1559 réponses à ce sujet

[joriandrake]

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.

this is not a fan site, it is their official forum, people are not requested to be all happy and only post compliments nor should negative posts get removed, or atleast that is how it should work

but at the same time comments can and should still be made in a civilized manner

[Keele]

Lacan2 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.

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.

You can't fight crime by chucking teddy bears at criminals, you need to whack them with a police baton.

Modifié par Keele, 11 mars 2011 - 07:33 .

[epiccrabs]

Joshd21 wrote...

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.

But you're not denying that EA can and will ban you from the game you bought because you insulted them. Hence no one can hold a candle on the quote. 

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.

[17thknight]

derpdoublepost

Modifié par 17thknight, 11 mars 2011 - 07:32 .

[17thknight]

MColes wrote...

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

He had the ability, and desire, to register the game. EA are the ones who prevented him from doing so, after he'd purchased it. That's probably not legal. Most EULA's don't hold up well in court, but most people simply dont' care enough to push the issue.

Modifié par 17thknight, 11 mars 2011 - 07:33 .

[mordarwarlock]

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?

you are assuming as much as everyone here he actually maliciously, but why if instead the only thing the guy did was post that phrase?

the overall point of the discussion is being denied for something you already paid off, again, nobody could refute the examples given of a product bought and then being taken by the company because you spoke ill or otherwise of them, yet all of you seem to either not care to read it because you can't refute or just not get it

like oslegend said, you arguement is completely flawed, and even more when you think individual rights should not care at all, that's borderline psychopath

Marionette said

it's an extremely poor extremist comparison.

hypocrite, you just posted this a few pages ago

Marionetted said

They have a business to run and it's just rude to slander them. Negative publicity can lose them money, and they care more about that than your individual rights. As they should.

THAT is not being extremist?, individual rights should not be cared?, again, are you a psychopath?

Modifié par mordarwarlock, 11 mars 2011 - 07:34 .

[joriandrake]

Oslegend wrote...

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? 

3 day? replace that with a week, a month, a year, five years

where should it stop? this  is not about the length of the time, but about the ability to restrict game owners like this to begin with

[Insaner Robot]

Garak2 wrote...

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?

Sorry, it seems I wasn't clear as I was trying to be, my apologies.
I merely meant to imply that not everybody goes to the trouble of reading the terms of service and just skip it and agree.
Yes you do HAVE to agree but not everybody reads it, I was just trying to suggest everybody should take the time to read it if they haven't already.

Also just to be clear I'm neither on the side of EA or the forum member who was banned. I'm just trying to contribute to the discussion in a rational manner.

[Oslegend]

Keele wrote...

Lacan2 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.

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.

You can't fight crime by chucking teddybears at criminals, you need to whack them with a baton.

And you can't beat them with batons or chuck teddy bears at them just because they insult you, that's called assault. Go away troll. 

[Marionettetc]

Oslegend wrote...

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. 

Consumer laws? You're a lawyer now I see?

I guarantee bioware acted fully within their rights. All the crying and righteous indignation in the world won't change the fact someone got punished for being a jerk, and I really wish this sort of thing happened much more often.

Also, *YOU'RE* is a contraction, *YOUR* implies possession as in - The argument I possess. I suggest you hit the hay.

Modifié par Marionettetc, 11 mars 2011 - 07:36 .

[joriandrake]

Keele wrote...

Lacan2 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.

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.

You can't fight crime by chucking teddybears at criminals, you need to whack them with a baton.

or taser little girls who don't want to take a bath? sounds familiar

[Magicman10893]

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.

You realize that they didn't take his game away? The account is temporarily suspended, which means he can't log in, which means he can't log in to register his game. They didn't steal the games from his hands like candy from a child. They didn't steal the pizza he was eating that he paid for. They didn't repossess his car because he talked about the company negatively. They refused his ability to use their services which is inherintly required to use the product, like taking away the fork and knife and plate at a restraunt leaving him with the steak he paid for trying to figure out how to eat it without making a huge mess. The analogy of stealing a product he paid for makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention the fact that the suspension is only for 3 days, and by now is probably close to being 2 days. If all this talk of taking legal action would be taken seriously, his ability to register the game would be back before he could find a lawyer! And let's not forget that this is out of Bioware's jurisdiction. Everyone is blaming EA/Bioware and saying they'll never buy a Bioware game again and blah, blah, blah. It isn't Bioware's TOS that is doing this and it isn't Bioware's ban, it's EA's. That would be like being held hostage in a lunatic's car and runs someone over and kills them, but you getting blamed as an "accessory to murder" because you were in the car and didn't try to stop it.

Also, Joshd21, I can't afford a diamond engagement ring for you, will you accept cubic zarconium?

[Dragoonlordz]

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?

The goverment can take away even your children if your violent or abusive so why not your car or your game. 

[upsettingshorts]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

No, it's clearly working as intended and evidence of EA/Bioware's contempt for the entire forum community.  They hate us, and probably kick puppies when they're not on duty.  

...seriously though that's pretty much my position/intepretation.

[Keele]

Oslegend wrote...

Keele wrote...

Lacan2 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.

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.

You can't fight crime by chucking teddybears at criminals, you need to whack them with a baton.

And you can't beat them with batons or chuck teddy bears at them just because they insult you, that's called assault. Go away troll. 

It's not literal, stupid.

The point is that sometimes you need to get serious in order to maintain good results.

[MColes]

17thknight wrote...

MColes wrote...

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

He had the ability, and desire, to register the game. EA are the ones who prevented him from doing so, after he'd purchased it. That's probably not legal. Most EULA's don't hold up well in court, but most people simply dont' care enough to push the issue.

Ah, but it's not even about the EULA.  It's about EA's online service being required to activate the game.  EA can ban anyone they want from their service.  EULA doesn't hold up very well with hardware like Apple, but look at Blizzard and anyone they've sued. 

[Satyricon331]

For what little my opinion is worth, I think the punishment would be appropriate for serious violations like personal threats, hate speech, etc. I think in this particular case it was inappropriate. "Selling you soul to the devil" is harsh language, but it's a sufficiently common expression it has lost much of the forcefulness it likely once had, and it didn't threaten anyone. He should have had his posting privileges suspended, not his account.

[Lacan2]

Keele wrote...

Lacan2 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.

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.

You can't fight crime by chucking teddybears at criminals, you need to whack them with a baton.

The punishment must fit the crime and also be mindful of the effects. It must also include the principles of fairness and ethics.

Banning someone from using a product due to voicing criticism of that product is extremely unethical and, if it were actually litigated, stands a decent chance to be found in violation of US consumer law. Any sensible person would see it this way.

Of course, there are people in this world without sense or concept of ethics or law. I'm assuming you must be trolling but gave a serious response anyway, mainly because consumer protection is a serious issue and nothing to make light of.

Modifié par Lacan2, 11 mars 2011 - 07:37 .

[Eterna]

Fidget6 wrote...

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. 

You don't have to be online to play the game.

At least I don't think so.

[joriandrake]

Magicman10893 wrote...

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.

You realize that they didn't take his game away? The account is temporarily suspended, which means he can't log in, which means he can't log in to register his game. They didn't steal the games from his hands like candy from a child. They didn't steal the pizza he was eating that he paid for. They didn't repossess his car because he talked about the company negatively. They refused his ability to use their services which is inherintly required to use the product, like taking away the fork and knife and plate at a restraunt leaving him with the steak he paid for trying to figure out how to eat it without making a huge mess. The analogy of stealing a product he paid for makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention the fact that the suspension is only for 3 days, and by now is probably close to being 2 days. If all this talk of taking legal action would be taken seriously, his ability to register the game would be back before he could find a lawyer! And let's not forget that this is out of Bioware's jurisdiction. Everyone is blaming EA/Bioware and saying they'll never buy a Bioware game again and blah, blah, blah. It isn't Bioware's TOS that is doing this and it isn't Bioware's ban, it's EA's. That would be like being held hostage in a lunatic's car and runs someone over and kills them, but you getting blamed as an "accessory to murder" because you were in the car and didn't try to stop it.

Also, Joshd21, I can't afford a diamond engagement ring for you, will you accept cubic zarconium?

"hiii, sure you bought the nice new red shiny car, and yes you do have it in your garage, but we will now temporary suspend you for a while from using it by taking away your garage and house keys,have a nice day"

[17thknight]

Marionettetc wrote...

I guarantee bioware acted fully within their rights. All the crying and righteous indignation in the world won't change the fact someone got punished for being a jerk, and I really with this sort of thing happened much more often.

Also, *YOU'RE* is a contraction, *YOUR* implies possession as in - The argument I possess. I suggest you hit the hay.

Being a jerk is not grounds to take away someone's property rights. If you buy a car, and then say "I don't like GM", they don't have the right to come firebomb it.

A lot of EULA's don't hold up in court, and that you're arguing this is even morally correct is abhorrent. Banning someone from a forum site is fine, but stealing their property as a result is vile in the extreme. What punishment do you think is appropriate for "being a jerk"? 

You're kind of a jerk in your post that I"m quoting, should you be denied your ability to play video games forever as a result? I don't think so, but you sure seem to.

Alos, top with the grammar N@zi stuff, just makes you look petty.

Modifié par 17thknight, 11 mars 2011 - 07:38 .

[Gatt9]

MColes wrote...

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.

Fair Use Act in the United States makes this an illegal act.  A company cannot ban you from using a product you've purchased and brought home.  They can ban you from the forums,  sure,  but they cannot ban you from using a product.  Activiation is not a function of the game he purchased,  EA uses it as copy protection,  but it is not legal to require it in order to play the game at all.

This is why when Microsoft and Sony both banned moded consoles,  what they did was prevented them from connecting to the live services.  The users violated the terms of service,  but neither MS nor Sony can legally brick the consoles,  just prevent them from accessing online services.  This topic,  if permitted to continue,  would effectively be bricking his game,  which isn't legal.

The EULA is irrelevant,  a contract that violates law is invalid.  This issue,  if it were to persist,  would destroy the software industries tenuous hold on the theory of "Leasing software",  as no court will uphold it.  This is not a fight EA wants to get in.

[mordarwarlock]

The goverment can take away even your children if your violent or abusive so why not your car or your game.

you are comparing Living children with Objects?

are you people mentally sane?, my god...

[Eterna]

joriandrake wrote...

Oslegend wrote...

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? 

3 day? replace that with a week, a month, a year, five years

where should it stop? this  is not about the length of the time, but about the ability to restrict game owners like this to begin with

Well hey, he'll never be rude on the forums again.

[joriandrake]

Keele wrote...

Oslegend wrote...

Keele wrote...

Lacan2 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.

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.

You can't fight crime by chucking teddybears at criminals, you need to whack them with a baton.

And you can't beat them with batons or chuck teddy bears at them just because they insult you, that's called assault. Go away troll. 

It's not literal, stupid.

The point is that sometimes you need to get serious in order to maintain good results.

just like using a taser to get little girls taking a bath /nods

(btw refrain from insults please)