He clearly violated terms clearly laid out by Jagex governing all their products and User Content related to them: https://www.jagex.com/en-GB/terms
He wasn't using their product at the time. The TOS/EULA refers to the use of their product and content generated within their product.
Now you may decide that to you that distinction isn't important - obviously it isn't important to Jagex - but I'm not aware of a TOS/EULA applying to actions of a person outside of the product's use.
It is a weird thing to me that a person would be kicked out of a game for out of game actions. Again, ya'll might like that approach to justice - for me it gives great pause.
That doesn't matter, and the wording of why has been given to you directly from Jagex. There's no clearer way to put it at this point.
One more time, with emphasis: ""User Content" means all information of any kind (including text, images, video, information and messages) uploaded or sent by users on or in connection with Jagex Products."
EDIT- Also, this isn't about "justice." Justice is the purview of governments, not private businesses.
Enough people have explained this to you already, how are you not getting it?
He didn't do anything to violate the terms of service in game. He didn't use their product to break any rules. He didn't misrepresent their product.
Maybe the people who made his computer should confiscate it because of what he said? Can the electric company shut off his electricity? Do I have to bake him a cake if he wants to marry his boyfriend?
re-read the part @Sharn quoted, it's not even just the EULA he's beholden to there but also their Content Standards Policy.
And in regards to your other post, by bringing up irrelevant statements you do create the notion of things. Like you bringing up social justice out of the blue. It's the same as saying "I'm not saying I think you're the antichrist, I just think the antichrist is a bad fellow."
I could also say "Grinding babies into smoothies is disturbed, but if you're into that then I'll leave that between you and the police."*
*"not saying you actually eat babies"
You are creating a tangential thought process which serves to do nothing but create assumptions and connections to cause doubt. It does nothing to further the core of the argument(s) itself, and only serves as a roundabout way to try and attack another's credibility without addressing the actual subject.
So I'm accusing you of something by taking the time to clarify that I'm not accusing you of something?
Okay, I know how this ends. Thanks for the thoughts and discussion.
Take care
I respect your right to your opinion but you need to take a deep breath mate, I don't think you were being accused of accusing anyone (unless I've forgotten how to read which given how long this bloody thread is now, is possible )
Correct, I was not saying he was directly accusing me of something. I said he was using tangential allusions to try and devalue the argument. By bringing up a "clarification" to a subject that was never in question, it brings doubt to the rest of the dialogue. That was his error.
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
So I own "game X" and you've got hundreds of dollars wrapped up in the game. I look through Facebook and find that you told a tasteless joke about the Detroit Lions.
I happen to like the Detroit Lions so I close your account.
The first thing that would come to your mind is: "Hey, they have the right to refuse service".
As @Sharne noted within their EULA, they do technically have that right for transgressions they have laid out, and you have the right to dispute it if you feel it's unjustified.
"We reserve the right without notice or refund to record, suspend, remove or delete User Content or to disclose to the relevant authorities any User Content if: (a) it is the subject of a complaint; (b) if we consider that it breaches our terms and conditions (including our content standards policy) or the rules of a Jagex Product; (c) if we consider that such steps are necessary to protect us or others; (d) a criminal act or civil wrong has been committed; or (e) we are required to do so by law or an appropriate authority."
Your nonsense about besmirching a team would not hold, but telling someone to kill themselves on a live stream would cleanly fall under (d).
I have consistently maintained the right of Jagex to suspend the kid's account.
Then your EULA pedantics were pointless. Especially son since you were wrong about them any ways.
They have the right, and the reason. Given these facts, there is and was no point where any of your argument has held any weight, and this leads to a point in why I referred to it as paralogisms previously.
You may think you have some specific logic or argument being posed here, but by in large, it's only coming out as looping rhetoric about rights that apparently you acknowledge they legally posses, yet you continue to question in hyperbolic ways.
Perhaps you need to step back and reassess what your goal even is.
OK, after ten years on this site Wargfoot just became the second person on my ignore list. Extreme paralogism combined with incoherent freeDUMBism. While the U.S. Bill of Rights makes some important statements about liberty and freedom, it sure produces some totally weird beliefs.
And why does the interaction between a U.K. company and an Australian have anything to do with the U.S. constitution anyways?
I don't think however that Runescape should have banned him. As far as I know he wasn't an official member of Runescape. As in, I don't think he was making money off of Jagex to stream. So they should have just let Twitch do there thing and move on.
He was a regular streamer of Runescape and Jagex even acknowledged him by giving him an award for it previously. He made money of his stream, which consisted in a large part of streaming that game. So he was making money off Runescape, by being a content creator, and in proxy also representing the game and community.
I think we need to consider the environment as well as the individual. Does anyone here think that those under 18 should get paid for anything they do with online gaming?
I think we need to consider the environment as well as the individual. Does anyone here think that those under 18 should get paid for anything they do with online gaming?
Under 18, probably no, under 16 then that gets a bit dicey, it would have be judged on an individual basis depending also on how involved their parents or other adult guardian is. Not that age as such is a clear indicator of maturity as some people don't achieve 'mental' maturity until their 20's.
I don't get this thread. When I was young it was news when some kid did not get punished after doing something wrong.
I think there are couple of things interesting about this particular case that go beyond the kid being punished. If I were to hypothesize a statement that everyone in this thread would agree upon it would be: At the very least, the kid needed to be corrected.
So for me that point isn't the issue at all.
I'm interested in batting around a couple of ideas or observations that strike me as odd. I understand these don't strike everyone else as odd, but they do impress me.
1: I find it odd that Jagex would believe (or that anyone would believe) that this kid's behavior would impact the Runescape brand. It may in fact do that; I just find it really freakin' odd. It would be interesting to see Jagex try to establish damages in a court of law.
2: I find it odd that people support the idea of a TOS/EULA being supported outside of the software to which the TOS/EULA applies. I can respect that people view that as acceptable but again, I find that to be really freakin' odd as I've never seen a TOS/EULA applied that way.
3: I'm uncomfortable with roaming bands of Twitter users who seek to literally destroy everything that opposes them. I'm not talking about voicing an opinion on Twitter; I'm talking about the self-righteous bullies that aren't satiated until people are destroyed. I look forward to the day that a company tells them to take a hike.
4: The hypocrisy of insisting that the kid be more sensitive while at the same time howling for his blood is one of the most astonishing things I've ever witnessed. For me that is a moment of revelation - I used to do that as a religious fundy, my god, I never realized what that looked like before now.
I recognize the kid did something wrong.
I don't think the appropriate response is a public lynching - and the logical inconsistencies, dishonesty, and misapplied EULAs (IMHO) to justify getting there alarms me quite a bit since the goal seems to be to destroy the kid no matter the violence we must do to propriety to get there.
Twitch bans are rarely permanent, it will likely be lifted at some point. In the meantime, he's free to stream on YouTube. The Runescape ban will hurt him the most since that was his bread and butter.
I don't get this thread. When I was young it was news when some kid did not get punished after doing something wrong.
I think there are couple of things interesting about this particular case that go beyond the kid being punished. If I were to hypothesize a statement that everyone in this thread would agree upon it would be: At the very least, the kid needed to be corrected.
So for me that point isn't the issue at all.
I'm interested in batting around a couple of ideas or observations that strike me as odd. I understand these don't strike everyone else as odd, but they do impress me.
1: I find it odd that Jagex would believe (or that anyone would believe) that this kid's behavior would impact the Runescape brand. It may in fact do that; I just find it really freakin' odd. It would be interesting to see Jagex try to establish damages in a court of law.
2: I find it odd that people support the idea of a TOS/EULA being supported outside of the software to which the TOS/EULA applies. I can respect that people view that as acceptable but again, I find that to be really freakin' odd as I've never seen a TOS/EULA applied that way.
3: I'm uncomfortable with roaming bands of Twitter users who seek to literally destroy everything that opposes them. I'm not talking about voicing an opinion on Twitter; I'm talking about the self-righteous bullies that aren't satiated until people are destroyed. I look forward to the day that a company tells them to take a hike.
4: The hypocrisy of insisting that the kid be more sensitive while at the same time howling for his blood is one of the most astonishing things I've ever witnessed. For me that is a moment of revelation - I used to do that as a religious fundy, my god, I never realized what that looked like before now.
I recognize the kid did something wrong.
I don't think the appropriate response is a public lynching - and the logical inconsistencies, dishonesty, and misapplied EULAs (IMHO) to justify getting there alarms me quite a bit since the goal seems to be to destroy the kid no matter the violence we must do to propriety to get there.
Even though I think some of your points are a bit off, this isn't a bad post and very well said.
1, while you might find it odd that people think that it would affect their brand (for the record "I don't") This is something that companies have been doing FOREVER. It's more about companies being proactive as they tend to get very scared about anything that might even draw negative feedback. this has more to do with businesses being proactive about protecting themselves "just in case"\
2, I think it's less about enforcing a TOS and more about enforcing the right of a company to engage their customers or refuse service to a customer for doing something they think is horrid. Again, this is a slippery slope as there are businesses who would most likely prefer to not have customers of certain race or sexual orientation. This brings in Federal and Local laws that protect the citizens.
Engaging in behavior that society doesn't approve of, like someone telling someone else they should kill themselves will get that society to try to correct it.
3, Are there really roaming bands of Twitter users doing this? Sure, there might be but it's important to see the difference between those who just want to pitchfork and torch everything and those people who actually see a real problem. If a discussion is required to differentiate then fine but just because people see an issue doesn't make them part of the witch hunter brigade.
4, I'm sure some people are just looking to punish him because that's what those people are about. Other people want to see him punished because he might need to be punished. It's not always black and white. Otherwise you can easily say that anyone seeking to punish someone in society is "just out for blood." Sometimes it's fine to correct individuals and groups if they are actually doing something wrong that can hurt others.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Even though I think some of your points are a bit off, this isn't a bad post and very well said.
1, while you might find it odd that people think that it would affect their brand (for the record "I don't") This is something that companies have been doing FOREVER. It's more about companies being proactive as they tend to get very scared about anything that might even draw negative feedback. this has more to do with businesses being proactive about protecting themselves "just in case"\
2, I think it's less about enforcing a TOS and more about enforcing the right of a company to engage their customers or refuse service to a customer for doing something they think is horrid. Again, this is a slippery slope as there are businesses who would most likely prefer to not have customers of certain race or sexual orientation. This brings in Federal and Local laws that protect the citizens.
Engaging in behavior that society doesn't approve of, like someone telling someone else they should kill themselves will get that society to try to correct it.
3, Are there really roaming bands of Twitter users doing this? Sure, there might be but it's important to see the difference between those who just want to pitchfork and torch everything and those people who actually see a real problem. If a discussion is required to differentiate then fine but just because people see an issue doesn't make them part of the witch hunter brigade.
4, I'm sure some people are just looking to punish him because that's what those people are about. Other people want to see him punished because he might need to be punished. It's not always black and white. Otherwise you can easily say that anyone seeking to punish someone in society is "just out for blood." Sometimes it's fine to correct individuals and groups if they are actually doing something wrong that can hurt others.
#1: Do you find yourself uncomfortable with people equating a company with a bad actor in the public sector? I'm not trying to set you up for a 'gotcha' there - I just think we'd be better off if companies did a better job of holding that line. It would educate the public.
I wonder too if Jagex sets themselves up as the gatekeeper here if they can be held accountable if they fail to catch someone at similar behavior in the future. How do you argue in court that it was their responsibility to ban this kid in this case, but they're not liable when they fail to follow through with their aforementioned responsibility in the future?
#2: I can acknowledge and appreciate your point here; however, some (not you) have argued from the TOS which is utter nonsense to my way of thinking - I think your reasons (subject to the concerns I express in #1 above) avoid the slippery slope.
#3 To press the point here: Why would anyone on Twitter think it is their responsibility to engage on this topic at all? You have the Twitch EULA, the kid's parents, sponsors, etc. - at some point maybe it isn't everyone's business... like at all? (Again, going hypothetical here) If you see someone drinking too much at a bar do you intervene? Most people do not as they feel it is none of their business; however, on Twitter other's bad behavior is EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. Did that make sense?
#4: I think people who want to punish (correct & restore) are pretty easy to differentiate from the Twitter hoards that want blood. The first group takes a breath, has patience, and allows for normal methods to kick in.
Even though I think some of your points are a bit off, this isn't a bad post and very well said.
1, while you might find it odd that people think that it would affect their brand (for the record "I don't") This is something that companies have been doing FOREVER. It's more about companies being proactive as they tend to get very scared about anything that might even draw negative feedback. this has more to do with businesses being proactive about protecting themselves "just in case"\
2, I think it's less about enforcing a TOS and more about enforcing the right of a company to engage their customers or refuse service to a customer for doing something they think is horrid. Again, this is a slippery slope as there are businesses who would most likely prefer to not have customers of certain race or sexual orientation. This brings in Federal and Local laws that protect the citizens.
Engaging in behavior that society doesn't approve of, like someone telling someone else they should kill themselves will get that society to try to correct it.
3, Are there really roaming bands of Twitter users doing this? Sure, there might be but it's important to see the difference between those who just want to pitchfork and torch everything and those people who actually see a real problem. If a discussion is required to differentiate then fine but just because people see an issue doesn't make them part of the witch hunter brigade.
4, I'm sure some people are just looking to punish him because that's what those people are about. Other people want to see him punished because he might need to be punished. It's not always black and white. Otherwise you can easily say that anyone seeking to punish someone in society is "just out for blood." Sometimes it's fine to correct individuals and groups if they are actually doing something wrong that can hurt others.
#1: Do you find yourself uncomfortable with people equating a company with a bad actor in the public sector? I'm not trying to set you up for a 'gotcha' there - I just think we'd be better off if companies did a better job of holding that line. It would educate the public.
I wonder too if Jagex sets themselves up as the gatekeeper here if they can be held accountable if they fail to catch someone at similar behavior in the future. How do you argue in court that it was their responsibility to ban this kid in this case, but they're not liable when they fail to follow through with their aforementioned responsibility in the future?
#2: I can acknowledge and appreciate your point here; however, some (not you) have argued from the TOS which is utter nonsense to my way of thinking - I think your reasons (subject to the concerns I express in #1 above) avoid the slippery slope.
#3 To press the point here: Why would anyone on Twitter think it is their responsibility to engage on this topic at all? You have the Twitch EULA, the kid's parents, sponsors, etc. - at some point maybe it isn't everyone's business... like at all? (Again, going hypothetical here) If you see someone drinking too much at a bar do you intervene? Most people do not as they feel it is none of their business; however, on Twitter other's bad behavior is EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. Did that make sense?
#4: I think people who want to punish (correct & restore) are pretty easy to differentiate from the Twitter hoards that want blood. The first group takes a breath, has patience, and allows for normal methods to kick in.
Just kicking things around here.
The terms are important because it provides legal backing for their actions. The terms relevant here are, essentially, Jagex protecting its right to protect its brand in this manner.
It essentially removed the streamer's argument of "I didn't know I would get banned if I was streaming RuneScape and told a suicidal person to kill themselves." This isn't Jahex being overbearing, it's protecting themselves from the very common "you didn't expressly tell me being awful would result in negative consequences, so you have no right to enforce negative consequences!" Those terms are there for the same kind of underlying reasoning that coffee cups include a warning that it's contents are hot. To avoid the lowest common denominator from shoveling blame back at the company by acting ignorant of normal or rational behavior.
As for his public shaming... If you can't handle the idea that you may receive a lot of negative attention from strangers, it's (again) incumbent upon the individual to refrain from making their personal identity known. Again, personal responsibility. If folks know who you are, they WILL judge you based on your words and actions. No different than you judge this "me" on the forums (meaning my account) without knowing who I actually am in real life. He chose to link his real life identity, so his actions reflect on that identity. Nothing nefarious there.
#1 is a false equivalency. If you associate yourself with people whose actions are not acceptable, you are perceived to condone those actions. It's not responsibility over the individuals actions, but guilt by association.
#2 The ToS applies in the context of how community content creators represent the product. Creating negative correlations or connections that goes against Jagex image, ideology, etc is within the scope of the ToS and community guidelines for them to react towards. He was a content creator that regularly represented Runescape and he did something they would deem damaging to the brand and community. So they banned him.
These are not new policies. If it were a slippery slope, we'd be well and gone by now.
#3 To press that point, why do you and people like you feel so adamant about pressing specious points constantly? If you c sa n answer your own nebulous motivations, then do realize that it's often the same logic being applied in the other direction. This is no different than a social justice warrior rant.
#4 And is that why we have people jumping down everyone's throats trying to claim Jagex has no right to protect its company, brand, or game? Not a one way street you're trying to conjure up here. Much of the doom saying and repetitious nonsense so far has been from what could be collectively considered "your side of the fence" right now with very little to reflect the things you claim about the ideology if these "twitter hoards". Meaning even if they are real, their reach obviously doesn't even extend this far.
This mostly just seems to be propaganda at this point.
Comments
One more time, with emphasis: ""User Content" means all information of any kind (including text, images, video, information and messages) uploaded or sent by users on or in connection with Jagex Products."
EDIT- Also, this isn't about "justice." Justice is the purview of governments, not private businesses.
I said he was using tangential allusions to try and devalue the argument.
By bringing up a "clarification" to a subject that was never in question, it brings doubt to the rest of the dialogue. That was his error.
They have the right, and the reason. Given these facts, there is and was no point where any of your argument has held any weight, and this leads to a point in why I referred to it as paralogisms previously.
You may think you have some specific logic or argument being posed here, but by in large, it's only coming out as looping rhetoric about rights that apparently you acknowledge they legally posses, yet you continue to question in hyperbolic ways.
Perhaps you need to step back and reassess what your goal even is.
And why does the interaction between a U.K. company and an Australian have anything to do with the U.S. constitution anyways?
So for me that point isn't the issue at all.
I'm interested in batting around a couple of ideas or observations that strike me as odd.
I understand these don't strike everyone else as odd, but they do impress me.
1: I find it odd that Jagex would believe (or that anyone would believe) that this kid's behavior would impact the Runescape brand. It may in fact do that; I just find it really freakin' odd. It would be interesting to see Jagex try to establish damages in a court of law.
2: I find it odd that people support the idea of a TOS/EULA being supported outside of the software to which the TOS/EULA applies. I can respect that people view that as acceptable but again, I find that to be really freakin' odd as I've never seen a TOS/EULA applied that way.
3: I'm uncomfortable with roaming bands of Twitter users who seek to literally destroy everything that opposes them. I'm not talking about voicing an opinion on Twitter; I'm talking about the self-righteous bullies that aren't satiated until people are destroyed. I look forward to the day that a company tells them to take a hike.
4: The hypocrisy of insisting that the kid be more sensitive while at the same time howling for his blood is one of the most astonishing things I've ever witnessed. For me that is a moment of revelation - I used to do that as a religious fundy, my god, I never realized what that looked like before now.
I recognize the kid did something wrong.
I don't think the appropriate response is a public lynching - and the logical inconsistencies, dishonesty, and misapplied EULAs (IMHO) to justify getting there alarms me quite a bit since the goal seems to be to destroy the kid no matter the violence we must do to propriety to get there.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I wonder too if Jagex sets themselves up as the gatekeeper here if they can be held accountable if they fail to catch someone at similar behavior in the future. How do you argue in court that it was their responsibility to ban this kid in this case, but they're not liable when they fail to follow through with their aforementioned responsibility in the future?
#2: I can acknowledge and appreciate your point here; however, some (not you) have argued from the TOS which is utter nonsense to my way of thinking - I think your reasons (subject to the concerns I express in #1 above) avoid the slippery slope.
#3 To press the point here: Why would anyone on Twitter think it is their responsibility to engage on this topic at all? You have the Twitch EULA, the kid's parents, sponsors, etc. - at some point maybe it isn't everyone's business... like at all? (Again, going hypothetical here) If you see someone drinking too much at a bar do you intervene? Most people do not as they feel it is none of their business; however, on Twitter other's bad behavior is EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. Did that make sense?
#4: I think people who want to punish (correct & restore) are pretty easy to differentiate from the Twitter hoards that want blood. The first group takes a breath, has patience, and allows for normal methods to kick in.
Just kicking things around here.
It essentially removed the streamer's argument of "I didn't know I would get banned if I was streaming RuneScape and told a suicidal person to kill themselves." This isn't Jahex being overbearing, it's protecting themselves from the very common "you didn't expressly tell me being awful would result in negative consequences, so you have no right to enforce negative consequences!" Those terms are there for the same kind of underlying reasoning that coffee cups include a warning that it's contents are hot. To avoid the lowest common denominator from shoveling blame back at the company by acting ignorant of normal or rational behavior.
As for his public shaming... If you can't handle the idea that you may receive a lot of negative attention from strangers, it's (again) incumbent upon the individual to refrain from making their personal identity known. Again, personal responsibility. If folks know who you are, they WILL judge you based on your words and actions. No different than you judge this "me" on the forums (meaning my account) without knowing who I actually am in real life. He chose to link his real life identity, so his actions reflect on that identity. Nothing nefarious there.
#2 The ToS applies in the context of how community content creators represent the product. Creating negative correlations or connections that goes against Jagex image, ideology, etc is within the scope of the ToS and community guidelines for them to react towards. He was a content creator that regularly represented Runescape and he did something they would deem damaging to the brand and community. So they banned him.
These are not new policies. If it were a slippery slope, we'd be well and gone by now.
#3 To press that point, why do you and people like you feel so adamant about pressing specious points constantly? If you c sa n answer your own nebulous motivations, then do realize that it's often the same logic being applied in the other direction. This is no different than a social justice warrior rant.
#4 And is that why we have people jumping down everyone's throats trying to claim Jagex has no right to protect its company, brand, or game? Not a one way street you're trying to conjure up here. Much of the doom saying and repetitious nonsense so far has been from what could be collectively considered "your side of the fence" right now with very little to reflect the things you claim about the ideology if these "twitter hoards". Meaning even if they are real, their reach obviously doesn't even extend this far.
This mostly just seems to be propaganda at this point.
Im guessing about 120 hours worth.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯