1559 réponses à ce sujet

[Oslegend]

Marionettetc wrote...

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 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.

 
Like a brick wall. tisk tisk. And correcting my grammatical errors won't discredit me unfortunately for you. And I do know consumer protection laws, why? Because I read them. And now, you cannot take back a product someone paid for without a refund, that's something called theft, and breaks multiple laws. If he was being a jerk then fine, ban him from the forums but you cannot take away something he spent money on just to teach a lesson. It's like banning someone from entering your shop, sure they pissed and threw up all over the floor but you can't take the $100 bag of groceries he just bought to teach him a lesson. 

[Keele]

Eterna5 wrote...

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.

You got that right.

[blowoutware]

I think a public speech given from a 3 page document in the rain on a muddy slope while hopping on a pogo stick is a great way for gamers to get a fraction of the money they put into this product back via enjoyment.

EA's Ceo? maybe the head of bioware.

Modifié par blowoutware, 11 mars 2011 - 07:39 .

[epiccrabs]

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?

This is not an MMORPG nor a subscription. This is a retail product that is being sold to you physically/digitally. You fail to see reason. Let me explain in MUCH more simpler terms. I drank coke, didn't like it, posted a comment on coke forums about coke, they take the coke from my stomach away, give it back 3 days later. The same could be said on the game. You installed it already then just because they didn't like your insult, they rendered your game unusable. How is that fair? You didn't hack the game, you didn't cause them money in fact you GAVE them money for the game; this is how they treat you? Stop being a tool and see things in a new light because it sure is dark in there.

[Dragoonlordz]

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. 

If it is legallity your discussing by all means take it to the courts, consider it a vindication of what you claim if goes in your favour but all your doing here is trying to fight a war against all companies with EULAS that allow them to suspend or ban you from their product, the Bioware forums is not the place to do it plain and simple. EAs decision by all means go bug them but get off Bioware forums imho. Bioware were not the ones who suspended him. Yet here you are still trolling trying to create some form of resentment using the forums of not the company that suspended him, pure genious *applauds*.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 mars 2011 - 07:47 .

[sreaction]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Immortalized wrote...

Yes the other thread was locked/deleted.
The thread everyone was directed to, to continue the discussion.

Why did they delete it? Simple!

This story has spread to several other Gaming websites.
They are linking to the thread that was deleted.

So those coming from other Gaming sites are coming to nothing.

This is a strategy by EA/Bioware. Every business uses strategies to either hype their business or protect it.

So take your pick on continuing to defend EA/Bioware... they have to respond soon or later, so time will tell.

IMHO in a business strategy, they are protecting their asses.

Nice join date...

Maybe he is posting anonymously so he doesnt get banned.

[joriandrake]

Keele wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

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.

You got that right.

would also have the same result as to just shot him dead then

all hail the police dictatorship?

Modifié par joriandrake, 11 mars 2011 - 07:40 .

[17thknight]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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

Guess what? EA doesn't have the right to come take away your children, or your property.
EA isn't the government.
Children are taken away to protect them.
His access to the game wasn't taken away to protect the video game.

There's so many logical fallacies in this post I can't even believe I'm responding. None of what you say applies.

[Zanallen]

And yet, if he had registered his game and actually played it before he made his asinine comments, he would still be able to play the game despite being banned. It is his fault and maybe he'll learn to follow the rules from now on.

[Keele]

joriandrake wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

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.

would also have the same result as to just shot him dead then

Nah man, we need people like him to keep the gravy train rolling.

[Oslegend]

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.

And I'm the one being called stupid *shrug*

[17thknight]

There should be a limit to the number of quotes withing quotes...

[Metal_Gorby]

Internet, serious business.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lacan2 wrote...

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.

It's a good thing, then, that voicing criticism isn't what got him banned.

It would appear he violated the prohibition on offensive religious speech.  There's a rule against that.  There is no rule against criticism.

[Xaltar81]

Mr. Woo himself told us in another thread that there are 2 types of ban on the forums. The first being a forum ban of 24 hours, enforced by Bioware moderators and the second being a 72 hour ban of your entire EA account. This 72 hour ban is enforced by EA and can only occur if a post is reported and an EA representative felt it was warrented. So Joshd21, you are not wrong but you did not have all the facts. EA CAN and does suspend accounts for violations of the ToS. The person banned claims to be unable to play any of thier registered games including ones that have been registered previously. I can't verify this as I don't particularly feel like getting myself banned and trying it out. I think it is safe to assume that if you have the game already installed and verified that it shuold still play though seeing as the internet connection is an "optional" feature and they have no whay of verifying it is your account unless you have tried to log on to the EA servers within your game.

[MColes]

17thknight wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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

Guess what? EA doesn't have the right to come take away your children, or your property.
EA isn't the government.
Children are taken away to protect them.
His access to the game wasn't taken away to protect the video game.

There's so many logical fallacies in this post I can't even believe I'm responding. None of what you say applies.

Guess what? They didn't take away his game, they refused authentication on their end.  He still has the product he paid for.  Lets hope he can get himself a return.

[17thknight]

Zanallen wrote...

And yet, if he had registered his game and actually played it before he made his asinine comments, he would still be able to play the game despite being banned. It is his fault and maybe he'll learn to follow the rules from now on.

It is not his fault. It is the fault of EA for doing it. They did this to him, they are at fault. People are responsible for their own actions, period.
He made a comment, that you can't even quote, and this resulted in a ban from a forum. Fine, that happens.

That this then destroys his ability to use his private property is vile. Imagine if EVERY time you said something online that someone didn't like your ability to use your private property was void.

Freedom of speech, consumer rights, and private property rights trump all, especially a comment on a damn video game site.

[mordarwarlock]

I haven't seen so much Mentally ill people in a single thread, for real

Dragoonlordz and Marionettetc must be the delight of psychiatrist everywhere

It would appear he violated the prohibition on offensive
religious speech.  There's a rule against that.  There is no rule
against criticism.

yeah....then EA should ban bioware employees altogether

you know...using demon and devil in their own game...

another one to the list of the mentally ill

Modifié par mordarwarlock, 11 mars 2011 - 07:44 .

[Keele]

Oslegend wrote...

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.

And I'm the one being called stupid *shrug*

Yes, you are.

If you've got anything substantial to say, then I'm waiting.

[17thknight]

MColes wrote...

Guess what? They didn't take away his game, they refused authentication on their end.  He still has the product he paid for.  Lets hope he can get himself a return.

That's like selling someone a car without the engine and saying "Well you still have the car, you just can't use it, not our problem!"

[epiccrabs]

MColes wrote...

17thknight wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

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

Guess what? EA doesn't have the right to come take away your children, or your property.
EA isn't the government.
Children are taken away to protect them.
His access to the game wasn't taken away to protect the video game.

There's so many logical fallacies in this post I can't even believe I'm responding. None of what you say applies.

Guess what? They didn't take away his game, they refused authentication on their end.  He still has the product he paid for.  Lets hope he can get himself a return.

Guess what more? You were wrong. Stop evading it. You've been wrong several times on this thread. First you denied the existence of the ban and now you're using logical fallacies.

[TheNerevarine]

I don't know what's more disturbing, the corporate policy being discussed or the 4-5 participants who are vigilantly advocating the 'punishment' despite the obvious unanimous opinion in support of consumer interests.

Reminds me of white collar people who vote for political candidates advocating corporate interests and tax cuts for economic classes the voter will never be in.

As usual, the majority will have their cake and the few who are arguing now will fall right in line like they always do after the fact.

Modifié par TheNerevarine, 11 mars 2011 - 07:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

17thknight wrote...

Guess what? EA doesn't have the right to come take away your children, or your property.

He doesn't have any property of reelvance, here.  He doesn't own the game.  He purchased a license to use the game.  If he violated the terms of that license (whether he did is open to debate), then EA is absolutely allowed to recind that license.

[Illthar]

Fissure wrote...

http://social.biowar...index/6459941/1

Or
"talking crap" in a forum, or chatroom. Calling a company a devil, so
you make it so the guy can't play his own  game. Are you all crazy.
That;'s gonna look good, he insults you so you ground him from playing
the game. Get over yourself EA, some people think your a **** company,
CRAP LIKE THAT IS WHY

Well I'm just gonna state my opinion in generall terms cause I know to little about this specific case.
OFCOURSE you CAN and SHOULD be able to limit a persons ability to play a game because of forum posts!
What many (young) people don't seem to understand today is that internet is no "do whatever you want, say anything, be an ass" playground without any consequenses whatever.

You don't have a "free to be a jerk" card because you're online!
Theres to many internet warriors out there who does'nt realise this, if they were face to face to someone they would NEVER have the cojones to act as they do online.

You can't be civil online on someone elses property? (as in Biowares social service), you might have to take the consequenses of yer actions. Fair and square imo.

This writing talks in general terms as I've stated.

[Marionettetc]

17thknight wrote...

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.

You're being extremely immature and stretching what actually happened here into this life or death melodramatic incident. He can't get his game checked for three days. No one "fire-bombed" his sick baby, or whatever out there examples you guys are parroting.

Vile in the extreme? Sound the alarm, raise the banners! Someone can't check in their game for a few days! Let's all ignore what he did to recieve that punishment and trumpet how he's the victim.

If attempting to be a voice of reason gets you insulted, so be it. You can call me whatever name you wish to. I see so much bad logic in this thread, over-reacting without knowing the facts or the intimate details of what really happened - and am simply providing the other side of the argument.

You want petty? You're a drama queen who can't hold a conversation without attacking someone else. That's petty, if you ask me.