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

[ElHeggunte]

Equifax would be a good recent example. They didn't hack themselves.

Also, we are compensating SE, ie 1 victim compensating another.

Terrible comparison. Equifax is a “victim”, but the breach is largely the result of incompetence among other things. Plus they were targeted directly.

Our ongoing connection issues are caused by someone attacking a third party outside of SE’s control so there really isn’t anything they can do about it. We’re literally caught in the middle of a fight between the ISPs that just so happen to serve SE and whatever berk decided to DDoS them.

If anyone owes you compensation it would be the ISPs being attacked, but you seem desperate to blame SE no matter what anyone says so I don’t even know why I’m bothering.

[Baingoleth]

Our ongoing connection issues are caused by someone attacking a third party outside of SE’s control so there really isn’t anything they can do about it. We’re literally caught in the middle of a fight between the ISPs that just so happen to serve SE and whatever berk decided to DDoS them.

If anyone owes you compensation it would be the ISPs being attacked, but you seem desperate to blame SE no matter what anyone says so I don’t even know why I’m bothering.

You posters who feel the need to get back at someone for missing out on some game time, go (more?) crazy:


#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/public/whoisinaccuracy/index.xhtml
#


#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# https://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=1...se&ext=netref2
#

NetRange: 129.250.0.0 - 129.250.255.255
CIDR: 129.250.0.0/16
NetName: NTTA-129-250
NetHandle: NET-129-250-0-0-1
Parent: NET129 (NET-129-0-0-0-0)
NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS:
Organization: NTT America, Inc. (NTTAM-1)
RegDate: 1988-04-05
Updated: 2012-03-02
Comment:
Comment: Reassignment information for this block is
Comment: available at rwhois.gin.ntt.net port 4321
Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-129-250-0-0-1


OrgName: NTT America, Inc.
OrgId: NTTAM-1
Address: 8300 E Maplewood Ave.
Address: Suite 400
City: Greenwood Village
StateProv: CO
PostalCode: 80111
Country: US
RegDate: 2005-12-08
Updated: 2017-01-28
Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/NTTAM-1

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.gin.ntt.net:4321

OrgAbuseHandle: NAAC-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: NTT America Abuse Contact
OrgAbusePhone: +1-877-688-6625
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@ntt.net
OrgAbuseRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NAAC-ARIN

OrgTechHandle: VIPAR-ARIN
OrgTechName: VIPAR
OrgTechPhone: +1-877-688-6625
OrgTechEmail: vipar@us.ntt.net
OrgTechRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/VIPAR-ARIN

OrgNOCHandle: NASC-ARIN
OrgNOCName: NTT America Support Contact
OrgNOCPhone: +1-877-688-6625
OrgNOCEmail: support@us.ntt.net
OrgNOCRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NASC-ARIN

RTechHandle: VIA4-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: VIPAR
RTechPhone: +1-877-688-6625
RTechEmail: vipar@us.ntt.net
RTechRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/VIA4-ORG-ARIN


#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/public/whoisinaccuracy/index.xhtml
#



Found a referral to rwhois.gin.ntt.net:4321.

%rwhois V-1.5:0078b6:00 rwhois.gin.ntt.net (Vipar 0.1a. Comments to vipar@us.ntt.net)
network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:129.250.0.0/16
network:ID:NETBLK-VRIO-BB-P1.127.0.0.1/32
network:Handle:NETBLK-VRIO-BB-P1
network:Network-Name:VRIO-BB-P1
network:IP-Network:129.250.4.0/22
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH21-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH22-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH23-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH24-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH25-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:IP-Network-Block:129.250.4.0 - 129.250.7.255
network:Org-Name:NTT America, Inc.
network:Street-Address:8300 E Maplewood Ave. Suite 400
network:City:Greenwood Village
network:State:CO
network:Postal-Code:80111
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:VIA4-ORG-ARIN.127.0.0.1/32
network:Created:1999-09-14 19:28:42+00
network:Updated:2007-06-04 23:16:27+00

network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:129.250.0.0/16
network:ID:NETBLK-VRIO-BB.127.0.0.1/32
network:Handle:NETBLK-VRIO-BB
network:Network-Name:VRIO-BB
network:IP-Network:129.250.0.0/16
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH21-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH22-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH23-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH24-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH25-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:IP-Network-Block:129.250.0.0 - 129.250.255.255
network:Org-Name:NTT America, Inc.
network:Street-Address:8300 E Maplewood Ave. Suite 400
network:City:Greenwood Village
network:State:CO
network:Postal-Code:80111
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:VIA4-ORG-ARIN.127.0.0.1/32
network:Created:1999-10-08 17:01:36+00
network:Updated:2007-06-04 23:11:46+00

network:Class-Name:network
network:Auth-Area:129.250.0.0/16
network:ID:NETBLK-VRIO-BB.127.0.0.1/32
network:Handle:NETBLK-VRIO-BB
network:Network-Name:VRIO-BB
network:IP-Network:129.250.0.0/16
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH21-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH22-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH23-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH24-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:In-Addr-Server;I:AUTH25-GIN-HST.127.0.0.1/32
network:IP-Network-Block:129.250.0.0 - 129.250.255.255
network:Org-Name:NTT America, Inc.
network:Street-Address:8300 E Maplewood Ave. Suite 400
network:City:Greenwood Village
network:State:CO
network:Postal-Code:80111
network:Country-Code:US
network:Tech-Contact;I:VIA4-ORG-ARIN.127.0.0.1/32
network:Created:1999-10-08 17:01:36+00
network:Updated:2007-06-04 23:11:46+00

%ok

[Chronons]

lol at all the IT nerd rage. If you could stop violently shaking with indigence for a moment and read the base argument people are presenting, you might have no need to post the same response over and over.

You have a contract with SE to provide a service, their ISP provider issues are theirs to deal with, not yours. If they are failing to provide the service agreed upon in our contract, they are obligated to compensate or face breach of contract suit. Now, they have cleverly in-bedded in their ToS a clause that allows for them temporarily shut down service at their discretion. There are any number of contract law arguments that can be made on the consumer's behalf to combat this clause, such as their action being a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that they are using this clause inappropriately.

You could (rightfully in my opinion) argue that it has yet to reach that point, or any other number of legal arguments to the contrary. But to babble on about how people dont anything about the internet and are therefore wrong shows a gross misunderstanding of the issue on your own part. I dont think SE owes us anything, but to pretend like their ToS is ironclad or that this problem could never spawn a real issue of compensation seems like foolishness to me.

[Baingoleth]

lol at all the IT nerd rage. If you could stop violently shaking with indigence for a moment and read the base argument people are presenting, you might have no need to post the same response over and over.

You have a contract with SE to provide a service, their ISP provider issues are theirs to deal with, not yours. If they are failing to provide the service agreed upon in our contract, they are obligated to compensate or face breach of contract suit. Now, they have cleverly in-bedded in their ToS a clause that allows for them temporarily shut down service at their discretion. There are any number of contract law arguments that can be made on the consumer's behalf to combat this clause, such as their action being a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and that they are using this clause inappropriately.

You could (rightfully in my opinion) argue that it has yet to reach that point, or any other number of legal arguments to the contrary. But to babble on about how people dont anything about the internet and are therefore wrong shows a gross misunderstanding of the issue on your own part. I dont think SE owes us anything, but to pretend like their ToS is ironclad or that this problem could never spawn a real issue of compensation seems like foolishness to me.

This IT nerd is more amazed at how people want to use the forum to lash out and demand compensation from Square-Enix. I, personally, haven't seen any justification for rage and I'd go so far as to say the people here who know networking aren't raging. They've mostly been trying to assist in figuring out what caused the interruptions and explain the cause to the rest of the players. I've seen posters looking for compensation raging though. It isn't like Square-Enix's Network Operations Centre didn't make posts in the status forum and start working with NTT for a solution as soon as they became aware of the DDoS trouble. Are the people who are looking for compensation able to get compensation from Square-Enix? Are they entitled? I'm not a lawyer; I'm a network engineer. As I have stated before, Square-Enix might feel inclined to do something for these angry players but I wouldn't count on it. In this situation, I still think a better way to go about it would be to open a support ticket rather than try to shame Square-Enix on the forums publicly. Square-Enix has been diligent in reporting the trouble to NTT and in keeping us informed. Personally, I think it's mean to try and get back at them when they didn't do anything wrong.

[Chronons]

snip

Maybe raging is a bit harsh. How about, insulting others knowledge and using your own as a cudgel? Better?

I agree with you that SE isnt obligated to compensate players, but the truth of that isnt really for us to decide. That is an answer that would only come if players did file suit against the company. Until then they aren't legally obligated to do anything. They could always choose to, based on the feedback from their consumers as a measure to hedge against such damages though. Feedback from sources such as this thread. However, I dont think they will nor do I think there is any risk to them if they dont.

In any case, if they were forced to compensate players they would very likely take some legal action against their ISP. To cover any costs they are forced to play players. In which case all of the IT arguments provided here are useful. They just hold no power in the contract relationship between us and SE that I can think of.

[Baingoleth]

In any case, if they were forced to compensate players they would very likely take some legal action against their ISP. To cover any costs they are forced to play players. In which case all of the IT arguments provided here are useful. They just hold no power in the contract relationship between us and SE that I can think of.

Yes! This I could see and if this continues much longer, I would be surprised if SE doesn't get after NTT, look at new hosting and do something for the players.

[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.

[Zarabeth]

*snip*If you could stop violently shaking with indigence *snip*.

You should probably look up the definition of indigence. It either doesn't mean what you think it means, or you are very confused.

[Rymm]

You should probably look up the definition of indigence. It either doesn't mean what you think it means, or you are very confused.

You must have skipped everything after Chronons' first post. This was already resolved on page 14.