EPTIf you don't want to, watch Dragon's stream or play BroodWar. Or you could complain.
Unfairly banned. Now what? - Page 3
| Blogs > Brandish |
|
PenguinWithNuke
250 Posts
If you don't want to, watch Dragon's stream or play BroodWar. Or you could complain. | ||
|
brachester
Australia1786 Posts
| ||
|
Brandish
United States339 Posts
On December 21 2011 14:02 danl9rm wrote: I guess that's where me and u disagree then, because he does seem pretty aggressive. You were trying to help him from the beginning, and all he could do in return was call you dense. Hah. Obligatory 1 star. If I let him explore paths that lead nowhere that wouldn't be very helpful now would it? I was just trying to clear up any inconsistencies he felt were in my story. it might be account sharing but wouldn't the email they sent me specifically say "account sharing"? but it says hack or unauthorized program. What I'm trying to figure out If there is some third party program I run that isn't approved by blizzard but doesnt directly affect sc2. Thats one solution to the puzzle but that doesn't explain why an account that I haven't logged onto In a month has anything to do with it. | ||
|
Humanfails
224 Posts
On December 21 2011 12:31 Brandish wrote: My room-mates whom I a router with are not banned though, so I don't think it has to do with IP lemme tell you a little about bans. There's a number of ways to do it. First, theres the ban by CD-key. This ban is solely on the software and its unique key. Then theres the ban by IP address. this ban WILL stay on unless you change your IP. There's ways to change the IP unless you have a static-by-user IP system by your ISP. Many ISPs run dynamic IP because of lower overhead in all areas. Then there's whats called a site ban. This ban is of a particular "site" of the ISP. That is, if your connection goes through a CO location like, say, Houston, and its Houston-Comcast-xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, And this site gets banned, anyone who connects to comcast who's CO is in Houston, everyone is banned. More invasive procedures involve actual bans based on the key of your Operating System. They can also ban based on a hash of the hardware setup of your machine, and in a more usual and less invasive manner, by your MAC, which is a specific coding on any internet connection devices like wired or wireless network cards. There's many reasons to use any of the methods, although the ones which cost the user more effort to change are hardware setups and Operating system key and number id. The MAC address can be spoofed, the number id of a machine can be changed if you know where to go and what to look for in the registry, but the hardware config can only be changed by paying money. A company that uses a combination of unique hardware setup, IP, MAC, and Product key/ID for the OS, will block you much more effectively than IP or MAC alone. There's also the probability of a rootkit installed invisibly by a corporation along with their product to ban you that way. However, in your case it may simply be that your software is banned, and that this is trumping using the second one. Did you uninstall SC completely, wipe any traces of it out, and install the other copy of SC on your computer (registry, any misc folders) to see if that one was banned then? because otherwise you're simply using banned software with a different CD. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Recently, a StarCraft II account under your Battle.net account was actioned for potential violations of our Terms of Use. Upon further review of the action taken upon this account, we reversed the action previously applied. Account Name: ********************** Previous Account Action: 14 Day Suspension New Account Action: None (Action Reversed) The above account was incorrectly included in a recent wave of accounts actioned for gameplay intended to exploit the matchmaking system. In the end, we want Battle.net to be a fun and safe environment for all players. It is to this end that we enforce our Battle.net Terms of Use and In-Game Policies (http://us.blizzard.com/support/article/SC2policies). We apologize that the account was incorrectly action as part of this enforcement, and we appreciate your understanding. We hope this has resolved any concerns you may have had regarding this action. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Regards, Customer Service Blizzard Entertainment | ||
|
Brandish
United States339 Posts
On December 21 2011 17:58 caradoc wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=296907 + Show Spoiler + Recently, a StarCraft II account under your Battle.net account was actioned for potential violations of our Terms of Use. Upon further review of the action taken upon this account, we reversed the action previously applied. Account Name: ********************** Previous Account Action: 14 Day Suspension New Account Action: None (Action Reversed) The above account was incorrectly included in a recent wave of accounts actioned for gameplay intended to exploit the matchmaking system. In the end, we want Battle.net to be a fun and safe environment for all players. It is to this end that we enforce our Battle.net Terms of Use and In-Game Policies (http://us.blizzard.com/support/article/SC2policies). We apologize that the account was incorrectly action as part of this enforcement, and we appreciate your understanding. We hope this has resolved any concerns you may have had regarding this action. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Regards, Customer Service Blizzard Entertainment well i guess i'm not the only one | ||
|
terriBean
Canada75 Posts
| ||
|
CanucksJC
Canada1241 Posts
| ||
|
Onecron
Finland21 Posts
 | ||
|
Gprime
Canada198 Posts
 | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On December 21 2011 12:45 zickoray wrote: here just try doing this, giving them a picture ALWAYS seems to work ![[image loading]](http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/385451_2334194483364_1504875980_31940025_1644574835_n.jpg) Edit: Credit to the [sfw] thread This is what I was thinking as well. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6593 Posts
 | ||
|
unichan
United States4223 Posts
On December 21 2011 14:02 danl9rm wrote: I guess that's where me and u disagree then, because he does seem pretty aggressive. You were trying to help him from the beginning, and all he could do in return was call you dense. Hah. Obligatory 1 star. Did you rate the blogger one star because he's probably frustrated that his accounts were (likely) unfairly banned, and for some reason this guy comes up his ass, incessantly trying to prove that he actually is a hacker? | ||
|
Brandish
United States339 Posts
| ||
|
Lynkilen
Norway211 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:52 Brandish wrote: everything has been resolved! :D Good to hear no man/woman/nongenderspecifichonorific should be without Starcraft!  | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:52 Brandish wrote: everything has been resolved! :D Good to hear :D:D:D sorry for the whole trying-to-find-fault-in-your-OP thing, it probably wasn't very nice on your end. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
| ||
| ||
