EPTOn June 25 2011 04:12 QibingZero wrote:
What is Blizzard trying to stop, anyway?
What is Blizzard trying to stop, anyway?
Keeping players who aren't playing in GM by having others play the account.
Blizzard warns HuK/TLO for account sharing - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Squirrel
United States1102 Posts
Keeping players who aren't playing in GM by having others play the account. | ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:11 Thorakh wrote: WOOPS I forgot to add that part to my post that it's not okay that HuK cannot find any games. ...Oh wait, that still doesn't make it right to keep an afk player in the GM league. Of course, HuK not being able to find games is Blizzard's fault, but that doesn't excuse playing ladder on someone else's account. The other thing is that forum post someone linked earlier seems to strongly suggest they'd be willing to look in to it with HuK if he brought it up with them directly. I bet $100 that, up until it was posted by someone on the forums, they didn't do a good job of considering someone's MMR getting as high as Huk's is. Is it ok that Huk can't find games? Absolutely not. Is it ok that Huk is laddering on TLO's account? Definitely not. The fact that TLO would likely get dropped from GM because of his condition is also of particular importance. I'm sure the CM read that and knows that TLO's activity level is being affected and, thus, it's basically gaming the ladder. | ||
|
Quetz
United Kingdom28 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:08 Sinborn wrote: No, we're discussing that U.S. law analysis is applicable to the discussion as opposed to irrelevant. U.S. law is irrelevant in this case. Just because the ToS have a clause saying they want to be governed under the laws of wherever doesn't make that the case when teh ToS themselves are null and void in the country they are being sold in. Fact is Blizzard reserves the right to ban any account for any reason at any time, you break their rules (whether they are legally binding or not) the outcome of that may be a ban. You could get a ban if you break their ToS or not, that is their right. It doesn't mean they would automatically win any legal challenge to that decision though. The only thing this whole episode will achieve is more negative PR for Blizzard. If they ban an account another will get bought to replace it and Blizzard will be up 1 sale. They will lose a hell of a lot of the reputation they currently have with the community though. | ||
|
Geordie
United Kingdom653 Posts
| ||
|
GhostBladE
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
Squirrel
United States1102 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:16 Geordie wrote: As if blizzard hasnt turned enough fans against them with the new map pool they showcased, they bloody say this. BLIZZARD if your reading this, its your fault for including no LAN, not huks and TLOs... This issue had nothing to do with LAN. It had to do with HuK playing on an inactive players account, thus keeping that inactive player in GM. | ||
|
Sinborn
United States275 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:16 Quetz wrote: U.S. law is irrelevant in this case. Just because the ToS have a clause saying they want to be governed under the laws of wherever doesn't make that the case when teh ToS themselves are null and void in the country they are being sold in. Fact is Blizzard reserves the right to ban any account for any reason at any time, you break their rules (whether they are legally binding or not) the outcome of that may be a ban. You could get a ban if you break their ToS or not, that is their right. It doesn't mean they would automatically win any legal challenge to that decision though. The only thing this whole episode will achieve is more negative PR for Blizzard. If they ban an account another will get bought to replace it and Blizzard will be up 1 sale. They will lose a hell of a lot of the reputation they currently have with the community though. You're not reading the context of what I'm responding to. (Subsequently, the guy commented without bringing the rest of the tree with him.) I know that it isn't relevant to the issue with TLO and HuK, but it is relevant to the comment that asserted that just because SC2 is an international game does not mean that US legal analysis is unimportant or unnecessary. In fact, it is necessary. In order to make any action against Blizzard, you would have to use U.S. law, assuming your case would hold enough value to get past arbitration. | ||
|
Johnnybb
Denmark486 Posts
| ||
|
Mithriel
Netherlands2969 Posts
I know its officially against the ToS, so can't say they're wrong. However, i completely understand Huk wanting to borrows TLO's account if he just wants to play some quick ladder games to warm up. Especially because huks rating is so skyhigh he has to wait half an hour before it finds a game. Thats just fault on blizzards side, they can at least have it match you against the highest available person after x-minutes. | ||
|
xSixGeneralHan
United States528 Posts
| ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:12 QibingZero wrote: What is Blizzard trying to stop, anyway? People not buying the game and just playing the campaign on their friends' account? You can't stop this, there's even a guest function that seems to be 100% for this purpose! People playing on bnet on a friend's account? There's only so much time in a day, and sooner or later if two friends are sharing an account they're going to want to play at the same time - mission accomplished. Maybe it's because it's triggering Blizzard's warning system for stolen accounts when someone in a completely different area logs on repeatedly? This is honestly the only rational reason I can come up with for Blizzard to be upset about account sharing - that it makes it harder to deal with customer service issues regarding hacked accounts. Um, it's to stop smurfing on the ladder? Ladder is used as seeding/placement into a lot of tournaments, including Blizzard's own (which have pretty lucrative prize pools, the Blizzcon ones.) And in general, smurfing tends to make a poor playing experience for less skilled players when they have to face pro level players in silver league, etc. Finally, so people won't have pro players boost their accounts on ladder, whether through payment or otherwise. There's lots of reasons to not allow account sharing. And the thing is, that isn't even the issue here. Blizzard simply didn't want it streamed. | ||
|
LostBLuE
Canada188 Posts
| ||
|
decemvre
Romania639 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:19 Sinborn wrote: You're not reading the context of what I'm responding to. I know that it isn't relevant to the issue with TLO and HuK, but it is relevant to the comment that asserted that just because SC2 is an international game does not mean that US legal analysis is unimportant. In order to make any action against Blizzard, you would have to use U.S. law, assuming your case would hold enough value to get past arbitration. No. Blizzard US and Blizzard EU are 2 different legal entities. You can sue Blizzard EU under EU laws at any time. | ||
|
fire_brand
Canada1123 Posts
It has to do with account sharing and a double standard for when it is used. It's fine if Blizzard account shares, but if anyone else does it it's a big no no. Seems silly especially when both players have an EU account they bought and paid for. The only thing I would thing would be fair is if blizzard gives everyone an NA account when they come for it | ||
|
gehgrfhgrh
Germany294 Posts
 | ||
|
Joseph123
Bulgaria1144 Posts
since its entirely their fault for that and mb fix it?? | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
 | ||
|
Quetz
United Kingdom28 Posts
On June 25 2011 04:19 Sinborn wrote: You're not reading the context of what I'm responding to. (Subsequently, the guy commented without bringing the rest of the tree with him.) I know that it isn't relevant to the issue with TLO and HuK, but it is relevant to the comment that asserted that just because SC2 is an international game does not mean that US legal analysis is unimportant or unnecessary. In fact, it is necessary. In order to make any action against Blizzard, you would have to use U.S. law, assuming your case would hold enough value to get past arbitration. As I said, you wouldn't purely because the ToS doesn't stand so that clause in the ToS is irrelevant. Either way, point stands that this is no more than a warning shot from Blizzard and a very clear indication of how much support they intend to show the competitive community in the future, and its that which is the real issue at hand. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
By the way, you don't buy the game, you buy a license to use a copy of the game. The EULA is for using the game and its contents. The ToS is for using battle.net service. This situation is a result of the design flaw of Blizzard's matchmaking in ladder games, not about the legality of the EULA/ToS. Please stop the useless arguments about accounts used in professional tournaments licensed by Blizzard. | ||
|
DrunkeN.
United States406 Posts
| ||
| ||
