1533 Accounts banned for third-party currency transactions

    • Korn wrote:

      Just to be clear: if you lead a guild, and you have members in your guild who RMT, and we can show that you support this, we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.

      Where is it in ToS?
      we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      So, there is warning only for certain people?

      How come, when I ask support hypothetical question about scenario that could involve me in RMT and I want to avoid that I get this response:


      Meanwhile I can get banned for things that are not in ToS.

      What is and what is not legal then? Why can't you update your ToS to cover all this stuff?
      And later on you ban people for association, supporting, mark certains actions as exploiting because it's convenient.
      Make HCE lvl 15+ BZ only
    • Wydoyolo wrote:

      Where is it in ToS?
      we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      So, there is warning only for certain people?

      How come, when I ask support hypothetical question about scenario that could involve me in RMT and I want to avoid that I get this response:


      Meanwhile I can get banned for things that are not in ToS.

      What is and what is not legal then? Why can't you update your ToS to cover all this stuff?
      And later on you ban people for association, supporting, mark certains actions as exploiting because it's convenient.
      They were warned first though. And chose to not comply with the warnings. SBI did everything right here except not banning before the season ended, and not stripping them of their #1 and #2 spots..... yet.

      Also regarding the name shaming, they have every right to pick and choose when to name shame. Listing the names of fictional characters and/or guilds (fictional because the game is not real life) is perfectly legal. Everything in the game is the property of SBI. Your character, your guild, your items, your island, they are all the property of SBI. So they can name any character and/or guild when it suits them to do so. As a general practice/policy they don't name names when bans are handed out, but it doesn't mean they can't make an exception when they feel it is called for, which in this case it clearly was.
    • Wydoyolo wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      Just to be clear: if you lead a guild, and you have members in your guild who RMT, and we can show that you support this, we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      Where is it in ToS?
      we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      So, there is warning only for certain people?

      How come, when I ask support hypothetical question about scenario that could involve me in RMT and I want to avoid that I get this response:


      Meanwhile I can get banned for things that are not in ToS.

      What is and what is not legal then? Why can't you update your ToS to cover all this stuff?
      And later on you ban people for association, supporting, mark certains actions as exploiting because it's convenient.
      Just to be clear: if you lead a guild, and you have members in your guild who RMT, and we can show that you support this, we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.

      Wydoyolo wrote:

      Where is it in ToS?
      we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      So, there is warning only for certain people?

      How come, when I ask support hypothetical question about scenario that could involve me in RMT and I want to avoid that I get this response:


      Meanwhile I can get banned for things that are not in ToS.

      What is and what is not legal then? Why can't you update your ToS to cover all this stuff?
      And later on you ban people for association, supporting, mark certains actions as exploiting because it's convenient.
      It would actually be good to update the TOS, ngl
    • Blenfjorn wrote:

      Wydoyolo wrote:

      Where is it in ToS?
      we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      So, there is warning only for certain people?

      How come, when I ask support hypothetical question about scenario that could involve me in RMT and I want to avoid that I get this response:


      Meanwhile I can get banned for things that are not in ToS.

      What is and what is not legal then? Why can't you update your ToS to cover all this stuff?
      And later on you ban people for association, supporting, mark certains actions as exploiting because it's convenient.
      They were warned first though. And chose to not comply with the warnings. SBI did everything right here except not banning before the season ended, and not stripping them of their #1 and #2 spots..... yet.
      Also regarding the name shaming, they have every right to pick and choose when to name shame. Listing the names of fictional characters and/or guilds (fictional because the game is not real life) is perfectly legal. Everything in the game is the property of SBI. Your character, your guild, your items, your island, they are all the property of SBI. So they can name any character and/or guild when it suits them to do so. As a general practice/policy they don't name names when bans are handed out, but it doesn't mean they can't make an exception when they feel it is called for, which in this case it clearly was.
      Sorry INSERT_HERE_VILLAN_NAME_FROM_POWERPUFF_GIRLS was illegal tho.

      I'm not defending anyone, I just want to understand.
      Make HCE lvl 15+ BZ only
    • I support SBI in banning RMT , but this is just untidy.

      As someone who sits outside of the major guild politics this latest iteration of RMT bans from SBI has been handled extremely poorly and is highly unprofessional. Why SBI now chooses to name people/guilds they are banning for the first time in 5 years indicates a level of petty childishness. There have been numerous bans over the years which the community are well aware of; being informed by the players themselves or their friends/guild mates. SBI did not name these players.

      Why now does SBI elect to backflip on a policy they've been applying since the game launched baffles me. Are there deep personal grudges that SBI has allowed to filter into the professional domain? Or is this certain individual(s) with a grudge able to now claim a moral victory when unable to do so in the confines of the game?
    • @Wydoyolo


      4.5.1 Users are prohibited from selling, purchasing, renting, leasing, offering, accepting, disseminating or copying Virtual Benefits, including Virtual Currency, within and/or outside the Game - in whatever form – to/from third parties unless expressly permitted by these Terms and Conditions or the Game Rules. /.../

      "in whatever form" is the important thing here, SBI has no reason to change ToS as the current version allows them to define as rmt/justify basically anything. It seems there was a change in the handling of this issue (as it was mentioned by SBI staff they have moved resources into cracking down on rmters recently)

      Seems to me some people tried to go around the rules without "directly" breaking them and now are surprised that they go baned - they clearly didn't bother to read ToS or was just expecting that that SBI wouldn't enforce their own rules to its full potential extend

      It might be worrying that you might get banned for no reason, but there is a better idea - don't rmt or get involved with people who do.
    • Syndic wrote:

      Korn wrote:

      The timing indeed looks very bad.

      However, we just recently concluded our investigation on this, and it was a complex one, which took a long time.

      Essentially, we had two choices:
      1. Act on the findings right away - even if the timing looks bad
      2. Artificially wait for a few weeks and only then act on the findings - to avoid the timing looking bad

      We decided to go with option 1.
      Timing looks comical to say the least.

      Might wanna explain to your new CM (cause it looks clueless) the SBI policy on name-shaming - this is the first time SBI name-dropped (we all know who BA leadership is) who they banned, it has never before happened in the game to my knowledge. If it was a mistake then it's understandable and rectifiable, if it was intentional then you're just flexing on people cause they quit your game.

      I actually struggle to understand how this is anything but a PR flex - they quit so you ban them because, and if they decide to play again they can just make another account and play same as everyone else you ever banned (Shiro, QueenBR, Skuzkabel, Warriz, etc)?

      And like Wydoyolo said, banning people for inviting to their guild is actually retarded funny. Why am I not banned SBI? I invited someone to my guild a few hours ago, is it also a complex investigation? Am I not well-known in the community as the RMT Overlord that reigns above all lesser RMT aspirants? :D
      Good question. Dont know about current state of the game. But if we will go back on launch , after CBT - it was dark times.
      I heared lots of rumors my friend ,during this period of time , from at least hundred of people about you - who dont even know each other , from lots of regions. Which is very suspicious.
      ---
      There is no fire without smoke.
      ---
      It is not even about you, we all perfectly know how big ally/guilds work in other mmorpg and how they involved into RMT , and also in this game. So i will not be even surprised if half of big guilds in Albion would intentionally involved into RMT including Guild leaders.
      ---
      "I actually struggle to understand how this is anything but a PR flex - they quit so you ban them because" - And this is btw , the most funny comment i have ever seen. I'll tell you a secret - majority of players dont give a f*** about guilds,ally,zerg fights,crystal fights.

      I agree , such "elite" gameplay was important , and probably the main reason why people were playing Albion - when Albion was B2P game. But after FTP - no. Wake up , it is almost 2022.

      P.S
      Ideally i want to see such news not only on FORUM , but also in the GAME CLIENT! (Just implement them somehow inside :D ) Oh bealive me, it would be much better :whistling:

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Equart ().

    • Korn wrote:

      Zumzat wrote:

      Nesnes wrote:

      Just to clarify this: the people that were warned and then banned were not the ones RMTíng, they have been banned because they supported the players that were RMTíng. They have been warned not to support and harbor them, and they still did.
      Just to clarify this: using virtual/other machines and vpn/proxy for low fame RMT alts is most likely a common practice among people heavily involved in it. Especially when those alts keep being accepted into the guild even after multiple warnings. So most likely SBI just were fooled for some time, and when BA leadership realized they simply pushed it to the limit and most likely were going to get banned - they just decided to quit the game.For the sake of comparison, CCP, developers of Eve Online, would give an instant chain ban to the guild and would not issue any amount of preliminary warnings.
      Let's keep it simple: in this case, we have 100% watertight evidence that the banned accounts knowingly support an RMT operation.

      The first time, when the warnings were issue, we did not have that type of evidence, so we assumed reasonable doubts for the accounts not *directly* involved in the RMT.

      Just to be clear: if you lead a guild, and you have members in your guild who RMT, and we can show that you support this, we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.

      Again, collecting evidence in these cases can be a hard and a lot of work, that's why we have recently scaled up our capabilities in this area, as admittedly, we underestimated this problem previously.
      This is ridiculous ....
      So only mega alliance like ba worth to get a warning ?
      If you don't have 100% watertight evidence, you shouldn't send the warning.
      You only send the warning when you have 100% watertight evidence lol
      After that you Ban them its fine.

      Now you also tell people that we don't need to provide the evidence and send warning to you if we think you support RMT lol
      You sure you are 100% correct on this ? I mean how are you going to prove that GM knows about this ?
      If by guild asset using history you can prove the RMT supporting, why BA can get the warning ?
      Shouldn't it be 100% watertight prove ? At least it looks 100% watertight prove for me lol
      There is no logic here, come on ....
    • Hey guys I think the simple reality is that no one else has the right to sell Albion silver or gold for real life money except SBI.

      RMT (Real Money Transactions) can bring serious problems to the game including criminal theft and money laundering.

      So avoiding stolen credit cards and any participation in money laundering (real world money) is at least one serious reason why RMT must be policed.

      Fraud detection used to be the job of the banks. It's a drag, it's not easy, but it must be done at least to satisfy financial authorities.
    • Well this is a but like alliance gate..

      The name and shame thing is basically happened same way ..like hey ...let's ask player base .. it is good PR.

      They did not realize that they break their own name and shame policy.
      Maybe it was the new guy on the job that got no review / coach on the post.. speculation..

      Then Korn comes in, and trys to safe in his well known way the issue.. same professional way as he joins midnight ba streamer channel trying to fix things..
      And says ..we gave them several warnings...and doesn't realize that this is a super mistake ..

      Because now everyone RMT should expect a warning, which is not happening...

      And Bang..first Alliance Gate ..now RMT-Gate

      It is the same ..i try to fix ...and shoot us in the foot as last time..

      For a strange reason ...both Gates have BA in the middle..
    • Ok so the current logic is that if you know that durateen is rmt'ing then you should be banned for having him call for alliance cta's.

      To my knowledge Durateen called for the Anti poe coalition quite a bit during the last 2 wars - does that mean that SBI is about to ban the leadership in those guilds as well, or is this only targeted at blue army ?. And when they ban those anti poe guilds for harboring Durateen, will they be called out in the news section as well ?

      Additionally im wondering how any of us could actually know for sure that durateen has been banned when SBI to my knowledge never released any information stating that he actually was banned.

      So we can get banned for harboring banned players, but we cannot get told which players are banned.

      And the wildest thing here is that for the first time in 4 years you decide to name and shame a particular target of your ban for rmt, and then those guys (and girl) you witchhung didnt even RMT, but they knew about someone doing it.

      This case will forever be a mystery.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sinatra.SUN ().

    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      To my knowledge Durateen called for the Anti poe coalition quite a bit during the last 2 wars - does that mean that SBI is about to ban the leadership in those guilds as well, or is this only targeted at blue army ?. And when they ban those anti poe guilds for harboring Durateen, will they be called out in the news section as well ?.
      You forget that BA wasn't just harboring the RMT, they were providing Guild assets to the RMT'ers to make it easier for them.

      "Nesnes" wrote:

      ...but because people in their guild were caught doing RMT using guild assets....

      The post was edited 1 time, last by DoomRawrus ().

    • DoomRawrus wrote:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      To my knowledge Durateen called for the Anti poe coalition quite a bit during the last 2 wars - does that mean that SBI is about to ban the leadership in those guilds as well, or is this only targeted at blue army ?. And when they ban those anti poe guilds for harboring Durateen, will they be called out in the news section as well ?.
      You forget that BA wasn't just harboring the RMT, they were providing Guild assets to the RMT'ers to make it easier for them.

      Nesnes wrote:

      ...but because people in their guild were caught doing RMT using guild assets....
      Ah, but when Durateen called for the anti poe coalition he got payed for it - which is exactly as you write - providing guild assets to the rmt'ers.
      How come only one side of the war got banned for paying him, and not the other ?
    • Sinatra.Sun" wrote:

      Ah, but when Durateen called for the anti poe coalition he got payed for it - which is exactly as you write - providing guild assets to the rmt'ers.
      How come only one side of the war got banned for paying him, and not the other ?

      Being paid by a guild to run content that is permitted in the game is different from giving a player silver or items for the purpose of RMTing them. I imagine that's what all that talk about an investigation was about.

      Now if Durateen was permabanned and is simply playing on an alt then I think submitting evidence of a ban evasion to SBI would likely follow up with a second ban.
    • Korn wrote:

      Just to be clear: if you lead a guild, and you have members in your guild who RMT, and we can show that you support this, we will take action, and there won't be a warning either.
      Let me tell you something... We have a high level crystal league well known RMT player that you banned several times in the past and you know what? He comes back every time, every season he plays on his alt accounts and I guess it was his 6 TIME he is accepted into SUN guild to merc for them. He was even banned from crystal league post season championship and a team needed to find a replacement for him etc., yet he comes back again and is welcome in SUN. How is it even possible?

      @Korn @Sinatra.SUN
      I wanna hear your voice on this matter.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Ashoracky ().

    • Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Ok so the current logic is that if you know that durateen is rmt'ing then you should be banned for having him call for alliance cta's.
      Maybe you didn't read the SBI's statements fully? They said the ban was done after multiple warnings. So did you get a warning and did you ignore it multiple times? Then you had it coming.

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      Additionally im wondering how any of us could actually know for sure that durateen has been banned when SBI to my knowledge never released any information stating that he actually was banned.
      Because durateen was very vocal about being banned and still playing on ALT characters. Everyone can read about it in his reddit posts, including in conversations with SBI representatives on reddit. Also everyone knew about the character he is. It looks like you are just trying to weasel yourself out of possible repercussions. :thumbsup:

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      And the wildest thing here is that for the first time in 4 years you decide to name and shame a particular target of your ban for rmt, and then those guys (and girl) you witchhung didnt even RMT, but they knew about someone doing it.
      Policies can change. BA leadership are obviously rather important players in the world of Albion. There were years of accusations against them without hard proof. And such accusations can be a very destructive force - for associates or possibly for the game/game studio itself. Now they found hard proof for them to be enabling RMTers - and did not stop helping them after multiple warnings. They should be banned and called out for their behaviour. Because they were public figures the should be called out publicly. (And afaik no player names were dropped - only leadership in general)

      Sinatra.SUN wrote:

      This case will forever be a mystery.
      Only for those who choose to stay in the dark.