's as stealing. At any rate, the point has been done to death now, so I guess it's a matter of re-reading and making up your mind one way or the other.

The one thing I don't disagree with you on, is the fact that multis ought to be punished. Their conduct is detrimental and immoral, and CC has every right to kick them off of the site. I just thing it's a misnomer to label them thieves... although I'm happy to keep discussing it if you all want.
What I really want you to admit is that there might be a better label for multis, just the way that there are seperate labels for copyright-infringers and Toll-road sneaks.

[AAFitz]

you missed the point of the article....look into it, and youll see why I posted it

No, I'm pretty sure I got it. Unless you care to explain what it is you think I've missed.

Ill give you a hint...it wasnt trying to prove anything...there are other posts in here about it, and im on the other side of it...but thats not the important part....do a few searches...you wont be disappointed

gotta go now though but before I do, i told you it wasnt personal...ive typed out most of these tongue in cheek...playing devils advocate...

though you did say I was using petty insults...



one more hint...its about who is in the article...

[AndyDufresne]

Multiple Accounts = Bad.


--Andy

[AAFitz]

Multiple Accounts = Bad.


--Andy

Bad is too general...seriously Im out of here or im in trouble.

[wicked]

If the community perceives them as theives, than that's how they will label them. Does it matter what we call them? No.

[Dancing Mustard]

Multiple Accounts = Bad.


--Andy

I couldn't agree more

If the community perceives them as theives, than that's how they will label them. Does it matter what we call them? No.

Oh come off it. If you haven't got time to read the thread and respond to it inteligently, then you don't have the time to debate. I don't care if you're a mod, shonky soundbites have no place in rational debate. Especially when they're just repeating what other posters have attempted to argue (more eloquently) already.
We've been over why it's wrong for the community to label multis as thieves; it's because the community's definition of theft doesn't actually encompass the behaiviour of a multi. The community simply lacks the collective vocabulary to label the wrongdoing correctly.
Unless of course you're telling me that the community has some perverse definition of 'thievery' that would (as already demonstrated) make people like Hecter 'thieves'.

Does it matter what we call them. Yes.
That's because the word 'thief' carries with it negative stigma which it's unfair to brand somebody with if they aren't actually a thief. This is an essentially semantic problem, which it's important to get right, or else as a community we end up stigmatising members who do not deserve it; which in itself is a bad thing to do.
That is, unless you take some sort of pride in using an unsophisticated vocabulary to crudely label and stigmatise people?

Seriously though wicked, we all know you're a mod, but everyone else here has taken the time to engage with the issue in a rational way. Unsupported declarations don't really help us negotiate this somewhat controversial question, and just barking out assertions without logical backing isn't helping anybody.

[john1099]

Now I'm fine with the no multi rule but the only reason stated for the no multi rule is so that people will not have thier multi's team up in a game. Now if someone creates a multi for forum use and never uses the multi in a game then there is no harm done right? That's the only reason no multi's are allowed right? You don't state very clearly your policy towards multi's. My only multi, the infamous Master Sheep only violated the general no multi rule. He did not join any games which would give me as a player an unfair advantage. Even if he did join any games because of your cheating policy he would be fine as long as he did not play with Sheepofdumb. Please state your policy more clearly. I looked into it and found nothing.

I'm just kinda scanned this topic, but I don't believe that the question was if it was alright to play multi accounts, but create one for the forums, and one as your main account.
Not really sure why you would do this, but, he isn't really playing with his other account, therefore, can you really bust him for playing with two accounts?

I'm sure my post is going to get blown apart within seconds of me clicking submit, but all I ask is you read the first post, as quoted above.
He is just asking if it is wrong for him to use his multi to post in the forums, not play.

FYI: Master Sheep is not on the scoreboard, which means he didn't play a game.

By the way, I'm not condoning multiple accounts, I believe it is cheating if you play with them, BUT I think the thread went off topic, so I'm putting it back on the real topic, Making two accounts, using one to play, using the other to post.

Thanks,
John

I know it was a ramble, but no one is perfect

[wicked]

Yes we know what he originally asked, and answered to same. Doesn't matter the reason, it's not allowed. Period. There are reasons to not want multiple accounts in the forums as well, but it's really not worthy of a discussion since it's not allowed, eh?

And FYI, when an account is inactivated, as MasterSheep was, it will not show up on the scoreboard. But you are correct in that he didn't play any games. Again, doesn't matter.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Its theft end of story

[john1099]

thats why you're the mod, and I'm not

Ok, I really could have cared less either way, I thought he was a little moronic for wanted an account to play with, and an account to post with, kinda odd

[alster]

since when is not paying for something...that everyone else is paying for.......and you know you should....not theft?

There was a rather long post explaining why you are wrong. But let me put it a bit more concise: If using multiple accounts, in effect playing for free, you’re not stealing anything. The game is there, it’s not removed. It’s an infringement of the terms and conditions of the service, but it’s not theft.

But of course, having multiple accounts is morally deplorable. As a happily paying customer, I don’t want to see any freeriders around. If you can’t pay, limit yourself to four games at a time (which, already, is very generous).

[wcaclimbing]

My only multi, the infamous Master Sheep...

Good luck.

It wont suprise me if you are banned

[Backglass]

If using multiple accounts, in effect playing for free, you’re not stealing anything.

See my earlier post. Lack pays for bandwidth and server connections. You ARE stealing something tangible that he must pay for.

[lackattack]

I actually have to agree with with Dancing Mustard on this one. I think it's safe to assume that he feels, as I do, that copyright law is unbalanced in favour of the content owners. For people like us misuse of the term "theft" is a touchy subject.

There is a huge difference between taking a candy bar and downloading a song. When you take a candy bar, there is a victim that loses a candy bar. When you download a song, nothing really happens to the victim. Lost sales?? Get real! Never in a million years would you have paid for all the stuff you've downloaded.

So when the content owners, who we're already pissed off at for bribing the US government to come out with bad-for-society laws like the DMCA start labelling copyright infringers as "thieves" to make them look bad, some of us feel the need to point out that there is no moral equivalence between steeling and copying.

With respect to multis, I think playing two accounts is worse than copyright infringement because a contract was broken (the join the club checkbox) and it does waste our resources. But I still wouldn't call it theft because nothing was actually taken away from CC. I think Andy put it best, Multiple Accounts = Bad.

[alster]

There is a huge difference between taking a candy bar and downloading a song. When you take a candy bar, there is a victim that loses a candy bar. When you download a song, nothing really happens to the victim. Lost sales?? Get real! Never in a million years would you have paid for all the stuff you've downloaded.

Hear, hear!

Frankly, I'm more annoyed by the way the industries are claiming parts of our language than their actual deeds trying to salvage their precious copyrights.

With respect to multis, I think playing two accounts is worse than copyright infringement because a contract was broken (the join the club checkbox) and it does waste our resources. But I still wouldn't call it theft because nothing was actually taken away from CC. I think Andy put it best, Multiple Accounts = Bad.

Yes, multis sucks. And considering the low price for playing, such wastage is deplorable.

But no need taking a general moral approach on contracts, saying pacta sund servanda is quite holy in someway. Dunno about that. Sometimes we want contracts to be broken in order to maximize the gains of a transaction (if dealing with a scarce resource). Here that shouldn't be a problem though, since CC is capable of delivering a more or less infinite numbers contracts to players.

All in all, keep busting those damnyankees... *hrm* I mean multis....

[AAFitz]

I actually have to agree with with Dancing Mustard on this one. I think it's safe to assume that he feels, as I do, that copyright law is unbalanced in favour of the content owners. For people like us misuse of the term "theft" is a touchy subject.

There is a huge difference between taking a candy bar and downloading a song. When you take a candy bar, there is a victim that loses a candy bar. When you download a song, nothing really happens to the victim. Lost sales?? Get real! Never in a million years would you have paid for all the stuff you've downloaded.

So when the content owners, who we're already pissed off at for bribing the US government to come out with bad-for-society laws like the DMCA start labelling copyright infringers as "thieves" to make them look bad, some of us feel the need to point out that there is no moral equivalence between steeling and copying.

With respect to multis, I think playing two accounts is worse than copyright infringement because a contract was broken (the join the club checkbox) and it does waste our resources. But I still wouldn't call it theft because nothing was actually taken away from CC. I think Andy put it best, Multiple Accounts = Bad.

well in general, im completely playing devils advocate here, but since piracy has resulted in hugely diminished sales because of downloading, it actually has cost money, and therefore is theft. If I spend two years of my life writing a book...which im getting close to in this thread...and someone copies all the info onto the internet and lets everyone read it for free, they have in fact stolen two years of my life. I wrote it with the express intent of letting those who paid for it read it. If all can read it for free, its the same as taking my car. It seems small, because its one song, but the people who used to buy music and movies stopped the day they could download it for free. Therefore, they are stealing. Now no ones going to feel for the mega-groups of course, but the one hit wonder groups are the ones mostly affected. They stumble on one song that is absolutely unique, and the only way in the past to hear it was on the radio, or buy it. Now one person buys it, and all their friends and friends can listen to it for free. Justify it to yourself however you want...but dont pretend youre not taking something from someone.

...............the end...