Bot issues

[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.

[Goji1639]

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.

I've cited theft, which is something all consumers have implicit protection from in service contracts and in any other transaction. Slavery is just another example of a right, this time a basic human one in freedom, that can't be made null by a contract clause.

So, to reiterate; SE can't just do whatever they want simply because you clicked agree on something that says they can. SE is still bound by contract and constitutional law.

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.

I've specifically stated in this thread multiple times that SE wouldn't be dumb enough to ban people without an actual reason; it's why they actually gather and audit evidence before banning bots instead of just sitting in a hub banning everyone that looks weird. I'm mainly just correcting people who seem to believe that SE can do whatever they want to their customers, including stealing from them, as long as it's written in a ToS and you click agree. That's not how any contract works.