EPTBut I don't really trust a guy from cheathappens about getting banned for only using trainers in single player. Can anyone in TL confirm it?? If you used trainers are you banned??
[D] Blizzard Banning for Single Player Cheats - Page 5
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
boxzi
Canada14 Posts
But I don't really trust a guy from cheathappens about getting banned for only using trainers in single player. Can anyone in TL confirm it?? If you used trainers are you banned?? | ||
|
Laggy
United States385 Posts
Look, if you agree to something and you are told the consequences and still do it the reasons don't fucking matter, you did it and that's what they told you not to do. It's like telling your girlfriend don't cheat on me then you find her suckin some D's maybe it's a lot of D's who knows? It's highly unlikely you'll take her back cause her reasons were arbitrary they don't matter you caught her suckin something that's not yours after she told you she wouldn't do it thus betraying your trust. I don't understand why you can't wrap it around your skull that being dealt with the way you agreed you would be dealt with is unjust. Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail. Funny what kind of culture we live in that is now capable of associating corporate policy with justice. Tell me. Is this justice? | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:09 Half wrote: It is indeed a catch all. There are several more catch-alls in past TOS's that were, in reality, never enforced, because blizzard felt they lacked the public support to take these cases to trial. Just because a company proclaims something, doesn't mean its so, surprisingly enough. Caveat emptor huh? The good ol motto of stooges everywhere. Please, explain the legal and ethical justification of a buyer beware policy on digital consumption to me then. I am not discussing ethics with you in this thread, if you want to discuss software ethics you can PM me. I believe someone should be able to do whatever they want with their software if it does not hurt other consumers. What I believe does not matter here. If you actually read, I have explained to you why people using trailers hurts other players who actually worked to get these achievements. While you may not care about this, it does not make it irrelevant. Other customers are hurt by people breaking to ToS. Blizzard takes action to protect customers who are playing legitimately. You may not believe that this is right ethically and should be different. Thats fine. But in this case, in the current situation your ethical beliefs are irrelevant, same with mine. | ||
|
NIJ
1012 Posts
And this is one of many reasons that validates it. Not only are players taking it seriously, but when the devs starts to do as well, it will reinforce it back to the players that achievement system indeed is srs bzns. lame. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
I am not discussing ethics with you. I believe someone should be able to do whatever they want with their software if it does not hurt other consumers. What I believe does not matter here. If you actually read. I have explained to you why people using trailers hurts other players who actually worked to get these achievements. While you may not care about this, it does not make it irrelevant. Other customers are hurt by people breaking to ToS. Blizzard takes action to protect customers who are playing legitimately. You may not believe that this is right ethically and should be different. Thats fine. But in this case, in the current situation your ethical basis is irrelevant, same with mine. I said legal and ethical. Legality is certainly relevant, a case which you have not argued. Ethics was just the extension of that. If the move is neither clearly defined as legal, and unethical, why would you defend it like a lapdog? | ||
|
Big Jim Slade
United States14 Posts
On October 12 2010 04:52 Half wrote: Only if the stipulation not to do X is reasonable and relevant. It is neither reasonable nor relevant to ban people for modifying the game while playing on single player mode. Half, where is your legal precedent for this claim? I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. In what cases has it been decided that certain terms of a contract (the TOS in this case) can not be enforced if they are deemed by a court to be neither reasonable or relevant. Also, reasonable and relevant to what? What the court can infer as the underlying agreement of the contract? I've always been of the understanding that when I agree to a contract, I agree to all terms of that contract (unless the performance of such terms are inherently illegal, and blocking individuals from the use of a private service is not an inherently illegal action). So the only question here in my mind is whether someone has breeched the terms of the contract, which has happened. Unless you have evidence that courts have the power to deem portions of contracts as irrelevant? | ||
|
.Aar
2177 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:14 Laggy wrote: IIt's like telling your girlfriend don't cheat on me then you find her suckin some D's maybe it's a lot of D's who knows? It's highly unlikely you'll take her back cause her reasons were arbitrary they don't matter you caught her suckin something that's not yours after she told you she wouldn't do it thus betraying your trust. This has got to be the greatest metaphor for hacking I've ever seen. | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:18 Half wrote: I said legal and ethical. Legality is certainly relevant, a case which you have not argued. Ethics was just the extension of that. Ok legality. I dont think I have to point out anything to you other than what I ahve already wrote. Primary purpose of laws: Protect the public that is doing things fairly. Lets treat a ToS as a law: It is protecting players, so their achievements and wins have value. People using trailers/map hacks/drop hacks are breaking ToS and lowering the value of wins and achievements since they are getting them illegitimately and with less effort. Blizzard enforces their ToS by banning people who are hurting the legitimate users by cheating. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
Ok legality. I dont think I have to point out anything to you other than what I ahve already wrote. Primary purpose of laws: Protect the public that is doing things fairly. Lets treat a ToS as a law: It is protecting players, so their achievements and wins have value. People using trailers/map hacks/drop hacks are breaking ToS and lowering the value of wins and acievemts since they are getting them illegitimately and with less effort. Blizzard enforces their ToS by banning people who are hurting the legitimate users that was ethics bro. | ||
|
BulldogBCN
Spain50 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:16 NIJ wrote: I always thought Achievement system was stupid because people were going to take it way too seriously. And this is one of many reasons that validates it. Not only are players taking it seriously, but when the devs starts to do as well, it will reinforce it back to the players that achievement system indeed is srs bzns. lame. i don't think it's about taking it seriously or not. achievements are a part of the game and some people have fun with it, why should others have the right to take that away? everyone understands that cheaters on the ladder destroy the fun for everyone and should be banned. well, people cheating to get achievements is the same thing. personally, i don't really care about achievements... but those who do have the same right to enjoy the game as those who don't. | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
Like you said yourself man, ethics underlie legality. You know usually in a debate, both people draw out clear points, where reasoning can be seen going in steps from start to finish. Not 1 person keeps telling the other the same thing over in over, in simpler and simpler ways, and the other responds just using fail circular logic. | ||
|
steamrice
435 Posts
And can't they still play offline in guest mode and still use the paid trainer?? Oh yea no achievement points earned in guest mode. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
Being banned for life is rather harsh though. | ||
|
throttled
United States382 Posts
On October 12 2010 04:34 Half wrote: That was a yes or no question you know. So you're arguing consumers of digital products should not be given any consumer protections what so ever? He's arguing that if you agree to give them up, then no. I happen to agree. | ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
They tried to use said cheats to power their achievement scores? And they got mad when they got banned? Props to Blizzard for making me giggle. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:20 Big Jim Slade wrote: Half, where is your legal precedent for this claim? I'm not trolling here, I'm honestly curious. In what cases has it been decided that certain terms of a contract (the TOS in this case) can not be enforced if they are deemed by a court to be neither reasonable or relevant. Also, reasonable and relevant to what? What the court can infer as the underlying agreement of the contract? I've always been of the understanding that when I agree to a contract, I agree to all terms of that contract (unless the performance of such terms are inherently illegal, and blocking individuals from the use of a private service is not an inherently illegal action). So the only question here in my mind is whether someone has breeched the terms of the contract, which has happened. Unless you have evidence that courts have the power to deem portions of contracts as irrelevant? Even a lawyer couldn't define for you 100% if this move was legal or not. Thats for the courts to decide, and I'm certainly neither a court justice nor a lawyer. However, I know for an 100% certainty that the law is murky enough that it cannot be clearly defined either way. Removing a customers access to a service he payed for without restitution due to an issue of private usage that doesn't conclusively damage the value of the service as a whole nor violate any legal clause can be seen as a violation of several elements of contract law, including unconscionability, misrepresentation, Illusory promise. Like you said man, ethics underlie legality. You know usually in a debate, both people draw out clear points, where reasoning can be seen going in steps from start to finish. Not 1 person keeps telling the other the same thing over in over, in simpler and simpler ways, and the other responds just using fail circular logic. K, i'm starting to think you're trolling. If you want to debate ethical underpinnings, fine, explain to me why Caveat Emptor is an appropriate policy for digital consumption, or alternative, so I'm not strawmanning you, debate why this is not a case of caveat emptor (though you previously just basically defined it as such, but w/e). They can still play the game. No, they cannot. | ||
|
Gourmand
Canada101 Posts
I'm scared now, since i've loaded up Cheat Engine and messed around with the game in singleplayer, as i do with pretty much every game once i've done everything, for the fun of it. I did not get any achievements but still i don't want to get my account banned. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:16 Half wrote: Funny what kind of culture we live in that is now capable of associating corporate policy with justice. Tell me. Is this justice? What the fuck does that have to do with a video game? | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:34 kojinshugi wrote: What the fuck does that have to do with a video game? once you explain to me what this has to do with video games and blizzard. Justice is blind, reasons don't matter just like in court, oh you killed a shit ton of wanted people maybe even mass murderers but you aren't law enforcement? That sucks you are a vigilante, the courts don't care about your reasoning your going to jail. just felt like responding to his irrelevance and naivete with some playful insight, thaz all bro D:. | ||
| ||
