To anyone that is complaining about the bans:
Actually, in a purely legal sense, you can’t sell a product (the game, in this case) and then have some kind of user agreement that is only viewable after purchase (during installation) or on a seperate website somewhere. Doesn’t really fly in court.
From a purely common sense point of view, I agree with you completely.
Oh, I’m pretty sure there is some section in there that “counters” the purely legal sense completely. Can’t have any loose ends like that.
Can we just stop talking about this already?
Well, personally I feel there should be soemthing like this in the stickies.
Some kind of announcement: “Got banned? Look, what you’ve agreed to.”
Certainly in the UK its considered legal. If you join a club, pay membership for the coming 12 months and then get banned from that club, so long as its good reason then they legally have the right to terminate your membership. Its the same with GW2 and to some extent they can even argue that they sold you the files that you downloaded, not the ability to play the game.
Regardless if this im glad to see the exploiters getting banned. As the powers that be have said, it was only the most blatant exploiters that were affected anyway, those that knew what they were doing. Those that did it a few times were probably not punished at all.
Thereon Avenrise – former [Noes] Officer – Piken Square (EU)
Retired and living in a shack. Relaxing!
Retired and living in a shack. Relaxing!
Certainly in the UK its considered legal. If you join a club, pay membership for the coming 12 months and then get banned from that club, so long as its good reason then they legally have the right to terminate your membership. Its the same with GW2 and to some extent they can even argue that they sold you the files that you downloaded, not the ability to play the game.
Regardless if this im glad to see the exploiters getting banned. As the powers that be have said, it was only the most blatant exploiters that were affected anyway, those that knew what they were doing. Those that did it a few times were probably not punished at all.
Not a good comparison at all. When you join a club, you are first provided a contract to read/sign. You do not join the club, pay your fees, and THEN get shown the contract.
Europe is actally one of the better court systems to find against agreements such as these.
You not buying a product but your buying a service. Before actually using the service you agree to follow certain rules when using the service. If you don’t agree with those rules you are at that moment in your right to ask a refund AND Arenanet is offering that refund. They even stretch that period for those who started playing but after like 1 hour of playing decided they don’t like it.
The people who got banned however started playing and therefor fully using the service. The willingly broken their agreement with the provider of the service and are therefor cut of from service. In this case there is in all the legal systems I know of (including US-law and Washington state law, wich is the one that counts here, conmsidering the registrated adress off the provider) no right for refund. However, people who think they have a valid claim, feel free to waste your money in court.
Arise, ye farmers of all nations
Arise, opressed of Tyria!
Arise, opressed of Tyria!
the people who got banned however started playing and therefor fully using the service. The willingly broken their agreement with the provider of the service and are therefor cut of from service. In this case there is in all the legal systems I know of (including US-law and Washington state law, wich is the one that counts here, conmsidering the registrated adress off the provider) no right for refund. However, people who think they have a valid claim, feel free to waste your money in court.
You’ll find Washington state law doesn’t really bother us much here in Europe. However, I agree with most of the rest. Was just making a comment about the validity of EULA’s as a whole.
you forget something. Currently it is the developer that made this decision, not NCsoft (the publisher). I wont go so far as to guess what NCsoft will and will not do, however, i suspect this clause is in there so that they can shut down the servers for good any time they like; more than: so they can ban anyone for any reason or for no reason.
Robique;
Are you telling me/us that you would be completely fine if they would just ban you RIGHT NOW without providing any reason? I am pretty sure you’d complain loudly if they banned you while saying there’s no reason for that ban.
Of course A-Net has the legal right to terminate their services at their free will. I don’t think anyone EVER said they don’t. I don’t think anybody stood up and said: “What you did is illegal.” If this actually happened then this person is obviously not really smart.
It is completely legal. But it being legal doesn’t mean it is fair by default. (I’m not taking any side right now.). The discussion was about the bans being fair or not. The word “right” might have been used one or the other time but only as an analogy to “fairness” and not to any legal system.
(edited by Mirodir.1672)
1. You don’t buy GW you license it
2. Yep, it’s completely fine to just ban you right now
3. Eventually, the gaming generations will take over lawmaking in USA/EU/etc and shoot down this kind of EULAs; for now they are legal
PS. “Fair” doesn’t matter. We don’t have courts of justice. We have courts of law.
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.
Don’t make me laugh.
Actually, in a purely legal sense, you can’t sell a product (the game, in this case) and then have some kind of user agreement that is only viewable after purchase (during installation) or on a seperate website somewhere. Doesn’t really fly in court.
From a purely common sense point of view, I agree with you completely.
Well, considering that link in the OP goes right to the TOS and you don’t have to be logged in to view it, I’d say users are given the legal ability to read the TOS before purchasing. So yeah, it would hold up in court. Sorry.
I don’t like the wording either, but they need to give themselves a legal “out” in the event someone discovers some kind of loophole that threatens to wreck the game that doesn’t qualify under any of the foreseeable bannable offenses. Sort of like the restaurants’ line of “We reserve the right to not serve a customer for any reason.” You will also find most other game TOS’s have similar lines in them, and yet no one panics over them.
Except the problem being that some people don’t know that performing x action will result in a ban because the part stating that it’s bannable is hidden in a basement bunker guarded by flesh eating 800 pound manbearpigs.
You can guess at what those things might be and maybe you’d be right most of the time. But if the service actually implies that you should constantly be wary of and question your actions in fear of getting banned then it’s a pretty poor service. You aren’t playing the game anymore. You are playing a different one called, “How do I not get banned today”.
Except the problem being that some people don’t know that performing x action will result in a ban because the part stating that it’s bannable is hidden in a basement bunker guarded by flesh eating 800 pound manbearpigs.
You can guess at what those things might be and maybe you’d be right most of the time. But if the service actually implies that you should constantly be wary of and question your actions in fear of getting banned then it’s a pretty poor service. You aren’t playing the game anymore. You are playing a different one called, “How do I not get banned today”.
Oi… get over it man.
If you or anyone has to play “how not to get banned today”, you’re missing the forest for the trees. Are you seriously that antisocial? Do you lack that much common sense?
On top of this, you’re arguing on the premise that Anet bans people for no reason at all and that’s not true.
There was a reason those 200 or so folks (out of a million or so) got banned. Many more were spared.
Pretty relaxed when they could honestly go for a zero tolerance approach. They did not.
The sooner people would quit ignoring the facts, the sooner maybe we could have an honest discussion about this.
But not likely. Not here anyway. We’re not supposed to talk about account issues on the forum and I’m unsure if this thread is technically legal as is.
Feel free to take it up on Guru, Guildhead, Twitter, and Reddit.
Funny enough, the folks there that are complaining about these things are carrying themselves with much more civility then what can be seen here most of the time.
Which is confusing because you’d think folks might carry themselves with a bit more respect and decorum on the official site that might well be able to help you directly…
Considering your using your in game account here (because I’m certain the banned aren’t using alts and friend proxy’s to sow discord or anything, that would be hypocritical when most of them say “they’re just done with this game”)… you know, there’s a little more at stake.
Where as you would think you would be a little more frank and loose on the unofficial forums where you don’t have much to lose.
But I digress.
The banned were not innocent victims of Anets random banning urges, no matter how often these alt accounts I would suspect want to argue the case or just cry more about it.
Suck it up. Have a tissue. You’re not perfect. Happens to the best of us, yada yada. I hear we’re gonna get some info on Lineage Eternal and EverQuest Next this year.
Take it easy.
Since we are/were playing the game, we all agreed to the user agreement section 11 (i):
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-user-agreement/“You understand that You have no fundamental right whatsoever to use the Game, and that You understand that NCsoft may in its sole and absolute discretion terminate Your ability to access or use the Game for any reason or for no reason whatsoever as detailed above under Section 3;”
But ofc, nobody ever reads that and then whines about getting banned.
Do we really need more arm-chair lawyers pointing out EULA quotes. These are just as bad as the “I got banned” QQ posts.
Since we are/were playing the game, we all agreed to the user agreement section 11 (i):
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-user-agreement/“You understand that You have no fundamental right whatsoever to use the Game, and that You understand that NCsoft may in its sole and absolute discretion terminate Your ability to access or use the Game for any reason or for no reason whatsoever as detailed above under Section 3;”
But ofc, nobody ever reads that and then whines about getting banned.
Gratz on being employed by Anet Robique :P
Since we are/were playing the game, we all agreed to the user agreement section 11 (i):
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-user-agreement/“You understand that You have no fundamental right whatsoever to use the Game, and that You understand that NCsoft may in its sole and absolute discretion terminate Your ability to access or use the Game for any reason or for no reason whatsoever as detailed above under Section 3;”
But ofc, nobody ever reads that and then whines about getting banned.
Of course they have the right to terminate your account at any time. But still isn’t a good business practice to do so. Especially when the reasons for banishment are very weak. Weak as in there have been screen shots where Anet members didn’t even know it was an exploit when asked and were doing the same recipe themselves.
I have no association with any one who was banned. How ever it has me concerned. It should also concern Anet as well. With poor communication given to the player base and obnoxious treatment towards them results in people going to popular gaming websites and warning others to stay away from their game.
Ever hear about the EULA that stated that you would have to give up your first born child to play their game? EULA’s are mostly a joke that hold no water when challenged.
Most EULA’s would not hold up in a court of law as they are currently written in such a way that violates many consumer rights in various countries.
If I was drunk when I agreed to the UELA, am I bound to it?
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
They shouldn’t sign a contract they don’t understand.
My turret is so much better at this game than I am.
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
If they agree to it, absolutely.
If I was drunk when I agreed to the UELA, am I bound to it?
Yes, unless Anet made you drunk against your will or knowledge (such as spiking your drink or something) and you signed the UELA, then you are bound. Or you might be bound anyway… someone correct me on this?
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
If they agree to it, absolutely.
Obviously your understanding in law and common sense is lacking. How does one agree to something, in which, they don’t know what that something is? Do you seriously expect a “contract” written in spanish or chinese in which the person “agreeing” to it simply does not have the ability to understand it to hold up in a court of law? I suppose with your reasoning, it comes as no surprise you agree with ANet’s decision.
-Law student.
If I was drunk when I agreed to the UELA, am I bound to it?
Yes, unless Anet made you drunk against your will or knowledge (such as spiking your drink or something) and you signed the UELA, then you are bound. Or you might be bound anyway… someone correct me on this?
If it can be demonstrated that he was indeed drunk and that affected his judgement or capacity to comprehend the terms of the agreement, the contract will not be valid.
(edited by Sky.7610)
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
If they agree to it, absolutely.
Obviously your understanding in law and common sense is lacking. How does one agree to something, in which, they don’t know what that something is? Do you seriously expect a “contract” written in spanish or chinese in which the person “agreeing” to it simply does not have the ability to understand it to hold up in a court of law? I suppose with your reasoning, it comes as no surprise you agree with ANet’s decision.
-Law student.
If I was drunk when I agreed to the UELA, am I bound to it?
Yes, unless Anet made you drunk against your will or knowledge (such as spiking your drink or something) and you signed the UELA, then you are bound. Or you might be bound anyway… someone correct me on this?
If it can be demonstrated that he was indeed drunk and that affected his judgement or capacity to comprehend the terms of the agreement, the contract will not be valid.
Look, I worked a company that was designed around people being dumb enough to not read ToS agreements. Many people simply didn’t read it and agreed to it anyway, but some of people that called in were french Canadians that didn’t speak English for crap, and guess what? The ‘I didn’t understand it’ argument didn’t fly. Simply put, these people should not have been agreeing to things they don’t understand.
Real world experience > law student experience.
It is rather scary playing a game with such ban happy GMs. Knowing that at any minute they could find fault with something you are doing and, rather than warn you or temp suspend you, ban you permanently and send you on your way.
I’m honestly surprised they didn’t perm ban everyone who Plinx farmed as well.
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
If they agree to it, absolutely.
Obviously your understanding in law and common sense is lacking. How does one agree to something, in which, they don’t know what that something is? Do you seriously expect a “contract” written in spanish or chinese in which the person “agreeing” to it simply does not have the ability to understand it to hold up in a court of law? I suppose with your reasoning, it comes as no surprise you agree with ANet’s decision.
-Law student.
If I was drunk when I agreed to the UELA, am I bound to it?
Yes, unless Anet made you drunk against your will or knowledge (such as spiking your drink or something) and you signed the UELA, then you are bound. Or you might be bound anyway… someone correct me on this?
If it can be demonstrated that he was indeed drunk and that affected his judgement or capacity to comprehend the terms of the agreement, the contract will not be valid.
Look, I worked a company that was designed around people being dumb enough to not read ToS agreements. Many people simply didn’t read it and agreed to it anyway, but some of people that called in were french Canadians that didn’t speak English for crap, and guess what? The ‘I didn’t understand it’ argument didn’t fly. Simply put, these people should not have been agreeing to things they don’t understand.
Real world experience > law student experience.
It seems like you do not understand what you are talking about…
Now, i want you to think about who the ToS is for. In case you didn’t figure it out, its design for the court and to cover their behind if a dispute were to occur.
What you’re saying sounds a lot like your company upholding their policy and taking a stance in ignorance to the law. Should this french speaking client of yours file claim in court, it would be a case what lawyer would call “slam dunk” because its obvious what the outcome would be. Assuming the person legitimately doesn’t speak that language.
Yes, you shouldn’t agree to something you don’t understand, but who’s to say they understand they are agreeing to something? Or better yet, why should the person who insist in its validity of the contract present a document that the other party may not understand in the first place?
Common sense > “real world experience”
But ofc, nobody ever reads that and then whines about getting banned.
I won’t argue that they don’t have the right to ban the players, simply that it was totally unattractive, and even moreso given the statements they’ve made regarding the bans.
On the bright side, I have no pity for NCSoft, Anet or the development team.
Who reads the TOS? Did you?
What if i’m not good with English? You can’t agree to a contract to which you don’t have the capacity to fully comphrend it. It will be deem voided.Don’t make me laugh.
What? Should someone be bound to a contract that they don’t understand?
If they agree to it, absolutely.
Obviously your understanding in law and common sense is lacking. How does one agree to something, in which, they don’t know what that something is? Do you seriously expect a “contract” written in spanish or chinese in which the person “agreeing” to it simply does not have the ability to understand it to hold up in a court of law? I suppose with your reasoning, it comes as no surprise you agree with ANet’s decision.
-Law student.
If I was drunk when I agreed to the UELA, am I bound to it?
Yes, unless Anet made you drunk against your will or knowledge (such as spiking your drink or something) and you signed the UELA, then you are bound. Or you might be bound anyway… someone correct me on this?
If it can be demonstrated that he was indeed drunk and that affected his judgement or capacity to comprehend the terms of the agreement, the contract will not be valid.
Look, I worked a company that was designed around people being dumb enough to not read ToS agreements. Many people simply didn’t read it and agreed to it anyway, but some of people that called in were french Canadians that didn’t speak English for crap, and guess what? The ‘I didn’t understand it’ argument didn’t fly. Simply put, these people should not have been agreeing to things they don’t understand.
Real world experience > law student experience.
It seems like you do not understand what you are talking about…
Now, i want you to think about who the ToS is for. In case you didn’t figure it out, its design for the court and to cover their behind if a dispute were to occur.
What you’re saying sounds a lot like your company upholding their policy and taking a stance in ignorance to the law. Should this french speaking client of yours file claim in court, it would be a case what lawyer would call “slam dunk” because its obvious what the outcome would be. Assuming the person legitimately doesn’t speak that language.Yes, you shouldn’t agree to something you don’t understand, but who’s to say they understand they are agreeing to something? Or better yet, why should the person who insist in its validity of the contract present a document that the other party may not understand in the first place?
Common sense > “real world experience”
It was my JOB to know what I am talking about.
Again, the only reason anyone would know that they are agreeing to something is if they understand it. The documents written in language X are for people that speak and understand language X. If a person that speaks and understands language Y comes along, they shouldn’t mess with it because its written in language X and they don’t understand it and shouldn’t agree to things they don’t understand. The only reason he would be in a situation in which he would be agreeing to something he didn’t understand was if he already had an idea of what he wanted out of it. For example, a game comes out, but it’s foreign, and isn’t available in your native language, but you may find it irresistible and want to play it, which means dealing with those documents you don’t understand. Now a smart person would do some research and find out what they are getting into. A dumb person would not. People don’t get into those situations by accident. Not unless they were randomly traipsing around websites and content they didn’t understand. Which is also stupid.
Common sense is not getting involved with things you are not familiar with.
(edited by phlemhacker.1372)