Bot issues

[Doozer]

Yes they can. You agreed to the terms. If you don't agree, you void your right to play. It's not stealing. This is a service and they are providing a service. You DO NOT OWN anything. You don't own the game. You've paid for the right to play it. This is not your game. This is not your account. This is your permission to use them.

Also fun little fact for you. I've taken more than a class. I got my degree in music and a large part of it involved contracts. And funnily enough, the ToS was a topic that came up during that degree. That class told us exactly why you're wrong.

And you know what they said next? "You're welcome to challenge it legally. But they have more money than you, more lawyers than you and the law protects them over you. You agree every single time you continue to use their service. You do not own the service. You have permission to use the service. Nothing has been stolen from you."

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.

It's reassuring to know that someone with much more formal education than me comes to generally the same conclusion.

I'll be the first to say I'm not an expert on anything, but it also doesn't take an expert to be able to understand what the user agreement says. I think it's meant to be presented, at the very least, in a way that most people can read and understand it. So it's kind of frustrating to be told over and over that I obviously just don't get it when it certainly makes sense to me.

(No offence to you of course, I'm definitely not saying something like "oh even I know that" or anything.)

[Goji1639]

It's reassuring to know that someone with much more formal education than me comes to generally the same conclusion.

I'll be the first to say I'm not an expert on anything, but it also doesn't take an expert to be able to understand what the user agreement says. I think it's meant to be presented, at the very least, in a way that most people can read and understand it. So it's kind of frustrating to be told over and over that I obviously just don't get it when it certainly makes sense to me.

(No offence to you of course, I'm definitely not saying something like "oh even I know that" or anything.)

Hate to break it to you, but he didn't really say anything.

Just claimed to have a degree and basically said what he learned about a ToS is that rich companies can do whatever they want. That's generally true, but it doesn't say anything about the veracity of a ToS clause. 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. They can ILLEGALLY do that and use their expensive legal department to get away with it, but that's a different topic.

[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

[Awha]

This has become a rather interesting if not moot discussion.

[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.

[Goji1639]

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.

I didn't say he had no basis; I said he didn't say anything. The ONLY thing he said specifically about a ToS was that companies can get away with doing illegal stuff because they're rich; which is true but completely outside the point.

I've only been saying basic stuff about contract law. If you think I'm wrong then actually address what I said. If you believe that companies can legally do whatever they want as long as it's written in contract then you're wrong. Sorry.

[Bsrking5]

Not going to sugar coat it, SE doesn't do themselves any favors with reporting so the community is basically helpless against bot/hacks. The RMT report isn't top priority as they would just cause more trouble for actual players than RMTs farms. Unless you are getting harassed in via chat there isn't much to be done. If you don't like RMT spam well going outside the starter cities cuts it down to like less than 1%. At least it seems some of the more in your face bots/hacks are gone like walking 20 feet off the ground in the starter cities.

[Darkobra]

Dude, at least read the topic if you're going to chime in.

I wasn't having a discussion specifically about botting; I'm aware SE can ban people for botting since it's against the ToS. What people are saying is that SE can deny you access to their servers for no reason at all, while keeping your money. That's not true. If I paid the subscription and they denied me access just because they felt like it, I'd have grounds to sue and be legally in the right. Doesn't mean I'd win, because the rich can literally get away with murdering people in our legal system, but SE's actions would have been 100% illegal.

I don't care about bots; I'm just kind of amused that people think you can write literally anything on a form and as long as you throw an "agree" button on it it's perfectly legal. There are restrictions to what you can stipulate on a contract, and giving yourself permission to steal from customers definitely isn't something that would hold up at trial.

Which one is it? Would it not hold up in trial and you'd win or would you not win?

There's no real reason to continue this as a chain of discussion with you. I'm the one that "took that law class" and got my degree in music, contracts and legal paraphrasing to protect my self-employment. You just keep spewing what you Googled once upon a time. Bet you're one of those people that shout "Freedom of Speech" at everything.

Now, I know you've not taken any classes. I know you don't have a further education. You don't cite sources and you create strawman fallacies to enforce YOUR point. But your opinion isn't fact. It's not law. I also find it amusing that you're arguing with someone that spent four years studying this but you Googled it one time. You have to know how this is going to go for you.

If you got a problem with the ToS, stop playing the game and take it to court. We'll see which one of us is right. The fact that you won't means you know the answer to that already.