That honestly seems loosely interpreted, since in this particular case it's not the impersonation or misrepresentation of an individual, but simply the shared use of multiple individuals, in which all involved parties have consented. While it could very well be considered a ToS violation, I doubt it was the trigger, even if it could be spun both ways.

If I had to guess, it's probably a case of the payment system's pre-programmed fraud detection giving a red flag due to multiple payment methods that don't correlate to the same individual and choosing to lock your account down in terms of future payments and subsequently alerting Nutaku in the process, which Nutaku is probably also programmed to follow suit. From then on, Nutaku's approach (from a dick-wad business perspective) would be that they could re-activate your account but there's no particular benefit in doing so since you still won't be able to make any more future purchases anyways so long as that payment portal's locked down.

And I know what you're gonna say, something along the lines of "just make it so that I can buy gold again, that simple". Yeah, it probably would be that simple if it weren't a separate-party system that deals with the payment side, and while Nutaku may be willing to re-activate the account, it's difficult to say if the payment site would do the same, more so if they have a list of confusing terms that your little multi-user stunt potentially violated.

And finally regarding your gri-...suggestions:

-General Note: Under the terms of use, Nutaku technically reserves the right to revoke your account access or even outright shut down the site for no reason whatsoever, even if you were a "law-abiding citizen" of sorts. While game sites almost never exercise that right, it's there to say "we can do what we want", so your "should"s don't exactly apply. That being said, I get that you mean "should" as in "this would be a much more hospitable approach to users" but even so...

1. Eliminating the consequences (in other words, not banning the account) is out of the question. Allowing suspicious activity to run free, especially in the perspective of fraud, is incredibly dangerous and runs the risk of stirring up further problems down the road if not stopped early. I'm pretty sure the payment portal would prefer that they stopped payments to an account early and had to deal with a customer wanting to make more payments instead of having to deal with a non-customer who got his/her credit card(s) stolen and wants a massive refund in the time the payment site did nothing. The multi-payment warning sounds nice but ultimately you won't be able to see it since the site would automatically deny you access thereafter.

2. From a business perspective, importing existing account data into a new account is wasteful on time and available resource. Plus, other than bypassing it for that one instance, it fails to solve the underlying issue as your account will get locked down yet again if it senses the same suspicious activity from before. From a moral perspective, it teaches you, the user, absolutely nothing and gives you the impression that you got away with it scot-free and can just do it again expecting to get bailed out down the road.

On my own personal take, you seem to be talking in a way (or just lacking the tone that would suggest otherwise) that seems like you think (and will continue to think) having several users run your account is perfectly acceptable (I honestly don't know whether or not it is but I'd suggest you find that out one way or another). By inference, I'm thinking there's a possibility that during your time contacting customer service you came off to them as unapologetic and likely to create the same issues again, in which case naturally they'd refuse.

There are frankly quite a few things that I don't quite understand. Was it Nutaku or the billing portal that chose to lock the account down? If it was Nutaku, was it due to a specific ToS violation and are they expecting you to prove you won't do it again before they reconsider your access rights? On the other hand, if it was the billing portal, what would it take for the portal to reinstate you and subsequently allow account access?

Originally Posted by ChibiKika

That honestly seems loosely interpreted, since in this particular case it's not the impersonation or misrepresentation of an individual, but simply the shared use of multiple individuals, in which all involved parties have consented. While it could very well be considered a ToS violation, I doubt it was the trigger, even if it could be spun both ways.

If I had to guess, it's probably a case of the payment system's pre-programmed fraud detection giving a red flag due to multiple payment methods that don't correlate to the same individual and choosing to lock your account down in terms of future payments and subsequently alerting Nutaku in the process, which Nutaku is probably also programmed to follow suit. From then on, Nutaku's approach (from a dick-wad business perspective) would be that they could re-activate your account but there's no particular benefit in doing so since you still won't be able to make any more future purchases anyways so long as that payment portal's locked down.

And I know what you're gonna say, something along the lines of "just make it so that I can buy gold again, that simple". Yeah, it probably would be that simple if it weren't a separate-party system that deals with the payment side, and while Nutaku may be willing to re-activate the account, it's difficult to say if the payment site would do the same, more so if they have a list of confusing terms that your little multi-user stunt potentially violated.

And finally regarding your gri-...suggestions:

-General Note: Under the terms of use, Nutaku technically reserves the right to revoke your account access or even outright shut down the site for no reason whatsoever, even if you were a "law-abiding citizen" of sorts. While game sites almost never exercise that right, it's there to say "we can do what we want", so your "should"s don't exactly apply. That being said, I get that you mean "should" as in "this would be a much more hospitable approach to users" but even so...

1. Eliminating the consequences (in other words, not banning the account) is out of the question. Allowing suspicious activity to run free, especially in the perspective of fraud, is incredibly dangerous and runs the risk of stirring up further problems down the road if not stopped early. I'm pretty sure the payment portal would prefer that they stopped payments to an account early and had to deal with a customer wanting to make more payments instead of having to deal with a non-customer who got his/her credit card(s) stolen and wants a massive refund in the time the payment site did nothing. The multi-payment warning sounds nice but ultimately you won't be able to see it since the site would automatically deny you access thereafter.

2. From a business perspective, importing existing account data into a new account is wasteful on time and available resource. Plus, other than bypassing it for that one instance, it fails to solve the underlying issue as your account will get locked down yet again if it senses the same suspicious activity from before. From a moral perspective, it teaches you, the user, absolutely nothing and gives you the impression that you got away with it scot-free and can just do it again expecting to get bailed out down the road.

On my own personal take, you seem to be talking in a way (or just lacking the tone that would suggest otherwise) that seems like you think (and will continue to think) having several users run your account is perfectly acceptable (I honestly don't know whether or not it is but I'd suggest you find that out one way or another). By inference, I'm thinking there's a possibility that during your time contacting customer service you came off to them as unapologetic and likely to create the same issues again, in which case naturally they'd refuse.

There are frankly quite a few things that I don't quite understand. Was it Nutaku or the billing portal that chose to lock the account down? If it was Nutaku, was it due to a specific ToS violation and are they expecting you to prove you won't do it again before they reconsider your access rights? On the other hand, if it was the billing portal, what would it take for the portal to reinstate you and subsequently allow account access?

check this


multi management is nothing wrong . I am currently managing another friend account and it is not banned .

Originally Posted by ChibiKika

That honestly seems loosely interpreted, since in this particular case it's not the impersonation or misrepresentation of an individual, but simply the shared use of multiple individuals, in which all involved parties have consented. While it could very well be considered a ToS violation, I doubt it was the trigger, even if it could be spun both ways.

The problem starts when someone did it wrong with payments doesn't made by original owner (hijacking suspects or even worse, carding, from a business side). Probiller report Nutaku, Nutaku ban the suspicious account.

That's why i quoted that term, but isn't the only which now could ban accounts with this kind of management.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact is Nutaku changed the way how they manage their accounts and ToS has since last gambit a lot of changes. Things tolerated in the past are now suspicious.

P.S: Other change is about hiding IP, a VPN ban? I should ask Nutaku about this, because VPN is a bad cure for many diseases from peruvian ISP (i.e traffic shaping against Flash content)

I do not know how they interpret the ToS but this jumps out at me as possible things that could have gotten you flagged:

create more than one account per platform to access our Website;

use another person or entity’s email address in order to sign up to use our Website;

sell, transfer or try to sell or transfer an account with us or any part of an account including any virtual currency or virtual goods;

If you are using more than one account (or sharing several accounts among friends) then it's possible that they interpret that action as a ToS violation. They could spin it as transferring the account (even though you aren't selling it, you ARE transferring it to another person for free to use) or say that by managing your account (and at least one of your friends' accounts) that you effectively have two accounts. That's a very strict reading and interpretation of the rules, but it's not out of bounds for them.

Personally, I don't really see any harm in sharing accounts between people, but as the ToS is written, it does not appear to be permitted. The fact that you have never been previously flagged doesn't mean that it's not illegal. It just means that you've never been caught. Assuming you've ever driven a car, I'm willing to bet that you have exceeded the speed limit. Strictly speaking, every time you exceed the speed limit, you can potentially be flagged and given a fine. In the example of speeding, cops are usually OK with you driving too fast.... until they decide they are no longer okay with it. Driving 10 over? Ehhh.... no ticket. 15 over? That's a ticket. 10 over again? Ummm.... yeah.. ticket.

Many rules are loosely enforced, which makes enforcement seem arbitrary. I can fully understand you feeling frustrated. While they are completely within their rights to ban you, I would hope they would reverse the decision. It doesn't help them to turn away a paying customer, so they may decide to reinstate your account, provided you promise to no longer share accounts. The rule may be stupid, but sadly, they get to make the rules. And they get to enforce the rules, whether it's strictly or loosely or something in between.

Originally Posted by JSensei

I do not know how they interpret the ToS but this jumps out at me as possible things that could have gotten you flagged:

create more than one account per platform to access our Website;

use another person or entity’s email address in order to sign up to use our Website;

sell, transfer or try to sell or transfer an account with us or any part of an account including any virtual currency or virtual goods;

If you are using more than one account (or sharing several accounts among friends) then it's possible that they interpret that action as a ToS violation. They could spin it as transferring the account (even though you aren't selling it, you ARE transferring it to another person for free to use) or say that by managing your account (and at least one of your friends' accounts) that you effectively have two accounts. That's a very strict reading and interpretation of the rules, but it's not out of bounds for them.

As i said before, ToS changed a lot. Those terms wasn't present at original state.

The lesson is, read ToS often, most services change them without any notice (and they state it clearly).

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Ladies lover

check this


this
THIS
T H I S

Attachment 1021

What i said. Go back to Steam m8

you guys are really making things too deep it is not about ToS violation or anything like that because I know a lot friends from long time who are sharing accounts no single one is banned .

it simple matter : wrong detection of fraud caused by retarded fraud-phobic probiller system .

see the picture and you will know what I mean .

. and it is their mistake not mine they did not say they fail to support multi source payment.

they claim that a payment was done with no balance ( fake) and they said the payment was refunded and check your bank!??!!?

how can I be refunded if it is fake in the first place ?!

the payment was true I am sure of it and not refunded yet I talked to my friends and they got nothing back .

so now it is clear I was wrongfully detected as fraud because of things they were shy to say as ( dear customer we currently are fucked up and fail to handle multi source payment from different IPs because it will be detected as fraud you can wait for us to develop a little )

Originally Posted by Ladies lover

you guys are really making things too deep it is not about ToS violation or anything like that because I know a lot friends from long time who are sharing accounts no single one is banned .

it simple matter : wrong detection of fraud caused by retarded fraud-phobic probiller system .

see the picture and you will know what I mean .

. and it is their mistake not mine they did not say they fail to support multi source payment.

they claim that a payment was done with no balance ( fake) and they said the payment was refunded and check your bank!??!!?

how can I be refunded if it is fake in the first place ?!

the payment was true I am sure of it and not refunded yet I talked to my friends and they got nothing back .

so now it is clear I was wrongfully detected as fraud because of things they were shy to say as ( dear customer we currently are fucked up and fail to handle multi source payment from different IPs because it will be detected as fraud you can wait for us to develop a little )

I think they can and did make an argument that it IS a ToS violation. I think it's a stupid rule, but it looks like they changed their policy regarding sharing of accounts. I agree that the payment is what got you flagged, but once they looked at you, they saw the ToS thing. Again, I personally see nothing wrong with sharing accounts if that's your thing, but I can see them interpreting the rules to say that sharing accounts is a ToS violation. It just depends on if you want to be really strict and use a "letter of the law" reading.

The bigger issue is if they want to say that you can't share accounts, then the enforcement is not evenhanded at all. They seem to loosely enforce the rules until they don't. When they DO enforce them, they crucify you.

I think you certainly got a raw deal. They are ENTIRELY justified in screwing you, but that doesn't really make it a good decision. But then again, according to the ToS, they can ban anyone for any reason. They don't have to tell you why.

(In case it hasn't been brought up, there are multiple payment portals for different methods of payment. Probiller is for credit cards, Epoch manages Paypal, and I'm not sure of the other payment types as they are unavailable to me. If you and your friends are using differing payment methods, it shouldn't cause any conflicts but if they still happen, then there is probably in fact a Nutaku ToS clause regarding multiple users that we're missing somewhere)

I saw the picture...and peeked at Probiller's (not Nutaku's) Terms and Conditions. From that, I've gotten a bit more insight on the likely situation.

Sharing of accounts is probably considered acceptable from the Nutaku side, but there's likely a programmed recognition of ownership built in based on anyone who makes purchases...might operate under the assumption that if you make a purchase, you're the account owner. There are likely more rules built into that note but if you happen to have your own account that you're using a payment method for and then you happen to use that exact same method to make a purchase on someone else's account, it'll get the impression you have multiple accounts, which is a direct ToS violation for both Nutaku and Probiller.

Also, there's a clause directed at subscribers in the ToS specified to Probiller that basically says sharing of the payment system itself is outright forbidden and subject to fraud review. Under that note, it just means while multiple individuals can use a single Nutaku account, you have to be extra careful about the payment portals, as they have very strict rules since they're managing money (sharing a payment portal is the legal equivalent to sharing a bank account, after all).

In short, I'm revising my inference to:

1. Possible recognition of a single payment method (credit card #) having more than one account on the Nutaku site, ToS violation, and ban (though this would ban BOTH accounts simultaneously).

2. Use of multiple payment methods from unrelated individuals to the same account, suspected:
-2a. fraudulent charge (a credit card was stolen), account locked and money will be refunded once a party has contacted Probiller to report fraudulent charges.
-2b. multiple subscribers on the same account, direct ToC violation, lockdown and notification to Nutaku, resulting in ban.

My money's on 2 (which 2, I have no idea. I'm missing information on this end). Frankly the only thing I've gotten out of this is that Nutaku allows account sharing, but Probiller strongly restricts having more than one person using a subscriber account. You can't have your friends making purchases via Probiller unless only one person makes purchases from then on.

For now, I'd say try to get Probiller to get a hold of the account for starters (sounds like your payment method wasn't recognized as a valid account so you're gonna have to get all your friends to try to run their credit cards until a hit shows up) and more or less convince Probiller that there's no fraud, the payments are valid, and you want them to allow the use of all the recorded credit cards (and more of them if you plan on keeping this up). Honestly, the whole making purchases under different people sounds like the reason everything went awry so if you plan to keep that up, this will likely happen again and/or both Probiller and Nutaku will decide your case is way too big a pain in the ass to work on.

You think we're going too deep into this? On the contrary, I think you're only scratching at the surface and that's why you may not see the big picture. Some of us here have run into similar parts of the issues you are facing and have a bit of wisdom on that end. You waving both them and us off and blatantly placing the fault on others only lengthens the problem at hand and if your patterns of speech (text) are any way similar to what you're saying to us when you try to communicate with them, you're very likely to be aggravating them, which would make anyone trying to help you much less motivated to do so.

*sigh* since the beginning of my gaming career, I've never at any point allowed anyone else to make purchases on my account. I had considered it an unspoken rule that something like that was forbidden, though I didn't actually know the reasons why. Looking at this though, it finally makes sense, and for that I'm glad I never tried that road when I was younger and ignorant of the fraud paranoia that payment portals face daily.