|
On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you.
unconscionable is legalese for unreasonable. The stipulation here is whether or not the ToS is unreasonable, I don't know and I won't argue either way, but you aren't saying anything he isn't, you're just being pedantic.
For someone who will apparently be a lawyer in one year it is kind of shocking you'd misrepresent yourself in the first sentence of your post. "I am a lawyer", no actually, you are not.
|
On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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 don't feel sympathy for these morons personally. I'd advocate there cause because its a consumer interest. You realize that essentially, if this case gets passed, it sets the precedent for blizzard to ban players for virtually any kind of game manipulation?
Blizzard has had the power to ban customers for any reason for years, long before SC2. The reason why they can do it is because it's a way to legally cover their asses should the need arise, but keep in mind that it's extremely unlikely that Blizzard will ever actually use their power to ban "for no reason" because it would destroy their public image.
|
On October 12 2010 07:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:21 Zerokaiser wrote:
Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue. I've already said there are no precedents because video games rarely follow there TOS to there letter. And I've already given examples of contract law you that this could easily been seen to break, such as Unconscionability, impracticability. Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:
Show nested quote +
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
yeah ok totally agree bro.
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh? You know, that doesn't really address your position. All that states is 'I knew this would happen". ok....
You still aren't posting any of these Consumer Rights. Seriously, just post the Consumer Rights that cover being allowed to modify a service you've purchased.
EDIT: "On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you." debunks Unconscionability.
|
On October 12 2010 07:28 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:21 Zerokaiser wrote:
Half, we've all stated the legal precedents and factual reasons for why the bans are legal. Please post the specific consumer rights that overrule Blizzard's EULA. All you've said are "consumer rights" and flamed what other people argue. I've already said there are no precedents because video games rarely follow there TOS to there letter. And I've already given examples of contract law you that this could easily been seen to break, such as impracticability. Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:19 Half wrote:
Show nested quote +
I am not arguing legality. The bans made by Blizzard are reasonable with their application of battle.net and the achievement system.
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
yeah ok totally agree bro.
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh? You know, that doesn't really address your position. All that states is 'I knew this would happen". ok....
If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum?
|
All I want is for Half to post the Consumer Rights that are applicable here. That's all he's holding on to. Legally, Blizzard's ToS is binding. Half is saying that it violates Consumer Rights. In the midst of insulting everybody else and dodging our points, he's neglected to actually tell us these Rights.
|
If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum?
If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted?
This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with
So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
This assumption
In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused.
All I want is for Half to post the Consumer Rights that are applicable here. That's all he's holding on to. Legally, Blizzard's ToS is binding. Half is saying that it violates Consumer Rights. In the midst of insulting everybody else and dodging our points, he's neglected to actually tell us these Rights.
Actually I was arguing it violated contract law...
|
It's not really a question of who cares about the achievements or not. The main focus should really be; would you allow hacking if you were running b.net? Sure they hack single player, but once people find out "Hey, they don't really care.." they start to invest more time and resources into the hacking/whatev. process. By doing this, Blizz shows everyone that there's really no hacking allowed within the game.
To sum it up; I think it's fair.
|
On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:Show nested quote +If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement Show nested quote +
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with Show nested quote +So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused.
Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused.
|
On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:Show nested quote +If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement Show nested quote +
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with Show nested quote +So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Show nested quote +All I want is for Half to post the Consumer Rights that are applicable here. That's all he's holding on to. Legally, Blizzard's ToS is binding. Half is saying that it violates Consumer Rights. In the midst of insulting everybody else and dodging our points, he's neglected to actually tell us these Rights. Actually I was arguing it violated contract law...
You said it violated contract law because terms of the agreement violated consumer rights.
|
On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused.
I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice.
You said it violated contract law because terms of the agreement violated consumer rights.
You mean this?
lolwtf. So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights.
Note the word, and, not because. As in, its illegal, and you should care, because it hurts you as a consumer. Not its illegal because ot consumer rights. Whether it actually violates the thousands of trade regulations in the U.S. was not my point, though it may very well be.
|
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
Also, let me explain this: Defending a single issue related to hacking and cheating does not make you a hacker or a cheater. Example: I posted a thread on the Battle.net forums telling people to stop whining about hackers, and that the percentage of actual losses related to hacking were far less than the chatter on that message board would indicated. And as it turned out, only a small percentage of the player base (around 5,000 players) was banned for hacking. I ended up being right. In the interim, I was called a hacker and accused of defending hackers. The thread was eventually deleted.
This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter.
|
On October 12 2010 07:44 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused. I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice.
I like how you never use arguments to begin with, thus it comes down to this.
|
I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice.
Are you fucking serious? That's virtually all you've done this thread.
"Your argument refutes itself."
"Anecdotal"
Blah blah blah.
Listen, we've all posted about why the ToS doesn't violate contract law. We've responded to your reasoning as to why it does, and our reasoning also uses precedents.
If it doesn't violate contract law, and it doesn't violate consumer rights, then what does it violate?
Listen, I know it's hard for you to concede an argument when you've dug this far down, but United States law says what Blizzard did is legal. If you want a real court hearing, move to the UK.
EDIT: Anyways, I'm done with this thread. Half isn't a lawyer, and he isn't citing anything that supports his position. I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't violate my ToS agreement, so I don't need to whine and complain. Half, if you're so stubborn and sure of yourself, take it to court.
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 cabarkapa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:44 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused. I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice. I like how you never use arguments to begin with, thus it comes down to this.
You know, following the format for a humorous effect only works if you bring up valid criticisms. Sorry, I know your used to following things without a reason or purpose.
Listen, we've all posted about why the ToS doesn't violate contract law. We've responded to your reasoning as to why it does, and our reasoning also uses precedents.
Really? Where. The few times you brought up any amount of actual evidence turned out to be immediately irrelevant or misused.
Are you fucking serious? That's virtually all you've done this thread.
Maybe because you only read half of it. You know, the half that was a clusterfuck of people making the same tired old points?
|
My suspicion is they are incentivized to ban people as much as possible to sell new copies of the program.
|
On October 12 2010 07:29 floor exercise wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 12 2010 07:22 astuce wrote:
OP, you have said you are not a lawyer. I am (or will be in a year). There is no principle of contract law which says that unreasonable or arbitrary terms are unenforceable. The closest doctrine is unconscionability, which can void a contract, but it is used extremely rarely and would not apply to this case. Basically, a contract is void for unconconscionability only where (1) the terms of the contract are unconscionable and (2) the way in which you were induced to sign the contract was unconscionable. No court would find that was the case here. You did not sign the contract because you were starving and Blizzard promised to feed you. unconscionable is legalese for unreasonable. The stipulation here is whether or not the ToS is unreasonable, I don't know and I won't argue either way, but you aren't saying anything he isn't, you're just being pedantic. For someone who will apparently be a lawyer in one year it is kind of shocking you'd misrepresent yourself in the first sentence of your post. "I am a lawyer", no actually, you are not.
No, unconscionable is a legal term of art. It has an entirely different meaning from unreasonable in a legal context. Unconscionable is much worse than unreasonable.
|
On October 12 2010 04:28 Lunares wrote:
I support these bans. If you notice these "trainers" don't do anything that the ingame cheats for SC2 do EXCEPT disable achievements. That is you can just use those ingame cheats to achieve the same effect, but you won't get achievements.
The SOLE reason to use a trainer like this is to cheat in order to get achievements. So yes they should be banned for that.
Well said. I almost forgot the existence of ingame cheats.
And if you want to experiment with stuff, there's the map editor for that. Or the unit test map found on b.net.
Can someone provide a good reason and need to use trainers???
There's other legal ways of aquiring achievements. Such as taking a saved game from another player and loading it up.
|
On October 12 2010 07:49 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2010 07:45 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:44 Half wrote:On October 12 2010 07:43 cabarkapa wrote:On October 12 2010 07:42 Half wrote:If you have so much trouble reading and understanding English, why are you posting so frequently on an English forum? If you have so many problems articulating your thoughts, why do you get so angry when they are misinterpreted? This statement
No, I am saying that it is not a crazy circumstance that this is occurring, given the past actions of Blizzard, and what rules they lay out for you to accept when you choose to play their game on battle.net. But not being able to read and putting words in my mouth is cool too I guess, really proves your point SO well huh?
Does not contradict with So in other words you'd agree that the bans make sense within blizzards EULA, but are illegal and and a violation of basic consumer rights. This assumption In other words, you refuted my assumption with irrelevant supposition. Naturally, i was confused. Yes you make a lot stupid assumptions, naturally you would be easily confused. I love how you made 4 posts attacking my points without actually using arguments. Nice. I like how you never use arguments to begin with, thus it comes down to this. You know, following the format for a humorous effect only works if you bring up valid criticisms. Sorry, I know your used to following things without a reason or purpose.
Awesome, more stupid assumptions. KEEP EM COMING! Also I'm curious, are you purposely misusing "your" and "you're" at every possible chance?
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Half is not defending hacking. He is attacking the precedent that Blizzard Entertainment is now banning players for game modification that goes beyond the multiplayer component. If this becomes precedent across the entire game industry, the next step is to ban all modification of the client regardless of the purposes. This could potentially include user-made patches (including those designed to fix bugs) and spin-off titles (Counter-Strike), things that have made video games a more enjoyable experience. It would be another step on the road to "you have no rights as a software user".
Also, let me explain this: Defending a single issue related to hacking and cheating does not make you a hacker or a cheater. Example: I posted a thread on the Battle.net forums telling people to stop whining about hackers, and that the percentage of actual losses related to hacking were far less than the chatter on that message board would indicated. And as it turned out, only a small percentage of the player base (around 5,000 players) was banned for hacking. I ended up being right. In the interim, I was called a hacker and accused of defending hackers. The thread was eventually deleted.
This thread is supposed to be a referendum on legality and law, and the fact people are contesting this on black-and-white terms is ridiculous. I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself. And the law is a shades-of-grey matter.
I fail to see how this compares to the examples you gave.
Your examples are simply modding the game. No game company with half a brain is going to resort to banning people for mods because mods are excellent sources of revenue and advertisement for the company as well. Keep in mind that all EULAs in the end are simply meant to protect the company's interests, and as long as they don't violate any actual law, then they are perfectly valid and are legally binding. The days when a company prohibits mods entirely is never going to come because games generally benefit from modding communities. I can guarantee that Blizzard made a shit ton of extra WC3 sales thanks to DotA for example. Blizzard on the other hand WILL ban people if they modify the game in a way that's intended to grant an unfair advantage in-game, namely map hacking or achievement hacking.
Companies don't just make EULAs for the fun of it or because they can. All EULAs are made with the intention of maintaining a quality service and protecting the company.
|
On October 12 2010 07:45 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Oh, and if I design a game and write a EULA that entitles me to your first-born, that doesn't make it legal. EULAs are only as legal as the law itself.
But what Blizzard says in the ToS isn't illegal. The Battle.net ToS doesn't say something preposterous like entitlement to users' children. It basically says, you modify our client or use 3rd party programs to cheat in any way (regardless of relevance of said cheats), we ban you. The ban, for however long, only denies access to the battle.net services that come with the game. It's really pretty simple: in my mind it's incredibly similar to product warranty - You modify the product in a way deemed unfit by the product makers, you lose your rights to the warranty service whereas SC2 is the product and battle.net is the service.
Honestly, how has this thread survived more than one page?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
