Bot issues

[Espritduo]

They're not denying you access for no reason, though. Their reason is that they banned you, which they do notify you when that happens. They don't need more of a reason than that.

A breach of contract would be a case where you can't log in, are given no reason why you can't log in, are unable to get any sort of reason from SE when you try to contact them, and yet they continue to charge you. Even then, good luck getting any kind of legal action taken against them.

[Goji1639]

They're not denying you access for no reason, though. Their reason is that they banned you, which they do notify you when that happens. They don't need more of a reason than that.

A breach of contract would be a case where you can't log in, are given no reason why you can't log in, are unable to get any sort of reason from SE when you try to contact them, and yet they continue to charge you. Even then, good luck getting any kind of legal action taken against them.

Banning is just the act of denying access; it's not the reason. Banning you for no reason is what would be illegal, regardless of what's stated in the ToS. Hiding consumer rights violations in contract terms doesn't exempt you from them.

The fact that I can't promise a service, take your money, and then simply not perform that service is one of the most basic ones. I'd need a legitimate reason to abandon the arrangement and still keep your money, and me sneaking the words "I can steal from you" onto the contract you signed wouldn't hold up.

I mean sure in theory you could sue them, and let us say you happen to have a case and can prove they broke the ToS.

What would be the point? Unless you have an endless supply of time and money do not see one coming out ahead in this lawsuit.

Cause only way i see one winning is if one could prove that they were falsely banned. Which would be hard to prove especially if the info regarding the ban is vague. Probably nof even worth time and effoet required.

This is a different issue, but I agree for an individual it would be pointless. If you don't have the money and legal resources to fight a million dollar corporation it doesn't matter how right you are.

If SE were stupid enough to start mass banning bots with zero evidence or due diligence, however, they could end up involved in a class action lawsuit involving thousands of players.

[Awha]

I mean sure in theory you could sue them, and let us say you happen to have a case and can prove they broke the ToS.

What would be the point? Unless you have an endless supply of time and money do not see one coming out ahead in this lawsuit.

Cause only way i see one winning is if one could prove that they were falsely banned. Which would be hard to prove especially if the info regarding the ban is vague. Probably nof even worth time and effoet required.

[Ceridwenae]

The ToS states your consumer rights are unaffected, even if you are banned (and the ToS spells all of this out quite clearly, which is useful). The consumer rights part does actually mean you can write to them, quite legally, to say their contract terms are untenable for... being banned, or whatever (see: https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...contract-terms) - note, I don't find SE's terms unfair. You can also access free legal advice if necessary if you feel you are unfairly treated/banned, as befits those consumer rights - in the UK, the easiest would be contacting the CAB (I mean, assuming they're still a thing. I've not lived there for 14 years). And on one hand I agree with @Awha - but with a caveat that I would think if the information regarding a ban was vague, said ban couldn't really be enforced - unless you mean vague because SE doesn't give the information to the banned player? They'd have to offer something in (small claims?) court if it came to it, surely? Not an expert, have no idea. I only have a smattering of knowledge in probably very outdated music law and pensions. And those pensions bring me to this:

The real issue is bots don't care about any of the above. Clearly the hateful, selfish and thoughtless people who use them know they're breaking their agreements. The fact there's potential money laundering in botting, which is obviously bad for global equality, which is bad for all of us in the end, not just honest players in a game, is what we should be looking at here. I don't like the "it's too difficult to get rid of them" school of thought at all - it really angers me - I just wish there was something more substantial that could be done to deter people from cheating like this, or that more staff could be utilised to enact bans or... just something! XD Really don't know how all of it works to have any suggestions, just want to voice solidarity.

[Espritduo]

There would never literally be no reason, though. If a human being is looking at your account and banning it, they are doing so for *some* reason. Realistically, if that reason was something stupid like "I was having a bad day and just felt like banning a random person" then you would be far more likely to see results by contacting SE and having that person reprimanded internally. Actually thinking you could successfully pursue a legal action against the entire company for something like this is silly, and you would never get it off the ground.

And not sure why you think they're taking your money when they ban you. They gave you the service up to the point you got banned. It's not like a banned person somehow retroactively has their game time taken from them when they're banned. Once they're banned, SE does not continue to charge you afterwards. Your account and subscription are canceled from that point on and no money is being taken out for a game you can no longer play. Really, you're just using extreme language like "stealing" and "theft" to make it sound like something that is incredibly mundane and commonplace is some heinous crime against humanity. It's not. It's a video game subscription and no court is going to care that you can't play your video game anymore.

[KageTokage]

If they're not willing to resort to invasive monitoring programs (Which don't even work reliably) for bot detection, then they really don't have any option other then observing suspect accounts for red flags and banning them if it's highly likely they are botting.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to slap someone with a ban if a GM attempts to communicate with a suspect several times while they're actively gathering or doing some other activity but they refuse to respond.

[ObtainingSignature]

Not even gathering it's also the crafting ones just look at all those 1 gil undercutting bots for neo and facet gear crafting/gathering never stops

[Doozer]

When did I say anyone was less educated than me? You're coming off really insecure now, resorting to attacking me instead of addressing what I'm saying. I think you do want to be right, that's why you came back here after leaving just to cling to the first person that kind of sounded like he agreed with you.

The problem is that he didn't really say anything or even really address the topic. He basically said "I have a degree and I'm right," without actually addressing a single point. He's welcome to elaborate.

The lack of self awareness here is truly astounding.

I came back because I saw other people had posted and decided to respond to one. I am allowed to do that, right sir? And you claim I'm attacking you, but you frequently accused me of not knowing anything and just thinking I did, constantly attacking my intelligence. What, you think I'm too stupid to notice that?

As well, I believe you spent a lot of time not actually doing anything except saying "you don't know anything, and I do, and I'm right". You're also welcome to elaborate beyond "that's illegal because I [apparently] took a class once". Yet you haven't. Besides very subtly altering your argument so everyone seems just a bit off the mark every time. Don't think I didn't notice you change it to implying SE still charges you after banning you (See: "Companies still can't LEGALLY take your money for a service and then not provide the service just because they don't feel like it."), but I'm not going to waste my time arguing against that anymore because you don't listen.

It's funny that I responded to that guy, ignoring you, and then you came after me again. You have to prove that I'm wrong specifically because I was the first one to disagree with you, I assume. Except I said I was done fighting with you on the actual topic because I felt like it was getting too far away from the original topic. So I'll quote that person on something I feel is really important for you to see:

Of course, your fear and defense over something that shouldn't be affecting you alarms me. This is about bots getting banned. Not about your fear of getting banned and your misconception on a very common law.

So anyway...

Not even gathering it's also the crafting ones just look at all those 1 gil undercutting bots for neo and facet gear crafting/gathering never stops

That can be an extra tricky area because plenty of players who aren't botting also undercut by 1 and are just very quick to check their prices or something. It would be hard to prove that one, unfortunately.

[Goji1639]

The lack of self awareness here is truly astounding.

I came back because I saw other people had posted and decided to respond to one. I am allowed to do that, right sir? And you claim I'm attacking you, but you frequently accused me of not knowing anything and just thinking I did, constantly attacking my intelligence. What, you think I'm too stupid to notice that?

As well, I believe you spent a lot of time not actually doing anything except saying "you don't know anything, and I do, and I'm right". You're also welcome to elaborate beyond "that's illegal because I [apparently] took a class once". Yet you haven't. Besides very subtly altering your argument so everyone seems just a bit off the mark every time. Don't think I didn't notice you change it to implying SE still charges you after banning you (See: "Companies still can't LEGALLY take your money for a service and then not provide the service just because they don't feel like it."), but I'm not going to waste my time arguing against that anymore because you don't listen.

It's funny that I responded to that guy, ignoring you, and then you came after me again. You have to prove that I'm wrong specifically because I was the first one to disagree with you, I assume. Except I said I was done fighting with you on the actual topic because I felt like it was getting too far away from the original topic. So I'll quote that person on something I feel is really important for you to see:

I've provided clear examples and rationale behind everything I've said. I've said you're misunderstanding how contracts and contract law function because you are, but that doesn't mean I'm insulting you. You're just becoming excessively insecure and defensive now.

I also never said I was going to stop responding to you, so I'm not sure why you're surprised that I responded to you, or you consider it me "coming after" you...

Also, I'm not sure what the point of repeating his quote is; again, he didn't actually say anything there. Why was that important for me to see?

[Doozer]

I've provided clear examples and rationale behind everything I've said. I've said you're misunderstanding how contracts and contract law function because you are, but that doesn't mean I'm insulting you. You're just becoming excessively insecure and defensive now.

Okay, so answer this now, without dodging: You say they have no basis for what they're saying just because they said they have a degree that required them to learn it. And I've just gone on the assumption that you "took a class" on contract law because you said I should, so: What exactly is your qualification for being an expert on this? Show us your certification. A degree, a letter of reference, literally anything that proves you know more than us besides saying "you don't know anything". Show me that, or save it. You claim to know more than us because you literally say we don't know what we're talking about, which you should only be saying if you know more. So prove it.

Prove it or you automatically admit you know nothing either. You say you can't just say you know things without backing it up, so back up your claims. The burden of proof is on you. You say we're wrong, so show us why you're right. Or just let it go. This is so beyond derailed at this point.

No more roundabout non-answers.