I got termination ban but I thought it was too harsh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qoaewbh10

I only use mouse macros actually. I am proud of clearing any ultimate without 3rd-part apps. That's why I kept asking supprot center what "PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES" I did. Because I didn't use any 3rd-part apps in game, then, I cannot figure out what PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES will make me to get perma ban.

---

lol you already know why you got banned then fam

mouse macros is third party usage whether you like it or not, obv you were botting and it was either noticed and reported en masse or SE picked up on it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Padudu

lol you already know why you got banned then fam

mouse macros is third party usage whether you like it or not, obv you were botting and it was either noticed and reported en masse or SE picked up on it

---

It still doesn't make sense because the infraction is ultimately minor.

You had world first teams get a temp ban after being caught looking down at the boss from space while a bot does callouts and shows where to move. They went above and beyond to exploit as much of the game as possible to only receive a slap on the wrist.

Those orbital world first guys deleted themselves didn’t they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troxbark

It still doesn't make sense because the infraction is ultimately minor.

You had world first teams get a temp ban after being caught looking down at the boss from space while a bot does callouts and shows where to move. They went above and beyond to exploit as much of the game as possible to only receive a slap on the wrist.

---

ACT/Cactbot doesn't do the mechanics for you. Macroing clicks from a program that is used to bot and used by bots would warrant a ban vs a suspension, I would think. Especially when you're reported en masse by people. The infraction isn't really that minor when OP was flagged for botting lol. Ofc they would ban what they essentially think is a bot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fulminating

Those orbital world first guys deleted themselves didn’t they?

---

Yeah, iirc they did it themselves after the community shamed the shit out of them. But Square themselves saw the evidence of them cheating in a really public way that was blowing up hard, and all they asked them to officially do was delete the gear they won from it, while deleting their titles. Going off of that standard, OP could have received an account strike and his botted items removed, but straight up termination is dumb. Granted, it was also dumb to bot in public lmao. But man. The double standard. I'd be mad af if I were OP. Imagine watching everyone else break rules and straight up film it or flaunt it and square takes baby steps, but when you do it they pull out the glock and shoot your account right in the head. No rhyme or reason, no escalation, no warning. Silliness. Even funnier when you remember that this is in limsa, which is constantly besieged by trolling alt accounts of naked maleroes who harass lalafell players by standing on top of them and calling them pedophiles, but they get to do this for weeks and weeks. Just saying, Limsa's a shithole and you couldn't pay me to idle there.

so you got caught botting and you blame square?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaynide

You're welcome to die on that hill, but to quote the ToS in the ONLY PART THAT IS ENTIRELY BOLDED, UNDERLINED AND IN CALL CAPS:



Specifically the part I made red. In the thing players explicitly agree to in order to play the game.

---

the fact is there doesn't mean they do it or plan to in the future this is stated just to cover all bases and basics, is cute you try to defend or find the legality in that but the reality is different, if they did something like that EVEN if stated in the ToS DOESNT make it 100% binding nor legal , remember thats not a contract just an agreement with no signature so the validity of such is somewhat low at best, there has been several mmo companies that have been sued for this, if you think companies cant be touched legally just because the ToS state one thing, here in this scenario OP must likely did something more and not just the "Mouse macro" what shes saying just doesn't add up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keichirou

the fact is there doesn't mean they do it or plan to , is cute you try to defend or find the legality in that but the reality is different, if they did something like that EVEN if stated in the ToS DOESNT make it 100% binding nor legal , remember thats not a contract just an agreement with no signature so the validation of such is somewhat low at best, there has been several mmo companies that have been sued for this, if you think companies cant be touched legally just because the ToS state one thing, oh boi.....
remember the lootboxes drama? if not search for it

---

Contracts don't actually require a signature, or even to be in written form, depending on the contract and value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenseiMaria

Also speaking as an actual lawyer here, It doesn't really matter what it states in a ToS - there's tons of precedent in the past of the US court systems that show ToS are very flimsy when it comes to being upheld in court. Plenty of ToS have lost in court, a couple have succeeded, it highly depends on the actual nature of the case itself.

The more important tidbit is the fact that 99.99999% of the population aren't interested to go through a lengthy, stressful & costly legal battle to challenge it over a video game account that you might ultimately end up losing anyway and be in a worse off situation than before, when just quitting or paying $60-ish bucks to restart are infinitely cheaper alternatives.

---

Even if the account owner appealed and it ended up going to Arbitration, what are the chances that SE would be liable for more than any subscription fee paid but unused after the account was suspended/terminated? Clearly there are grounds for SE to terminate the account under the Prohibited Activities policy in this case. The OP admits to their use of "mouse macros".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troxbark

It still doesn't make sense because the infraction is ultimately minor.

You had world first teams get a temp ban after being caught looking down at the boss from space while a bot does callouts and shows where to move. They went above and beyond to exploit as much of the game as possible to only receive a slap on the wrist.

---

SE is pretty hard on any sort of automation of game play.

While those mods used to cheat were also a problem and also warrant a ban, ultimately the player still had to do the inputs to move their character as needed for the mechanics.

As for the OP, we know there were multiple offenses involved. It wasn't just the "mouse macro" that led to the ban. There was mention that the Registered Users policy was violated. That's something that usually comes up when there is either account sharing or when the original account owner transfers the account to a different individual, something SE does not allow except in cases of transfer between certain family members done with the assistance of Customer Support.

We also don't know what their past history with the GMs has been. As others have said, it's very likely there is more going on than what the OP chose to share. Or if it's an account the OP had purchased from another player, more going on than what the original owner shared with the OP. It would be rather funny if the OP had purchased the account from someone who was selling it off quick because they were down to their last strike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troxbark

It still doesn't make sense because the infraction is ultimately minor.

You had world first teams get a temp ban after being caught looking down at the boss from space while a bot does callouts and shows where to move. They went above and beyond to exploit as much of the game as possible to only receive a slap on the wrist.

---

The infraction is minor. A warning or 3 day ban at most imo. IDK if we're getting the whole story or this person left it running all night in Limsa instead of a private place and that caused it but yeah. I feel there's a piece of the pie that wasn't disclosed. Either way, the premise that termination was too harsh for what was described is true IMO. It is too harsh. However, we don't know if the description was really all that happened or any context really.