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.

179111213

Comments

  • psiicpsiic Tampa, FLPosts: 940Member Uncommon

    And yet when I reported a convicted child molester who is on his own states dangerous sexual predator watch list.

    Provided them proof of not only his identity, name, address, and the documentation of his crimes, and let them know he is a guild leader hiding who he is, while  having access to children through their games, in violation of his parole.  

    SOE does not care in the least.

     

    But hey it is nice to see they have their priorities.

     

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by psiic

    And yet when I reported a convicted child molester who is on his own states dangerous sexual predator watch list.

    Provided them proof of not only his identity, name, address, and the documentation of his crimes, and let them know he is a guild leader hiding who he is, while  having access to children through their games, in violation of his parole.  

    SOE does not care in the least.

     

    But hey it is nice to see they have their priorities.

     

    Course I'm going to believe you RANDOM Internet Poster 1213131.

    I'm Al Gore btw, I invented the Internet! :P

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • Mtibbs1989Mtibbs1989 Fredericksburg, VAPosts: 2,920Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
     

    " 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...

     

     Good finds ;)  , I also believe EA just lost a lawsuit for the resale issue as well. TOS and EULA do not hold ground in court.

     Well they can hold up in court. It all depends if the contract is backed by the law.  Sometimes they hold up, often they do not.  EULA and ToS are there to ensure accountability. I created this rule, the consumer signed a document showing that he read this rule, this ensures accountability.  Problems arise when these rules violate law.  Like being able to resale a product you purchase. In some countries its mandatory that resale be allowed.

     Well, of course. Things like death threats and hacking are definitely against the law. These no matter what should have 0 tolerance. However, most everything else on an EULA or TOS is just garbage that doesn't hold ground. For example: you can't refuse your customer the ability to resell their product if they do so choose.

    No, but they can keep the person who purchased second hand from accessing certain parts of the game, if not ban them entirely from the servers.  Purchase an account for wow through a secondhand site (one of those that sell level cap toons) announce it on the forums (it may take more than once) and see if the account doesn't get banned for breaking the rules.  The same reason some companies are charging 10$ for online access codes (I believe most EA titles do this).  The code comes with the original purchase but is only redeamable once and is tied to your account.  Buy it used and that code has been used, you can't use it again, you have to pay a fee to get a new code.  

    There isn't some teenager sitting around writing up EULA's.   The lawyers writing these know what the laws of their respective countries are and know that you can't sign away your consumer rights (what limited consumer rights we have in the U.S.).  They write the EULA's with this in mind.  They don't just pull it out of a hat, contrary to popular belief on the forums.

     God, I hope some of the people who are "writing" these aren't lawyers because I've seen and read several EULA/TOS that were copy pasted right from another companies EULA/TOS.

    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.
  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
    Originally posted by Sovrath I should not be able to walk up to anyone and start blathering in their face about how ugly they are or stand in the lobby of some media company and decry the fact that their products show nudity or discuss creationism.    
    Yes actually, you should be able to.  You probably shouldn't do it, but it should not be - and is not - illegal.


    Uh, no. Sovrath's freedom ends where other peoples' freedom begins. He doesn't own the lobby of that media company, so the media company can determine whether or not he can be there. His right to say what he wants ends at the point where he's infringing on the rights of the person he's standing in front off, impeding their way and possibly spouting libelous things at them in order to malign their character.

    If at any point he's shown to not be responsible enough to handle the ability to walk around wherever his will takes him, then he shouldn't have the ability to do so.

    SOE has the right to decide who can or cannot access their property. Consumers have the right to decide whether or not to consume products that SOE makes. SOE isn't deciding what people can and cannot do, SOE is deciding who can or cannot access their product.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
     

    " 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...

     

     Good finds ;)  , I also believe EA just lost a lawsuit for the resale issue as well. TOS and EULA do not hold ground in court.

     Well they can hold up in court. It all depends if the contract is backed by the law.  Sometimes they hold up, often they do not.  EULA and ToS are there to ensure accountability. I created this rule, the consumer signed a document showing that he read this rule, this ensures accountability.  Problems arise when these rules violate law.  Like being able to resale a product you purchase. In some countries its mandatory that resale be allowed.

     Well, of course. Things like death threats and hacking are definitely against the law. These no matter what should have 0 tolerance. However, most everything else on an EULA or TOS is just garbage that doesn't hold ground. For example: you can't refuse your customer the ability to resell their product if they do so choose.

    No, but they can keep the person who purchased second hand from accessing certain parts of the game, if not ban them entirely from the servers.  Purchase an account for wow through a secondhand site (one of those that sell level cap toons) announce it on the forums (it may take more than once) and see if the account doesn't get banned for breaking the rules.  The same reason some companies are charging 10$ for online access codes (I believe most EA titles do this).  The code comes with the original purchase but is only redeamable once and is tied to your account.  Buy it used and that code has been used, you can't use it again, you have to pay a fee to get a new code.  

    There isn't some teenager sitting around writing up EULA's.   The lawyers writing these know what the laws of their respective countries are and know that you can't sign away your consumer rights (what limited consumer rights we have in the U.S.).  They write the EULA's with this in mind.  They don't just pull it out of a hat, contrary to popular belief on the forums.

     God, I hope some of the people who are "writing" these aren't lawyers because I've seen and read several EULA/TOS that were copy pasted right from another companies EULA/TOS.

    I guess you could get some small time outfit that can't afford a lawyer to write their own EULA or TOS and throw something together and don't know the laws of their country/state well enough to do a good job of it.  As far as copying goes, an indy company could copy and paste SOE's EULA/TOS and it shouldn't really matter if they are running an mmo.  Now if they are say selling an anti-virus product and are copy and pasting an mmo EULA, then yeah, there's a problem.  But Wildstar's TOS/EULA should need to look all that different than Everquest's EULA, except for you know changing the names involved.  

    Now you have me picturing reading a EULA for say Final Fantasy XIV and reading Everquest and Sony Online Entertainment everywhere it should read Final Fantasy XIV and Square Enix.  I'm never gonna get this out of my head.

    Edit:  I found this court case in the U.S. that pertains to licensing vs. ownership which is applicable to this discussion because most mmo TOS/EULA state that you are licensing rather than purchasing their product:

    In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In VernorAutodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission.

    I have only read 2 mmo's licensing agreements WoW and EvE and both state that you are only licensing the product which would fall into this legal precedent of not being able to resell the account even though you have "purchased" it.  EU countries have more consumer protections in place and have ruled that you can resell even digital copies of movies and music, but the U.S., not so much.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member

    This thread sounds a lot like 'EA winning the worst company award' but still have multi-million sales every year.

    'Yeah! we won't buy your products Company X!'

    Company X sells millions of copies.

     

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • psiicpsiic Tampa, FLPosts: 940Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
     

    " 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...

     

     Good finds ;)  , I also believe EA just lost a lawsuit for the resale issue as well. TOS and EULA do not hold ground in court.

     Well they can hold up in court. It all depends if the contract is backed by the law.  Sometimes they hold up, often they do not.  EULA and ToS are there to ensure accountability. I created this rule, the consumer signed a document showing that he read this rule, this ensures accountability.  Problems arise when these rules violate law.  Like being able to resale a product you purchase. In some countries its mandatory that resale be allowed.

     Well, of course. Things like death threats and hacking are definitely against the law. These no matter what should have 0 tolerance. However, most everything else on an EULA or TOS is just garbage that doesn't hold ground. For example: you can't refuse your customer the ability to resell their product if they do so choose.

    No, but they can keep the person who purchased second hand from accessing certain parts of the game, if not ban them entirely from the servers.  Purchase an account for wow through a secondhand site (one of those that sell level cap toons) announce it on the forums (it may take more than once) and see if the account doesn't get banned for breaking the rules.  The same reason some companies are charging 10$ for online access codes (I believe most EA titles do this).  The code comes with the original purchase but is only redeamable once and is tied to your account.  Buy it used and that code has been used, you can't use it again, you have to pay a fee to get a new code.  

    There isn't some teenager sitting around writing up EULA's.   The lawyers writing these know what the laws of their respective countries are and know that you can't sign away your consumer rights (what limited consumer rights we have in the U.S.).  They write the EULA's with this in mind.  They don't just pull it out of a hat, contrary to popular belief on the forums.

     God, I hope some of the people who are "writing" these aren't lawyers because I've seen and read several EULA/TOS that were copy pasted right from another companies EULA/TOS.

    I guess you could get some small time outfit that can't afford a lawyer to write their own EULA or TOS and throw something together and don't know the laws of their country/state well enough to do a good job of it.  As far as copying goes, an indy company could copy and paste SOE's EULA/TOS and it shouldn't really matter if they are running an mmo.  Now if they are say selling an anti-virus product and are copy and pasting an mmo EULA, then yeah, there's a problem.  But Wildstar's TOS/EULA should need to look all that different than Everquest's EULA, except for you know changing the names involved.  

    Now you have me picturing reading a EULA for say Final Fantasy XIV and reading Everquest and Sony Online Entertainment everywhere it should read Final Fantasy XIV and Square Enix.  I'm never gonna get this out of my head.

    LOL they do not care about EULA / TOS because federal courts have ruled 3 times now that EULA / TOS have no legal grounds and no binding arbitration. 

    Basically they are worthless words put there as a suggestion only, the main purpose of them is to scare and or confuse the average uneducated gamer.

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by psiic
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by niceguy3978
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
    Originally posted by Mtibbs1989
    Originally posted by g0m0rrah
     

    " 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...

     

     Good finds ;)  , I also believe EA just lost a lawsuit for the resale issue as well. TOS and EULA do not hold ground in court.

     Well they can hold up in court. It all depends if the contract is backed by the law.  Sometimes they hold up, often they do not.  EULA and ToS are there to ensure accountability. I created this rule, the consumer signed a document showing that he read this rule, this ensures accountability.  Problems arise when these rules violate law.  Like being able to resale a product you purchase. In some countries its mandatory that resale be allowed.

     Well, of course. Things like death threats and hacking are definitely against the law. These no matter what should have 0 tolerance. However, most everything else on an EULA or TOS is just garbage that doesn't hold ground. For example: you can't refuse your customer the ability to resell their product if they do so choose.

    No, but they can keep the person who purchased second hand from accessing certain parts of the game, if not ban them entirely from the servers.  Purchase an account for wow through a secondhand site (one of those that sell level cap toons) announce it on the forums (it may take more than once) and see if the account doesn't get banned for breaking the rules.  The same reason some companies are charging 10$ for online access codes (I believe most EA titles do this).  The code comes with the original purchase but is only redeamable once and is tied to your account.  Buy it used and that code has been used, you can't use it again, you have to pay a fee to get a new code.  

    There isn't some teenager sitting around writing up EULA's.   The lawyers writing these know what the laws of their respective countries are and know that you can't sign away your consumer rights (what limited consumer rights we have in the U.S.).  They write the EULA's with this in mind.  They don't just pull it out of a hat, contrary to popular belief on the forums.

     God, I hope some of the people who are "writing" these aren't lawyers because I've seen and read several EULA/TOS that were copy pasted right from another companies EULA/TOS.

    I guess you could get some small time outfit that can't afford a lawyer to write their own EULA or TOS and throw something together and don't know the laws of their country/state well enough to do a good job of it.  As far as copying goes, an indy company could copy and paste SOE's EULA/TOS and it shouldn't really matter if they are running an mmo.  Now if they are say selling an anti-virus product and are copy and pasting an mmo EULA, then yeah, there's a problem.  But Wildstar's TOS/EULA should need to look all that different than Everquest's EULA, except for you know changing the names involved.  

    Now you have me picturing reading a EULA for say Final Fantasy XIV and reading Everquest and Sony Online Entertainment everywhere it should read Final Fantasy XIV and Square Enix.  I'm never gonna get this out of my head.

    LOL they do not care about EULA / TOS because federal courts have ruled 3 times now that EULA / TOS have no legal grounds and no binding arbitration. 

    Basically they are worthless words put there as a suggestion only, the main purpose of them is to scare and or confuse the average uneducated gamer.

    Doing a search indicates the opposite.  This is the one that most specifically relates to videogames and software:

    In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In VernorAutodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission.

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member
    Originally posted by psiic
     

    LOL they do not care about EULA / TOS because federal courts have ruled 3 times now that EULA / TOS have no legal grounds and no binding arbitration. 

    Basically they are worthless words put there as a suggestion only, the main purpose of them is to scare and or confuse the average uneducated gamer.

    This is factually false.

    Federal courts have not issued a ruling on this matter although different circuits have.

    7th Circuit deemed one case to be 'enforceable'.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    I should not be able to walk up to anyone and start blathering in their face about how ugly they are or stand in the lobby of some media company and decry the fact that their products show nudity or discuss creationism.

     

     

    Yes actually, you should be able to.  You probably shouldn't do it, but it should not be - and is not - illegal.

    True just  saying someone is ugly is not illegal. I imagine if you persist it would fall under some sort of harassment. Hence the use of the word blathering; essentially "going on and on". Also, if they can prove that you have somehow damaged their reputation they could bring a civil case against you.

    The latter example would be trespassing. That's why I used "lobby". You can't enter a company and start picketing and say you are exercising your freedom of expression. you can be removed. You can picket outside the company.

    The point being is that there are limits on where you can say things and how you go about it.

     

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by jpnz
    Originally posted by psiic
     

    LOL they do not care about EULA / TOS because federal courts have ruled 3 times now that EULA / TOS have no legal grounds and no binding arbitration. 

    Basically they are worthless words put there as a suggestion only, the main purpose of them is to scare and or confuse the average uneducated gamer.

    This is factually false.

    Federal courts have not issued a ruling on this matter although different circuits have.

    7th Circuit deemed one case to be 'enforceable'.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD_v._Zeidenberg

    I'm not sure why so many people think that their consumer rights are stronger than they actually are.  I can only speak to the U.S. but consumer rights when it comes to digital content are a joke, but people seem to think the opposite.  This is why steam can ban you and your thousands of dollars in digital games goes "poof."  I know I would much rather have much stronger pro-consumer laws, but that just isn't the case.  

    I also found an interesting piece discussing software license jurisprudence in the U.S. (again for our non-U.S. readers, the EU has stronger "pro-consumer" laws).

     

    The rationale underlying ProCD has also been extended to the electronic variation of the shrinkwrap -- the clickwrap. See DeJohn v. TV Corp. Int’l., 245 F.Supp.2d 913 (C.D. Ill. 2003) (holding that clickwrap agreement was enforceable and not an adhesion contract because user expressly indicated that he read, understood, and agreed to terms when he clicked box on Web site); see also Barnett v. Network Solutions, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 200, 203-04 (Ct of App. Tx 2001) ("by the very nature of the electronic format of the contract, [the plaintiff] had to scroll through that portion of the contract containing the forum selection clause before he accepted its terms…and that parties to a contract are not excused from the consequences resulting from failure to read the contract").

    In fact, the rationale for enforcing clickwraps is even stronger than for enforcing shrinkwraps. The concern over unfair adhesion contract terms has been substantially reduced because clickwraps require an affirmative assent, not required in shrinkwraps, to the specific terms of the license. See Hughes v. McMenamon, 204 F.Supp.2d 178, 181 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding a clickwrap agreement with a forum selection clause to be valid and enforceable); see also I. Lan Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002) (clickwrap agreement was enforceable under the laws of the Uniform Commercial Code, because plaintiff explicitly accepted the clickwrap license agreement when it clicked the box stating "I agree"); see also Register.Com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F.Supp.2d 238 (S.D.N.Y 2000) (holding that even though user was not required to click on an icon indicating that it accepted terms, the submission of a query itself manifested assent to be bound by contract); see also Hotmail Corp. v. Van Money Pie, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10729, No. C98-20064, 1998 WL 388389 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 1998) (in an action for preliminary injunction, the court found that an Internet provider was likely to succeed on breach of contract claim where defendants breached terms of "clickwrap" service agreement).

     

    Clickwrap EULA's are those we are most familiar with in the mmo world, and according to the courts you are agreeing to a contract when you click "I accept the terms."

  • kartoolkartool Hamilton, ONPosts: 472Member Uncommon
    As a private business they have the right to refuse service for pretty much any reason they want. I wish more companies would stop tolerating assholes, bullies and exploiters. One of the smartest bosses I ever had once said "If you have a customer who is costing you money and wasting your time, then fire them and let your competition deal with them."  
  • drbaltazardrbaltazar drummondville, QCPosts: 7,987Member
    bottom line?dont play soe game is the best preventive mesure to make sure some jumpy ban you from soe game!
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kartool
    As a private business they have the right to refuse service for pretty much any reason they want. I wish more companies would stop tolerating assholes, bullies and exploiters. One of the smartest bosses I ever had once said "If you have a customer who is costing you money and wasting your time, then fire them and let your competition deal with them."  

    lol, I had a manager who pretty much said the same thing. And definitely agree with it.

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by kartool
    As a private business they have the right to refuse service for pretty much any reason they want. I wish more companies would stop tolerating assholes, bullies and exploiters. One of the smartest bosses I ever had once said "If you have a customer who is costing you money and wasting your time, then fire them and let your competition deal with them."  

    lol, I had a manager who pretty much said the same thing. And definitely agree with it.

    I generally tell those I'm supervising that the customer can say whatever they want about the company itself, but the second they make it personal with the employee the employee should feel free to ask the person to leave, and to call security if they don't.  Under no circumstances does an employee need to be insulted.  Some employees take it and move on, but they know they don't have to.  (unless they are complaining about one of the employees in which case it should come directly to me) 

  • DrakephireDrakephire Fontana, CAPosts: 445Member Uncommon
    Really simple way to avoid this: Don't be a dick.
  • fierce750fierce750 redding, CAPosts: 37Member

    uhh I must be missing something?

    What is the problem here?

    Bottom line, don't be a Douchebag  and all will be fine.

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member

    I have no problem with SOE policing it's direct areas of social media,if only because you have to volunteer to link your games to your social media accounts...no one is forcing you to do so.

    However the first time they try doing it outside their direct areas of influence monitoring your activities across all social media  or worse your computer activity directly they won't have to worry about banning me I'll quit any Sony service I'm using and not touch another again.

    At that stage it's not about my social conduct it's about my privacy.

  • BigmamajamaBigmamajama Houston, TXPosts: 198Member
    Originally posted by Jyiiga
    It is amazing how many people are missing the bigger picture here and failing to think outside of the box.

    No the box is pretty small on this one.   If your a felon because you committed a crime in Oklahoma that's still going to be a problem for you in California when you try to get a job among other things.

    So I support Sony in saying if I'm an asshole "we don't want you as a customer" and it doesn't matter where they find out I'm an asshole, whether its from public records or their data to begin with.

  • JRRNeiklotJRRNeiklot Decatur, ALPosts: 108Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot

    Originally posted by Sovrath I should not be able to walk up to anyone and start blathering in their face about how ugly they are or stand in the lobby of some media company and decry the fact that their products show nudity or discuss creationism.    
    Yes actually, you should be able to.  You probably shouldn't do it, but it should not be - and is not - illegal.

    Uh, no. Sovrath's freedom ends where other peoples' freedom begins. He doesn't own the lobby of that media company, so the media company can determine whether or not he can be there.

    Indeed, but that right is not based on what someone says or does elsewhere.  Nothing someone says in Sony's lobby is illegal, unless they are screaming obscenities.  What Sony is claiming is they can ban you because you cursed in your OWN house.  They can ban you for that, just like I can ban you from my house because I don't like the color of your shoes.  Doesn't make it right, though. 

  • JRRNeiklotJRRNeiklot Decatur, ALPosts: 108Member
    Originally posted by fierce750

    uhh I must be missing something?

    What is the problem here?

    Bottom line, don't be a Douchebag  and all will be fine.

    But who decides what being a douchebag is?  If I post that I don't approve of gay marriage, or that I DO approve of it, I might lose access to all Sony's games?  All because some Sony rep was browsing Facebook and my political leanings don't line up with his?  That way lies madness.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    The only real issue with SOE's policies is extending the behavior they are looking at to areas outside their games and forums. The criteria for who gets a ban isn't going to change. However draconian they are with their own forums or their own games is what can be expected for behavior outside of the games.

    There is no question about whether or not they have a right to do this. They do. They can terminate server at any time and for any reason. They can view any information that is available to the public on the interwebs. The only real question is whether or not this is a good business decision.

    I am willing to bet that people getting banned for something outside of SOE's games or servers is going to be a rare occurrence, but when it does get used, it'll get used in extreme cases, and it will be publicized. Cases in the news where someone gets bullied or worse through a social network where any of the people who are accused happen to play an SOE game can expect to find their accounts banned permanently. Stuff like that. My thinking behind this is that policing all their players and all the social networks that their players happen to participate in would be prohibitively expensive. Checking into people who have already received attention would be much easier to do.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot

    Originally posted by Sovrath I should not be able to walk up to anyone and start blathering in their face about how ugly they are or stand in the lobby of some media company and decry the fact that their products show nudity or discuss creationism.    
    Yes actually, you should be able to.  You probably shouldn't do it, but it should not be - and is not - illegal.

    Uh, no. Sovrath's freedom ends where other peoples' freedom begins. He doesn't own the lobby of that media company, so the media company can determine whether or not he can be there.

    Indeed, but that right is not based on what someone says or does elsewhere.  Nothing someone says in Sony's lobby is illegal, unless they are screaming obscenities.  What Sony is claiming is they can ban you because you cursed in your OWN house.  They can ban you for that, just like I can ban you from my house because I don't like the color of your shoes.  Doesn't make it right, though. 

    But it's not your own house. It's twitter or a website or some place "out there".

    they don't care about you being a dick in your own home. They do care if you are the type of person who goes out on the web and starts threatening people, harassing people and doing things that are illegal.

    You seem to think that because you are sitting in the comfy chair you can extend your influence out on the net with no repercussions.

    I want to see more companies do this.

    I don't care what you do at home, I really don't. You want to watch depraved (yet consenting participants) movies/videos I say great. You want to do drugs, have orgies, write subversive poetry then the more power to you.

    You start inflicting yourself on others then I have an issue with this.

    I used the "lobby" example because "some" people think they can go wherever they  want and say whatever they want. They do this on forums all the time and start crying their freedom of speech when in reality it's not their forum.

    If they want a forum to say whatever they want they can make their own blog/website "whatever" and say what they  want. I'll fight fortheir right to do it. But they shouldn't inflict themselves on others.

    and when I say "yourself" and "you" in this context I'm talking about "those who do this" not saying that "you" in particular do this.

  • MorrokMorrok MunichPosts: 130Member


    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
    Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

    But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

    Personally, i think nothing's eaten as hot as it's cooked.
    But if they indeed just "ban" people, in the way it's done these days (simply shutting doen the account), then they'll get themselves into trouble.

    EULA's aren't as binding as they want you think they are, even moreso if they are as long as SOE's and even less so if they're containing clauses that basically say "you pay and we decide what we can or will deliver for that money" which leave such a "contract" simply null and void.


    What's really bad is the usage of the "serious enough".
    What defines "serious enough"?
    WHO decides what is "serious enough"?
    Are these "standards" communicated in advance, and how?
    Can a customer take action AGAINST a ban, and how?

    Not only are there serious legal implications, they're also - at least potentially - cutting their own flesh:
    Do you really want to live or play in a cencored environment?
    I mean, i am aware - we all should be since Snowden - that in fact we DO already live in such a environment, but is it healthy not only for free speech but also for "fun"?

    The goal might be a noble one, the method chosen is more then questionable.


    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
    What people tend not to realize is freedom of speech is at a government level, as in the government can't restrict what you can say. A business has every right to restrict what you say as a customer or an employee.

    That is actually only half-true.
    No business has the right to restrict what i say in my free time and/or in matters that do not interfere with my duties to the business as such.

    e.g. while McDonalds might get away with firing you for saying "Burger King's better" *IF* you do so while clearly on-duty, they cannot fire you for saying the same thing in your free time.
    All they *can* do if you say "Burger King's better" *in* a McD. is ask you to leave the shop and never return.
    (The "not wanting your business" part)
    But they can not keep the burger you paid for simply because you said "Burger King's better", even if they ask you to leave and never return.
    That burger has been sold, the transaction has been done, it's yours.
    And the latter equals paying for an account and having it closed without a refund before the paid-for time is up.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
    Originally posted by lizardbones   Originally posted by JRRNeiklot Originally posted by Sovrath I should not be able to walk up to anyone and start blathering in their face about how ugly they are or stand in the lobby of some media company and decry the fact that their products show nudity or discuss creationism.    
    Yes actually, you should be able to.  You probably shouldn't do it, but it should not be - and is not - illegal.
    Uh, no. Sovrath's freedom ends where other peoples' freedom begins. He doesn't own the lobby of that media company, so the media company can determine whether or not he can be there.
    Indeed, but that right is not based on what someone says or does elsewhere.  Nothing someone says in Sony's lobby is illegal, unless they are screaming obscenities.  What Sony is claiming is they can ban you because you cursed in your OWN house.  They can ban you for that, just like I can ban you from my house because I don't like the color of your shoes.  Doesn't make it right, though. 


    That's not an accurate characterization of what they are doing. When someone puts something on Twitter, Facebook or any other social network, internet forum or even in comments on an article, they are putting things out into the public domain, visible to anyone. It doesn't matter where a person is sitting when they type the stuff in.

    Sony isn't saying they are going to ban a person for something they say in their own house, but they have a right to do so. They are saying they will ban a person for their behavior out in public, which they also have a right to do.

    How they exercise their right will determine whether or not it's a good business decision.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

This discussion has been closed.