Bot issues

[Goji1639]

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.

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.

[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.

[Goji1639]

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.

It wouldn't hold up in trial; but they wouldn't need it to win. Honestly, they wouldn't be stupid enough to even use the ToS at trial over something like that; they can draw out the litigation process and bankrupt me without it. That doesn't mean what they did is legal, it just means the law doesn't matter if you're rich.

Again, you claim to have a degree but offer literally nothing in the way of insight on how a ToS works. You just posture and bluff and say "I have a degree." Make an argument. Explain to all of us how clicking agree means you forfeit your consumer rights. I'd love to hear it.

[Ceridwenae]

It wouldn't hold up in trial; but they wouldn't need it to win. Honestly, they wouldn't be stupid enough to even use the ToS at trial over something like that; they can draw out the litigation process and bankrupt me without it. That doesn't mean what they did is legal, it just means the law doesn't matter if you're rich.

Again, you claim to have a degree but offer literally nothing in the way of insight on how a ToS works. You just posture and bluff and say "I have a degree." Make an argument. Explain to all of us how clicking agree means you forfeit your consumer rights. I'd love to hear it.

The ToS explicitly says your consumer rights are not forfeit even if they ban you for breaking the terms. So you can do something about it, if you felt you were unfairly banned. So... yeah. They can ban you if they think you've screwed over your agreement with them and in return, if you felt they'd screwed you over by banning you, you're not without recourse. This circular argument carrying on is technically already detailed in the ToS already.

So, if they ban you without reason, you'd have to be spectacularly unlucky. Not to say it doesn't happen, but it doesn't violate your consumer rights if they do so. You still have those, which is how you can challenge a ban. So let's hop off this, and move on to the real issue.

[TitaniumVulpes]

You just keep spewing what you Googled once upon a time.

The funny part is he probably didn't even take the time to bother Googling it, because that's all I did, and if he had he'd find legal precedent of adhesive contracts being held as valid so long as similar services can be found elsewhere, such as in Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court, or Kurashige v. Indian Dunes, Inc.

My brother signed a contract I drew up that says he's my slave for life because he lost a bet. Is that legally binding, or is contract law OBVIOUSLY more complicated than that?

That's not actually a contract because to be a legally binding contract something must be exchanged. You would have to give him money, goods, or services in return for his work, and at that point it's really just employment innit. I also learned that from a cursory Google search.

[Goji1639]

The funny part is he probably didn't even take the time to bother Googling it, because that's all I did, and if he had he'd find legal precedent of adhesive contracts being held as valid so long as similar services can be found elsewhere, such as in Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Superior Court, or Kurashige v. Indian Dunes, Inc.



That's not actually a contract because to be a legally binding contract something must be exchanged. You would have to give him money, goods, or services in return for his work, and at that point it's really just employment innit. I also learned that from a cursory Google search.

That precedent you quoted is completely irrelevant to this discussion... I'm not saying a ToS can't be held as valid; I'm saying it can't violate consumer rights.

Also, that example I gave was just an absurdist comment. Slavery is something that can't be stipulated in a contract period, because it's illegal. "You sign a contract you agree to it," isn't valid if what's being asked of you or what's being done to you isn't legal. That's a basic tenet of contract law.

[TitaniumVulpes]

That precedent you quoted is completely irrelevant to this discussion... I'm not saying a ToS can't be held as valid; I'm saying it can't violate consumer rights.

Also, that example I gave was just an absurdist comment. Slavery is something that can't be stipulated in a contract period, because it's illegal. "You sign a contract you agree to it," isn't valid if what's being asked of you or what's being done to you isn't legal. That's a basic tenet of contract law.

Which specific consumer rights are it violating, if you don't mind? With citations to consumer laws and legal precedents, please.

ETA: The precedent I quoted is actually completely relevant to this discussion, as it was quoted in a court case (Bragg v Linden Research, Inc.) held over termination of an account over TOS violations (specifically "exploiting" the game) in which the court mused that, had the defendant had adequate competition in the market (and terms of account termination been more openly displayed, as it is in the FFXIV user agreement - right at the very top of the agreement), the adhesive contract would have been held valid and the court would have ruled in favour of the defendant. That case is likely why the FFXIV user agreement has those terms displayed so openly, in fact.

[Goji1639]

Which specific consumer rights are it violating, if you don't mind? With citations to consumer laws and legal precedents, please.

Depends on how the ToS is used. The ToS claims that you can be banned for any reason. If that stipulation is used to permanently ban someone who has just paid for a year of service, but hasn't done anything to warrant a ban, then SE's actions are theft.

SE wouldn't be that stupid, though. That stipulation is obviously a catch all for forms of abuse or indiscretion that may not be clearly outlined in the user agreement. SE knows that clause wouldn't legally excuse theft; it's just some misinformed people on these forums who think it would.

[TitaniumVulpes]

Depends on how the ToS is used. The ToS claims that you can be banned for any reason. If that stipulation is used to permanently ban someone who has just paid for a year of service, but hasn't done anything to warrant a ban, then SE's actions are theft.

SE wouldn't be that stupid, though. That stipulation is obviously a catch all for forms of abuse or indiscretion that may not be clearly outlined in the user agreement. SE knows that clause wouldn't legally excuse theft; it's just some misinformed people on these forums who think it would.

I didn't see a single consumer rights law cited in this reply. That's a shame, I'd half hoped to learn more about them, but for now I'll just believe the guy with a degree and my own research over the guy a bit too keen on the thought of putting slavery in contracts.