Forums-->Queries and help-->
| Author | Responsability leasing to multi? |
|---|
Hello, I think there've been quite some few changed to the rules recently (https://www.lordswm.com/help.php?section=5), and I want to clarify one thingy:
3.13.3. Additional characters are not allowed to transfer items for repairing or enchanting.
Smiths and enchanters accepting transfers from multichars share responsibility for violation of this rule.
3.13.4. Additional characters are not allowed to take or give items for rent.
So for rule 3.13.3 it specifies the smithers/enchanters share responsability of dealing with multis. How about 3.13.4, do leasers share responsability of leasing to multis?
It isn't really specified they would, but just want to make sure. Thanks! | | They do not, unless the lease price is exceeding reasonable market prices by much. | | Even if its their own multi? | Thanks Arctic! However, I still have a follow-up question to 3.13.3, addendum:Smiths and enchanters accepting transfers from multichars share responsibility for violation of this rule.
It is not clear to me how to determine if a character is really a main or multi, if the person doesn't write it in their profile.
Example: At the time of smithing, character does not indicate on it's profile it is a multi, and later on he/she adds that to the profile, making look as I was ignoring the rules by smithing for a multi and be held liable for it.
Is this a loophole in the rules, or how can I avoid being held responsible for a multi who doesn't indicate it's a multi on their profile (without hiring a detective company :) ). | +4
same concern here. Smiths and enchanters are regular players, we don't have the abilities to identify multichars. (I believe even a detective can't do that without the help of an admin. :)) | | binghuo is right it is admins responsibility to get multi-chars that aren't signed not the enchanters | 4-5. Of course, those who inspect these cases take to consideration the fact that smiths and enchanters (artisans) may be oblivious about their clients' status. When the client is a signed multichar, they will be subject to penalty in any case. If there were obvious transfers indicating that the client was already a financial assistant to some other character >at the moment of servicing that character<, the artisan will also get fined. It is the artisan's duty to check his/her clients.
(Unfortunately, even in case where the client used the service and only then signed himself as multichar, the artisan may be punished, obviously because it is not possible to prove the artisan innocent). | But, in this case, is it possible to prove (without any doubt) the artisan guilty?
It looks like it is preferable to punish an innocent artisan, rather than let a guilty one go away :(
And in this case, may I please propose to block all characters on the server, since they may all be guilty of cheating, and it's much easier to block everyone (including innocents), rather than selecting only those who are cheaters without a doubt and block them selectively.
This way we'd surely have delivered justice... | Well, I think I'm going into the realm of discussing an admin's/mod's decision for the game's rules, and probably shouldn't.
Anyways, it's your game, and you make the rules... They don't need to make sense to me, I'll try to follow them as long as I am around.
Sorry for my sarcasm above. I think the query has been answered, so I'll lock it. | 3. Quite an off-topic question, don't you find? If you don't read the first two posts again please.
As you most probably know, any transfers with own multies are prohibited without exception.
naviron, your sarcasm is not really sarcasm, it is the truth =) If you read my profile information, you will find one line particularly interesting (directly relating to this matter).
We do check everyone and do our best to find proof to character's innocence. If it is impossible and there are reasons to believe that the character might be guilty, this belief becomes foundation due to lack of other facts. | | closed by Arctic (2010-12-06 09:03:00) |
|---|
Back to topics list
|
