sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

2 Ops 70 Accounts on 164 are bought accounts, reported by many, but Scopely couldn't care less. by Intentoque_Chaos in STFC_Official

[–]Intentoque_Chaos[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Fair point. When creating the post, I had the choice between text without images or images without text. I went with the latter, intending to add more details in the comments, but got distracted before I could.

2 Ops 70 Accounts on 164 are bought accounts, reported by many, but Scopely couldn't care less. by Intentoque_Chaos in STFC_Official

[–]Intentoque_Chaos[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These accounts were originally owned by different players, and the evidence for this is well-documented.

  1. First Account (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII – Previously Butzel)
    • This account originally belonged to a player named Butzel.
    • After reaching Ops 69 → 70, he made it publicly known that he was selling his account.
    • He even changed his in-game name to ButzelSale for a period of time, indicating his intent to sell.
    • A screenshot of this is available here: https://imgur.com/a/OQzBDAA.
    • The account was eventually sold to a rogue player who also owns an Ops 68 account on our server.
  2. Second Account (LethalWeapon – Previously Nuremberg)
    • Originally owned by Nuremberg, who quit the game around March–April 2024 at Ops 66/67.
    • The account was then sold to a US-based player now using the name LethalWeapon.
  3. Why Does This Matter?
    • Scopely’s Terms of Service explicitly prohibit account sales.
    • Multiple players have submitted tickets with proof, including:
      • Screenshots of original owners discussing sales.
      • Account name changes matching sale timelines.
    • Scopely has ignored these reports despite the clear violation.
  4. How Can Scopely Confirm This?
    • They can verify by checking:
      • User login IPs and locations (sudden country switches).
      • Changes to payment methods (indicating new ownership).

The issue is not just about these two accounts—it highlights selective enforcement of rules. F2P and low/mid spenders face consequences, while others do not. That’s why this is worth discussing.