So when does SE plan to credit our accounts for the multiple ongoing service issues?

[Rymm]

K, first

indigence

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Moving on. I don't see anyone arguing that the ToS is ironclad. (Though as an aside, I personally think it's funny, the amount of people who obviously didn't read it and clicked 'accept' anyway, then get all rage-y about how it doesn't apply later. But I digress.) People are bringing it up because it's applicable in this case. SE warned us that there might be interruptions in service for various reasons, and that customers do not have a right to compensation should they actually happen.

You claim that there are certain arguments that can punch holes in the ToS clause (Though let's be honest, what lawyer/firm in their right mind would want to even attempt to bring suit against whatever high-powered legal team SE can field over something so petty as this?) but you, yourself, go on to say that the current situation hasn't reached such a point yet that these arguments could apply. So if, by your own admittance, the clause firmly stands, then why on earth are you taking issue with people bringing it up in an attempt to get those people who are actually "raging" to back down?

I would argue that SE owes us nothing because they haven't done anything wrong and because what is happening is outside of their sphere of influence. The ToS doesn't really need to be brought into it, but it was the ragers who want something that opened that particular door when they claimed that SE is legally required to compensate them. Other people then brought up the ToS (the exact legal agreement between the provider and customer) to disprove their erroneous assertions.

[Chronons]

snip

You are correct, I miss-typed and should have used the work indignance. Ill leave it as is for others to learn.

I only take issue with the blanket use of the ToS as a means to shut down conversation on the subject, which I have seen in the thread. Someone presenting it does not prove that SE is not legally obligated to compensate, it is merely SE's reason for not. It should instead be used as a tool to discuss whether or not players have a legal right to compensation. For what its worth, I agree that SE owes us nothing and that the ToS isnt needed to see that. The game, while laggy at times, is mostly playable.