why are we getting this message?

@_Pl4y3r_010_ As the first part of your message, a quote from the lead developer, states, they are now going through and blocking players with multiple accounts.  He is not a moderator of any kind but the lead developer.

Multiple or alternative accounts have always been frowned upon and against TOS and now they are starting to action against those with multiple accounts.

i agree with it, i was just wondering why we were specifically chosen, as nobody else has got the message, also there has been no updated forum post about it

They have just started the process of banning multi-accounting.  I expect more to follow.  Why you were chosen to be '1st' I don't know althoiugh there will be some reasoning behind it.

I suggest you directly message the account that is referred to in the message, @ee_skyfyre8 ,  and discuss the issue with them.

You were not specifically chosen in any other way than that we have to start somewhere. And you haven't been the first we contacted either. 

Multi-accounting has been an issue for years so this could be a good thing but can I ask why no official word on this is being posted on the forums other than replies to an opened thread? Sending messages from a player account that has no varying parameters other than a name in-game can subject and open players to become exploited by fake accounts. This type of news should be coming from clearly official titles. Not everyone knows "ee_skyfyre8" is a Dev, and even those that do know, how are they suppose to know it's not a fake account? I actually sent a mail to "ee_kalyn" 2 weeks ago about this but never received a reply. 

The text under a player name is not configurable by the player.

http://prntscr.com/WyZ8hVfS6992

So this shows that the ID posting is a part of the development team.

just as the text below your ID shows you've not posted frequently on AHQ (you may have been a member for a long time and played CnC:TA for years).

http://prntscr.com/wSrXRZQb9AbM

EE_Kayln has been on vacation which would explain the lack of response.

The response is from an official  and any name that has the format EA_xxx and EE_xxx would be banned by EA for impersonating an official very quickly if it wasn't a bona fide official account.

An official response would be forthcoming if someone also tried using a banner such as the one for Champion who wasn't in fact entitled to the banner.

Hi Gamerdruid, my message was clear and said "in-game name" not forum names. For the exact reason you state is why I recommended a forums announcement be made because players can't configure/edit the legitimacy of their forum names/profiles and therefore a developer stands out. In-game is a different story. Anyone could create an account and name themselves "ee_skyfyre8" or something similar and start messaging players claiming they are a Dev and follow up with requests. Many thought this account was spam in this scenario (veterans included) which is why the message went largely ignored and why an official message should be documented. Especially since multi-accounting has been discussed and ignored before and was not being enforced. In my 11 years playing this game on and off I have never heard of a developer messaging requests to individual players in-game. 

Not sure the relevance to the comment in regards to my posting frequency but I have been a member of this community since 2013. I posted more frequently under the old forums before it migrated to this forum, but again not sure how that was relevant to this post.

A reply on a thread isn't visible enough for players - an official announcement should be made addressing both issues that 1) Yes, devs are finally looking into multi-account and will crack-down on it and 2) That yes, developers will use in-game accounts to message players to address issues. This would be a good thing for both developers and players alike. It shows the devs are still invested in the game and are taking action when needed and also works as a deterrent for anyone thinking devs are not active and it makes the players feel safe within the community. Snowballing Side idea here - is it possible for developers to have a trait that stands out to players in-game like a developer badge or gold star or something rather that identifies them as different than a player account?

In the end this doesn't impact me but from a business point of view it seems odd that an announcement can't be made. Again, a simple announcement here on the forums with a clear action plan against multi-accounting will have a much further reaching impact than messaging players 1 on 1 on individual servers.

That's all I will write here, I just wanted to make that request with supporting evidence as to why I think it's a good idea - at the end of the day I support the decisions made by the developers. 

I think your idea of having an in-game identifier alongside the player name is an excellent one!  I'll be sure to draw it to the attention of the development team.

I'd missed the fact that it was sent in-game.  I'd assumed it was in response to a DM in the forum. (It may not have been in-game, there is nothing to indicate it was.

An announcement could have worked two ways.  If players use gamename1, gamename2 .... gamename102 etc then it is obvious multi-accounting but players using less obviously liked names may think they are 'safe' - the developers aren't going to announce the criteria used so players with gamename1....102 could go through and change names.

I think the main thrust isn't just that they are multi-accounting as many play 2 accounts, one GDI and one NOD without causing an issue or abusing the system.  It's the players abusing the system that everyone is concerned about.

The first thing developers need to do is make a public announcement (there are none at this time). Approaching players in-game selectively is NOT the way and the optics of such actions without public notice on forums in addition to the framework developers will use to decide actions is the wrong way to do any of this. 

Until that happens, developers approaching any player in game and stating is not only inappropriate, it is an abuse of trust especially if in-game names are not clearly distinguishable. To the developers, you need to reach consensus and provide clear guidance publicly on expectations at minimum. You need to provide a framework of decision making. I understand the need to tamp down alts (I am all for it). 

May I suggest that developers provide a list of actions they consider to be banned actions? 

For instance, multiple alts can be used for: 

1. searching for layouts;

2. creating strategic space; 

3. assisting with camp kills, or outpost kills, or base kills;

4. managing camp and outpost spawns; 

5. very limited use in pvp such as spying in different sectors, etc. 

this has been a big bug bear for many of us over the years , has it not , how many worlds have you played on where  a team of players has 3 or more accts

how that team of 50 becomes  3 full alliances

early game , that makes a big difference to normal teams of players

especially for dig lanes ect and posn on a world

most players have 2 accts , as stated above , one gdi and one nod early game and  generally drop one within that first month or so

i also acknowledge there are some family teams , where either husband and wives play and even there children , so this may need to be looked at and considered when going after said multi accts , we dont want to go after the legit players of the game , if they are after out and out multi  accts

just my 2 cents , or 2p since im from the uk 🙂

Tommo