I got termination ban but I thought it was too harsh

[kaynide]

To your first question, it was my main character, that's why I wrote request to support center. And I cannot use the main account to post thread here. The forum won't allow me to post without character. So this is my second account.

I won't deny I used mouse macros to craft. I boldly admitted those using mouse macros in every reply I sent to the support center. And I didn't stream anything on twitch or youtube. Even I stream my ffxiv, there is nothing strange(3rd-part apps, mods). So I don't need to worry people could report me using something which is not from ffxiv.

I don't think call/chat with support center is useful. Their service cannot help me to take account back. And wasting a lot of my time. I thought if I could call to their Head Office number, that will be good.

And I don't know people who have a grudge against to me. I seldom talk with strangers. So I cannot figure out it.

For better or for worse, if we are taking everything you're saying at face value (you're telling us everything), the scenario seems pretty simple:

1) You automated potion crafting
2) Someone noticed you, and noticed you doing it hours(?) later still crafting.
3) Suspecting automation, they reported
4) A GM popped in and said "hey you there?"
5) Getting no response, and being able to observe you and your very precise keystrokes (they can get timestamps of when your character issues commands; it is unnatural for key inputs to repeat perfectly without variation), they have to assume automation.
6) Clearly in violation, you received a ban.

---
Remember, SE does have the right to terminate service with you, for any reason, including no reason at all. While uncharacteristic of them to ban on first offense, there's really no rule stating they aren't allowed to.

[keichirou]

---
Remember, SE does have the right to terminate service with you, for any reason, including no reason at all. While uncharacteristic of them to ban on first offense, there's really no rule stating they aren't allowed to.

nope they cannot , remember you're paying for a service, so YOU as a customer expect A service in exchange, they cannot come take your money and ban for no reason, speaking as a former lawyer that'll be (to a certain extent) a class action lawsuit, everything complicates when theres money in the middle , different story would be if the game was F2p

[kaynide]

nope they cannot , remember you're paying for a service, so YOU as a customer expect A service in exchange, they cannot come take your money and ban for no reason, speaking as a former lawyer that'll be (to a certain extent) a class action lawsuit, everything complicates when theres money in the middle , different story would be if the game was F2p

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:

YOU ACQUIRE NO OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ANY CHARACTER OR OTHER IN-GAME VIRTUAL GOOD, AND ARE ONLY LICENSED TO USE SUCH CHARACTERS AND ASSETS ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENTS. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNT AND ANY VIRTUAL GOODS AND CHARACTERS DO NOT HAVE ANY MONETARY VALUE. SQUARE ENIX MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, OR DELETE FFXIV SERVICE ACCOUNTS, CHARACTERS, VIRTUAL GOODS, OR THE SERVICE ALTOGETHER, AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY TO YOU.

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

[SenseiMaria]

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

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.

[Jojoya]

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".

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.

[keichirou]

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

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

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.

[kaynide]

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

I never said anything about legality. My point was, they specifically say they can decide to refuse service if they want to, and they wanted to in this case.

It’s basically the very same thing Disneyland or even a random manager in a random restaurant can do if they decide they a customer is no longer welcome on the premises and can have them trespassed/ejected via security.

It’s not up to us to decide how arbitrary or severe the penalty should be. And as SenseiMaria pointed out (assuming they are in fact a lawyer), OP has avenues to challenge this, but…

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.

I’m not a lawyer, but especially this point makes sense to me.

[rainichan]

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:

Their user agreement talks about how any court cases will play out if you go down a bit:

10.4 Limited Time to File Claims. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IF YOU WANT TO ASSERT A DISPUTE AGAINST SQUARE ENIX, THEN YOU MUST COMMENCE IT (BY DELIVERY OF WRITTEN NOTICE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 10.2) WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE DISPUTE ARISES, OR ELSE IT SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED.

10.5 Injunctive Relief. The foregoing provisions of this Section 10 will not apply to any legal action taken by Square Enix to seek an injunction or other equitable relief in connection with any loss, cost, or damage (or any potential loss, cost, or damage) relating to the Game, the Licensed Software, this FFXIV User Agreement, any additional terms and/or Square Enix's intellectual property rights (including such Square Enix may claim that may be in dispute), Square Enix's operations, and/or Square Enix's products or services (collectively, "Excluded Dispute").

10.6 Small Claims Matters Are Excluded from Arbitration Requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either of us may bring qualifying claim of Disputes (but not Excluded Disputes) in small claims court, subject to Section 10.8.

10.7 No Class Action Matters. Disputes will be arbitrated only on an individual basis and will not be consolidated with any other arbitration or other proceeding that involves any claim or controversy of any other party. But if, for any reason, any court with competent jurisdiction or any arbitrator selected pursuant to Section 10.3 holds that this restriction is unconscionable or unenforceable, then our agreement in Section 10.3 to arbitrate will not apply and the Dispute must be brought exclusively in court pursuant to Section 10.8.

10.8 Federal and State Courts in Los Angeles. Except to the extent that arbitration is required in Section 10.3, and except as to the enforcement of any arbitration decision or award, any action or proceeding relating to any Dispute or Excluded Dispute may only be instituted in state or federal court in Los Angeles County, California. Accordingly, you and Square Enix consent to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of such courts for such matters.

10.9 Limited Liability/Remedy. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, SQUARE ENIX AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES HAVE NO LIABILITY TO YOU WHATSOEVER, AND IN NO EVENT WILL SQUARE ENIX AND/OR ANY OF ITS PARENT, SUBSIDIARY, OR AFFILIATED COMPANIES BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOST PROFITS, OR LOST DATA, REGARDLESS OF THE FORESEEABILITY OF THOSE DAMAGES), ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, YOUR USE OF THE GAME OR OTHER MATERIALS PROVIDED TO YOU BY SQUARE ENIX, REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL SQUARE ENIX BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR MORE THAN A REPLACEMENT COPY OF THE GAME, WHICH SHALL BE YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.

10.10 Injunctive Relief. In no event will you be entitled to obtain any injunctive relief or otherwise enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with Square Enix or with the distribution, operation, development, or performance of the Game or any related products or services.

The user agreement IS their legally binding, "you have agreed to this" and is much different than their terms of service which talks about what you can and cannot do in their game in more detail, but the user agreement, which is their actual legal thing, flat out says "you get none of this."

11.7 Entire Agreement. This User Agreement, together with the License Agreement, the Square Enix Account Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, and any other terms of use relevant to your use of the Game, such as the user manual, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties with respect to your use of the Game and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications with respect to the subject matter hereof, all of which are merged herein. This User Agreement shall form a part of your License Agreement and is expressly incorporated into that agreement by this reference. In the event of any conflict between this User Agreement and the License Agreement, the terms of this User Agreement shall prevail; provided, however, that for all matters that are not covered in this User Agreement, the terms of the License Agreement, the Square Enix Account Terms of Use, or the Privacy Policy (as applicable) shall continue to apply.

During the whole billboard debacle, a lawyer did go over things (this is mainly for the billboard thing, but he does go over the legalities of the docs), and the UA, Licensing Agreement, and the Software Agreements are what are the legally binding "contracts" in which they say "if you agree with these terms, install and play the game. If you don't, don't play." Even the licensing agreement mentions "you don't own your account, we do". The ToS may not be legally binding, but it's attached in the actual legal ones.