TOS clarification

[Byrth]

The community at large has taken some liberties with the Terms of Service over the last few years. I was hoping for some clarification of policies that are either not enforced or don't mean what we think they mean. I recognize that nothing you tell us on these forums is legally binding, and would rather not wait for you to consult your lawyers before answering.

I will be pulling these from the Software License Agreement (http://support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=20&la=1&tag=ff11soft), the User Agreement (http://support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=20&la=1&tag=ff11user), and the POL member agreement (http://support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=20&la=1&tag=polmember), starting with the SLA and UA.


To the maximum extent permitted by law, you may not: (a) modify, reverse engineer, decompile, "hack," or disassemble the Licensed Software; (b) rent, lease, sublicense, distribute, or transmit the Licensed Software to any third party; (c) rent, lease, sell, distribute, transmit or otherwise transfer your User or other account-related information (including, but not limited to, your PlayOnlineID or password information) to any third party, or attempt to obtain the PlayOnline ID or password of any other User; (d) make any copy of or otherwise reproduce the Licensed Software; (e) infringe any copyright, trademark rights, or any other intellectual property rights of SEI or its licensors or, (f) use the Licensed Software to provide service bureau or time-sharing services (e.g., cybercafés), or for any other commercial purpose. The Licensed Software is for your personal use only and may not be copied, leased, or made available for use by others.

You acknowledge and agree that any authorized or unauthorized derivative works of the Licensed Software, or the Documentation, including any and all data that you generate through your use of the PlayOnline Service or the Licensed Software, are the sole and exclusive property of SEI. You hereby irrevocably assign to SEI all right, title, and interest in and to any and all such authorized or unauthorized derivative works created by you or on your behalf. SEI reserves its right, in its sole discretion, to request that any such derivative works possessed or otherwise controlled by you be delivered to SEI or be destroyed.


(d) Any intellectual property infringement or trade secret violation; this includes the unauthorized use, duplication, transmission, display, performance or distribution of any intellectual property relating to the Game or PlayOnline Service, or owned by any third party, or any other commission of any act of copyright, trademark, or patent infringement, trade secret infringement or misappropriation;


(g) Use of any cheat codes or cheat devices.


(h) In addition, SEI does not consent to or authorize any recording or reproduction of any communications between SEI and you. You may not record, reproduce or publish any communication with SEI. In addition to any other rights or remedies that SEI may have, you may also be subject to criminal and civil sanctions and fines.

Questions:
1) Many people post information about game mechanics that they've obtained through careful observation. Some, like Kaeko, consider this to be in direct violation of SLA Section 2.4. Is mathematical analysis of game mechanics a violation of the Terms of Service?
2) There are third party programs that interact with the game but don't appear to do any of the things listed as illegal in SLA Section 2.4a, like the unofficial windowers, which only serve to modify the game interface. However, these programs may be covered by UA Section 3.1g or POL Member agreement 4.4i. What is the official stance on such programs?
3) There are various downloads of Final Fantasy XI, complete with patches, that are faster than downloading the game and then patches sequentially, which has been known to take days. These downloads alone do not give anyone the ability to log in, as they still need to buy registration codes. Is this in violation of the Terms of Service section 2.4 b, d, and the final paragraph? Corollary: Why the heck don't you guys sell the fully patched version of the game?
4) UA Section 3.1h basically states that we're not able to document transactions with SE, which is of questionable legal merit as it's likely our right to record transactions with service providers. Still, it is common practice for people to post scripts of their discussions with GMs and SE chat reps in order for the community to help them. Is this a violation of the Terms of Service?


(c) SEI reserves the right to terminate PlayOnline Service in whole or in part for any reason with or without prior notice.
(d) SEI MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ANY PLAYONLINE ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME, WITH ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.

5) This is less of a question, and more of a public-policy note for the future. This section seems to undermine the validity of the rest of your terms of service. This section states (in capital letters no less) that even if we're following the rules, we can be banned. The odds of banning in either case (following rules vs. not) are unclear, so this line actually decreases the perceived punishment for disobeying the rules. At a time, the odds of someone getting banned for having a lot of gardening mules was higher than the odds of someone getting banned for buying gil. If you can be banned for not violating the TOS and not banned for violating the TOS, why pay attention to the TOS?


(i) Use of any cheat codes or cheat devices; or
(j) Violating any Rule.

6) Section 4.4j is ambiguous. Rules are defined as "means any rules or other instructions applicable to the PlayOnline Service (or any aspect thereof) that may be posted on the Website and within the PlayOnline Service from time to time for Users to access and review." I'm not sure how we would find those rules or know about them. Was this an idea from a decade ago that never really got off the ground, or is it another catch-all like Section 3.4c/d?


SEI will terminate the account of any User who uses his or her account privileges to unlawfully transmit copyrighted material without a license, valid defense or fair use privilege to do so.

7) Does this section of the member's agreement mean we can be banned for posting screenshots? (not that it matters, due to section 3.1c/d)

PS. You have a spelling error in Article 3a of the user agreement. "playerfs"

[Kingofgeeks]

bump for great justice!

[Auriga]

Yes, lets have SE clear up things with the tos here. Square? hello??? time to come down and talk to the adults perhaps?

[Insaniac]

Props on reading the ToS.

[Heady]

Yes, lets have SE clear up things with the tos here.

I agree. Though most online games these days make me feel like I need my lawyer to decipher company favoring loopholes in their EULA's

[Auriga]

Some people do read such things an as usual when they have questions the topic
is either ignored or pushed towards another level of support which isn't able to
actually DO anything anyways.

[casual]

Thanks for taking the time to post this Byrth, I really hope a GM responds to clarify on these things.

[Cream_Soda]

I hope we are not banished to the shadow realm

[Rambus]

your question 1. I think that applays more to analyst to duplicate the game and using the formulas for other games.

I would really debate them in allowing no one mathematical analyst because that tells us what gear is worthwhile and not. Then if it is a violation where do you draw the line? saying when i have x/y/z gear i have 9 mp /tic vs 6 from refresh II?

Your 5. is a big issue of mine because I had a mule account banned and was called RMT. I was not RMT with my mule account; all it did was be a mule. so making mass trades with your self is auto RMT i guess.

There was also a line in the ToS that state you are not allowed to share an account, where do you draw the line with that when you have 2 people that may live together that use the same account but different characters?

I was told by GM that account sharing was ok and that it was only stated in ToS to make you think of account theft ( like sharing it with a friend then have them take it)

[Starcade]

The community at large has taken some liberties with the Terms of Service over the last few years.


In other news, grass is green, water is wet, and the sky is blue.

Until something is actually done about a lot of it, though...


I was hoping for some clarification of policies that are either not enforced or don't mean what we think they mean. I recognize that nothing you tell us on these forums is legally binding, and would rather not wait for you to consult your lawyers before answering.


I actually would rather wait to consult Square-Enix Legal. I think more than a few of the players (and more than a few of the violations mentioned) would be matters for Square-Enix Legal, for reasons I've gone into (with great return flamage) a number of times.



1) Many people post information about game mechanics that they've obtained through careful observation. Some, like Kaeko, consider this to be in direct violation of SLA Section 2.4. Is mathematical analysis of game mechanics a violation of the Terms of Service?


It would appear that you are discussing the likes of "parsing" ones damage output (basically, there are third-party programs players use to pull out how much damage they are doing under certain situations).

This would appear to be a direct violation of the TOS, not only because of the nature of the parser being a 3PP (third-party program), but the following pull-out from your quote:



including any and all data that you generate through your use of the PlayOnline Service or the Licensed Software, are the sole and exclusive property of SEI.


So that means that parsing your damage output is data you generate through the Licensed Software, and, hence, you are not entitled to use that for any purpose outside Square-Enix International's allowance.

So my answer by that would be YES -- Parsing is illegal.

If you are simply stating that the player is being diligent and going back to check his work through the chat logs, that might be another matter.


2) There are third party programs that interact with the game but don't appear to do any of the things listed as illegal in SLA Section 2.4a, like the unofficial windowers, which only serve to modify the game interface. However, these programs may be covered by UA Section 3.1g or POL Member agreement 4.4i. What is the official stance on such programs?


Let me change the question:

What is the stance that Square-Enix is willing to freaking enforce?

If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times -- if Windower is ever banned and the players using it likewise, FFXI is finished.

People know my stance on that: If that's the case, sayanora to FFXI.

This is probably the single most-abused situation out there, because it not only appears to allow Windower through mob rule, but it also appears to allow many more malicious and blatant bots to flourish (some at great real-money profit to their creators!) to basically disallow certain players from ever experiencing much of the elite content in the game.

A bot is a cheat device -- so is any modification of the user interface over and above that which Square-Enix specifically provides to you. You could even say that Windower, in addition to being a 3PP, is a reverse-modification of the game.

On December 24, 2009, Square-Enix posted a statement to the playerbase with a zero-tolerance policy toward 3PP -- and, yet, Windower players are not touched. WHY??

If so many players are playing with Windower that the rule cannot be enforced, the rule needs to be terminated so that players like myself can operate on a level and legal playing field.


3) There are various downloads of Final Fantasy XI, complete with patches, that are faster than downloading the game and then patches sequentially, which has been known to take days. These downloads alone do not give anyone the ability to log in, as they still need to buy registration codes. Is this in violation of the Terms of Service section 2.4 b, d, and the final paragraph? Corollary: Why the heck don't you guys sell the fully patched version of the game?

Corollary answer is easy: The fully patched version of the game changes from time to time. Hell, you probably get three or four patches within a week of every major version update! That's why...

I could definitely see them coming up with some way to have a patched version online to buy from their own site!

As for the main question:

(b), violation, transmission to a third party (even if that third party is a receptacle of the files which others can (illegally) download).

(d), violation, as you have a reproduction of the Licensed Software (the only way you could not is not having the one of your own).

Final paragraph, violation, as one has no right to disseminate any of the software to other parties unless they are SEI.

Across the board violation.

(Now you see why Square-Enix admitting they read BG is a real problematic discussion for people like me who want the cheaters out?)


4) UA Section 3.1h basically states that we're not able to document transactions with SE, which is of questionable legal merit as it's likely our right to record transactions with service providers. Still, it is common practice for people to post scripts of their discussions with GMs and SE chat reps in order for the community to help them. Is this a violation of the Terms of Service?

Yes. You don't have a right to transmit that information, as it's proprietary information.

One of the biggest problems with the playerbase is their continued abrogation of the fact that they own nothing with respect to the game. Most violations of the TOS are basically efforts to circumvent that ownership by Square-Enix.


5) This is less of a question, and more of a public-policy note for the future. This section seems to undermine the validity of the rest of your terms of service. This section states (in capital letters no less) that even if we're following the rules, we can be banned. The odds of banning in either case (following rules vs. not) are unclear, so this line actually decreases the perceived punishment for disobeying the rules. At a time, the odds of someone getting banned for having a lot of gardening mules was higher than the odds of someone getting banned for buying gil. If you can be banned for not violating the TOS and not banned for violating the TOS, why pay attention to the TOS?

About the only real thing you can say to it is that it reduces the chances of you getting banned -- but you can still be banned for no reason whatsoever (and they probably don't even technically have to tell you!).

Of course, given what you've probably read, you could probably counter with a nasty letter to Square-Enix Legal and all Hell could break loose...


6) Section 4.4j is ambiguous. Rules are defined as "means any rules or other instructions applicable to the PlayOnline Service (or any aspect thereof) that may be posted on the Website and within the PlayOnline Service from time to time for Users to access and review." I'm not sure how we would find those rules or know about them. Was this an idea from a decade ago that never really got off the ground, or is it another catch-all like Section 3.4c/d?


From my read, it's a catch-all, including the TOS themselves. Square-Enix has done a very poor job, IMHO, of saying what the rules are -- and, then even with the ones they do tell you, enforcing them.

It brings not only every player action into question (see the earlier discussion from the "raise min level Abyssea to 70" mega-thread), it brings into question whether certain players and groups are allowed preferential treatment by Square-Enix.


7) Does this section of the member's agreement mean we can be banned for posting screenshots? (not that it matters, due to section 3.1c/d)


Depends on how Square-Enix Legal looks at "fair use". Posting them to blogs probably doesn't get you touched, because "fair use" under Copyright Law allows excerpting, at the least, for purposes of critique and commentary.

I'll be interested in any replies from Square-Enix.

[Starcade]

your question 1. I think that applays more to analyst to duplicate the game and using the formulas for other games.

I would really debate them in allowing no one mathematical analyst because that tells us what gear is worthwhile and not. Then if it is a violation where do you draw the line? saying when i have x/y/z gear i have 9 mp /tic vs 6 from refresh II?


And hence why we end up with a situation, especially post-Salvage bans, that EVERY ACTION THE PLAYERS TAKE must now be put into question.

(Which is why I don't get as angry with the "you must be making the bots" types like in the earlier-referenced thread!)


Your 5. is a big issue of mine because I had a mule account banned and was called RMT. I was not RMT with my mule account; all it did was be a mule. so making mass trades with your self is auto RMT i guess.


They have so much RMT (in fact, I assert that RMT was the only thing propping up the 32-server FFXI, and possibly the 24-server FFXI as well!!!) that they had to go with automatic means to go after RMT -- the RMT PWNER v. 1.337, anyone?


There was also a line in the ToS that state you are not allowed to share an account, where do you draw the line with that when you have 2 people that may live together that use the same account but different characters?


It's effectively sharing an account, though. Hence, probably illegal, though largely ignored as such.

If it's legal, then that clause needs a clarification.

[Khale]

Huh. Seems pretty clear to me. Keep your nose clean, and SE won't ban you. The fine print is only there for people who are trying to find loopholes.

Which, it would seem, is what everybody is doing.

[Byrth]

First off, thanks for the support guys. I hope this topic sees a GM response within a week or so.

I'm waiting for an unofficial response from the people who enforce the rules, because I think a lot of what I'm asking about is ass-covering stuff that the legal team put in in the first place. There's no point in waiting for the legal team to be consulted, because they'd just tell the GMs that they can't say anything that might undermine the TOS in the future. If I make it obvious that any GM response isn't legally binding, maybe I can get a response.

Also, Khale, it's a little less clear than that. I know several people who lost accounts to the gardening bans. People were growing chocobo stuff and NPCing it for a moderate amount of constant income. SE banned everyone doing that. It was meant to combat RMT, but there was no warning and no check for high level characters associated with the account and plenty of legitimate players that just wanted their 50k/crop got hit as well. It isn't like you look at 50k/crop profit and go, "Oh man, that's obviously an exploit. Look at how many mithkabobs I can buy with that!" For reference, plenty of people have done this with Ice ore forever. A byproduct of Ice ore is platinum leaves, which NPC for over 1k each. That's why Ice ores are so cheap.

PS Starcade: you quoted Rambus but put my name on it.

[Starcade]

Huh. Seems pretty clear to me. Keep your nose clean, and SE won't ban you. The fine print is only there for people who are trying to find loopholes.

Which, it would seem, is what everybody is doing.

Which is why simply "Keep your nose clean" is not sufficient, because a lot of these people believe they are doing exactly that.

The problem is, as the OP noted, that is not even sufficient.

[Starcade]

PS Starcade: you quoted Rambus but put my name on it.

Handled and corrected. Danke.



First off, thanks for the support guys. I hope this topic sees a GM response within a week or so.

I'm waiting for an unofficial response from the people who enforce the rules, because I think a lot of what I'm asking about is ass-covering stuff that the legal team put in in the first place. There's no point in waiting for the legal team to be consulted, because they'd just tell the GMs that they can't say anything that might undermine the TOS in the future. If I make it obvious that any GM response isn't legally binding, maybe I can get a response.


Thing is, I don't want an UNOFFICIAL response.

I want a fully official response, because I've been considering questioning whether the implicit allowance of a lot of this baloney constitutes a legally fraudulent act (a full nullification of the Terms as a binding limitation on conduct of play) by Square-Enix.

(One of the reasons I'd gladly wait for them to consult Legal on it.)

You see, much of this stuff is an ownership question, not unlike when Square-Enix went Legal on some bootleg Final Fantasy people (I believe they were gunblades or somesuch, if my memory serves...). In fact, if some sort of implicit "value" were put on some of the items, I could see players be held to the standard of theft laws for improper conduct leading to the acquisition of major items.

If they refuse to enforce the rules because it would damage the future of the game, what game is there a future to?



Also, Khale, it's a little less clear than that. I know several people who lost accounts to the gardening bans. People were growing chocobo stuff and NPCing it for a moderate amount of constant income. SE banned everyone doing that. It was meant to combat RMT, but there was no warning and no check for high level characters associated with the account and plenty of legitimate players that just wanted their 50k/crop got hit as well. It isn't like you look at 50k/crop profit and go, "Oh man, that's obviously an exploit. Look at how many mithkabobs I can buy with that!" For reference, plenty of people have done this with Ice ore forever. A byproduct of Ice ore is platinum leaves, which NPC for over 1k each. That's why Ice ores are so cheap.


Blame RMT for not being able to have good things. It's my position (and was when they announced it at VanaFest 2010) that there was so much RMT out there that it was the only reason that there was the illusion of enough players to justify 32 servers (and now, basically the same with 24).

They made it clear that there was so much RMT that there were automatic-ban means of dealing with RMT (the RMT PWNER v. 1.337), and they wanted to make sure that people got nowhere near where they could be touched.

[Khale]

Also, Khale, it's a little less clear than that.


But it is clear cut.



(c) SEI reserves the right to terminate PlayOnline Service in whole or in part for any reason with or without prior notice.
(d) SEI MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE ANY PLAYONLINE ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME, WITH ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.

SE can ban your shit, and they don't even need a reason.Gardening bans/salvage dups/leveling nakied in the dunes, these are all bannable offenses.

Incidentally, why would you accept the ToS if you didn't understand it? Sounds pretty silly to me.

[Byrth]

But it is clear cut.



SE can ban your shit, and they don't even need a reason.Gardening bans/salvage dups/leveling nakied in the dunes, these are all bannable offenses.

Incidentally, why would you accept the ToS if you didn't understand it? Sounds pretty silly to me.

Oh? If it's that clear cut, why have any part of the ToS beyond that section?

Might as well just say, "Hey, you don't like it get bant!"

[ValronXI]

Props on reading the ToS.

this..........

[ValronXI]

this..........

adding to this...

why not let everyone get banned? with current exp rates it will take maybe... 3 months non stop play to get a level 90 job? and gear and gil is soooooooooooooo easy to come by compared to what it was years ago.

if SE bans anyone they will be back on the same server in the same linkshell doing the same thing they were before they were banned.

just smarter to the matter.

abyssea killed this game.

and made exp a joke.

[Phoenyx]

adding to this...

How is that, in any way, adding to the subject of this thread? Go shit up one of the already troll-laden Abyssea threads.

On topic: I'd say most of your questions are completely valid, Byrth, save the question at the end of point 5. That clause exists in almost any legal document, TOS or EULA. It's very similar to signs in retail shops that say stuff like "We reserve the right to refuse anyone service." Only difference being that in this case, why would they bother banning anyone if they didn't at least have some basis to do so? Even if it was speculative, if they're going to bother to ban an account they think a rule was broken somewhere. Just my nickel. (Who carries pennies anymore? :D)

[Byrth]

On topic: I'd say most of your questions are completely valid, Byrth, save the question at the end of point 5.

Thanks, and I know. That's why I said at the beginning of point 5 that it would be more of a statement than anything else. I just turned it into a question to keep the same format as the other points. =p

Also ValronXI, a part of the TOS I didn't quote (and another seemingly unenforced part) is the part that says SE bans resubscribers to any of their services. So if you're banned from FFXI and resubscribe, it says they'll ban you again. Heck, the way they have it worded they could ban you from FFXIV for having been banned from FFXI in the past. Then again, as long as they keep the catch-all they could ban you even if you hadn't been banned before.

[Starcade]

Also ValronXI, a part of the TOS I didn't quote (and another seemingly unenforced part) is the part that says SE bans resubscribers to any of their services. So if you're banned from FFXI and resubscribe, it says they'll ban you again. Heck, the way they have it worded they could ban you from FFXIV for having been banned from FFXI in the past. Then again, as long as they keep the catch-all they could ban you even if you hadn't been banned before.

There is one prominent member of the broadcast FFXI community (or at least has been for a while) who was banned for Salvage duping and allowed to return.

There was another player who was on my LS when I was on Siren and helped out on a lot of stuff. I eventually found out, though (and that my LS completely withheld the information from me), which basically forced me to report my own account to the STF for any possible malfeasance, and to find another server to play on.

[Byrth]

There is one prominent member of the broadcast FFXI community (or at least has been for a while) who was banned for Salvage duping and allowed to return.

There was another player who was on my LS when I was on Siren and helped out on a lot of stuff. I eventually found out, though (and that my LS completely withheld the information from me), which basically forced me to report my own account to the STF for any possible malfeasance, and to find another server to play on.

Several people from the Salvage Bans who got LM-11'd or perma-17s were eventually allowed to come back, but all the ones I know of were people who know people.

I'm kind of confused on the second part. Someone helped your LS out a lot and had been banned before, so you GMed yourself and changed servers? Maybe I'm missing something, but if they aren't banning him then they probably won't ban you for partying with him, and there's nothing in the TOS besides their catch-all that would give them the right to ban you. I don't think you understand how common what you're describing is.

Heck, I know people who still play that got banned back in 2004 for MPKing people with the BST job quest Kraken in Qufim before the MPK patch. Turns out they aren't 15 years old anymore, so they aren't doing stupid stuff like that anymore either. I take SE's failure to enforce this to be their version of a second chance. Many people have grown up from hormonal teenagers to married men and women, and it seems stupid to perma ban them away from the friends they have grown up with because they acted like dumb teenagers when they were dumb teenagers.

Think about it, if they banned by credit card still even Rambus would be gone just because they banned his mule for a stupid reason. Heck, I had a friend who server-hopped his mule with 100mil to buy currency on another server (where it was cheaper) for his Claustrum and they banned his mule.

[Khale]

Oh? If it's that clear cut, why have any part of the ToS beyond that section?

Might as well just say, "Hey, you don't like it get bant!"


Pretty much. Companies don't like making things simple. Naturally, they make it much longer to sway the majority of people from reading how they have no rights to the goods they just purchased. Hurts business, I'd imagine.

I could totally be mistaken, but the gardening bans happened because they were selling their useless stuff to the same NPC that RMT were using in Bastok Mines.

Pretty sure you won't find 'SELLING STUFFZ TO GALKAS IS BANNABLE' in the ToS. Totally should be, though.

[CrystalWeapon]

I've always been curious about whether or not .dat modding armor, faces, hair, monsters, etc... aesthetically could be classified as a violation of the TOS.

[Kyte]

There is one prominent member of the broadcast FFXI community (or at least has been for a while) who was banned for Salvage duping and allowed to return.

There was another player who was on my LS when I was on Siren and helped out on a lot of stuff. I eventually found out, though (and that my LS completely withheld the information from me), which basically forced me to report my own account to the STF for any possible malfeasance, and to find another server to play on.

I notice you used to have your character (and maybe still do if you changed your character name) on FFXIAH. Technically that site gathers data in a similar manner as a parser. Do you think you should get banned for using that site?

[Starcade]

I notice you used to have your character (and maybe still do if you changed your character name). Technically that site gathers data in a similar manner as a parser. Do you think you should get banned for using that site?

Uhhh, you're missing part of your statement here. You may wish to edit and try again. If you believe I am using a parser, that definitely is for the Special Task Force to examine, as I said before.

FFXIAH, may I assume? Depends on whether Square-Enix allows it...

[Greatguardian]

FFXIAH, may I assume? Depends on whether Square-Enix allows it...

Square Enix allows a lot of things. It's still not legit. Even if you stop using FFXIAH, you've already used it. Once a cheater, always a cheater.

[Kyte]

Uhhh, you're missing part of your statement here. You may wish to edit and try again. If you believe I am using a parser, that definitely is for the Special Task Force to examine, as I said before.

FFXIAH, may I assume? Depends on whether Square-Enix allows it...

Yes I did, I must have been really tired when I wrote that lol

Anywho, the point is that the line between "cheating" and "being legit" or whatever is a little broader than you are giving credit.

[Starcade]

Yes I did, I must have been really tired when I wrote that lol

Anywho, the point is that the line between "cheating" and "being legit" or whatever is a little broader than you are giving credit.

I disagree entirely. Any "broadening" is a function of Square-Enix being unwilling to enforce their rules, plus a player-base who has taken great joy in taking advantage of same.

[Starcade]

Square Enix allows a lot of things. It's still not legit. Even if you stop using FFXIAH, you've already used it. Once a cheater, always a cheater.

Several points:

1) We had a discussion about this of the situation regarding the Souleater-KC DRKs running over Absolute Virtue. There's a difference between illegitimacy and illegality (and I think you wish to charge me with the latter, not the former). The Souleater-KC zerg situation was not illegal, but it was declared illegitimate.

2) This is not the first time I've had this discussion with people, as there are people who believe the Wiki is also illegal.

I'd suggest contacting the Special Task Force -- especially because your last statement is completely correct.

[Byrth]

You're misunderstanding the Members agreement section 3.1c/d. Anything is illegal if and when SE says it is, regardless of what it is. Doing nothing may be equally damning. The only effective account penalty is banning, so that's really all that matters.

I've never heard of SE banning anyone for Windower usage, Wiki usage, FFXIAH usage, Parsing, Spellcast, or any of the other things that you seem to disapprove of. Therefore they're effectively not against the TOS.

It would be nice if we could get a developer or GM response to my questions though.

[Swords]

1. Section 2.4 basically states you agree to not do anything other than use the game as it was intended. You agree to not try to alter, decode, resell, give away, or distribute or use any non-liscensed 3rd party software involved with the game, which also includes you account which you do not own, you merely pay for the service to play the game. However, decoding game mechanics through trial and error does not violate this because you are not data-mining or hacking game code to discover how it works.

2. Desipte the fact that there are some programs that do modify the game without giving the player an unfair advantage, it still is considered against the ToS. While they might not let you cheat they still violate 2.4 because they either alter, data-mine, or somehow interact with POL and FFXI through unofficial 3rd party software.

3. Unless it's being sold or distributed through an official SE liscensed seller, it is against the ToS. Additionally if you buy or download these patches that are not distributed through a liscensed SE seller you open yourself up to loads of potential hacks, keyloggers, trojans, and who the hell knows what else. If your really desperate for faster updates, get a faster internet service thats all I can say.

4. Yup, your not supposed to release or document any communications between you or SE. I know it's common for people to post pictures of their conversations with GM's and stuff, but your not supposed too. They do it to both watch their backs and help protect customers privacy, which is why they resolve incidents in jail half the time rather than in public with lots of people around.

5. True, it does seem to undermine the entire policy, it's extremely rare that they would ban you just for nothing though. Alot of times the people you hear cry wolf when they get banned are hardly innocent, and most of the time feign ignorance that they did anything wrong. The policy was probably put in place to deal with these kind's of people.

6. Yup, pretty much just another catch all policy. You get all those sue-happy people nowadays looking for any excuse or loophole to get some free cash, you don't want to take chances.

7. No, 7.1 referrs to banning your account for using it for anything that would lawfully be considered illegal. An example would be file sharing illegaly downloaded mp3's, hacked DVD's, or sharing account info through Private messages or your SE mail account.

[Kyte]

Given that Wiki is a community site, it is pretty silly to even suggest that it is against the ToS.

[Cream_Soda]

2) This is not the first time I've had this discussion with people, as there are people who believe the Wiki is also illegal.
And those people are morons

[Byrth]

I'm going to make a statement here that I believe to be correct:
* There have been 0 cases of SE banning exclusively for windower (and windower-endorsed plugin) usage. Every single case where someone claims to have been banned for windower usage eventually is revealed to be false. Either they've RMTed, botted, or used third party tools beyond the scope of windower. Windower has been committed to improving FFXI gameplay experience without unbalancing it and maintains very tight control over its source code for that reason.

Follow the logic here:
1) Because of section 3.1c/d of the member's agreement, the only way we can determine the effective TOS is by watching it in practice.
2) Banning (temp or perma) is the only real penalty associated with violating the TOS.
3) To date, no one has been banned specifically for windower usage.
4) If 1, 2, and 3 are correct, then it naturally follows that Windower usage isn't against the effective TOS.

The reason SE doesn't release a windower with all the functions that the unofficial windower has is that the PS2 and Xbox players would be unable to take advantage. The reason that they don't enforce the TOS with regards to the windower is this:
Stats on windower usage- http://www.jpbutton.com/?page_id=3113
NA community's reaction when asked about it- http://www.jpbutton.com/?p=573
JP community's opinion towards windower (tl;dr: you get the same spread of reactions as NAs, perhaps more towards the rule-following boyscout side)- http://jpbutton.bluegartr.com/?p=1797

Subnote:
I've heard of one case where someone got their final account strike (after several previous offenses related to botting) when their computer messed up and they started shooting out Unicode characters in the shout channel, which you can't make without using a third party program. They were sort of indirectly indicted and banned for generic third party program use because of this, but they were hanging on by a thread anyway.

[Starcade]

Given that Wiki is a community site, it is pretty silly to even suggest that it is against the ToS.

It has been done, though, in the same manner as the earlier person tries to use against me.

[noodles355]

The first rule of windower is you do not talk about windower.

[noodles355]

Was this thread just moved/merged/renamed without any notice?

[Byrth]

Nope, only two new posts are yours.

[Gokku]

id love to see these questions answered but sadly they never will , btw what ever happen to Elmer *i think was his name* if we could get this thing accurately translated into Japanese we might get an answer?

[Laraul]

If you we're in charge of running the game, would you simply remove people from the game because they might have violated some lawyer-speak? Or would you just focus on the players who cause the community trouble and need to be removed so people can enjoy themselves?

This TOS is just so they can fall back to some stuff should they get sued because the grounds for dismissal weren't clearly stated. You seriously think that people willing to get your personal info such as credit card numbers and the like WOULDN'T make an attempt to sue the big corp like SE? They would have nothing to loose... yeah they'd sue em.

You people think that the TOS is seen in terms of black and white. It's not. Why do you think it's so ambiguous? Cuz it's not supposed to be a rule book.