TOS clarification

[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? )