Bot issues

[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.

[Awha]

Oh look, my shadow. I was wondering when you would show up. Vague as always, how safe.

At this point he is not wrong maybe agreeing to disagree might be for the best before the otter police come barging in.

[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.

[Theodric]

Hah, I just noticed that certain posters in this thread share not only a server but the same Free Company as well. That's an interesting coincidence! I wonder if it has any bearing on their decision to both team up against the same poster in this debate? A question for the philosophers, I suppose.

[TitaniumVulpes]

Hah, I just noticed that certain posters in this thread share not only a server but the same Free Company as well. That's an interesting coincidence! I wonder if it has any bearing on their decision to both team up against the same poster in this debate? A question for the philosophers, I suppose.

What do you mean? Darkobra is on Phoenix. We're just trying to explain the end user agreement to someone.

[Theodric]

What do you mean? Darkobra is on Phoenix. We're just trying to explain the end user agreement to someone.

Oh, I wasn't referring to him. Perhaps a visual aid courtesy of the lodestone will allow you to better understand my previous post:



As stated earlier, I simply find it to be an interesting coincidence that two posters from the same FC happened to be posting in the exact same thread to counter the exact same poster. Life is full of funny little coincidences like that, though! Please don't mind me, though - do carry on if you so wish.

[TitaniumVulpes]

Life is full of funny little coincidences like that, though!

Some people don't believe in coincidences; I find they tend to live very boring lives.

[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.