EPT[D] Blizzard Banning for Single Player Cheats - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Zestypasta
United States61 Posts
| ||
|
eksert
France656 Posts
| ||
|
BadAxeEntertainment
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10304 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:16 Half wrote: Tell me. Is this justice? He makes a solid point, and your response is to find some "dirt" on his country? cute | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:31 Half wrote: 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. You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Anyone who would try to go to court because their account was banned for this would be laughed at by any judge or lawyer. Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enroll, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes. I can write out my point in a clear line, one thought leading to the other, and have dont this, several times aready for you, each iteration simpler than the last so you might possible understand. I have shown you why it cheating, the parties which are hurt by this, that is is stated as an offense in the terms which you agreed to.. Your logic has thus far consisted of saying "Well it's not fair, people should do what they want, they paid money for it" over and over. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
Also you deserve to be banned for buying cheats it's that stupid :p | ||
|
viraltouch
United States299 Posts
| ||
|
Grummler
Germany743 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:37 SmoKim wrote: He makes a solid point, and your response is to find some "dirt" on his country? cute It was actually dirt on a Canadian corporation, and you seem to have completely missed the point. He responded to my assertion that blizzards policies were indifferent to the rights of the consumer by pointing out often states are indifferent to the rights of individuals. I responded by facetiously pointing out that thinking that corperations are states was fallacious and poisonous, and used an example I hope would "hit close to home", so to speak. Its ok, I enjoy supplementing my posts to make up for your lack of reading comprehension D:. pad dat postcount son. (not really) | ||
|
steamrice
435 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:34 Gourmand wrote: What the, i would have understand removing the achievements of those who cheated or something around those line, but banning, for single players? 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. Say you remove his achievements... what about the hack that is running while logged into B.Net... Do you think blizzard is gonna be ok with just removing his achievement points but allow him to continue on with this trainer that probably does more than what you were probably doing? | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
| ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:40 Half wrote: It was actually dirt on a Canadian corporation, and you seem to have completely missed the point. He responded to my assertion that blizzards policies were indifferent to the rights of the consumer by pointing out often states are indifferent to the rights of individuals. I responded by facetiously pointing out that thinking that corperations are states was fallacious and poisonous, and used an example I hope would "hit close to home", so to speak. Its ok, I enjoy supplementing my posts to make up for your lack of reading comprehension D:. You're mentally deficient if you can't discuss the terms of service of a video game without introducing random pinko political issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Please, for the love of god, stop. Blizzard is banning people who hack their software to cheat on a competitive online gaming service. They'd also ban people who win trade to the top of the ladder. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes. "aperantely" so huh?. | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
You have been already shown why this move is legal. Several times in this thread. Your ethical standpoint might not agree. But hey I bet someone who breaks the law oftern doesnt agree with it either. Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". Apperantely, you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you are being told, or your beliefs are just so ingrained in your head that you are incapable of seeing another angle. I can link you to several replies, several from myself that draw you a clear line. I suggest to you an alternative: look up a community college near your school and enrol, look to take some reading comprehension and critical thinking classes. "aperantely" so huh?. [/QUOTE] See now you are jumping on minor spelling errors to try to prove me wrong, because you cannot do so through regular means. gg no re. | ||
|
kojinshugi
Estonia2559 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:35 Half wrote: once you explain to me what this has to do with video games and blizzard. just felt like responding to his irrelevance and naivete with some playful insight, thaz all bro D:. The proper response to an idiotic post is not more idiocy. | ||
|
BulldogBCN
Spain50 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? you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:47 kojinshugi wrote: The proper response to an idiotic post is not more idiocy. Then why did you respond LOL. you talk about ethics and justice, yet you compare the crimes some corporations commit all over the world to blizzard banning people who cheated to get easy acheivements. let's contact amnesty international, dude, blizzard is banning again! ridiculous. You realized I was responding to someone who was comparing the same to vigilante serial killers right? | ||
|
cabarkapa
United States1011 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:46 Half wrote: Where? I haven't seen a single bit of legal defense for this move more complex then "The TOS said so duuuddee". "aperantely" so huh?. I like how you didn't read my last post either. Not gonna bother. If you can't argue against valid points you might as well ignore them and argue pointless semantics for 4 pages huh? | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On October 12 2010 05:48 cabarkapa wrote: If you can't argue against valid points you might as well ignore them and argue pointless semantics for 4 pages huh? Find me a valid point I haven't responded to. Go! And for the record, it wasn't me who started debating on semantics. See now you are jumping on minor spelling errors to try to prove me wrong, because you cannot do so through regular means. gg no re. u srs troll? lol. that guy was right, should never have bothered with you t-t. | ||
| ||
