Since when do the devs do resurections on request?

[Blacktooth]

You'd have to prod the inner mind of loftar to find out, but I don't see how you don't see this as fair.

I didn't mention fairness. What I am concerned with is consistency. You want Black & White, I am trying to give that to you. Either Gato did something wrong or he didn't. Killing him off suggests he did. Will this rule continue in the future, and does the victim have no recourse?

Yes in the end Gato was possibly forced into this situation (as I found out myself, he was indeed by many people), but also as sabinati has said before, how do we know which is lying?

This is nothing but speculation. The proper course for an outsider is not to speculate. In this case it is easy. What exactly happened in game.

Rage (with his alt and help from others) killed Gato for a murder and suspected theft.
Gato logged onto Rage's main to kill him circumventing any normal method of retribution. He circumvented the normal means of getting to Rage's main, and he circumvented any subsequent retribution.

I am certain there was no coercion involved at this point.

As far as any coercion that may be suspected on my part. I can assure there was none. When everyone else was having a go at Gato, I stood up and treated him fairly. I can prove this with Gato's permission since it would be the log of our PMs.

The biggest problem I see here is the manipulating of truth in order to gain a 'positive outcome'.

Positive outcome? I see no positives from start to end, and no matter how it was judged. However, we can try for some consistency.

By the way, if this had happened anywhere else be it Sodom, Buyan, AD, or some little two person village I would present the same argument.

This is an issue that every MMO has to deal with at some point. Frankly, I am surprised it took H&H this long.

[ElGato]

If you feel it necessary.

[DatOneGuy]

Just as I would also state that personal security should be a personal problem.

You are forced to make a password, passwords tend to you know... be personal things. If you give out passwords that is your decision. Now if someone keylogs you (still personal security, but not the same thing here ; IMO keylogging SHOULD be something a bit different, a normal person for example won't go knowlingly download a client that has a keylogger in it. However, the normal person also won't check the source of every single client update and make sure it's clean. ; When this problem eventually pops out I guess people will talk about it then), or someone 'hacks' you in some way that is completely different and there is no indication in the slightest that you are giving out information or making it available (although some may argue that lack of proper security is doing just that), when you willingly give out your password you are essentially telling someone that they now have access to everything guarded by said password.

If I change my password from "Blue42" to "Cake61" and I know that my friend Charlie knows one of my typical passwords is "Cake61" I'm essentially giving him access to my password by using one that I know he knows.

You had no problem using logs of personal chats previously, I don't see why you ask permission now. I'd much rather if it even mattered (I don't see it as mattering) that we all hear it directly from the source.

With that said however, I don't think loftar will read another 10 pages of raeg without killling us all, so we can leave it there as I'm sure after this ordeal he's made up his mind, and he probably mentioned it too.

[Spiff]

when you willingly give out your password you are essentially telling someone that they now have access to everything guarded by said password.

This is patently untrue, at least in the US. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is designed to protect private information from third parties with no legitimate access. Just because you have the password doesn't give you the right to access privileged information, in particular email, without permission.

If I gave you my password and said "hey, this is for haven and hearth" and I used it for my bank info as well, sure that'd be dumb of me. But it'd still be illegal (and wrong! :v) of you to use it to access my bank account.

[DatOneGuy]

when you willingly give out your password you are essentially telling someone that they now have access to everything guarded by said password.

This is patently untrue, at least in the US. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is designed to protect private information from third parties with no legitimate access. Just because you have the password doesn't give you the right to access privileged information, in particular email, without permission.

If I gave you my password and said "hey, this is for haven and hearth" and I used it for my bank info as well, sure that'd be dumb of me. But it'd still be illegal (and wrong! :v) of you to use it to access my bank account.

I completely understand and to some extent agree with what you're saying, I just think that it's silly that we should protect people for faulty security problems of their own legally as well.

If someone gains access to your HnH account that shouldn't give them access to email or bank accounts, your passwords should be different, if they aren't, you just ignored most of the good advice on the internet.

[Onionfighter]

This may be a good point to mention that it probably would have been a very different situation if character access could be shared between accounts. If the original creator of a character can turn on and off another account's ability to play their character, there would be no need for password sharing.

[sabinati]

This may be a good point to mention that it probably would have been a very different situation if character access could be shared between accounts. If the original creator of a character can turn on and off another account's ability to play their character, there would be no need for password sharing.

that'd be cool

[DatOneGuy]

This may be a good point to mention that it probably would have been a very different situation if character access could be shared between accounts. If the original creator of a character can turn on and off another account's ability to play their character, there would be no need for password sharing.

This would be very neat, being able to give temporary access when I'm gone (Especially if it can be done via the website ; Perhaps via some second password? or only via email?) would be sweet. Nothing sucks like finding out your internet is down for a week and losing everything because you can't get someone to go on your account (or otherwise) and deal with things.

[Faeme]

I completely understand and to some extent agree with what you're saying, I just think that it's silly that we should protect people for faulty security problems of their own legally as well.

So step one:
No need to spend hours and hours of time and effort to lvl your character.
Step two:
Illegally attain persons account info you want to take out.
Step three:
Log into person account and kill their character.
Step four:
I win

So we don't actually need to play anymore just illegally attain people account info we want to take out. I can see this game going a long way...NOT.

[Blacktooth]

Just as I would also state that personal security should be a personal problem.

(And other words on security)

Spiff summed it pretty well. Access != Permission.

I would also add that if your computer is connected to the internet in anyway it is inherently insecure. It can even be extended to the fact that if anyone uses a computer that computer is no longer secure.

This will not be the last time this issue comes up in this game. As it stands it will likely get much worse. The cat is out of the bag so to speak.

You had no problem using logs of personal chats previously, I don't see why you ask permission now. I'd much rather if it even mattered (I don't see it as mattering) that we all hear it directly from the source.

No, you are mistaken. I have not posted any private information given to me in confidence in any public way...either here or in IRC. Other's have. I have not.

Gato: You can vouch for me or not. I don't care either way. My conscience is clear. DoG here can only speculate.