It's three (I thought it was five but I could be wrong) free accounts created on the same computer so if anyone else has created an account on your computer and that account is currently free, it'll count towards your limit. If that's not the case, I can't figure out why you aren't able to create a third free account and I would advise you send in a support request and ask.

And as far as OOO actually saying it, I think you'll only find it in writing if you attempt to create a fourth free account. Otherwise the only reason people know of this limit is because.. they've been stopped creating additional free accounts.

Edit: Scratch that, limit is apparently three accounts for one computer: http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Energy_FAQ#One_Computer_with_Free_Accounts
"A maximum of three accounts may be created on a single computer."

paid accounts get their own ME pool, so your 2 free accounts still share their ME (between the 2 free accounts offcourse)

Each player is allowed one free account. Multiple free accounts on a single computer is allowed if the computer is shared among different players within a household.

I have never heard any ringer say anything like the above. In puzzle pirates, a (former) ringer explicitly stated that the limit on the number of free accounts per computer was there to prevent ban evasion and abuse people. It is a lot easier for GMs to not have to worry about whether banned users are creating new account to try to get around their ban. In puzzle pirates, there isn't even a limit on the number of free account, but rather a limit on the number of free accounts created during a certain (long) time period. Yes, SK isn't YPP, but since OOO has the same people sometimes be GMs on SK while also working as OMs (ocean masters) on YPP at the very same time, it is a heck of a lot easier for the rules to be the same.

The sharing of mist between free accounts makes multiple accounts much less useful on SK than YPP, but that shows that OOO thought about having multiple free accounts and they took the choice of supporting it, rather than not letting you create more.

A strict interpretation of those terms implies that knights representing themselves to the game as being the same user are impersonating another user (generally the first account created chronologically).

Uh, no. The ToS says I can not create an knight and try and claim I'm you. There is nothing in the ToS that says I can't create multiple accounts. Nothing that Hyperion said in that thread supports your claim. Nothing I've seen in years of playing both SK and YPP indicates that OOO has any problems with a single person having as many accounts as the game lets them create.

You and you are two separate users

No. I am not two different people. A contract, which companies claim that ToS's are, is with a person.

By OOO's discretion

By OOO's discretion, they can ban me for any reason at any time. Again, OOO has been around for about a decade, and I've seen a lot of that. Can you find a single case where a ringer has interpreted the ToS the way you do? Can you find a single case where they have banned someone for multiple accounts?

Here is a ringer saying "The restrictions on number of trial accounts per computer is to prevent someone from playing Puzzle Pirates on a trial indefinitely for free." Here is another where Lizthegrey says "This {restriction on the number of free accounts} is not about making more money - this is about better serving all customers. If the effort needed to create an additional new account is simply /tipping that account one doubloon and buying a pirate badge, or only ~700-900 pieces of eight to use that account to obtain one doubloon, then it will be insufficient to stop people from wasting support time by constantly going around bans, etc. - by requiring that real-world payments be made if someone wants more than three accounts, we're preventing the system from being flooded and abused."

Seriously, stop trying to split hairs to twist the ToS to mean what you want it to mean. OOO doesn't have any problem with a single person having several accounts, even several free accounts. This is a long standing position.

Actually I registered with the same email each time, since that is the only data relative to me that's ever asked upon registration, from a server point of view it's me and still me.

@Dirt Mist crafting, dragging corpses through levels for more challenge/heat/crowns.

If OOO did not intend this, they should revise their ToS.

Please don't make me dig up a direct quote from a ringer about they can't make absolutely everything in the ToS perfectly clear to absolutely everyone. I could dig up a quote if I wanted to, but it is really upon you to dig up examples of where OOO has interpreted the ToS they way you do.

Corsa, when OOO bans you, they ban YOU

And please don't make me also dig up a quote from a ringer backing up what Evilduck said. I could, but just trust me. When OOO bans you, they ban YOU, not your knight, nor your account nor your other account that you independently confirmed the ToS on, etc.

I don't disagree at all with a player and all accounts that player has created being banned for violating the ToS. I don't claim that OOO does not or does not have the power to do so. Section 18 outlines the termination process clearly. It demonstrates that while they can, violating players would likely not willingly terminate their own accounts before getting caught, OOO certainly has the right to terminate any and all accounts belonging to those players at their discretion.

@#15
There is no evidence to support your claim.
I believe I provided sufficient evidence supporting my claim that multiple accounts can be in violation of the ToS. There are no results to support my evidence.

@#16
Basically this. As far as I know, OOO have not interpreted the ToS as I do but I believe they should. That section allows them to. Or not! It's their choice.

@#17
The same section has allowed OOO to accept multiple account registrations from the same person by not explicitly regulating a person's access to multiple accounts. This is convenient because it allows them to accept money from more accounts. It does not, however, govern the fair use of multiple accounts and I think it should.

You're saying that by agreeing to the tos twice, you are recognised as two seperate entities.
Yes. You understand at least that part of my argument so I won't reiterate it.

If that were the case, they couldn't ban ypur alt account when terms are broken on a main account because the recognised owner of the alt account did nothing wrong.
I'm saying the opposite. The ToS outlines the activities and behaviours that OOO does not want you participating in. Outside of those things they can pretty much ban you for any reason they choose. Because the ToS does not include any language explicity addressing the player's use of multiple accounts, it is entirely up to the GMs' discretion when a player with multiple accounts is banned.

Maybe my point got muddled by my poorly phrased example so I will restate it. There are two ways accounts can be terminated. The first is if the player chooses to terminate his or registration. I believe it is unlikely that a player who violates the ToS will willingly terminate his or her account before he or she is caught for the violation. The other way is by OOO's choice. The ToS outlines the activities and behaviours that will almost definitely get a player banned if they are detected. OOO is not required to terminate all accounts in violation of the ToS if their resources are insufficient to detect all such cases. OOO is also not bound to only terminate accounts based on the terms of the ToS a player agreed to at the time of his or her account creation. This can be due to updates to the ToS or any case where OOO feels the account termination is necessary that is not expressed in the ToS for whatever reason.

Maybe my point got muddled by my poorly phrased example so I will restate it.

No, the problem is that you boldly claimed that "Each player is allowed one free account. Multiple free accounts on a single computer is allowed if the computer is shared among different players within a household." (The bolding was in your original post.)

Those claims are not true. This is giving false information to other players and they might think you are right. You are wrong. OOO has no problems with a player having up to 3 free accounts and as many paid accounts as they want. Your hair splitting about "you" in the ToS is wrong.

Why is that technical limitation mentioned in OP's post instated then?

Oh, nice. Someone who thinks everyone should have read the bottom of their post shows that they haven't read the thread. I gave a link quoting a ringer about why this was created.

@Algol-Sixty
"Oh, nice. Someone who thinks everyone should have read the bottom of their post shows that they haven't read the thread".
[We're in a normal discussion, there's no need to act like a passive aggressive D-bag about it.]

I meant that as "why does the number of allowed free accounts decrease from 3 to 1 if there are already 2 paid accounts on the computer?" If 3 free accounts were allowed, why can't OP make two more free accounts next to his paid ones? That is OP's question, we're still in OP's thread. I don't mind hijacking it for the sake of defining OOO's rules, but trying to keep the goal of this thread in mind when it contributes to the argument doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Notice I wasn't talking about the idea of limiting free accounts in general, but why it's decreased to 1 when people claim 3 per person. I could return with a passive aggressive "Who didn't read correctly here?", but instead I'll concede I could have been clearer. My apologies.

Secondly: that link with the quote redirects me back to this thread. Did you make sure you used the "" in href="" correctly?

Thirdly (edited): Thanks Evilduck.

---------------------

@Corsa
Each account you register requires you to accept the ToS separately. [Yes, you accept the same ToS for each account.]
Each of your accounts have seperate credentials and data. [Wrong, accounts can have the same credentials except usernames, which have to be unique]
From the server's point of view, each account is a different user. [Yes and no, if you're using an account with the same IP AND e-mail the server might not be able to differentiate, but GM's are. To them you're a single person, so the point is moot]
The ToS says "You agree not to [...] impersonate another user." [You're the same user with several accounts, you cannot impersonate yourself. This rule refers to me making an account in YOUR name, which is legally not allowed without your consent and not allowed by OOO period.]

---------------------

There are several issues being addressed in this thread, gentlemen
- The ToS being accepted by legally separate entities ["Legally, you and you are distinct" that's simply not true, even though the terms in a ToS can be legally binding, the definition of whom is a legal entity are defined in the law. ToS has no say in this, nowhere does it say only separate people can sign several ToS']
- Which accounts can OOO ban? [Any and all, it's up to their discretion. I believe Corsa was very clear about this.]

-> Number of free accounts. [3 claimed, 1 received by OP. Why? Algol claims 3, Corsa 1. How many does the ToS/GM's allow? Why is it limited when 2 accounts are paid for?]