1559 réponses à ce sujet

[Lacan2]

It would solve this whole thing if EA just came out and said you can play/register a game even if your account is banned. It's really just a minor policy change with no financial or practical impact. People can, after all, just register a new account to get around it, so it seems sensible to end this pointless policy.

[17thknight]

Garak2 wrote...

The darkspawn tried to serve me Coke but I was having none of it.

You callin me a darkspawn, bro? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/ninja.png[/smilie]

Stanley Woo wrote...



EDIT: Sorry, I should have clarified that I've been home for a couple hours already, thanks for the concern.

Is your pillow calling to you?  Whispering sweet lullabies, "Staaaaaanley...staaaaaaaanley...I'm looooooonely stanley!" Or perhaps you're married, and your wife wonders why you still sit at the keyboard, battling an endless horde of neckbeards. You can't defeat us, Stanley. We have beards. On our necks.

[Dragoonlordz]

stepover12 wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

17thknight wrote...
Stanley's not arguing the point at all. In fact, he flat-out said the company can and will do this to people. THAT'S the issue, that they can and will do this.

I have not commented on the issue at all, nor will I. I will notify the appropriate people tomorrow and hopefully, that will be the end of my involvement.

Also, I'm pretty damn sure the moderator of a forum can see people's IP addresses, and I'm pretty damn sure he could tell if they're the same person in about 3 clicks of a mouse.

I can not, or if I can, I haven't figured out how yet. Perhaps I'll have one of the other Moderators take me through a tutorial. It would make things so much easier in the future. Thank you.

Oooh, and after that tutorial the ban hammers will fall down like rain? I am terrified. ooohh...

Anyway, it would have been suffice to ban him from the forum if what you care about is protecting EA/Bioware reputation. But denying him access to the single player game he paid for? That is unnecessary and, to be honest, it backfired BIG TIME on EA/Bioware's reputation and public image.

He was reported to EA they suspended him not Bioware, they only ban from the forums. On top of that not a single person here knows 100% as FACT that the reason the original person was banned was the real reason as for how he was banned that speaks alot more about what could have been reported for given how incredably severe the options are like mentioned before terrorism, hate speeches and other worse things are covered by the 'report function' that he was reported using which is what was used because that is how you report someone to EA whom are the people who suspended him, so any one of those could be the reason for the suspension and noone here knows for 100% sure which was the reason only taking this persons claims as gospel.

[Oslegend]

Marionettetc wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Revoking the ability of someone to play your game because they said something you didn't like is grounds for swearing off that game developer/publisher from that point on. It also sounds potentially illegal, but I couldn't claim to know for sure.

I use "you" and "your" in the non specific sense here.

The social site is a privilege, not a right I believe.

This is a fan site, this isn't a general complaint board.

access to the social site sure, but not access to a product that you purchased. Ban him from the forums, not the product. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is actually something I've advocated in the past.  I thought Forum rules would be more likely to be followed if the penalty for breaking them was actually unpleasant.

The point of punishment is deterrence, after all.

In this case I'm not confident the risk of losing game access was sufficiently well publicised (people can't be deterred by a punishment if they are unaware of it), but in principle I approve of the model.

[Garak2]

Insaner Robot wrote...

Whilst I fully agree if he was permanently unable to play his game that would be huge cause for concern. He currently is only banned and unable to activate it for three days.

There's also the fact that everybody on these forums has agreed to abide by certain codes of conduct as outlined in the EA terms of service here: tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/

Whether you read it or not they still apply (incidentally I would reccomend reading it). It took a few minutes of my life and does seem overly harsh, but it's always best to know where you stand in any regard.

Well, if you want play your game don't you HAVE to agree to it?

[Insaner Robot]

joriandrake wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

EDIT: Sorry, I should have clarified that I've been home for a couple hours already, thanks for the concern.

and I started to believe you are all alone in an office building at night watching the forums before a PC in a big hall with shaking hands, pale skin, and red eyes from exhaustion

That seems unnervingly familiar, I've been like that at times on the computers in my campus library. 
Luckily I'm all snug in my room right now

[Marionettetc]

Oslegend wrote...

Marionettetc wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Revoking the ability of someone to play your game because they said something you didn't like is grounds for swearing off that game developer/publisher from that point on. It also sounds potentially illegal, but I couldn't claim to know for sure.

I use "you" and "your" in the non specific sense here.

The social site is a privilege, not a right I believe.

This is a fan site, this isn't a general complaint board.

access to the social site sure, but not access to a product that you purchased. Ban him from the forums, not the product. 

He acted maliciously, he's being treated maliciously.

If he didn't want his behavior to earn him a three day ban from verifying his game, maybe he shousln't have been an ****?

Or perhaps read his terms?

[Fidget6]

 Yep, pretty sure they could get sued over this if someone wanted to make the effort to try.

[Garak2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is actually something I've advocated in the past.  I thought Forum rules would be more likely to be followed if the penalty for breaking them was actually unpleasant.

The point of punishment is deterrence, after all.

In this case I'm not confident the risk of losing game access was sufficiently well publicised (people can't be deterred by a punishment if they are unaware of it), but in principle I approve of the model.

Then, with all due respect, you are wrong. It is a horrible model.

[epiccrabs]

I hereby state that this quote shall sunder the biodrones and eaf*gs severly

Indeed. Everyone defending this action must think it would be acceptable for Sony to show up at your house and take away your television after you bought it; GM to come take away your car after you paid for it; and for Coke to come stomach pump you and take back their soda after you drank it.

Care to prove me right?

[Keele]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is actually something I've advocated in the past.  I thought Forum rules would be more likely to be followed if the penalty for breaking them was actually unpleasant.

The point of punishment is deterrence, after all.

In this case I'm not confident the risk of losing game access was sufficiently well publicised (people can't be deterred by a punishment if they are unaware of it), but in principle I approve of the model.

This right here.

[Eterna]

I really don't know why everyone cares so much, he can log in 3 days from now.

[17thknight]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is actually something I've advocated in the past.  I thought Forum rules would be more likely to be followed if the penalty for breaking them was actually unpleasant.

The point of punishment is deterrence, after all.

In this case I'm not confident the risk of losing game access was sufficiently well publicised (people can't be deterred by a punishment if they are unaware of it), but in principle I approve of the model.

No, dude, banning someone from the site itself (permanently or otherwise) is all the punishment needed. You will NEVER force any measurable level of civility in a wholly anonymous place. Hell, you can't enforce it in real life.

And taking away someone's property rights to do it is way beyond the pale.

Given people's  responses, I'm willing to cede that it may be resolved early tomorrow without v_ware losing his ability to play his game. It's the only right way to handle the situation. If it's not, well, that's a few more bucks EA won't see.

Modifié par 17thknight, 11 mars 2011 - 07:29 .

[Lacan2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is actually something I've advocated in the past.  I thought Forum rules would be more likely to be followed if the penalty for breaking them was actually unpleasant.

The point of punishment is deterrence, after all.

In this case I'm not confident the risk of losing game access was sufficiently well publicised (people can't be deterred by a punishment if they are unaware of it), but in principle I approve of the model.

I would think permanent banning of the ability to post would definitely be unpleasant. It would not only be a good punishment, but would solve the poblem of forum disruption, which is the primary point of banning anyway.

Certainly driving people to piracy by banning legitimately purchased copies shows a reckless disregard for common sense and ethics. To people who think this way, I just have to shake my head in astonishment.

Modifié par Lacan2, 11 mars 2011 - 07:28 .

[Oslegend]

Marionettetc wrote...

Oslegend wrote...

Marionettetc wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Revoking the ability of someone to play your game because they said something you didn't like is grounds for swearing off that game developer/publisher from that point on. It also sounds potentially illegal, but I couldn't claim to know for sure.

I use "you" and "your" in the non specific sense here.

The social site is a privilege, not a right I believe.

This is a fan site, this isn't a general complaint board.

access to the social site sure, but not access to a product that you purchased. Ban him from the forums, not the product. 

He acted maliciously, he's being treated maliciously.

If he didn't want his behavior to earn him a three day ban from verifying his game, maybe he shousln't have been an ****?

Or perhaps read his terms?

Morally, sure I guess, but this is legallity we're discussing here, and according to consumer laws they cannot do that. You're argument is flawed, I suggest hitting the hay. 

[joriandrake]

Insaner Robot wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

EDIT: Sorry, I should have clarified that I've been home for a couple hours already, thanks for the concern.

and I started to believe you are all alone in an office building at night watching the forums before a PC in a big hall with shaking hands, pale skin, and red eyes from exhaustion

That seems unnervingly familiar, I've been like that at times on the computers in my campus library. 
Luckily I'm all snug in my room right now

I moved my stuff around to make it so that my bed is close to the desk/PC and the mouse and keyboard is reachable even while in bed to be able to watch at night movies or check forums or watch anime

[CrimsonKumiho]

hmm... think I'll go to bed and see where this ends up tomorrow. As of right now, everyone seems to be talking in circles... still. Nighty-night!

[Fidget6]

Eterna5 wrote...

I really don't know why everyone cares so much, he can log in 3 days from now.

Because he paid for a game with his money. Someone not liking something he said on the forums should not be grounds for him to get banned from his own game, even if only temporarily. 

Modifié par Fidget6, 11 mars 2011 - 07:28 .

[Joshd21]

epiccrabs wrote...

Joshd21 wrote...

.1.Let's just be clear, if you are banned on the fourms that doesn't mean you can't play the video game! there is tons of misinformation about this, let's say you create a bad posts. Boom, your banned but you can still log in all day and night on the game without any disturbing BUT the person in question DID NOT register the game BEFORE he started his rant that got him suspended for 72 hours!

So this whole fight, oh if your banned on the fourms, means your banned in game!, not true. Misinformation that is out there. There is an online check that is registered when you start up the game, after that you are home free. Let that rest in your mind for a moment, a ban on here, does not mean a ban in game. Everyone understand that?

2. What exactly is ths arugment about, a gamer claiming he can't play the game? why because he violated the rules before he got a chance to register the game! oh really so how long does he have to wait untill he registers the game? Umm about 72 hours!

3. The poster who has been banned has kept coming on this site creating post after post, several accounts and bashing the site. Once Mr. Woo figures out how to do the ISP(Internet Service Provider) ban. He won't be able to log into the site (Not on that PC anyways) but in the meantime he has created several threads, slamming the mods, mocking them, talked about getting the game from an illegal place and posted threads that would be considered haressment, threats etc. They should suspend his account for good.

Simply take your violation like a man and get over it. If you truely can not wait 3 days. Then you have too much time on your hands.

You sure have your ways of twisting your words there. I'll use the quote again 

Indeed. Everyone defending this action must think it would be acceptable for Sony to show up at your house and take away your television after you bought it; GM to come take away your car after you paid for it; and for Coke to come stomach pump you and take back their soda after you drank it.

Yup, you can't hold a candle on this statement.

What do you FAIL to understand? I myself was banned just LAST NIGHT for 24 hours, during this time I was able to log into the game and play it! The situation is that the person who had been suspended. Didn't register the game before the violation took place!

There is no cause for alarm, people banned on here will still be able to play in game! This is a situation where EA decided to suspended for 3 days! are you kidding me a person with this amount of time on his hands. How long has it been for 10 hours at least he's been on here screaming to the world!

No news site will pick this up because mostly it has to do with emotion from the person who got suspended. He just used everyone else as tools to rage here in hopes that his suspended will cut short! It's three days, one of which he has spent on the website. He will STILL be able to play the game in 2 more days.

However I am blocking him and hopefulley everyone will know it was him when he does log back on his account that has caused this. In over a year I been on this site I haven't seen this much pointless crying and posting since that DLC was late! Get over it, you are not special or unique to the rules no matter how the situation will be.

[Oslegend]

Garak2 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is actually something I've advocated in the past.  I thought Forum rules would be more likely to be followed if the penalty for breaking them was actually unpleasant.

The point of punishment is deterrence, after all.

In this case I'm not confident the risk of losing game access was sufficiently well publicised (people can't be deterred by a punishment if they are unaware of it), but in principle I approve of the model.

Then, with all due respect, you are wrong. It is a horrible model.

This, people tend to not think before they post I geuss. 

[MColes]

On the box itself, it says you have to register the game using an EA account in order to activate it. If you can't fullfill that requirement, don't buy it. If you computer doesn't meet system reqs, don't buy it. Don't open it, return it, put it back on the bloody shelf. Buying a copy of WoW doesn't mean, you get to play for free. You still are required to pay, just like it says on the box. For DA2, it says you have to do an online activation. It's simple and clear cut. It's not something that is exclusive to EA or BioWare. If some guy cheats at MW2, he can be banned (yea right, but roll with it). He paid for it, it's his game, he owns the physical disc. He still agreed to their services. It's a ****, but it's the world we all live in.

[Marionettetc]

epiccrabs wrote...

I hereby state that this quote shall sunder the biodrones and eaf*gs severly

Indeed. Everyone defending this action must think it would be acceptable for Sony to show up at your house and take away your television after you bought it; GM to come take away your car after you paid for it; and for Coke to come stomach pump you and take back their soda after you drank it.

Care to prove me right?

Your straw-man argument is just that, a straw-man.

It was a bad example when you first posted it, and it continues to go ignored because it's an extremely poor extremist comparison.

His product wasn't stolen, it's verification was delayed.

[Gatt9]

Look guys,  I'm no fan of EA,  but this is just a really odd case of an unforeseen bug.

Apparently it never occured to anyone before that a forum ban would impact product registration.  Whoever wrote the software for registration never thought about what would happen if an email addy was banned in a forum,  likely because he never touched the forum.

It wasn't intentional, it was just an oversight.  I can think of a dozen ways this could've happened with the software design.  Now if EA decides tomorrow that it likes the functionality and will keep it,  well then we've got an issue.

But right now,  it's really just a bug.

[Oslegend]

Eterna5 wrote...

I really don't know why everyone cares so much, he can log in 3 days from now.

Principle. "I really don't know why everyone cares so much, he'll get out of jail in 3 days from now.." doesn't that sound worse now?