|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Patton1942 wrote:
I'm being serious. So what if somebody has perfect SP achievements and a pretty profile picture. That will only make their MP play worse (cheating V. the AI can't be good for practice) so it will be immediately obvious that they didn't earn those points.
And yet, who cares about those silly points anyway? Yeah, its kind of fun to have a nifty profile picture but that is it.
Who cares about the integrity of ladder? What's wrong with hacking my rank up? I'll still be a bad player, why should you care?
Just because you don't care about achievements doesn't mean others don't. Many people clearly care about them, and for that reason their integrity should be protected.
Why can't you just use those trainers and cheats and such without being connected to BNet? Nobody getting those uber important achievements without earning them then.
You can. If you're offline Blizzard has no way of knowing you're cheating, let alone gives a shit.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. Namely, unreasonable and arbitrary stipulations.
The thing is, you're wrong. At least in America.
The court further stated that whatever is in the license is binding, no matter how ridiculous. A ban on resale? A ban on lending? A ban on carrying the physical disks outside of the Western hemisphere? Forcing people to phyisically destroy their old disks? All perfectly legal, according to the court. In the official words of the courts:
We determine that Autodesk's direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners, which has two ramifications. Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assert an essential step defense on behalf of his customers. For these reasons, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to Vernor and remand for further proceedings.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23794/US_Court_Upholds_EULAs_Criminalises_Pretty_Much_All_of_Us
|
On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat.
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
|
anecdotal.
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was isntalled you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal.
srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
|
On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. Namely, unreasonable and arbitrary stipulations. Show nested quote +
The user is attempting to bypass the block on achievements that Blizzard put up. Were they playing solely for the cheats, Blizzard had provided cheats that could be used instead, legally. They were not tinkering with the game for fun, to change some colours here or there. They were trying to cheat the achievements system, whether intentionally or not.
[citation needed]
Can either side prove what they did was legal or illegal? To me it looks legal. It's blizzards code, and if the client was edited then the hackers are in the wrong.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Half wrote:anecdotal. Show nested quote +
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was isntalled you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal. srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
You still fail to show why it is illegal. Show this in a linear argument in your posts like other, normal people have. But be careful, linear logic is even easier to pick apart than circular logic. Perhaps you should learn the laws of your own country.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Half wrote:
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal.
srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
Blizzard can put whatever the fuck they want in their EULA, and if you break it they can ban you. Get over this fact. That is the law in the US of A, unless you want to go challenge in the SC.
|
On October 12 2010 06:51 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? SC2 with achievements isn't a single player game anymore. Hacking SC2 offline doesn't get you banned so is irrelevant to this topic.
Point taken. I personally don't like this integration of the campaign and multiplayer into this one package that detracts from the potential that each one offers.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept". Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
I think what he's saying is that contracts can't do certain things. I understand your point but, what if you signed something that made you owned by someone else as a slave? Do you think that the courts wouldn't rule in your favor?
|
What was the purpose of the trainers anyway? What advantage did they give over the built-in cheat codes?
|
On October 12 2010 07:03 telamascope wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:51 Yaotzin wrote:On October 12 2010 06:50 telamascope wrote:
I'm not sure the correct way to label this is "cheating". Who are you cheating in a single player game? SC2 with achievements isn't a single player game anymore. Hacking SC2 offline doesn't get you banned so is irrelevant to this topic. Point taken. I personally don't like this integration of the campaign and multiplayer into this one package that detracts from the potential that each one offers.
They aren't connected, you can play the campaign offline. You just can't get achievements offline.
|
On October 12 2010 07:05 Adila wrote:
What was the purpose of the trainers anyway? What advantage did they give over the built-in cheat codes?
Free Achievements.
|
On October 12 2010 07:04 Zestypasta wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:59 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 06:57 Seide wrote:On October 12 2010 06:54 Half wrote:
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled EULAs to be legally binding.
When have I fucking argued otherwise? All contracts are legally binding, but they can still contain illegal stipulations. You have been arguing this the whole thread essentially. Or atleast that they shouldn't be leagally binding. Adding in the fucks now, keeping it classy as you spiral deeper and deeper into your own logic I've been arguing that the terms of a legally binding contract are not legal you twat. Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was installed, thus you clicked "I accept". Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names. I think what he's saying is that contracts can't do certain things. I understand your point but, what if you signed something that made you owned by someone else as a slave? Do you think that the courts wouldn't rule in your favor?
They would rule in my favor obviously because it contradicts other civil rights laws that are already in place.
Banning people from an online service for modyfing game binaries, to circumvent a system put in place for a reason and to devalue other customers achievements and accomplishments is a bit more legitimate than making you a slave. No?
|
I can sort of understand this being bannable. Even though the cheats you're using are basically blizzard's cheats, they're getting you the achievements that everyone can see.
|
Nice one sir. I love how you used someones opinionated conjecture to twist an irrelevant citation to support your point. That was quite clever. Definitely one of the better ones in this thread.
The writer put in that claim (probably to highlight the rediculousness of the ruling), as his own opinionated summary of what the judge actually says.
In the official words of the courts:
We determine that Autodesk's direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners, which has two ramifications. Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assert an essential step defense on behalf of his customers. For these reasons, we vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment to Vernor and remand for further proceedings.
All this stipulated was that software was licensed, not sold. The author infers that this in theory, could allow the owner to force the customer to do anything with his product. This is not true, it is ungrounded speculation, until someone goes to court with the case that the owner of the software he was licensed stipulated in contract unreasonable demands that.
In other words, yes, the software licenser can impose limits on usage, but the imposed limits on usage have to be legally sound in the first place. The stipulations on usage as imposed in the license have to be legal and sound according to contract law in the first place.
And there is reason this has never been tested in court on a larger scale. Because software companies know they can't win, so they prefer to get away with what they can. You realize that by this same standard, video game companies could just prohibit the resale of there games right? But they don't, because they aren't certain that it will hold up in court, especially when challenged with serious lawsuits by multibillion game retailers.
|
This is incredibly stupid. If I was banned for cheating in single player I would take legal action.
|
On October 12 2010 06:59 Half wrote:anecdotal. Show nested quote +
Thats why you have the choice to accept or decline it. Game was isntalled you clicked "I accept".
Twat? lol how mad now? 1-10? Come on man actually show a linear argument in 1 post and stop calling names.
Once again, if a contract contains illegal terms, regardless of whether or not I accept it, they are still illegal. srsly go troll somewhere else kthx :3.
For a contract to be unenforcable, there needs to be misrepresantation, unconscionability, a mistake, or terms which are explicitly illegal.
There are no laws in the United States that in any way consider anything in the Blizzard ToS to be illegal, and so the contract is enforceable as precedented until you appeal to court.
|
I'm so confused, and reading the thread didn't help.
There are built-in cheats. Why mod the game just to get slightly better stuff while breaking the TOS? Only thing I can think of is to gain an advantage over other players (like getting achievements, which SHOULD get them banned) or they are really really stupid for paying for trainer when they can get the same shit for free.
Edit: Seems the trainer does exactly that (let you get achievements using cheats). Ya they all deserved their bans. If you don't get the justification from Blizzard then you are probably one of the people doing this.
|
On October 12 2010 06:47 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 06:44 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 06:41 Half wrote:
I guess that post was also where that little "arbitrary" argument popped up, but Blizzard lays down the rules that they will stand by as a company. If you don't like the rules, then don't buy the game. Blizzard is looking to preserve fairness to all players in the sense of acquiring achievements, which means banning those cheating and are able to create an unfair advantage for themselves when it comes to those achievements.
& thisguy Except this is not unreasonable. Blizzard provided a means for legal cheating, which did everything the trainers do, except they are provided by Blizzard. Blizzard's cheating disabled achievements, while these do not. Achievements are a part of the multiplayer experience. You must earn them, which they have not.
You will go to court and tell them you were cheating, and try to make a case out of it? I would love to see that. Banning them on the technicality that achievements effect multiplayer "indirectly" would still be arbitrary. As I said, arbitrary is not the lack of any kind of casual connection, IE:, irrelevent, but as previous defined 1.
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.
decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.
having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.
capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
5.
Mathematics . undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant. The idea of dispossessing someone of there purchase for modifying there local copy of the game client for local play is still 1), 2), 3), and 4). Bringing up pointless semantics? Oh dear, way to ignore everything I said and prove my first statement correct. The law is semantics. Any argument concerning legality is an argument of semantics. I am claiming that the stipulation in the ToS preventing end user modification of the game are arbitrary and unreasonable. You demonstrated a potential casual reasoning blizzard might have for the banning, but that does not directly refute the fact that the legal stipulation is unreasonable on the behalf of the consumer. Nice reasoning ther bro. and also. SEMANTICS HURF DURF.
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
Cheating is still possible without being banned, just not on a battle.net server. Only those who are stupid enough to cheat on a battle.net server will be banned. For me, there is little sympathy to be had for complete morons, but that may explain why you feel so connected to these cheaters.
|
I thinks shows why someone needs to hack bnet already, I want lagless lan play without the fear of bliz-bad-ban-hammer for sneezing in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
