It's not even unique to pet sites either, the 'one account' rule applies to so many websites nowadays and a perma-ban to all current standing accounts with the option to create a new account after ban is fairly normal. News media platforms tend to enforce this rather strongly, same with some social media groups or social forums in general.
The moment someone starts to call mods or website staff dictators/fascists/etc tends to be the moment I reassess my opinion on them, especially when the rules for said website are so clearly laid out. 99% of the time it's a case where the person is just salty for being called out on their bullshit or that they can't just keep getting away with breaking the very black and white ToS they agreed to upon making their account.
>Do not post topics or content pertaining to real-world religion or politics.
"WAHHHH MODS ARE BIGOTS BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET US TALK ABOUT QUEER POLITICS DESPITE THE GAME BEING SUPER QUEER POSITIVE AND SUPPORTING 2SLGBTQ+ STUFF OPENLY AND BEING HELLA INCLUSIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING. I'M BEING OPRESSED."
(I say the above with all the sarcasm in the world, I swear on me mum, I am queer af)
>Do not seek, offer, or post gore, pornography, obscene, or vulgar content.
"FR IS TERRIBLE BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET ME USE THEIR CURRENCY SYSTEM TO BUY PORNO ART OF MY SPARKLEDOG IN THE OPEN FORUMS THEY'RE BEING INTOLERANT AND UNFAIR. WHY CAN X SELL THEIR ART BUT THEY CAN'T DRAW A DICK ON IT????"
>Do not seek or offer medical advice; this includes but is not limited to mental health counseling, veterinary advice, dietary advice, etc.
"FLIGHTRISING MODS ARE ABLEIST AND CORRUPT BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET ME POST MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION ABOUT COVID/DISEASE/[INSERT X THING HERE] FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME OR TALK ABOUT HOW USING WEED OIL SUDDENLY CURED ALL OF THE CANCER IN MY DAD'S UNCLE'S COUSIN'S DAUGHTER'S DOG."
>Do not use our forums or site as a personal blog, diary, or other private journaling platform.
"WHY WON'T FR ALLOW ME TO POST ALL MY PERSONAL INFO I JUST NEED A SAFE SPACE TO VENT WHAT DO YOU MEAN TRAUMA DUMPING ON A PUBLIC FORUM ISN'T A GOOD IDEA FOR MY OWN SAFETY??? I NEED MY PERSONAL NEEDS TO BE MET. I NEED TO TALK ABOUT MY FEELINGS RIGHT NOW AND TREAT THE PUBLIC FORUMS LIKE IT'S MY OWN LOCKED TUMBLR ACCOUNT. EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW MY CURRENT TRAUMA AT ANY GIVEN TIME LIKE I'M THE MAIN CHARACTER IN SOME ANIME WAAAAAA"
>You agree to register a maximum of one account per individual user.
"BUT I NEED SEVEN ALT ACCOUNTS FOR PROFITS AND DRAGON STORAGE WHY CAN'T I JUST HAVE THAT RATHER THAN FARM UP TREASURE AND USE FR'S IMPLEMENTED GAME MECHANICS TO INCREASE MY LAIR AND HIBDEN TO FIT ALL THESE DRAGONS AND USE THE FORUMS OR FLIP SHIT TO GET MONEY. I NEED ACCESS TO ALL THESE ACCOUNT AND I NEED TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THEM LIKE THEY'RE DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO SCAM OTHERS!! FOR MONEY!!!!! FR LET ME HAVE THIS!!!!"
I don't know fam I'm tired and very fed up with people who don't seem to be able to understand that rules for a website apply equally to everyone within it, regardless of your ability to play the game or what you 'give' the game in return. Whales still get banned for multi-ing because they'll just buy their shit back, nobody is free from this.
I do feel sometimes like staff takes one rule a little too far (specifically the one about not talking about staff actions, which makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable), but for the most part, the rules are entirely simple and really not hard to abide by.
So, the thing about that rule, in particular, is that it's as much for the FR community's integrity as it is for the staff team's. It's a rule that, again, is applied to a lot of other websites too and it's not something that people really think much of beyond 'Oh well that website just doesn't like complaints' when it really isn't the case.
Critique is good for a website or community to a degree, but when a website specifically has a route for you to submit those critiques through tickets or to reach out to a team, it's done that way for a reason. It means that any complaint or question goes directly to who it's intended for without getting muddied on the way down or possibly causing issues with other users.
One big one is fearmongering with bans and stuff. It's so easy for a user who has been temp-banned or on a fresh account post-ban to spread misinformation about why they got banned in the first place or bring up things about staff that aren't entirely true. A user could say that they got unfairly banned because of XYZ when, in reality, they got banned for an alternate reason that was handled privately by a mod. Users only see the upset person's side and it begins to spread that FR is unfairly banning people because of X situation when the reality is that the user harassed someone or actually had a multi-ring and got caught. The user that got banned isn't likely to be honest about that though and that information is far more likely to get spread because ~drama~ rather than the reality of the situation.
It's also extremely easy for people to end up ganging up on other users or feeling like they have the rights/power to attack others over ToS stuff rather than going through the proper hoops to flag an account or notify staff, which in turn can end up with the user back-seat modding to end up with a ban too. That then turns into 'FR is unfairly banning people who are only trying to help' when the user was harassing or stalking the other to try and 'out' them. If you find a multi, kids, just report it to FR. Don't take matters into your own hand, not your job, is2g. Report and move on, don't let yourself get caught in the salt.
Reasonable discussions about rules and ToS can also get out of hand very easily, which means that the thread needs to be monitored closely to ensure that it doesn't get that far. Given the fact that most of FR's moderation team seem to be community volunteers though, it isn't realistic to expect that from them or for them to be able to monitor it 24/7 without actual pay. Websites that allow critique on their rules and whatnot in public posts/discussions tend to have paid moderation teams that are on the ball with shit like that because it's a legit career and not a hobby site for them. That isn't to say that FR's moderation team isn't good, it just has its limits for what it is.
I will agree that some mods have power-tripped and gone a bit too far, but again, that's the issue with volunteer moderators in general where it's not a career thing for them but a volunteering thing. I find that paid moderation teams are more likely to properly follow ToS stuff and monitor as needed since their livelihoods often depend on it. A good moderation team tends to need to be able to be unbiased and detach themselves from the situation at hand and look at it from a logical standpoint rather than an emotional one. It's not a bad thing to be unable to do that or to be passionate about something, it's just human!
FR's ToS in terms of critique for the site in general works with how FR is set up, but it's very easy to see it as them wanting to squash out any and all criticism from the userbase. I've personally had mixed feelings when dealing with FR's team via tickets and have some preferences when it comes to who I'm talking to for sure, but I also get where they're coming from with stuff like that.
Yeah, like I said in the previous post, it makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable.
There's definitely instances (e.g. discussing moderation actions) where it makes sense bc there's nothing of value to be gained in publicly discussing those. However, some of the other times it's been applied I don't agree with.
For example, I recall it being applied pretty liberally at various points in regard to special eyes (I don't remember the specifics so it may have been on release or after some time), and while some of that was users being bitchy and toxic at each other, some of it was reasonable and productive discussion that was shut down in sweeping comment deletions that seemed from the outside to just be a dislike of negative public opinion rather than having a real and legitimate reason.
Feedback forms are great, but there is sometimes genuine value in having things (again, not moderation actions) discussed publicly because ideas can be iterated on and improved. For example, if user John's idea of fixing eyes is to make eye changes a dropdown box on all dragons with unlimited changes for free, maybe user Jane sees that (when she wouldn't have thought to send a feedback form otherwise) and goes, "Well that seems unreasonable and against the point of the feature, but perhaps X price or Y limitation might make it something the admins would be more willing to consider." Then further users can contribute as well until there's enough variety to pull a genuinely good starter from, rather than if John had just sent in "make it basically free and unlimited and easy" which would have only indicated demand for the feature and not given any reasonable ideas on how to accomplish it. This is honestly kinda a shitty example bc of how extreme John->Jane is, but it was so long ago that I don't remember better specifics, and what one user thinks is good is so subjective that I can't give idea progression everyone will agree with anyway.
But yeah, generally I do agree with you (as stated at the end of what I wrote) that specific moderation actions just aren't worth discussing publicly and should be shut down. The problem is when the rule is taken and applied too generally even outside of discussion of specific actions and is used to silence general discontent over site features or additions. (I think it's been done over new genes as well once or twice, though I don't remember specific examples.)
My personal opinion for what shouldn't get removed/shut down but has in past: - Non-heated, non-toxic discussion about new site features, genes, or similar site discussion/critique. (A rarity, but it does exist and has gotten removed in the past, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
My personal opinion for what should be removed/shut down: - Toxic bitching ("Wow, this gene is so lazy, [Artist] really phoned it in on this didn't they?") - Moderation discussion ("I got banned bc Undel personally came to my house and didn't like my cat!" reality: multi, or "Why did my forum thread get locked? I did nothing wrong!" reality: broke ToS)
Oh, also forgot that sometimes rule changes even do have legitimate reasons to be discussed. For example, iirc when the global, forum-wide "you can only bump a thread once every 24h" rule was implemented, it originally applied also to forums like ibaz which users pointed out moves too quickly for that, leading to users "totally not bumping" or creating dozens of threads bc no one goes past the first page. If my memory is correct, user discussion of and feedback on that rule resulted in it being removed for ibaz (and maybe dragons sales? I don't remember but I feel like there was one other subforum unaffected) and the general experience improved.
Stuff like that is pretty important, especially given the general community consensus that the admins don't really play their site all that much themselves. (Which makes sense; if a site was my job I wouldn't necessarily want to play it on my personal time, I'd probably want a break. But it can result in some out of touch stuff going on...)
Yeah, I wasn't even just talking about pet sites, though most do only allow one account (in my experience) with the exception of Neopets, which had heavily restricted secondary accounts.
It does get tiring to see the 1000 X 230442th time someone claims 'I was banned unfairly! I just had 300 accounts that I only used to get galore gifts and bot the fairgrounds! But I have to bot! I can't play the game normally!'
And to be honest, I really doubt that anyone who has an abandoned account from 2014 that they have literally never touched since is going to get banned.
That would mean that FR would need to create a tool that would crawl through 500,000+ accounts to look for same IPs and same Emails and similiar naming patterns and so on. (and even then would hit people who aren't multis, and still miss some who are, so they would still need to individually go through each hit to make sure).
Instead I have the feeling that FR has tools that flag certain activities.
1. The obvious would be funneling from one or more accounts to a single account. Not just gift bombing, but where the accounts do nothing but send to one specific account. Even then I feel that they wait for reports or someone to be super super obvious about it.
2. This is the one that I feel probably gets a lot of people who had old abandoned accounts banned: logging in to change the password and/or move dragons to the new account. This probably sends up flags because logging in to an account that is several years old just to change the password could be an indication of RMT (ie selling an old account), and if you log into an old account and send things over to the new account, it doesn't matter how many years it has been since you last used the account, that is still funneling.
I am sure there are others, but I really really really doubt that FR has the time and manpower to go through the aforementioned 500K+ accounts and check each one to make sure that someone didn't make a new account. They most likely rely mostly on highly suspicious activities or people reporting the accounts. Which is why so many people do get away with it. They fly below the radar so to speak, because they often don't call attention to themselves, and they do enough things 'differently' that it doesn't catch the attention of whatever tools they use.
I was thinking of the two instances I saw on the other salt blogs.
One was saying they had an old inactive account and they were recently banned along with the account, even though they hadn't touched it in years. Then in the comments they admitted they logged in to change the password and sent some items to their new account.
Another said they self reported the old account, and I have seen others who recently logged in and changed the passwords of the accounts who have also been banned.
Another reason someone could be banned in this situation (having an abandoned account that hasn't been used in years) is if they break a *different* rule on their active account, prompting staff to investigate them. Could be something like harassment, bigotry, inappropriate content, making callouts, or botting. I feel like this is what happened to hyrultia recently: lots of reports sent in about the callout post -> staff looked closer -> found multiple accounts -> banned for multi-ing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 09:46 pm (UTC)(link)It's not even unique to pet sites either, the 'one account' rule applies to so many websites nowadays and a perma-ban to all current standing accounts with the option to create a new account after ban is fairly normal. News media platforms tend to enforce this rather strongly, same with some social media groups or social forums in general.
The moment someone starts to call mods or website staff dictators/fascists/etc tends to be the moment I reassess my opinion on them, especially when the rules for said website are so clearly laid out. 99% of the time it's a case where the person is just salty for being called out on their bullshit or that they can't just keep getting away with breaking the very black and white ToS they agreed to upon making their account.
>Do not post topics or content pertaining to real-world religion or politics.
"WAHHHH MODS ARE BIGOTS BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET US TALK ABOUT QUEER POLITICS DESPITE THE GAME BEING SUPER QUEER POSITIVE AND SUPPORTING 2SLGBTQ+ STUFF OPENLY AND BEING HELLA INCLUSIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING. I'M BEING OPRESSED."
(I say the above with all the sarcasm in the world, I swear on me mum, I am queer af)
>Do not seek, offer, or post gore, pornography, obscene, or vulgar content.
"FR IS TERRIBLE BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET ME USE THEIR CURRENCY SYSTEM TO BUY PORNO ART OF MY SPARKLEDOG IN THE OPEN FORUMS THEY'RE BEING INTOLERANT AND UNFAIR. WHY CAN X SELL THEIR ART BUT THEY CAN'T DRAW A DICK ON IT????"
>Do not seek or offer medical advice; this includes but is not limited to mental health counseling, veterinary advice, dietary advice, etc.
"FLIGHTRISING MODS ARE ABLEIST AND CORRUPT BECAUSE THEY WON'T LET ME POST MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION ABOUT COVID/DISEASE/[INSERT X THING HERE] FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME OR TALK ABOUT HOW USING WEED OIL SUDDENLY CURED ALL OF THE CANCER IN MY DAD'S UNCLE'S COUSIN'S DAUGHTER'S DOG."
>Do not use our forums or site as a personal blog, diary, or other private journaling platform.
"WHY WON'T FR ALLOW ME TO POST ALL MY PERSONAL INFO I JUST NEED A SAFE SPACE TO VENT WHAT DO YOU MEAN TRAUMA DUMPING ON A PUBLIC FORUM ISN'T A GOOD IDEA FOR MY OWN SAFETY??? I NEED MY PERSONAL NEEDS TO BE MET. I NEED TO TALK ABOUT MY FEELINGS RIGHT NOW AND TREAT THE PUBLIC FORUMS LIKE IT'S MY OWN LOCKED TUMBLR ACCOUNT. EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW MY CURRENT TRAUMA AT ANY GIVEN TIME LIKE I'M THE MAIN CHARACTER IN SOME ANIME WAAAAAA"
>You agree to register a maximum of one account per individual user.
"BUT I NEED SEVEN ALT ACCOUNTS FOR PROFITS AND DRAGON STORAGE WHY CAN'T I JUST HAVE THAT RATHER THAN FARM UP TREASURE AND USE FR'S IMPLEMENTED GAME MECHANICS TO INCREASE MY LAIR AND HIBDEN TO FIT ALL THESE DRAGONS AND USE THE FORUMS OR FLIP SHIT TO GET MONEY. I NEED ACCESS TO ALL THESE ACCOUNT AND I NEED TO BE ABLE TO PLAY THEM LIKE THEY'RE DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO SCAM OTHERS!! FOR MONEY!!!!! FR LET ME HAVE THIS!!!!"
I don't know fam I'm tired and very fed up with people who don't seem to be able to understand that rules for a website apply equally to everyone within it, regardless of your ability to play the game or what you 'give' the game in return. Whales still get banned for multi-ing because they'll just buy their shit back, nobody is free from this.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 10:24 pm (UTC)(link)I do feel sometimes like staff takes one rule a little too far (specifically the one about not talking about staff actions, which makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable), but for the most part, the rules are entirely simple and really not hard to abide by.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 10:42 pm (UTC)(link)So, the thing about that rule, in particular, is that it's as much for the FR community's integrity as it is for the staff team's. It's a rule that, again, is applied to a lot of other websites too and it's not something that people really think much of beyond 'Oh well that website just doesn't like complaints' when it really isn't the case.
Critique is good for a website or community to a degree, but when a website specifically has a route for you to submit those critiques through tickets or to reach out to a team, it's done that way for a reason. It means that any complaint or question goes directly to who it's intended for without getting muddied on the way down or possibly causing issues with other users.
One big one is fearmongering with bans and stuff. It's so easy for a user who has been temp-banned or on a fresh account post-ban to spread misinformation about why they got banned in the first place or bring up things about staff that aren't entirely true. A user could say that they got unfairly banned because of XYZ when, in reality, they got banned for an alternate reason that was handled privately by a mod. Users only see the upset person's side and it begins to spread that FR is unfairly banning people because of X situation when the reality is that the user harassed someone or actually had a multi-ring and got caught. The user that got banned isn't likely to be honest about that though and that information is far more likely to get spread because ~drama~ rather than the reality of the situation.
It's also extremely easy for people to end up ganging up on other users or feeling like they have the rights/power to attack others over ToS stuff rather than going through the proper hoops to flag an account or notify staff, which in turn can end up with the user back-seat modding to end up with a ban too. That then turns into 'FR is unfairly banning people who are only trying to help' when the user was harassing or stalking the other to try and 'out' them. If you find a multi, kids, just report it to FR. Don't take matters into your own hand, not your job, is2g. Report and move on, don't let yourself get caught in the salt.
Reasonable discussions about rules and ToS can also get out of hand very easily, which means that the thread needs to be monitored closely to ensure that it doesn't get that far. Given the fact that most of FR's moderation team seem to be community volunteers though, it isn't realistic to expect that from them or for them to be able to monitor it 24/7 without actual pay. Websites that allow critique on their rules and whatnot in public posts/discussions tend to have paid moderation teams that are on the ball with shit like that because it's a legit career and not a hobby site for them. That isn't to say that FR's moderation team isn't good, it just has its limits for what it is.
I will agree that some mods have power-tripped and gone a bit too far, but again, that's the issue with volunteer moderators in general where it's not a career thing for them but a volunteering thing. I find that paid moderation teams are more likely to properly follow ToS stuff and monitor as needed since their livelihoods often depend on it. A good moderation team tends to need to be able to be unbiased and detach themselves from the situation at hand and look at it from a logical standpoint rather than an emotional one. It's not a bad thing to be unable to do that or to be passionate about something, it's just human!
FR's ToS in terms of critique for the site in general works with how FR is set up, but it's very easy to see it as them wanting to squash out any and all criticism from the userbase. I've personally had mixed feelings when dealing with FR's team via tickets and have some preferences when it comes to who I'm talking to for sure, but I also get where they're coming from with stuff like that.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)Massive panic and outrage ensued to the point where staff had to respond that the situation was being misrepresented.
Reality was, said user was a multi.
+1
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 02:49 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 06:02 pm (UTC)(link)Yeah, like I said in the previous post, it makes sense in cases of like "why did staff ban my previous account" and similar specific moderation actions, but has also at times been applied a little too widely in some cases to shut down most critique of the site both unreasonable and reasonable.
There's definitely instances (e.g. discussing moderation actions) where it makes sense bc there's nothing of value to be gained in publicly discussing those. However, some of the other times it's been applied I don't agree with.
For example, I recall it being applied pretty liberally at various points in regard to special eyes (I don't remember the specifics so it may have been on release or after some time), and while some of that was users being bitchy and toxic at each other, some of it was reasonable and productive discussion that was shut down in sweeping comment deletions that seemed from the outside to just be a dislike of negative public opinion rather than having a real and legitimate reason.
Feedback forms are great, but there is sometimes genuine value in having things (again, not moderation actions) discussed publicly because ideas can be iterated on and improved. For example, if user John's idea of fixing eyes is to make eye changes a dropdown box on all dragons with unlimited changes for free, maybe user Jane sees that (when she wouldn't have thought to send a feedback form otherwise) and goes, "Well that seems unreasonable and against the point of the feature, but perhaps X price or Y limitation might make it something the admins would be more willing to consider." Then further users can contribute as well until there's enough variety to pull a genuinely good starter from, rather than if John had just sent in "make it basically free and unlimited and easy" which would have only indicated demand for the feature and not given any reasonable ideas on how to accomplish it. This is honestly kinda a shitty example bc of how extreme John->Jane is, but it was so long ago that I don't remember better specifics, and what one user thinks is good is so subjective that I can't give idea progression everyone will agree with anyway.
But yeah, generally I do agree with you (as stated at the end of what I wrote) that specific moderation actions just aren't worth discussing publicly and should be shut down. The problem is when the rule is taken and applied too generally even outside of discussion of specific actions and is used to silence general discontent over site features or additions. (I think it's been done over new genes as well once or twice, though I don't remember specific examples.)
My personal opinion for what shouldn't get removed/shut down but has in past:
- Non-heated, non-toxic discussion about new site features, genes, or similar site discussion/critique. (A rarity, but it does exist and has gotten removed in the past, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)
My personal opinion for what should be removed/shut down:
- Toxic bitching ("Wow, this gene is so lazy, [Artist] really phoned it in on this didn't they?")
- Moderation discussion ("I got banned bc Undel personally came to my house and didn't like my cat!" reality: multi, or "Why did my forum thread get locked? I did nothing wrong!" reality: broke ToS)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 06:12 pm (UTC)(link)Oh, also forgot that sometimes rule changes even do have legitimate reasons to be discussed. For example, iirc when the global, forum-wide "you can only bump a thread once every 24h" rule was implemented, it originally applied also to forums like ibaz which users pointed out moves too quickly for that, leading to users "totally not bumping" or creating dozens of threads bc no one goes past the first page. If my memory is correct, user discussion of and feedback on that rule resulted in it being removed for ibaz (and maybe dragons sales? I don't remember but I feel like there was one other subforum unaffected) and the general experience improved.
Stuff like that is pretty important, especially given the general community consensus that the admins don't really play their site all that much themselves. (Which makes sense; if a site was my job I wouldn't necessarily want to play it on my personal time, I'd probably want a break. But it can result in some out of touch stuff going on...)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-11 11:56 pm (UTC)(link)Yeah, I wasn't even just talking about pet sites, though most do only allow one account (in my experience) with the exception of Neopets, which had heavily restricted secondary accounts.
It does get tiring to see the 1000 X 230442th time someone claims 'I was banned unfairly! I just had 300 accounts that I only used to get galore gifts and bot the fairgrounds! But I have to bot! I can't play the game normally!'
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 12:11 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 04:43 am (UTC)(link)That would mean that FR would need to create a tool that would crawl through 500,000+ accounts to look for same IPs and same Emails and similiar naming patterns and so on. (and even then would hit people who aren't multis, and still miss some who are, so they would still need to individually go through each hit to make sure).
Instead I have the feeling that FR has tools that flag certain activities.
1. The obvious would be funneling from one or more accounts to a single account. Not just gift bombing, but where the accounts do nothing but send to one specific account. Even then I feel that they wait for reports or someone to be super super obvious about it.
2. This is the one that I feel probably gets a lot of people who had old abandoned accounts banned: logging in to change the password and/or move dragons to the new account. This probably sends up flags because logging in to an account that is several years old just to change the password could be an indication of RMT (ie selling an old account), and if you log into an old account and send things over to the new account, it doesn't matter how many years it has been since you last used the account, that is still funneling.
I am sure there are others, but I really really really doubt that FR has the time and manpower to go through the aforementioned 500K+ accounts and check each one to make sure that someone didn't make a new account. They most likely rely mostly on highly suspicious activities or people reporting the accounts. Which is why so many people do get away with it. They fly below the radar so to speak, because they often don't call attention to themselves, and they do enough things 'differently' that it doesn't catch the attention of whatever tools they use.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 12:40 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 01:01 pm (UTC)(link)I was thinking of the two instances I saw on the other salt blogs.
One was saying they had an old inactive account and they were recently banned along with the account, even though they hadn't touched it in years. Then in the comments they admitted they logged in to change the password and sent some items to their new account.
Another said they self reported the old account, and I have seen others who recently logged in and changed the passwords of the accounts who have also been banned.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2023-04-12 01:21 pm (UTC)(link)