CCP: Clarification on simultaneous Alphas+Omegas:

(Salvos Rhoska) #1

CCP, is the following ISD statement correct?

Source thread:

Are multiple accounts allowed as an Alpha?

CCP Policy on Throwaway Alpha Awox Accounts
(Chan'aar) #2

Try summoning the Great and Powerful Oz.

Or if that fails

@CCP_Falcon @CCP_Guard

(Sugar Smacks) #3

That statement is correct.

You can check by having a alpha and omega account and try loading up your alpha account and then open the other, it wont let you. If you are on an alpha you are ONLY on an alpha and nothing else, at least that’s the rule.

(Salvos Rhoska) #4

The statement refers to a person using multiple clients on multiple platforms, simultaneously.

Not one client on one platform.

Read the statement carefully, and the linked source thread.
Its not long.

(Sugar Smacks) #5

I think you are asking if you have an alpha on one computer and something else on a different computer is it ok.

I would assume no, it doesn’t matter if you have 1000 computers you can only control an alpha by itself at once.

This could get murky however because I am not sure however if there are different people on those computers.

(Salvos Rhoska) #6

Read the ISD statement and context in the linked source thread.

(Sugar Smacks) #7

But your thread and his aren’t the same thing, his is about how many alpha accounts you can own (infinite). Where yours is how many can be played at once (one).

(Salvos Rhoska) #8

No, this thread is asking CCP if the quoted ISDs statement is correct.

(Nevyn Auscent) #9

It’s covered clearly in the eula salvos. Just go read it. It’s not even slightly vague.

(Salvos Rhoska) #10

Care to copy/paste the relevant section, since you claim its there clearly?

And Im not asking about that.

Im asking if the ISDs quote above is correct.

(Nevyn Auscent) #11

Go there. Find the obvious section for it. I’m on a phone so can’t copy and paste but it took me under 30 seconds to find when I posted it before in the other thread. It just got cleaned up in the cull

(Salvos Rhoska) #12

Its ok.
I can wait.
It was your claim, so you can copy/paste the relevant section.

On my part, this thread and my question is to ask CCP if the quoted ISD’s statement is correct.

(Chan'aar) #13

I’m guessing you see some sort of problem with what the ISD said? or you can see a loophole somewhere? Remember ISD are volunteers and as such their word is not The Law, that can only come from CCP themselves.

Why don’t you explain the issue you have with the ISD quote.

(Salvos Rhoska) #14

I dont have any problem with it either way.

Im simply asking CCP if it is correct.

(Nevyn Auscent) #15

Why not spend 30 seconds yourself establishing it’s correct. Or are you seriously that lazy

(Salvos Rhoska) #16

Ive read TOS/EULA a dozen times.
Ive re-read them today, again.

A) That doesnt change you made the claim its “clear” there, so I asked you to show the relevant section to support that.

B) My specific question and this thread, is to CCP on whether the quoted ISD statement is correct.

(Nevyn Auscent) #17

This answers your question about the ISD statement, and you could have found it very fast.
So yes, the ISD statement is correct since the EULA says so.
And yes, 30 seconds to find it, so you obviously didn’t read through it or you would have found the clear section yourself.

(Salvos Rhoska) #18

I have read it.
I read that section specifically.

I’m asking CCP to answer whether the ISDs statement is correct.

(Nevyn Auscent) #19

"Hi CCP, please tell me if this statement is correct even though it’s already answered by you in your EULA, I am so important I deserve your time to write it out for me again in a personal answer"
Seriously Salvos, stop being… Yeah.
It’s there, it’s in writing from CCP. It’s already answered, you aren’t a special snowflake, you don’t need a personal answer when it’s already been answered.

(Salvos Rhoska) #20

You are confusing an ISD statement with CCP’s TOS/EULA.

I want a CCP confirmation of whether the ISD statement was correct.