The question was about him having minus/negative/- amount of gems! I know there are loads of big spenders!
Oh, I didn’t understand that “minus”. That’s indeed strange.
Please share this video so that we may all see.
There are no hacks for getting gems, all of them are scams. So this looks like a display bug. Maybe after you reach a certain number of gems the display glitches and shows a minus instead of a number? Or it might have something to do with the language?
Might be, but in that case the poor fellow is losing out on his chests as the “debt” decreases when he gets gems. Starts at -49030 and goes to -48995 or something like that.
There was some type of “cheating” being investigated by SG not too long ago and I believe while (or after) they were being investigated SG depleted their current gem count and gave them a negative count (for a while a lot of accounts were suspended). I’m not “in-the-know” of what became of the investigations or the outcome. I also don’t know who was innocent and who was guilty.
But don’t attempt to cheat or “buy” cheap gems kids.
I cannot comment on any individual cases, but it is possible to result in negative gem balance if purchases have been refunded or purchased through illegal 3rd party gem sellers and if these revoked purchases have been spent.
Currency has changed!
a month ago when so many accounts were blocked, they unlocked them and those who bought gems in an illegal way have taken away the gems and for this there is that “-”, if he showed with the invoices the purchase the gems it wasn’t that “-”
Right, so apart from straight outright permabanning/suspension, you will allow some to continue to play without being able to buy extra summons with gems or buy special offers for gems, until their balance is positive again. There’s a subtle cruelty and justice in there that’s to be appreciated. Almost as good as ye 'ole banhammer, because gore.
Well played SG.
Yea, they can’t comment… lol. But a huge amount of people know what happened, people who made refunds or bought gems from third sides (whom i am sure made refunds too, but on there accounts) were banned. Also when SGG realised that they banned a lot innocent people too, they unbanned any account who wrote to support after couple weeks. Maybe they unbanned all but i knew only people who wrote. So it’s normal to have -49000 gems, but as i saw he also have a lot fully ascended heroes too^^ So buy gems get heroes you want, buy unfarmable AM, then refund money and play for free… Well played SG yea
P.s I laughed first time a lot after people unban and if now a lot people will do same again and won’t be banned by SGG (they will just make minus gems which they couldn’t comment) I will rofl… Also If people will be banned there will be reasonable question - why first wave of ban was unbanned but second wave will be ban permanently
I don’t consider that normal. It’s possible. But it does mark you as a hack user. If I’d know that about you, it’s either you or me that leaves the alliance. I won’t stand the company of hack users.
It may seem like a weak punishment, but being forced F2P like that does put a damper on things. And those are things that matter to such players or else they’d not be using hacks. So it does hurt them, over time. If you’re weak of will enough to give into hacks, how much willpower can you muster to keep playing F2P after you’ve had a taste of a heap of gems like that?
I bet if an account that had been punished for buying third party gems, does that again and they find out, there’s no appealing, no even larger debet amount of gems, just a straight ban. Sure enough SG chose a way of punishment that is quite forgiving. It’s not entirely unreasonable for first time offenders I suppose. Do take into account that it takes a player hunderds of euros to return to a positive gem balance. Not that any of them ever will, but still.
Also it’s at SG’s discretion to outright permaban a 2nd wave, because by now players would have been forewarned.
Just reminder that discussing disciplinary actions is against the forum rules, please review the updated rules here:
Hmm. I’m not sure this is exactly correct. The new rule does not prohibit discussing disciplinary actions. It prohibits discussing:
“[…]the disciplinary actions taken by staff, moderators or support.”
So there is no breach of the rules involved in discussing forum discipline or potential disciplinary actions, so long as actions that have actually been taken are not part of the conversation. Hypothetical situations would be perfectly acceptable, as would any instances where no disciplinary action was taken.
(This seems like an unusual approach for the rule makers but I’m sure they have their reasons. Perhaps they just prefer that particular individual cases not be the subject of conversation.)
You’re stretching, Brobb.
I didn’t draft the rule; I’m just reading what it says. It’s pretty clear.
We’ve been discussing the minus gems on certain players’ accounts. That’s actions taken, with a sprinkle of naming and shaming on top. ‘Nuff said.
I don’t understand what any of those words mean. Are they related to interpretation of the new rule, as we’re discussing? Or are you making reference to disciplinary actions taken by staff, moderators or support, and thus breaking the new rule one day after it was introduced?
(SG makes the rules so SG can break them, if it wishes - they’re SG’s rules. But it would send an unusual message to players to break the new rule so soon after introducing it.)
Read the first five posts. I think the thread is interesting so I want to see where it goes, but the rule is very clear:
You know I discuss everything, so thanks for catching me there, but the subject is closed.