|
Lol are you guys still discussing this? It's a perfectly logical request by blizzard.
For example, one thing is smoking pot or w/e in your basement, another is smoking pot just beside the police station. Yes it's a mild "crime", but what if it's committed under the "police" (blizzard) and the pedestrians (the viewers) eyes? It's a bit different yes? If blizzard didn't say anything at all that would've endorsed account sharing a little bit more...and damaged blizzard's status ( even if you think otherwise), by not complying to their end of the bargain. (regarding the terms in the ToS "Considering account sharing not allowed". Whether or not this is a "right" or "just" imposition is not theme of this discussion in my opinion)
What whould you think of your police station if they allowed people to commit "crimes" under their very eyes, without doing anything at all? Personally, I would think very lowly of em....
And it was a custom game goddammit, he could've logged in 3 seconds straight and nothing would've happened, he had to be a hot head and show his "rebellion" because his ladder placement is bugged. Don't get me wrong, it's legitimate to be angry at blizzard because he cannot find any games, but this is not the way to express one's complaint.
Moreover this shows that law (in this case ToS) should be equal: even if you are the best person in the world, you've gotta pay the fine if you park your car in the middle of the road and walk away, you know.
|
|
|
If the warning only for the laddering on TLO's account.. in which case I can understand. If high profile players do something, people mimic it, and account sharing for ladder really destroys the MMR system and makes it unfair for people who wnat to play casually and not get stomped by some master 'learning' another race or something.
The war3 ladder was ruined by smurf accounts; a lot of what blizzard is doing is to prevent that. Like 1 account per cd key, no account sharing, no remaking accounts from scratch.
Was HuK streaming when doing this? Their reaction would make perfect sense if that was the case.
|
TLO got some "readjustments" on his MMR.
|
Yay Blizzard... You aren't the same company any more ever since that activision merge.
|
Is it confirmed that the guy that called was really a Blizzard employee? PR wise this is so bad, i can only imagine it being a troll.
Otherwise i'd say we ditch sc2 and go back to sc1...
|
Wow... just wow. It's a legitimate account, what do they care who plays on it? If TLO purchased and wants to let Huk use it for a while, then what difference does it make? It's not like Blizzard is losing anything by it, and it's not like they're cheating the ladder or something. This is stupid.
|
Pretty sure it's illegal for Blizzard to ban accounts for random things just because they put it in the ToS. ToS has no legal relevance.
Blizzard is just threatening Huk with theft here.
If you bought SC2, shame on you.
|
On June 25 2011 04:36 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote:
If the warning only for the laddering on TLO's account.. in which case I can understand. If high profile players do something, people mimic it, and account sharing for ladder really destroys the MMR system and makes it unfair for people who wnat to play casually and not get stomped by some master 'learning' another race or something.
The war3 ladder was ruined by smurf accounts; a lot of what blizzard is doing is to prevent that. Like 1 account per cd key, no account sharing, no remaking accounts from scratch.
Was HuK streaming when doing this? Their reaction would make perfect sense if that was the case.
Well maybe that is blizzard`s reasoning but there would be no way to catch people who are account sharing unless they have thousands of viewers on a stream. I dont agree with blizzard at all with their handling of the huk/tlo situation. They should offer Huk a Euro pass or even an account. They do this for a living and bring publicity to the game the least they could do is allow them to practice without hassles.
|
I'm really just done with this crap, lol. I won't be buying any more licenses to be shat down my mouth lol
|
my understanding is that huk does have a EU account, but it's stuck at diamond due to the bug. so he is using tlo's GM account to play better caliber players instead of repowering his little used EU account. huk will stop using EU in a week anyways, so blizzard should leave it be!
|
On June 25 2011 04:24 Quetz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 04:19 Sinborn wrote:On June 25 2011 04:16 Quetz wrote:On June 25 2011 04:08 Sinborn wrote:On June 25 2011 04:05 chickenhawk wrote:^ Actually wrong.
B.net ToS 15.F - Governing law.
...this Agreement shall be is governed by, and will be construed under, the Laws of the United States of America and the law of the State of Delaware, without regard to choice of law principles.
So basically, as long as the agreement doesn't directly fly in the face of CISG, which it doesn't, you have to abide by U.S. law.
So we are discussing the legality of the TOS, and you are qouting the TOS? Besides US can only inforce there laws in US.. at least for know. 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. 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.
The ToS is actually relevant because you can retrieve it before you purchase the game as present on their website. The argument would probably crumple based off that given that Blizzard probably put it there for that reason specifically.
However, your conclusion is right in regards to venue. Someone pointed out to me that the US ToS and the EU ToS exist. For EU:
15. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws applicable in your country of residence.
Of course, I wonder what happens if you have an issue with a player who uses a EU license, but his country of residence is in the US.
|
If it gets banned they can gladly use my account, and if that gets banned I'm sure another supporter will offer up his account. Absolutely ludicrous.
|
On June 25 2011 03:50 steamrice wrote:
This happened because Blizzard's tournament is starting up soon.
I think that's a reasonable logic
|
On June 25 2011 03:03 ishboh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 02:59 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On June 25 2011 02:55 ishboh wrote:
i think team liquid should be able to afford an account for each of their players on each server...its a one-time cost.
it isn't really excusable that Huk play on TLO's account. I agree with blizzard because they are a business and having people openly 'cheating the system' on a streamed event is unacceptable. although i think that blizzard should probably let this one go assuming that Huk gets his own EU account soon. I can see why they wouldn't want to delay playing to obtain an account for Huk during the homestory cup... Just for clarification Huk has his own account on EU but the MMR is too high to find games. hmm, i didn't even know that was possible.
Neither did Blizzard clearly lol
|
On June 25 2011 04:44 Hekisui wrote:
Pretty sure it's illegal for Blizzard to ban accounts for random things just because they put it in the ToS. ToS has no legal relevance.
Blizzard is just threatening Huk with theft here.
If you bought SC2, shame on you.
Police hasn't burst into take's house and taken huk into custody yet. What you are talking about makes no sense.
Yes ToS may not have any legal relevance, implying the police and judges don't have to be called into action, but, since it's a deal between two parties, one of the two can use IT'S OWN resources to punish an eventual break in the contract. It's not calling into a foreign power, it's using it's own.
Therefore it's not theft.
|
You know what would be the best way to complain? Stop playing their games.
|
If Blizzard closes down Huk's account and Huk sues Blizzard, he will likely win because Huk paid for his account and rules in the ToS are not reason enough for Blizzard to do what would otherwise be a breach of contract.
Yes, it's theft. If I want to sell you something and I take your money and don't give you what you bought, that it theft.
It's not like this hasn't happened with other games like Second Life. Devs get sued and lose. And that happened in the US where ToS has a lot more legal power than anywhere else in the world because of rigged laws.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_service
See, when you agree to terms of service, it means you accept to follow a set of "Terms" in connection with your use of a "Service".
When you neglect to follow these "Terms", a Service Provider may restrict your access to that "Service".
|
It would be cool if huk could actually find a game on his account....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
