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.

178101213

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Morrok
    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.




    Businesses can take money and then refuse to serve a customer if that customer gives them a reason. Go to a movie, buy a ticket, then disrupt the movie for everyone else in the theater. You will be escorted out of the theater and you may or may not get your money back. If you had a right to the money, you would definitely get it back.

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

  • barasawabarasawa Eugene, ORPosts: 272Member Uncommon

    They do have the authority to ban people from their services if they act  inappropriately on those services.

    On the other hand, it's none of their business (literally) to police what people do outside of their services, though it it's illegal, it can be argued they have a responsibility to forward it to the appropriate legal enforcement agency.

    IANAL, however I do believe them punishing someone for something outside of their services, especially if it is legal, is in fact itself illegal. They are just begging for a discrimination & violating freedom of speech lawsuit.

     

    Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by barasawa
    They do have the authority to ban people from their services if they act  inappropriately on those services.

    On the other hand, it's none of their business (literally) to police what people do outside of their services, though it it's illegal, it can be argued they have a responsibility to forward it to the appropriate legal enforcement agency.

    IANAL, however I do believe them punishing someone for something outside of their services, especially if it is legal, is in fact itself illegal. They are just begging for a discrimination & violating freedom of speech lawsuit.

     



    None of SOE's services are public services. They are private, and as such can be refused at any time for any reason. Well, as long as the reason is race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. If someone is a bully on Facebook, they can use that as a reason to disable that person's SOE account. They could disable that person's account for posting too many pictures of LoL cats on Cheezeburger.

    The only limit on SOE doing these types of things are the publicity, good or bad, that they receive, and how that publicity affects their business.

    **

    Not. Is Not race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

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

  • HulluckHulluck lost in bfe, TNPosts: 600Member Uncommon

    Good for SOE. They have the right to refuse service to anyone.  I look at it as a person using social media services in the first place are the biggest liability to their own privacy. They have no one to blame but themselves especially if they are online asshats. Rather ironic I think.

    Then comes a company wanting to clean their own community up a little, at the very east put those people on notice which have a history of online activity that SOE doesn't care for or want to be associated with.  I hope they at least turn the heat up for awhile and do a mass ban as an example. I doubt they will ban that many people truthfully. This is just a "shot across the bow" most likely  and nothing of substance will happen other than a few isolated cases, worst of the worst, getting banned. That said, imagine the amount of rage postings that would pop-up everywhere if they did do a mass ban.

     

  • HulluckHulluck lost in bfe, TNPosts: 600Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by barasawa
    They do have the authority to ban people from their services if they act  inappropriately on those services.

     

    On the other hand, it's none of their business (literally) to police what people do outside of their services, though it it's illegal, it can be argued they have a responsibility to forward it to the appropriate legal enforcement agency.

    IANAL, however I do believe them punishing someone for something outside of their services, especially if it is legal, is in fact itself illegal. They are just begging for a discrimination & violating freedom of speech lawsuit.

     



    None of SOE's services are public services. They are private, and as such can be refused at any time for any reason. Well, as long as the reason is race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. If someone is a bully on Facebook, they can use that as a reason to disable that person's SOE account. They could disable that person's account for posting too many pictures of LoL cats on Cheezeburger.

    The only limit on SOE doing these types of things are the publicity, good or bad, that they receive, and how that publicity affects their business.

     

    Nail, meet Mr. Hammer! 

    Spot on.

  • Kaelaan21Kaelaan21 Woburn, MAPosts: 349Member Uncommon

    All of the opinions in this thread aside on whether they are able or not able to do this is irrelevant.

     

    People think that lawsuits are free of cost (and time) for the Plaintiff. Do you really think anyone in their right mind would spend an average of $250/hour for representation with a minimum of a $10,000 retainer to file a lawsuit against a major corporation when all that was lost was the ability to pay $15/month to the company you are suing in exchange for playing on their video game?

     

    Any time intellectual property is involved, things get very grey and quite political in courts. Companies would first play the game of changing jurisdiction based on their corporate locations - forcing you to travel to a court on the other side of the country. Also, US consumer rights don't apply the same to non-US residents. So, good luck if you live outside of the US.

     

    Factor in cherry picking which court the case presides (multiple courts in each courthouse can allow you to pick a judge that typically favors the defendants position), some states allowing the defendant to counter-suit legal fees in the event the plaintiff loses, plus a large corporation would drag their heals to make it as long as possible to quickly soak up your legal fund.

     

    And before anyone mentions a "class action suit", it would be too much of an investment for any legal team with the risk of no return. It would be bad business for any law firm to even consider it.

     

    So - This goes back to the reality of: they can do what ever they want until someone challenges them specifically on this issue and wins.

     

    In essence, in most cases - civil laws only apply to those who are willing and able to pay for them. In this case - it's not worth it.

  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member
    I think its about firstly trying to avoid things getting out of control.

    Since its very easy to type bad things, and it just escalates from there.

    Once people are continually typing not nice things because someone started to troll, then that atmosphere becomes hostile and not a ideal situation for recreation.

    And can you ban someone for calling another person an idiot? If not, then you can't ban a person for being anti social online when its very easy to over react to such criticm and cynicism.

    To properly enforce social rules, then they have to go to the root. And like i said if they do, then it becomes over trivial things.

    Or they can at least claim such big reprecussions to set the tone for launch. I think launching with a certain majority acting a certain way is their goal with this announcement.

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,643Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jyiiga

     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.

    Linda and her team have much more important and much more interesting things to do than what you're suggesting. If you are relentlessly slamming the game you either

    a) not playing, at which you aren't negatively affecting their community (remember, this is the community team we are talking about)

    or

    b) playing, at which point if you're not doing it in game, you're not of their concern.

     

    Your concerns of some evil ultra-censoring behemoth exacting personal justice on innocent people simply sharing the truth to make the world aware or whatever other scenario you want to present is completely irrelevant.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,643Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by barasawa
    They do have the authority to ban people from their services if they act  inappropriately on those services.

     

    On the other hand, it's none of their business (literally) to police what people do outside of their services, though it it's illegal, it can be argued they have a responsibility to forward it to the appropriate legal enforcement agency.

    IANAL, however I do believe them punishing someone for something outside of their services, especially if it is legal, is in fact itself illegal. They are just begging for a discrimination & violating freedom of speech lawsuit.

     



    None of SOE's services are public services. They are private, and as such can be refused at any time for any reason. Well, as long as the reason is race, sexual orientation, religion, etc. If someone is a bully on Facebook, they can use that as a reason to disable that person's SOE account. They could disable that person's account for posting too many pictures of LoL cats on Cheezeburger.

    The only limit on SOE doing these types of things are the publicity, good or bad, that they receive, and how that publicity affects their business.

    **

    Not. Is Not race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

     


    imageimage

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • travamarstravamars Dallas, TXPosts: 417Member Common
    Don't be an ASS and you wont have to worry about it.
  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    I think they are specifically talking about people threatening or harrassing devs via social media. The way some players think they have a right to talk to game developers is disgusting to be perfectly honest. Good on them for holding people accountable.
  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Morrok

    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.

     



    Businesses can take money and then refuse to serve a customer if that customer gives them a reason. Go to a movie, buy a ticket, then disrupt the movie for everyone else in the theater. You will be escorted out of the theater and you may or may not get your money back. If you had a right to the money, you would definitely get it back.

     

     

    Thats definitely a better analogy. A MMO is a service / subscription rather than a product.  You are renting virtual time in their world.

    If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

  • GreenHellGreenHell ludlow, MAPosts: 1,322Member Uncommon
    I don't concern myself to much with anything SOE says. They have always been lots of talk and very little action. It doesn't matter if it's about a game or some policy like this. If I'm not mistaken aren't all SOE games F2P now anyways? So even if they did ban you what do you lose? Some time? Some station cash that goes on sale pretty regularly? Hollow threats that will in no way ever stop anyone from being an asshole.
  • ElikalElikal ValhallaPosts: 8,063Member

    Well then... DON'T harrass?

     

    Look, we live in an age where game devs have received verbal death threats on social media websites. It is sad, very sad, but I think a MMO company has to draw some lines. One dev I think it was from Bioware recently quit over death threats to their family. Because of a video game! I think it should be in relation to the "crime", but on the issue of harassing... let's... not do this?

    Is there a risk for abusing it from SOE? Certainly. But neither game developers nor fellow players are supposed to be target practice for personal insults or death threats.

     

    As to the "freedom of speech" thing. Yes you are free to say developer X is an ugly dimwit, but SOE is free to say, he fine, we no longer make any deals with you.

     

     

    tl;dr: Be well mannnered are we all are happier.

     

    EDIT: On strictly legal terms, I am NOT so sure a permaban would hold in court. I mean, I am no lawyer, but if you BOUGHT a MMO, and you can't play it because you are banned, you technically have a product that does not function anymore they way you paid for. So CAN a company perma-ban you without a refund of the game? Or at all? Did anyone ever sue a company and fight against a permaban before a court? I dunno. A TOS is not so meaningful as companies tell us, because a TOS can not deprive you of rights. A store can ban you based on a crime, like when you steal. But insulting someone isn't so much a crime by the book. Tricky question. Does anyone know if anyone ever sued succesfully against a permaban?

    People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert

  • ArthasmArthasm LoznicaPosts: 754Member Uncommon
    I trully support them. If they are about to make better community, hands down.
  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon
    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.

     

     

     Seems like there just trying to control the toxic behavoir of gamerers now aday it has become extreamly bad over last few years since u play solo and when u do dunguens ur with people not from ur server so there no consequents to player actions so they dicks to others. Its basicly online bullying i think this is what they trying to get rid of in their game which is fair enough no one like toxic players. I dont think they go ban people who talk badly about their game and even if u do why does it matter u dont wanna play it obviously anyway. There not gonna ban people who critisice there game especialy constuctive critisism. IMO it will make a game better and if ur not a dick to people you have nothing to worry bout anyway so whats the big deal.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    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.
    Should you get banned by SOE, will you still have the EQ game you purchased? The "physical" copy? Your $30 (or $60) did NOT buy your access to the game, except possibly your first 30 days. That is what your $15 every month purchased. You will still have your CD (or download). Just no more access to the game(s).

    People better start reading and, more importantly, UNDERSTANDING their TOSs and EULAs. Your original purchase did not "give" you unlimited access to their service, in this case EQ1.

    If it is free, create another account for free. Get your IP banned, to bad, so sad. SOE "owes" you nothing.

    This is what urdriel does not grasp. A car is NOT a service. Neither is a house or any other kind of physical product, NOT a service. A service provider does, indeed, have the right to refuse their services to anyone they deem not worthy, or irresponsible enough.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by Tierless
    Why do I see this becoming, talk positively about our games or we will ban you from life...
    It has a possibility of going this way, yes. That is when these cases need to become known and then the players react, as a whole. In the same breath is nobody is MAKING you play SOE games. The choice is still yours. Support or don't.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by Hatefull
    Back to this, wow so you guys fully support SONY removing free speech from the internet so I suppose when the government (U.S. any way) decides to start taxing your e-mails, blogs, posts etc you are good with that as well? The internet, since it's inception, has been about free speech and sharing information, now you are saying it is ok to take that away as long as YOU think said person is being disruptive. How about when they disagree with you? I suppose you are ok with being hunted down and banned...right?This is laughable if I decide to go vent frustration somewhere else on the net, because I don't feel like being banned from said companies boards, they can track me down and ban me anyway because I decided to express my opinion elsewhere?Ok, cool lets take ti a step further and set up the international Internet Police force. So when you are accused of being a internet 'bully' they issue you a citation, and if you offend too many times they come to your house and arrest you. Yeah right how would we pay for it? By taxing your e-mails, VOIP calls, blog posts etc etc.No I say. Block me from your boards b/c I am being a ass cool I get that, hunt me down because I decided to express my self in an unsavory manner ELSEWHERE? no that is big brother crap and should to be allowed.
    SOE is not REMOVING your free speech. sheez! You are still free to be as big of a dick as you desire on the internet. SOE is implementing consequences for that what you spew. HUGE difference.

    Want to play SOE games, play by their rules. Don't like their rules? Don't play. Their is no freedoms being censored. No jailtime will be served, hopefully.

    PS:
    Isn't the "free speech" internet a shining example of the cesspool that humans will create when given no consequences for their actions?

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot

    Originally posted by jpnz

    Originally posted by JRRNeiklot
    And so, when I leave Sony's website or game and retreat to my Facebook page, I should be able to say what I want.  They should not be banning people.  Say I don't like cursing.  Is it ok for me to come to your house and demand you never say "damn?"
    I can demand you never say 'damn' and if you do, you are not coming into my house.
    And that's absolutely fine, although you just said it, so you'll have to throw yourself out.  :-)  But Sony is suggesting I can't say it in my OWN house.
    Facebook is NOT your house. Tone done the entitlement a bit, please. The internet is the same as standing on a street corner and spewing your bile at the top of your lungs, expecting only selected ears to hear you. It is nothing like doing anything in the "PRIVACY" (important word there) of your own home.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • IcewhiteIcewhite Elmhurst, ILPosts: 6,403Member
    Originally posted by evilastro

    If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

    Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

    Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,904Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by Hatefull
    Back to this, wow so you guys fully support SONY removing free speech from the internet so I suppose when the government (U.S. any way) decides to start taxing your e-mails, blogs, posts etc you are good with that as well? The internet, since it's inception, has been about free speech and sharing information, now you are saying it is ok to take that away as long as YOU think said person is being disruptive. How about when they disagree with you? I suppose you are ok with being hunted down and banned...right?

     

    This is laughable if I decide to go vent frustration somewhere else on the net, because I don't feel like being banned from said companies boards, they can track me down and ban me anyway because I decided to express my opinion elsewhere?

    Ok, cool lets take ti a step further and set up the international Internet Police force. So when you are accused of being a internet 'bully' they issue you a citation, and if you offend too many times they come to your house and arrest you. Yeah right how would we pay for it? By taxing your e-mails, VOIP calls, blog posts etc etc.

    No I say. Block me from your boards b/c I am being a ass cool I get that, hunt me down because I decided to express my self in an unsavory manner ELSEWHERE? no that is big brother crap and should to be allowed.


    SOE is not REMOVING your free speech. sheez! You are still free to be as big of a dick as you desire on the internet. SOE is implementing consequences for that what you spew. HUGE difference.

     

    Want to play SOE games, play by their rules. Don't like their rules? Don't play. Their is no freedoms being censored. No jailtime will be served, hopefully.

    PS:
    Isn't the "free speech" internet a shining example of the cesspool that humans will create when given no consequences for their actions?

    That's exactly it, those opposed to this probably fall in the camp who prefer their chosen forum or lurking ground to be cesspools. Those in it for the forum PVP and striking nerves, getting their +1's or "pwned" acknowledgment from other forum warriors.

    For years companies have been asking that feedback be directed in proper channels and not spammed all over, they've asked and warned players to respect one another and to foster constructive debate. It's never worked, this is the consequence of that. Yet this type of person still just wants to argue, simply to cause others as much misery as possible through text. There's no other reason to not get what this is about, not to mention how easily such punishment can be avoided.

    Big deal a company doesn't want their site(s) and pages to be a wild west showdown. Can't live with that? You'll have to seek entertainment elsewhere.

    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

  • Neo_ViperNeo_Viper NotyourbusinessPosts: 598Member
    Originally posted by Morrok

     


    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.

    Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

    Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

    Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by evilastro

    If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

    Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

    Excellent examples too.

    My computer is better than yours.

  • xpowderxxpowderx Radcliff, KYPosts: 2,131Member Uncommon

    I agree with SOE on this. This part for sure: "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."

    I am 100% behind SOE on this. There is no reason threats, or attacks via twitter should be used. Regardless of circumstance. In the real, if those threats happened to you in person. There would be police or the least. The guy saying those threats(in my case) getting the beat down. Thinking you can hide behind the web to use bad behavior is a mistake..

    I am glad SOE chooses to do something about it!

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,757Member Uncommon

    In the EU there is political steam growing behind making websites liable for what is on them, ISP's liable for what data is in their traffic. We have soldiers killing their own blamed on video games and every time CoD, GTA or the like come out, the arguments about the detrimental effects of such games are rolled out in the media.

    No wonder gaming companies are getting anxious about anything like this. Politicians always need someone to blame and something to mount a cause against. I remember the days when table top roleplaying was going to corrupt the youth of the nation. Now video games have taken the heat of roleplaying.

This discussion has been closed.