Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

SOE to attempt policing all your online activities.

145791013

Comments

  • TinybinaTinybina Boondocks, TXPosts: 2,130Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by DrCokePepsi

     


    Originally posted by Jyiiga
    http://www.pcgamesn.com/planetside/soe-ban-players-extreme-behaviour-outside-their-games

     

    “Not only will we ban your forum account, but if it's serious enough we'll call up customer service and have you banned from all of our games,” SOE community relations director Linda Carlson told GamesIndustry. “We do not need those individuals as customers.”

    Carlson was very clear - it doesn’t matter how influential a player might be, or what position they hold in what guild: “we’ll still ban them”.

    “In our games, if you are an exploiter we don't care who you are, how big your guild is, how many people you threaten to take with you when you go,” she said.

    “We can control anybody who's playing our games...[but] if we know who you are and you're abusing somebody on Twitter, we will ban your game account and we will not accept you as a customer ever again. It's not always possible to identify people [in that way], but we take that seriously.”

    SOE uphold different standards for each of their games: they wouldn’t expect the same kind of behaviour in a competitive shooter like Planetside 2 as they would in a collaborative MMO like EverQuest. But Carlson said standards do need to exist, in clearly-stated form - and that SOE need to reinforce them with bans for bad behaviour both in and outside their games when necessary.

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

    When I first read this I was like yay... Deal with them fracking exploitiers and anti-social buggers. However, the more I read the more concerned I became. At what point is the line drawn, who are they to go picking around through social media looking for negative comments. Does it end at their own personal pages or will they go beyond that? If I call their game a bucket of trash and hope they drive their cars into a lake are they going to feel the need to ban my ass from all their games.

    It never turns out well when you threaten not only your customers but, all of the online community with the ban stick.

     

     


    Wow, SOE made a business move that isn't just out of financial gain but out of MORAL *gasp*

     

    Ya, but I agree with this in a sense. When I first started MMOs I was about 10 or 11, and I was a prick. I'd use completely profane language, I'd insult people and get into stupid arguments, it was a terrible thing, I should have been banned.

    That kind of behaviour should result in punishment, and ultimately weed out the pre-pubescent children, griefers and a-holes from the games. This is a large part of the decline of the MMO industry as well.

    I'd say kudos to you SOE, but I'm just not sure to what extent these manhunts will go, and whether or not these companies will access my personal profiles. Jokes can be misinterpreted, exaggerated anger for certain situations could be misread and so forth.
    We'll have to see how their formula works with the community.

     We'll see how much this is a moral gain when they start banning people who negatively critique their product. It all depends on how they take this approach. My bet is that they ban critics and proclaim that they, "broke their rules of agreement".

     

    I'm here to tell you they have already began!  

    ------------------------------
    You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith

  • SpacemyfaceSpacemyface Schenectady, NYPosts: 6Member
    Originally posted by Tinybina
    Originally posted by Jyiiga
    It is amazing how many people are missing the bigger picture here and failing to think outside of the box.

     

    Sheep don't think 'outside the box'.  They live inside it.

     

    Fact of the matter is that they are not weeding out jerks and people that "troll" others.  They are banning people that don't agree with what it is the developers do. Question the developers about their choices in a game get labeled a "troll" by the fanbois and you will find yourself getting suspended or banned.  

    They have already begun doing this in Planetside 2....

    like what is going on... these companies shouldn't be draconian dictatorships that carry people away in the night to never be seen again for speaking out against those who keep the servers open. i feel like im taking crazy pills over the fact that this seems acceptable to some

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Tinybina
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by DrCokePepsi

     


    Originally posted by Jyiiga
    http://www.pcgamesn.com/planetside/soe-ban-players-extreme-behaviour-outside-their-games

     

    “Not only will we ban your forum account, but if it's serious enough we'll call up customer service and have you banned from all of our games,” SOE community relations director Linda Carlson told GamesIndustry. “We do not need those individuals as customers.”

    Carlson was very clear - it doesn’t matter how influential a player might be, or what position they hold in what guild: “we’ll still ban them”.

    “In our games, if you are an exploiter we don't care who you are, how big your guild is, how many people you threaten to take with you when you go,” she said.

    “We can control anybody who's playing our games...[but] if we know who you are and you're abusing somebody on Twitter, we will ban your game account and we will not accept you as a customer ever again. It's not always possible to identify people [in that way], but we take that seriously.”

    SOE uphold different standards for each of their games: they wouldn’t expect the same kind of behaviour in a competitive shooter like Planetside 2 as they would in a collaborative MMO like EverQuest. But Carlson said standards do need to exist, in clearly-stated form - and that SOE need to reinforce them with bans for bad behaviour both in and outside their games when necessary.

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

    When I first read this I was like yay... Deal with them fracking exploitiers and anti-social buggers. However, the more I read the more concerned I became. At what point is the line drawn, who are they to go picking around through social media looking for negative comments. Does it end at their own personal pages or will they go beyond that? If I call their game a bucket of trash and hope they drive their cars into a lake are they going to feel the need to ban my ass from all their games.

    It never turns out well when you threaten not only your customers but, all of the online community with the ban stick.

     

     


    Wow, SOE made a business move that isn't just out of financial gain but out of MORAL *gasp*

     

    Ya, but I agree with this in a sense. When I first started MMOs I was about 10 or 11, and I was a prick. I'd use completely profane language, I'd insult people and get into stupid arguments, it was a terrible thing, I should have been banned.

    That kind of behaviour should result in punishment, and ultimately weed out the pre-pubescent children, griefers and a-holes from the games. This is a large part of the decline of the MMO industry as well.

    I'd say kudos to you SOE, but I'm just not sure to what extent these manhunts will go, and whether or not these companies will access my personal profiles. Jokes can be misinterpreted, exaggerated anger for certain situations could be misread and so forth.
    We'll have to see how their formula works with the community.

     We'll see how much this is a moral gain when they start banning people who negatively critique their product. It all depends on how they take this approach. My bet is that they ban critics and proclaim that they, "broke their rules of agreement".

     

    I'm here to tell you they have already began!  

     I can't believe that people on this forum are only thinking of this as one sided. SOE stated that they'll ban anyone who they deem not fit to be their customer. Everyone who agrees to this better start practicing to become "yes men" and start kissing ass. Otherwise you'll most likely be banned if you don't like every part of their product(s).

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989

    A "Verbal Contract" is a joke that holds no ground in an actual legal agreement. If you want any legal proof especially in court you need hard facts. 

    [mod edit]

     

     

     I have not verbally agreed to nor have I signed any contracts to play these games. Clicking a button binds nothing on my behalf. Once again, these arguments stating that the TOS and EULA are hold stronger ground than actual law is a joke. You must have a third party to witness your actions on a "verbal contract". 

     It's quite apparent that you didn't even read your own article. Because the article itself tells you to back up a "verbal contract" with hard physical evidence of the agreement.

    The answer is yes—as long as you can prove it in court. It's interesting to note that many powerful people have engaged in handshake deals, from Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But more than likely, these handshake deals were followed by large contracts that outlined key deal points and terms. If you are the type of person who prefers informal agreements sealed by a handshake, at the very least, have a few people on hand to witness you "shake on it." A handshake deal is always more binding when there are witnesses to the agreement. In other words, avoid agreeing to anything in a dark alley when no one else is looking.

    If you did go ahead and shake on an oral contract with no one to witness it, you should probably get right to work on your half of the bargain. Because putting your words into immediate action is another way to validate your oral agreement. If you begin acting on your agreement with the other party acting in compliance, you create additional evidence that a deal was struck. Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that it requires the other party to immediately begin work on their half of the agreement.

    Failing witness testimony or any actions that verify your handshake deal, you can always present supporting materials to strengthen your claim. For example, any correspondence between two parties is admissible in court, particularly if it is sent certified mail. Faxes, emails, letters, memos and receipts all help establish your handshake deal. If you are particularly uncomfortable drawing up a contract—say with a friend—a simple "thank you" letter immediately following a handshake is always a good way to establish the terms of your agreement. The recipient will not think of it as possible "evidence," but simply as a polite gesture.

    Of course, none of this is necessary if both parties are happy and everyone lives up to their word. In a very simple deal, chances are slim that anyone is going to wind up having to prove anything in court. But if there is a dispute that lands you in court, the burden is on you to produce evidence of the transaction.

    More often than not, handshake deals fall apart over the details of the agreement. Oral contracts are often useful for simple exchanges such as "I will trade you my old air conditioner for your old refrigerator." But for deals with a multitude of finer points such as employment or lease agreements, it's always best to get your deal in writing. For those of you who still feel uncomfortable asking your buddy to sign a piece of paper, remember—it's not so much an issue of trust as it is of clarity. Perhaps Nixon said it best when he quipped, "trust everyone, but cut the cards."

    [mod edit]

    You don't have to sign your name to your tax form in the U.S. anymore, does that mean that I can just submit anything to them?  No.  How is clicking a box that says "I agree to the terms and conditions" somehow less binding than signing your name?  I will agree with you on your overall argument that no contract (or since you refuse to believe they are contracts, any EULA) is valid if it takes away a right perscribed by law.  But just because you don't sign your name to something doesn't make it not valid in this digital age.   Good luck trying to tell someone that you didn't really agree because you never signed it, but "all I did was click a box that said I agree, that's not really agreeing."  That will not get you very far.  Fortunately in the realm of this thread it is a moot point because when I go to any store or retail service I don't usually have to sign anything, and they still have the ability to kick me out with no refund if I make an ass of myself.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ray12k I said I dont believe cyber bully is a major issue. since people can click the close button or not read a message.

     

    Actually it probably is.

    The issue is not that people can just click that box and shut it and ignore it but more that they just don't have the mental and emotional capacity to do it.

    If one is a fairly confident and stable individual it does seem hard to believe that someone can't just close the page and say "f-off" and leave it at that.

    There are people who just don't have the ability to do this. Call it mental illness or bad parenting or lack of self esteem but it exists.

     

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    lol I understand why MMORPG.com gave Everquest: Next best in show now ;). They fear that if they critique it negatively they'll have all of their accounts banned. Good move SOE, good move!

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,916Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by urdriel

     


    WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,¡¡¡¡¡

    So, if I buy a new car, and i talk shyt about it in internet, the company can send an employee to MY house and steal MY car??

    Of course, by some peoples logic. Why not? Apparently it's the companies right to do so.

    Can you not see the difference between paying for a service and buying a physical product?  A service will have stipulations in place that can at times restrict your access or even revoke your access to those services. This is no different.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Nevulus
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989

    A "Verbal Contract" is a joke that holds no ground in an actual legal agreement. If you want any legal proof especially in court you need hard facts. 

    [mod edit]

     

     

     I have not verbally agreed to nor have I signed any contracts to play these games. Clicking a button binds nothing on my behalf. Once again, these arguments stating that the TOS and EULA are hold stronger ground than actual law is a joke. You must have a third party to witness your actions on a "verbal contract". 

     It's quite apparent that you didn't even read your own article. Because the article itself tells you to back up a "verbal contract" with hard physical evidence of the agreement.

    The answer is yes—as long as you can prove it in court. It's interesting to note that many powerful people have engaged in handshake deals, from Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But more than likely, these handshake deals were followed by large contracts that outlined key deal points and terms. If you are the type of person who prefers informal agreements sealed by a handshake, at the very least, have a few people on hand to witness you "shake on it." A handshake deal is always more binding when there are witnesses to the agreement. In other words, avoid agreeing to anything in a dark alley when no one else is looking.

    If you did go ahead and shake on an oral contract with no one to witness it, you should probably get right to work on your half of the bargain. Because putting your words into immediate action is another way to validate your oral agreement. If you begin acting on your agreement with the other party acting in compliance, you create additional evidence that a deal was struck. Of course, the only problem with this strategy is that it requires the other party to immediately begin work on their half of the agreement.

    Failing witness testimony or any actions that verify your handshake deal, you can always present supporting materials to strengthen your claim. For example, any correspondence between two parties is admissible in court, particularly if it is sent certified mail. Faxes, emails, letters, memos and receipts all help establish your handshake deal. If you are particularly uncomfortable drawing up a contract—say with a friend—a simple "thank you" letter immediately following a handshake is always a good way to establish the terms of your agreement. The recipient will not think of it as possible "evidence," but simply as a polite gesture.

    Of course, none of this is necessary if both parties are happy and everyone lives up to their word. In a very simple deal, chances are slim that anyone is going to wind up having to prove anything in court. But if there is a dispute that lands you in court, the burden is on you to produce evidence of the transaction.

    More often than not, handshake deals fall apart over the details of the agreement. Oral contracts are often useful for simple exchanges such as "I will trade you my old air conditioner for your old refrigerator." But for deals with a multitude of finer points such as employment or lease agreements, it's always best to get your deal in writing. For those of you who still feel uncomfortable asking your buddy to sign a piece of paper, remember—it's not so much an issue of trust as it is of clarity. Perhaps Nixon said it best when he quipped, "trust everyone, but cut the cards."

    [mod edit]

    You don't have to sign your name to your tax form in the U.S. anymore, does that mean that I can just submit anything to them?  No.  How is clicking a box that says "I agree to the terms and conditions" somehow less binding than signing your name?  I will agree with you on your overall argument that no contract (or since you refuse to believe they are contracts, any EULA) is valid if it takes away a right perscribed by law.  But just because you don't sign your name to something doesn't make it not valid in this digital age.   Good luck trying to tell someone that you didn't really agree because you never signed it, but "all I did was click a box that said I agree, that's not really agreeing."  That will not get you very far.  Fortunately in the realm of this thread it is a moot point because when I go to any store or retail service I don't usually have to sign anything, and they still have the ability to kick me out with no refund if I make an ass of myself.

    Ermm, there are people in the United States who refuse to pay taxes because they don't sheepishly agree to the things that's they're indirectly paying for. 

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by urdriel

     


    WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,¡¡¡¡¡

    So, if I buy a new car, and i talk shyt about it in internet, the company can send an employee to MY house and steal MY car??

    Of course, by some peoples logic. Why not? Apparently it's the companies right to do so.

    Can you not see the difference between paying for a service and buying a physical product?  A service will have stipulations in place that can at times restrict your access or even revoke your access to those services. This is no different.

    I purchased Everquest 1. I own the physical copy. Everquest 1 is free-to-play. I'm no longer paying for a service with SOE. I have an absolute right to play their game because I've purchased the product.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • SpacemyfaceSpacemyface Schenectady, NYPosts: 6Member
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by Spacemyface
     

    /snip

    what's next? making players pass a criminal background check before being able to play a freaking game? this whole concept is like the 1984 of the gaming world...and yes these principles reach far beyond this small spectrum of online activity. ...cough NSA cough

    Last I checked, Sony isn't hacking Twitter or your Facebook account.

    The gamers themselves have to give authorisation to Sony.

    Don't like that, don't buy Sony products.

    Difference between this and 1984/NSA is that one is voluntary and one is mandatory.

    If you can't see the difference, well, look harder. :P

    I would say that the problem is the fact that they want you to give them the authority to do this in order to play a game of theirs. My issue is that i feel as if they shouldn't be able to make those kinds of calls based on outside interactions between you and another...And as someone said earlier, i find it reasonable if its for the sake of preventing hacking or any form of exploitation, but other than that, i for one feel as if they are overstepping their bounds by a long shot.

     

    I mean, i don't even play SOE games, I just hate to see someone having to voluntarily give up their freedoms on the internet in order to play one of their titles if they were so inclined.

  • TygranirTygranir Colordo Springs, COPosts: 741Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by urdriel

     


    WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,¡¡¡¡¡

    So, if I buy a new car, and i talk shyt about it in internet, the company can send an employee to MY house and steal MY car??

    Of course, by some peoples logic. Why not? Apparently it's the companies right to do so.

    Can you not see the difference between paying for a service and buying a physical product?  A service will have stipulations in place that can at times restrict your access or even revoke your access to those services. This is no different.

    I purchased Everquest 1. I own the physical copy. Everquest 1 is free-to-play. I'm no longer paying for a service with SOE. I have an absolute right to play their game because I've purchased the product.

    No, you have a right to keep your physical discs, you have no right to access their servers if you break the ToS

    SWTOR Referral Bonus!
    Referral link
    7 day subscriber level access
    Returning players get 1 free server transfer

    Leveling assistance items given to new player!

    See all perks Here

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,916Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by urdriel

     


    WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,WAIT,¡¡¡¡¡

    So, if I buy a new car, and i talk shyt about it in internet, the company can send an employee to MY house and steal MY car??

    Of course, by some peoples logic. Why not? Apparently it's the companies right to do so.

    Can you not see the difference between paying for a service and buying a physical product?  A service will have stipulations in place that can at times restrict your access or even revoke your access to those services. This is no different.

    I purchased Everquest 1. I own the physical copy. Everquest 1 is free-to-play. I'm no longer paying for a service with SOE. I have an absolute right to play their game because I've purchased the product.

    In this case it's not a physical product, it's viewed as a service, a service with rules to follow. You realize every company practices this right? Legally....

    Steam can ban you from every game you've purchased from them, simply for breaking their rules, there's nothing you can legally do about it.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • g0m0rrahg0m0rrah indianapolis, INPosts: 269Member

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

  • RangeronesixRangeronesix Jacksonville, FLPosts: 5Member

    A couple points:  EULA's and shrink wrap licenses are generally enforceable, more so if there is some action needed to accept them prior to installation or use (like clicking 'I agree').  See ProCD v Zeidenberg.  

    Also, you owe U.S. taxes regardless of whether you file a return.  If you owe, and don't file, you'll just owe more in penalties once the IRS catches up to you.

  • TygranirTygranir Colordo Springs, COPosts: 741Member
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

    If I do not allow you to access the servers that I own, I am breaking no laws. A contract is agreed to by both parties when a ToS and EULA is accepted. If one party is in breach of the contained conditions, the other party is able to persue any action authorized.

    SWTOR Referral Bonus!
    Referral link
    7 day subscriber level access
    Returning players get 1 free server transfer

    Leveling assistance items given to new player!

    See all perks Here

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,916Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
     

    Ermm, there are people in the United States who refuse to pay taxes because they don't sheepishly agree to the things that's they're indirectly paying for. 

    Now people who pay taxes are sheep? ROFL.... Most people have no choice in paying taxes, it's taken directly from their paychecks, as well as with every purchase they make. Those who work contractually can get themselves into serious trouble for trying to falsify a tax return. I know you're young and don't have a whole lot of life experience behind you yet, but you really are showing you haven't an idea of what real life is like.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • TimothyTierlessTimothyTierless Columnist M, ORPosts: 2,163Member Uncommon

    Why do I see this becoming, talk positively about our games or we will ban you from life...

  • TygranirTygranir Colordo Springs, COPosts: 741Member
    Originally posted by Tierless

    Why do I see this becoming, talk positively about our games or we will ban you from life...

    If you spoke negatively about my home, I wouldn't let you in either.

    SWTOR Referral Bonus!
    Referral link
    7 day subscriber level access
    Returning players get 1 free server transfer

    Leveling assistance items given to new player!

    See all perks Here

  • g0m0rrahg0m0rrah indianapolis, INPosts: 269Member
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

    If I do not allow you to access the servers that I own, I am breaking no laws. A contract is agreed to by both parties when a ToS and EULA is accepted. If one party is in breach of the contained conditions, the other party is able to persue any action authorized.

     If you accept payment and deny me the promised services, you are breaking the contract.  It all comes down to why you accepted my money and didnt hold your end of the deal.  If I didnt something that you simply didnt like, thats going to be an awful tough case for SoE to win.

     Cursing is a good example. If someone gets banned for cursing and SoE implements the ability to censor or uncensor text, then thats an almost outright acceptance of cursing.  Its software, if they did not want you to curse, they simply wouldnt give you the option to lift the censorship.  Its like AoC having nude models underneath the clothing, allowing you to remove the clothing, then banning you if you do.

     When it comes to verbal abuse, its pretty easy to take " im going to find out where you live and murder your children" as harassment. If someone says " diaf ", for one thing, you have to know the acronym, and secondly, its pretty subjective.  Is diaf a threat?  If someone says "oh thats gay", and you get banned because that is offensive to the moderator that has a gay son.  How about religious or political speech.  Oh this guy on his twitter supports the KKK, I find this offensive so I am going to ban  him.

     Banning for language inside the game or outside the game is very absurd when most game come with filters and blocking built in.  There are extremes where banning becomes necessary but the OP proposed a good question, where do you draw the line...

     

     

  • OG_ZorvanOG_Zorvan Fresno, CAPosts: 615Member

    SOE: The New China.

    Mao would approve. Also, Lil' Kim Korea is now taking notes from SOE.

    EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  • cosliecoslie Vancouver, BCPosts: 4Member
    A company can refuse service, sure.  But once they take your money they have some obligations.  If you misbehave on their premises, real or virtual, sure they can boot you.  If they decide they don't like you for what you've done, or what they think you've done, somewhere else, they can still refuse to serve you, but not without a refund.
  • ray12kray12k riverside, CAPosts: 447Member
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

    If I do not allow you to access the servers that I own, I am breaking no laws. A contract is agreed to by both parties when a ToS and EULA is accepted. If one party is in breach of the contained conditions, the other party is able to persue any action authorized.

     If you accept payment and deny me the promised services, you are breaking the contract.  It all comes down to why you accepted my money and didnt hold your end of the deal.  If I didnt something that you simply didnt like, thats going to be an awful tough case for SoE to win.

     Cursing is a good example. If someone gets banned for cursing and SoE implements the ability to censor or uncensor text, then thats an almost outright acceptance of cursing.  Its software, if they did not want you to curse, they simply wouldnt give you the option to lift the censorship.  Its like AoC having nude models underneath the clothing, allowing you to remove the clothing, then banning you if you do.

     When it comes to verbal abuse, its pretty easy to take " im going to find out where you live and murder your children" as harassment. If someone says " diaf ", for one thing, you have to know the acronym, and secondly, its pretty subjective.  Is diaf a threat?  If someone says "oh thats gay", and you get banned because that is offensive to the moderator that has a gay son.  How about religious or political speech.  Oh this guy on his twitter supports the KKK, I find this offensive so I am going to ban  him.

     Banning for language inside the game or outside the game is very absurd when most game come with filters and blocking built in.  There are extremes where banning becomes necessary but the OP proposed a good question, where do you draw the line...

     

     

    what does diaf mean?

  • TygranirTygranir Colordo Springs, COPosts: 741Member
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

    If I do not allow you to access the servers that I own, I am breaking no laws. A contract is agreed to by both parties when a ToS and EULA is accepted. If one party is in breach of the contained conditions, the other party is able to persue any action authorized.

     If you accept payment and deny me the promised services, you are breaking the contract.  It all comes down to why you accepted my money and didnt hold your end of the deal.  If I didnt something that you simply didnt like, thats going to be an awful tough case for SoE to win.

     Cursing is a good example. If someone gets banned for cursing and SoE implements the ability to censor or uncensor text, then thats an almost outright acceptance of cursing.  Its software, if they did not want you to curse, they simply wouldnt give you the option to lift the censorship.  Its like AoC having nude models underneath the clothing, allowing you to remove the clothing, then banning you if you do.

     When it comes to verbal abuse, its pretty easy to take " im going to find out where you live and murder your children" as harassment. If someone says " diaf ", for one thing, you have to know the acronym, and secondly, its pretty subjective.  Is diaf a threat?  If someone says "oh thats gay", and you get banned because that is offensive to the moderator that has a gay son.  How about religious or political speech.  Oh this guy on his twitter supports the KKK, I find this offensive so I am going to ban  him.

     Banning for language inside the game or outside the game is very absurd when most game come with filters and blocking built in.  There are extremes where banning becomes necessary but the OP proposed a good question, where do you draw the line...

     

     

    If you agreed to the Terms of Service saying you will not behave in a manner deemed inappropriate to SOE, then violated that agreement, they are in the right to terminate said service and nullify any payment received without refund.

    SWTOR Referral Bonus!
    Referral link
    7 day subscriber level access
    Returning players get 1 free server transfer

    Leveling assistance items given to new player!

    See all perks Here

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ray12k
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

    If I do not allow you to access the servers that I own, I am breaking no laws. A contract is agreed to by both parties when a ToS and EULA is accepted. If one party is in breach of the contained conditions, the other party is able to persue any action authorized.

     If you accept payment and deny me the promised services, you are breaking the contract.  It all comes down to why you accepted my money and didnt hold your end of the deal.  If I didnt something that you simply didnt like, thats going to be an awful tough case for SoE to win.

     Cursing is a good example. If someone gets banned for cursing and SoE implements the ability to censor or uncensor text, then thats an almost outright acceptance of cursing.  Its software, if they did not want you to curse, they simply wouldnt give you the option to lift the censorship.  Its like AoC having nude models underneath the clothing, allowing you to remove the clothing, then banning you if you do.

     When it comes to verbal abuse, its pretty easy to take " im going to find out where you live and murder your children" as harassment. If someone says " diaf ", for one thing, you have to know the acronym, and secondly, its pretty subjective.  Is diaf a threat?  If someone says "oh thats gay", and you get banned because that is offensive to the moderator that has a gay son.  How about religious or political speech.  Oh this guy on his twitter supports the KKK, I find this offensive so I am going to ban  him.

     Banning for language inside the game or outside the game is very absurd when most game come with filters and blocking built in.  There are extremes where banning becomes necessary but the OP proposed a good question, where do you draw the line...

     

     

    what does diaf mean?

     Probably : Die in a fire.

    image

    Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
  • g0m0rrahg0m0rrah indianapolis, INPosts: 269Member
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Tygranir
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah

     

     The law is fluid.  One day something is illegal and the next day it isnt, or vice versa.  ToS and EULA are dismissed out of hand often.  A lot of these contracts violate state and federal laws.  Jailbreaking iphones and ipods are a great example of this.  In my opinion, SoE is really asking for trouble with this.  If you are going to ban people, you better log log log, to show that fair treatment is conducted.  Even if fair treatment is attainable(which is impossible), the laws change so often that one month you win this lawsuit and the next month you lose it and pay millions.

      I have had two rental agreements throw out and those are much more solid contracts than a digital eula or tos.  Most landlords do not have access to the proper lawyers and its awful easy to violate state laws.  The first one tried to charge me for 4 months rent, since I terminated 4 months early.  I gave him documentation showing that I was recalled by the Navy.  This went on my credit history.  My landlord violated the law  and I paid for it for a couple years. In the end, he paid for it far more than I.  The second was that they tried to charge me early termination for 3 months when they already had the apartment rented out 3 weeks after I moved out.  I had already paid them for one month.  My state law says, you can not charge for rent more than once.  So that got thrown out fast.

      The law is fluid.  Contracts must change as the laws change...

    If I do not allow you to access the servers that I own, I am breaking no laws. A contract is agreed to by both parties when a ToS and EULA is accepted. If one party is in breach of the contained conditions, the other party is able to persue any action authorized.

     If you accept payment and deny me the promised services, you are breaking the contract.  It all comes down to why you accepted my money and didnt hold your end of the deal.  If I didnt something that you simply didnt like, thats going to be an awful tough case for SoE to win.

     Cursing is a good example. If someone gets banned for cursing and SoE implements the ability to censor or uncensor text, then thats an almost outright acceptance of cursing.  Its software, if they did not want you to curse, they simply wouldnt give you the option to lift the censorship.  Its like AoC having nude models underneath the clothing, allowing you to remove the clothing, then banning you if you do.

     When it comes to verbal abuse, its pretty easy to take " im going to find out where you live and murder your children" as harassment. If someone says " diaf ", for one thing, you have to know the acronym, and secondly, its pretty subjective.  Is diaf a threat?  If someone says "oh thats gay", and you get banned because that is offensive to the moderator that has a gay son.  How about religious or political speech.  Oh this guy on his twitter supports the KKK, I find this offensive so I am going to ban  him.

     Banning for language inside the game or outside the game is very absurd when most game come with filters and blocking built in.  There are extremes where banning becomes necessary but the OP proposed a good question, where do you draw the line...

     

     

    If you agreed to the Terms of Service saying you will not behave in a manner deemed inappropriate to SOE, then violated that agreement, they are in the right to terminate said service and nullify any payment received without refund.

    " Sony has been getting widely slammed across the gaming and tech press for its bizarre and self-destructive lawsuit against George Hotz (Geohot), for jailbreaking the PS3 in order to re-enable a feature that Sony had long-advertised, but then deleted off of people's existing PS3s. The entire lawsuit made little sense, and Sony's quixotic attempt to continue to pursue it just got more and more bizarre, with the company even seeking and gaining access to the IP addresses of people visiting his website or watching the YouTube video he put up. "

     Sony settled with the guy in this lawsuit and obviously they took thing way to far. 

    " A German consumer rights organization is suing the company, claiming that the inability to resell downloadable games from their Steam service infringes on the rights of consumers."

    Valve lost this lawsuit.  So you are wrong.  EULA and ToS are only legally binding if backed by law.  These are not small companies losing lawsuits...

     

145791013
This discussion has been closed.