On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
An employer can EASILY terminate employment over this. People have lost their jobs over smaller things said on facebook. This isn't even that petty - this is Riot's game, and Riot is terminating the employment of a player of the game because they want their salaried professional players to be role models - and that is not a new message from Riot.
Did you read anything that I posted? Where did I say that Riot couldn't or shouldn't have banned IWD? In fact I specifically supported it.
On December 05 2012 11:01 Canucklehead wrote: Does anyone have his statement from reddit? I heard he wrote one, but that thread is way too long to find it.
Today i was informed by riot that I will be suspended for 1 year of the Season 3 Championship Series. Although the ruling is extremely tough, I agree with riot that player sportsmanship is a serious matter and I want to apologize to anyone that i've offended in game and my fans. I fully understand that pro players are viewed as role models and should act accordingly. I'd like to thank my teammates and the whole Dignitas organization for the amazing year that i have spent with them and wish the team the best of luck going into season 3. Personally I will not let this end my dreams of being a professional league of legends player. During my suspension I intend to keep my mechanics in top form and remain a competitive jungler. After my suspension i hope to rejoin the championship series and once again compete at the highest level. League of Legends is my life, and I will do everything in my power to play as long as possible.
Man it's hilarious how a lot of the people coming in here complaining about this ban don't play LoL. (don't how the tribunal works)
LoL at the professional level cannot afford to have people like IWD and a number of other pros out there currently still, who I also hope get punished if their act is not cleaned up. These players set an example for all who see their actions.
The community as whole wants this and therefore riot is justified in doing it.
To the few people who are defending him; Are you crazy? He has been punished 8 times by the tribunal.
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
Riot and a LOT of other people. I think you are pretty far in the minority. Also, it's not "a game here and there" it's more like an exception when he DOESN'T rage.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
An employer can EASILY terminate employment over this. People have lost their jobs over smaller things said on facebook. This isn't even that petty - this is Riot's game, and Riot is terminating the employment of a player of the game because they want their salaried professional players to be role models - and that is not a new message from Riot.
Did you read anything that I posted? Where did I say that Riot couldn't or shouldn't have banned IWD? In fact I specifically supported it.
In that case we're in agreement (though I stand by my statements in a more general sense), and I probably confused something someone else said as coming from you, sorry, my bad.
On December 05 2012 11:07 beef42 wrote: Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Incorrect. The Tribunal no longer gives IP and has fail-safe mechanism to analyse voting patterns and take them into account accordingly. Persistant abuse of the Tribunal will decrease the relative weight your votes are actually worth.
On December 05 2012 11:07 beef42 wrote: Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
The Tribunal automatically deals with bans and temp bans. Perma bans are reviewed by Riot Staff to ensure they are justified for quality control. This is wrong... how? The process is completely documented and explained on the Tribunal FAQ and Riot Staff regularly go on the forums to discuss and explain their decision making process as well as consult with the community. I don't understand how this is some shadow committee.
On December 05 2012 11:07 beef42 wrote: Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
IWIllDominate has a history of making extremely negative remarks (including but not limited to racism and hate speech). The Summoner's Code provides a clear guideline on acceptable behaviour. If you have been judged by the Tribunal nine times to be banned then you have cleared crossed multiple lines here.
The Tribunal is entirely community driven - how is Riot enforcing its views upon people? For that matter, how is wanting a more pleasant community a bad idea in the first place?
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
eh? Compare Riot Games to any other technology corporation. Do you really think engineers and designers have a say in work conditions? I'm not sure where you're coming from to think that unions are the standard. Yes, there is a human resources department, you can voice you displeasure there. If pro players/teams don't like something, there are channels to Riot to whom they can speak with.
I am fine with Riot having all the power. Frankly, Riot has a solid vision in what they want and expect from their game, the community, and their players. If there was an instance where Riot's final decision was over the line, I'd agree with you. But so far, Riot has not made a failure in judgment. Why doubt them now?
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote: I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
That's the thing. Executive decision. While Riot may own the game and its servers, we, the community, are the ones who play it. We're the ones who made the game what it is. Without us, LoL would be nothing. Some forgotten f2p game played by Brazillians and Russians too poor to afford WoW subscriptions.
We do not need executive decision from some shadowy central banning committee that answers to no one. We, the online gaming community in general, have been doing quite fine for about two decades now on self-policing, and I don't understand why this has to stop just because of the centralised servers that are part of the f2p model.
Riot may have legal right to do whatever they want, but they don't have the moral right. They owe it to the community that made them what they are to decide for themselves. Running the game like an 80s Warsaw pact country is not the way to go.
Nine confirmations from the Tribunal for a ban (which is a community driven initiative), multiple warnings and temporary bans, direct contact with Dignitas and a failure to reform gives Riot a complete mandate from the community and moral obligation to deal with this exceptional case of a breach in the Summoner's Code. I do not see how this is some shadowy conspiracy.
Then I'll tell you. Firstly, the Tribunal is charade. It is a mechanism where players are given ingame currency for AFK clicking Punish ten times a day. Its decisions are worth about as much as those of a Belarusian general election.
Secondly, the Tribunal is powerless. Its decisions have to be validated by the aforementioned shadowy banning comittee.
Thirdly, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) all this guy is guilty of is BM. Maybe rage-throwing a soloqueue game here and there? Since when is the legit reason to perm in any other game? He didn't cheat, he didn't bot? I mean by whose standards does BM warrant permban? Riot's, apparently, and that's where the problem is. Riot and its ban comittee, enforcing its views upon the community that created it.
You don't seem to understand the point. Riot doesn't want rage-throwing in solo queue games. They are actively taking steps to quash that kind of behavior.
When he flames/ragequits hundreds of times, that a lot of dissatisfied players over the course of many months. Why would Riot accept that kind of behavior? I'm not sure what kind of transparency you're looking for because you innately think IWD didn't do anything to warrant this perm.
So this is how they stop Rengar from being played in Competitive games....
Shitty that Dig didn't rein him in earlier. Scarra my fav LoL player and Dominate is an excellent jungler fore their team. let's see how this all plays out and whether there is an appeal or something.
I can understand where Slow Motion is coming from. Riot is setting up a scenario where they will hold an inordinate amount of power over certain salaried employees, who are spending a lot of time developing rather specialized skills.
It's like making an ESPA, or whatever that SC2 association is called. KesPa used to do it before it got all twisted.
On December 05 2012 10:52 NeoIllusions wrote: How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Verbally abusing your boss's customers is the kind of mistake that transcends all careers.
Riot is committed to improving the social atmosphere of their game and it shows. This is consistent with their recent ban waves for toxicity, too. I'm sure any non-gamer would be shocked at the kind of behavior that gets a first ban in LoL, let alone the fact that you can do it seven more times and keep playing.
On December 05 2012 08:52 Ketara wrote: Anybody who says this is a bad thing or that Riot has too much power isn't thinking straight I feel.
I still stand by the belief that what someone does in pub play shouldn't impact their ability to play competitively.
This doesn't make any sense.
IWD is a public figure for the game and for Riot in general. The way he acts in solo queue has an impact on what people think of the game, and he should be punished appropriately.
Preventing him from participating in tournaments is an appropriate punishment just like it would be appropriate for a Disneyland employee to get fired from Disneyland for going around and telling people Disneyland is a terrible place.
Except that's not how it works in any other eSport ever. Mostly because the developer's don't completely control the entire competitive scene. Valve might punish DotA2 players and not allow them to come to the international but they could still play at every other DotA2 event. Because Riot sponsors nearly every LAN and has incorporated every LAN into their championship series a ban from competitive play means that your career as a pro gamer is over.
Like the level of control that Riot has on their scene is equivalent to what KeSPA had. Riot just hasn't abused their power. Yet.
But that argument right at the end there is the real kick of it. KESPA for all its sins paved the way for the first and currently only true mainstream esport market in the world. Would it really be in Riots intrests to follow KESPA's example and institute the things kespa did to make League of legends sucessful around the world?
So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
Perfect.
I figure that was the issue between your POV and mine. I am a-ok to disagree on that opinion.
On December 05 2012 10:46 NeoIllusions wrote: I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act. After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
The difference is TL is not my employer.
Also I haven't seen many people in this thread arguing for IWD in this individual case.
How does Riot being LoL pro players' employer change anything? In the real world, don't piss off your boss otherwise you get the pink slip. I'm not seeing the prob. @.@
Because in the real world the boss does not have all the power. The boss cannot set incredibly arbitrary rules without damaging his own business. There are other jobs I could find if the boss does not provide benefits to working there that are at least comparable to the same jobs in my industry. In captured industries like this one, where the employees don't really have many other options, the boss does have all the power. That's why in the real world, in situations like this, you tend to see unionization. This is the same situation because these pro players only have the skill to play LoL and not other esports. If they don't like something they cannot easily go to find a similar job with their existing skills.
What is incredibly arbitrary about the Summoner's Code? It read like basic English to me. General idea? Don't be a douche when you play League.
Provide benefits? Are we on the same page? Riot is talking about paying teams a monthly salary for Season 3. Please find me another gaming dev who are doing that too. You talk as if Riot's expectation are too high or something when they're simply asking for the "norm". And no, trolling and fucking idiotic behavior that is used to describe the MOBA/ARTS genre should not be the norm here.
All Riot is doing is asking us to be better gamers online. Is it that hard?
Your only skill is to play LoL? Don't fuck up your chances at the game then.
When did I EVER say Riot's rules are arbitrary or that their salary isn't good enough? All I'm saying is that the players should have to option to negotiate these things if they do create an arbitrary rule in the future or the players aren't satisfied with their salary and think they have the power to demand a better one. I don't understand why you don't want the players to have any say in what their job conditions should be like or what the salaries should be. That is nothing like real life.
What terrible thing would happen if the players had an organization? Yes I like how Riot handled this particular situation and how they are providing the players with a salary. That doesn't mean I think they should have ALL the power in making these decisions and the players none.
eh? Compare Riot Games to any other technology corporation. Do you really think engineers and designers have a say in work conditions? I'm not sure where you're coming from to think that unions are the standard. Yes, there is a human resources department, you can voice you displeasure there. If pro players/teams don't like something, there are channels to Riot to whom they can speak with.
I am fine with Riot having all the power. Frankly, Riot has a solid vision in what they want and expect from their game, the community, and their players. If there was an instance where Riot's final decision was over the line, I'd agree with you. But so far, Riot has not made a failure in judgment. Why doubt them now?
In any other tech corp the employees do have a say. Their complaints (if legitimate and concerted) will have more weight because they can find another job in the same industry. The workers have to compete with others for the job, but the employers also compete with other employers to hire the best workers.
Here, the pro gamers have no other options in the same industry. A pro LoL player can't just decide to become a DotA pro and vice versa. What they do have are suboptimal choices such as going back to school or finding a job when they have already devoted a lot of time and resources to LoL. In this situation, Riot has tremendous power over the players.
The problem with this power isn't even as extreme as abuse by Riot. Riot can do things such as provide a decent salary that are fair, but aren't going to give the players the highest amount they are willing to pay players. I think as an employer it is in your best interest to have the ability to make this negotiation. Your interest as an employee is to get the most pay that the company is willing to give you and have the best job conditions possible.
If you look at it from a scale of 1 (the least Riot can pay pro gamers and still have the season 3 they want) - 2 (a fair amount) - 3 (the most Riot is willing to pay progamers for their tournament), Riot is always going to be at most a 2, maybe lower. This is fair, but it is in the employees interest to see if he can negotiate for something between 2 and 3. I don't think pro gamers have any ability to do that without their own organization.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
He's arguing in principle, not actuality. It's fine.
On December 05 2012 11:27 beef42 wrote: So we got down to the brunt of it. You guys think it's okay for a game company to ban for BM. I don't. I don't think they have the right. Let us agree to disagree.
So then do not sign the EULA. Which games are you playing?
Uh I don't pretend to read the EULAs but I've probably played every major multiplayer game in the last decade and this is the first one that bans for typing mean words into chat. So... what games are you playing?
EPT
