Accused Username: @kstepnowski @firemaster963Complaint: These users were illegally sharing money after an SG. I rented kstep's sword, he wanted it back early, so i agreed to let him pay 30k, the users then said "We'll go get your money" then they said they were going to play sg, after multiple times of sharing winnings, I messaged kstep and he said that fire master was giving him the money so they could pay me back faster which is illegal. I possess the user's melon sword at the time, so if this is a bannable offense, I would think that i would maintain possession of the sword. if the funds to pay me back were obtained illegally, that is directly against the rules. i will attach evidence below.Evidence: i apologize that they are out of order. But this clearly has them admitting to it, as well as looking in the logs and seeing that they traded wins.Additional Information: Thanks!
1st] I didn't see in the rules that this was illegal, Ik sg clans like obey that split the money and thats exactly what we were doing. 2nd] I'm willing to completely pay back fire for how much he has donated to me... 3rd] I was gifted idionceep today By a mayor who is quitting MC, so he had also gifted me 4 stacks of Nstars, that are in the town so no, the Money was not obtained illegally.. 4th] I have sent firemaster's Money back to him.
Which rule was broken? There's only a rule about alt accounts sharing money but none about friends sharing money. I just want to know which rule is being broken...
but why, though? pardon my soapboxing for a minute (and this isn't directed at you, I've seen this happen a couple times now relating to the topic so it's more of an @staff thing but) the accusations in this complaint have no legal basis whatsoever -- ECC has no rules pertaining to splitting money from SG. The only rule that is possibly applicable here is the broad ban on multi-accounting for economic gain, which is only a possibility as the most generic requirements are being met as there is financial interaction - however the complaint does not comment on the possibility that these accounts are owned by the same person and likewise provide no evidence to that effect. even if that argument were to be made, the complaint here establishes a precedent that complaints regarding alt-accounting are handled on a basis of evidence provided rather than further investigation (and as this complaint does not even attempt to prove multiaccounting, logic dictates it can be summarily rejected). given that there are no rules which are directly applicable this complaint should be immediately rejected without need for further review - there are always rules which are possibly applicable to a given scenario and yet complaints are never left open to deal with them.
Thank you for filing this complaint, @OpTic_Patt, After reviewing the evidence given in this complaint, I have decided that I will be dismissing this due to the fact that there is no evidence of any rules being broken (multi-accounting, boosting, etc). There are no rules against sharing money after SG. Complaint Dismissed.
