Handling Cheaters Gracefully vs Hardline ToS + Questionable legality of bans

[Qacona]

No. Only terms the court holds valid are valid. For any agreement, but as I pointed out the standard is far stricter for the type of software SE has. There is no point trying to convince anyone -- we are the judge of future attempts to take them to trial. Your argument that "oh it IS legally binding" doesn't matter. A lawyer convincing a judge that they should at least go to trial is all that matters. Not winning or losing, not what the ToS say not any of that.

I swore I'd never post on the FF14 forums, but discount store legal advice is one of my favourite things so I've been sucked in.

Now about 90% of what you've posted is nonsense or misrepresented at best. But lets say that you hire a law wizard who convinces a judge that it's illegal to ban you [which you won't].

But say you did, now it's time to discuss damages.

A judge isn't going to force SQEN to unban your account and provide you service, so you're going to need to think about the dollar value of the damage you've suffered.

You could argue that you bought software that's now worthless. Ok, that's $100 or so?

You might want your subscription fees back as well, but you paid for specific services and received those services so you will never convince a judge that the 'services you received' (an entertainment product) were retroactively damaged by the banning.

You might even argue that the character is yours as well, so congrats. A few weeks after the court case is finalised, you'll get a CD with your character data on it.

Enjoy your $100.

PS: If you do want to argue this, find me a case where a judge has put a perpetual 'specified performance' order in place against a company.

[StealthPaladin]

I swore I'd never post on the FF14 forums, but discount store legal advice is one of my favourite things so I've been sucked in.

Now about 90% of what you've posted is nonsense or misrepresented at best. But lets say that you hire a law wizard who convinces a judge that it's illegal to ban you [which you won't].

But say you did, now it's time to discuss damages.

A judge isn't going to force SQEN to unban your account and provide you service, so you're going to need to think about the dollar value of the damage you've suffered.

You could argue that you bought software that's now worthless. Ok, that's $100 or so?

You might want your subscription fees back as well, but you paid for specific services and received those services so you will never convince a judge that the 'services you received' (an entertainment product) were retroactively damaged by the banning.

You might even argue that the character is yours as well, so congrats. A few weeks after the court case is finalised, you'll get a CD with your character data on it.

Enjoy your $100.

PS: If you do want to argue this, find me a case where a judge has put a perpetual 'specified performance' order in place against a company.

refer to above. already addressed multiple times that courts have already allowed actions that disagree with your synopsis. already addressed that sub fees have counted in arbitration to avoid action courts were threatening to allow, despite clauses. the reasons i gave then are still my same reasons for disagreeing with your take. none of those arguments rely on a specified performance order as that is a different line of attack entirely. there's nothing left to cover and the conversations about law have not been relevant to the addon problem this thread is about.

as mentioned repeatedly, since you did not actually review the history of this as you claimed, i've already repeated everything i can repeat faithfully that i've been told by our company's legal folks. if i try to go further i would not be able to do so honestly so there's nothing else i can really say. only saying this much since you were not bringing a character attack or insults, or not very insulting anyway

i understand you think im wrong. ok. no problem. in my line of reasoning subs matter, in yours they dont. however do note that offending addon developers purchase hundreds of copies. in either case, the addon problem is the problem not an imaginary legal case

if i could delete every reference to law in my original post without making the entire thread senseless i would because it has been ridiculously derailing all conversation and my reasoning would not change except to move it to user relations liability instead. SE already is conscious of consumer rights beyond what is required of them, so it really doesn't matter that much. Businesses don't want to ban customers without a good reason anyway. Whatever you think motivates that, whether in part liability or not, same difference