PDA

View Full Version : Potential Server Operator Terms Issue: Ascendant EQ Donation / Server Support Page


Belvue
05-09-2026, 05:35 PM
I am posting this as a potential EQEmulator Server Operator Terms compliance concern for review.

Ascendant EQ’s public Server Support page appears to solicit donations through Ko-fi to fund the server’s hosting, operating, maintenance, tooling, and development costs. The page also displays a “Server Runway” showing months of funding remaining and states that current and projected costs are covered by community donations.

The concern is not pay-to-win rewards or donor-only items. The page states that donations are voluntary and that no goods, services, or exclusive in-game items are provided.

The concern is that the EQEmulator Server Operator Terms appear broader than a “no donor perks” rule. They require EQEmulator servers to remain non-commercial and not-for-profit, prohibit indirect revenue or donation facilitation connected to an EQEmulator server, and state that operators are solely responsible for server costs. The Terms also state that exceptions require written Daybreak approval.

Because Ascendant’s page ties donations directly to operating and developing the server, this appears potentially inconsistent with those Terms unless an approved exception exists.

Additional optics concern: the page allows donors to include a character name. Even if no benefit is granted, linking donations to in-game identities may create the appearance of donor tracking, player acknowledgment, or preferential treatment.

Recommended review:

- Whether Ko-fi donations are permitted under the current Server Operator Terms
- Whether “hosting / operating / maintenance / tooling / development” funding language is allowed
- Whether public server runway / funding reserve tracking is allowed
- Whether character-name references should be removed
- Whether a written Daybreak-approved exception exists

Suggested mitigation if this is not permitted:

- Pause donations until clarified
- Remove Ko-fi solicitation from the server page
- Remove language tying donations to server operation or development
- Remove character-name references
- Seek written clarification or approval before resuming donations

I am not asking for player discipline or moderation action. I am asking for review of whether this public donation setup is compliant with the Server Operator Terms.

https://ascendanteq.com/server-support

Straps
05-10-2026, 12:45 AM
Just FYI as someone pointed me here also. I run Ascendant - this guy was banned for exploiting a plat issue on the server. He exploited almost 4M in plat, helping himself to all kinds of things, spending plat all over, trying to hide it because he came up on our leaderboard, etc.

As I posted elsewhere - we have a vibrant and diverse playerbase, we actively protect the economy and don't allow people to abuse mechanics. This guy got caught with his hand in the jar and now he's mad.

Any rate - check us out on ascendanteq.com. If you are the type that likes a populated server with a real economy and not a bunch of AFK or automated bots inflating numbers - you'll love us! If you like to try and exploit mechanics, etc. - you won't enjoy our server.

We just launched Luclin and folks are having a ton of fun! As Belvue said, the server is free to play, not for profit, and has some great active guides/GM's that make it a wonderful place to be. The code base is open sourced and we have had a handful of other contributors. Its a great community, look forward to seeing you soon!

Belvue
05-11-2026, 09:53 AM
IÂ’m going to keep this factual and concise.

The ban dispute is separate from the issue raised in this thread. This thread is about terms/compliance of the public donation setup, not a moderation appeal.

For clarity:

1. I reported the platinum issue privately first and did not publish exploit mechanics publicly.
2. The response did not address the report with a technical rebuttal; it relied on personal accusations and public narrative framing instead.
3. The public summary presented as an "audit" does not include a verifiable timeline with supporting timestamps and includes assertions not supported by the available source/log evidence.
4. Claims about what was "spent", "hidden", or "intentional" should be supported by auditable logs and reproducible evidence, not character attacks.
5. I am willing to have the incident and report reviewed by a neutral third party using source and log evidence.

Separate from that, the compliance question remains independently verifiable from public pages:

- donations are solicited via Ko-fi,
- donation language ties funding to server operations/development,
- public funding runway/reserve information is displayed,
and donation flow allows character-name references.

If there is written approval/exception permitting this model, provide it and that resolves the question. If not, the question remains whether changes are required.

I will not post exploit details publicly. I will continue to stick to documented facts and responsible disclosure.

emelialucass
06-03-2026, 05:50 AM
He was caught red-handed and is now reacting with anger.

Sturm
06-03-2026, 11:04 AM
Stuff like this is hilarious.
Don't worry Straps, noone actually cares what this dude says, keep on keeping on brother.

Banned people wouldn't get so upset if they didn't enjoy the places they were banned from.

Happy Adventuring!