1559 réponses à ce sujet

[Goofy McCoy]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
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*.

To your credit, I do not doubt that you fail to realize how ridiculous you appear, jumping up and down desperately trying to defend... something.

You do try hard, bless you.

[Esau_of_Isaac]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Esau_of_Isaac wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

17thknight wrote...

Esau_of_Isaac wrote...

Dragoonlordz, do you or do you not support banning an individual from use of already bought games because of an opinion of the game's developer/publisher?

If yes, you are a despicable and ignorant human being for supporting a malevolent business practice anyone with a brain would obviously work against. If no, you are at the least woefully misguided for defending a company despite such horrible behavior.

Yes he does.

He thinks that if you put a political bumpersticker on your car that GM doesn't like they should have the right to remotely detonate a hidden explosive inside of the engine.

Telling others what it is I believe? Born that stupid or just dropped on your head as a baby?

The only person who knows what I believe is me and I am perfectly capable thank you very much of stating my own views.

Then I'll repeat myself:

Dragoonlordz, do you or do you not support banning an individual from use of already bought games because of an opinion of the game's developer/publisher?

If yes, you are a despicable and ignorant human being for supporting a malevolent business practice anyone with a brain would obviously work against. If no, you are at the least woefully misguided for defending a company despite such horrible behavior.

I believe it is right for a company to ban the use of its licensed product if the offense is of a very serious nature (which does not include me jumping to the assumption that what someone who makes a claim happens actually is the reason in this case), unless you realise the report function on the Bioware forums actually do more than just report bad language or bad mouthing a product or company they actually contain very and I mean VERY serious issues in the report list from grooming to hate speech to terrorism posts. All SW did was point people to the TOC and the fact Bioware can ban from the forums and EA can ban from the game which is done via the reporting tool.

As for what the real report was about neither you know and neither do I but I won't jump to the defense of someone who I do not not for fact is telling the truth. With the report function some of those things you could be reported for shouldn't stop with a ban but should involve a custodial sentence.

If thats a yes then I really don't care how self righteous you think you are that this black and white world you live in is so crystal clear that you proclaim me to be the reincarnation of satan or likes of. Like I said if this is such an offense to your very existance be sure to voice such with your wallet. In both your scenarios you claim that whether I said yes or no I'm ignorant or misguided, I suggest you crawl out this glass bubble of yours and go out into the real world.

It's very black and white. You are attempting to inject shades of grey that don't exist so you can cling to an arbitrary and horribly formed defense for EA. You're misguided either way because on one hand you support a disgusting business practice, and on both hands you DEFEND it. I don't think you're the re-incarnation of Satan. I simply think you're behaving very childishly without actually thinking through the situation. The longer this continues, the more and more I believe that you're either an incredibly zealous EA fan, or an actual employee of the company.

[Oslegend]

Dragoonlordz 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. 

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. EA 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*.

You believe that you have an understanding of the legal system yet you still fail to understand that EULAS have been overturned hundreds of times, just because someone put something on an agreement doesn't mean it's legal. I made this example before, if bioware snuck in "You will now become a slave to us" somewhere in the EULA and millions of people clicked agree without reading they would become slaves? No, it doesn't work that way. EULAs are useless for the most part. *trollspray*

[17thknight]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

That's a complete copout, and one that doesn't hold up in court. That's like saying "you didn't buy this lamp, just the license to use it, and Ikea want's it's ****in lamp back!"

You and I both know that's corporate BS-speak.

You're defending an errosion of consumer rights, and it's disgusting.

[Smakit]

"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"

Wouldn't it be closer to, "Hi, sure you bought this shiny red car (physical copy), but it requires a license to operate (online registration/following terms) it. Unfortunately you have broke the law (terms), and now we will suspend your license. We aren't taking the car away, but you can't legally drive it temporarily."

?

Sorry if I lost some of the translations above, I didn't read through the several pages, as these arguments usually go the same way. One group says you bought the game, it is yours, they have no right to 'take' it. Others say you don't actually buy the game, must read the terms, and the game tells you ahead of time of its requirements. Then some in the middle argue about right and wrong (civilly and morally, with law interpretations in the middle), where the line is drawn, and a lot of hate.

In the end it doesn't do anything, but I guess it lets people vent, which can be a positive.

[Zanallen]

17thknight wrote...

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.

Slippery slope arguments are stupid. The fact remains that he made a comment that someone felt was offensive enough to report him for. Someone at EA then felt that the comment warrented a ban. He still has the game. No one took it from him. At this point he can either wait out his three day ban and then play or hope to gain a refund on the product.

[17thknight]

Marionettetc wrote...

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.

I'm not insulting anyone, but ironically you are insulting me in the same breath that you call it immature. Fascinating. Hey, I know, I'll report your post. Let's hope you can still use your video games tomorrow

[Oslegend]

Metal_Gorby wrote...

Internet, serious business.

consumer law offenses, serious business. 

[PretentiousCat]

Illthar wrote...

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.

Ok bro, next time you go somewhere and you get bad service, and complain (throwing a snide remark in there), not only do they kick you out, but as you're leaving they TAKE AWAY the product you paid for without refund.

I do not want to live on this planet anymore.

[Insaner Robot]

Let's try be clear on what happened, he hasn't been banned from utilising the product he bought.
Let's assume (and I'm sorry for assuming) for a moment that the fact that his account suspension is temporary is irrelevent.

If it was permanent he still wouldn't be banned from accessing the product he paid for because it hasn't yet been activated. So another account can be created and used to activate his game. His ban affects his primary account not his ability to play the game at this time.

At this time I'm unable to comment on the possibility of linking the game to another acount after initial activation. So I will neither assume it to be posssible or impossible and leave that to more informed individuals.

My SE should arrive in a few hours and I may have more information about linking to multiple accounts available at that point.

Modifié par Insaner Robot, 11 mars 2011 - 07:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Intellectual property law is different in kind from regular property law.

[17thknight]

Zanallen wrote...
Slippery slope arguments are stupid. The fact remains that he made a comment that someone felt was offensive enough to report him for. Someone at EA then felt that the comment warrented a ban. He still has the game. No one took it from him. At this point he can either wait out his three day ban and then play or hope to gain a refund on the product.

That's not a slippery slope argument, because I am not arguing "X will happen if Y occurs" "X is worse than Y".
(I study rhetoric, come at me on fallacies, bro).

The argument is this "His rights as a consumer are violated in this situation. Period. There is no if you let this happen then ______ worse thing will occur.

THIS situation, which we are describing, occurred. It is what is wrong. The end.

[jussyr]

Wow. I really hope this policy gets reversed ASAP and the person involved gets an apology, or I'm done buying EA games for good. Which is certainly going to be painful, and I'll hope like crazy that Bioware detaches themselves from EA, but this is simply unconscionable, and I cannot support any company who would do such a thing.

[Oslegend]

Keele wrote...

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.

And I did not mean it in a literal way as well. You cannot take away someone's property because they insulted your company, that's called theft, go away troll.

[Marionettetc]

17thknight wrote...

Marionettetc wrote...

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.

I'm not insulting anyone, but ironically you are insulting me in the same breath that you call it immature. Fascinating. Hey, I know, I'll report your post. Let's hope you can still use your video games tomorrow

You did insult me, you compared me to the NS party in regards to grammar and called me a jerk and petty.

That's not an insult? What world are you living in?

Modifié par Marionettetc, 11 mars 2011 - 07:50 .

[Joshd21]

Satyricon331 wrote...

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.

However since then he has created several threads which I will list to you. "Illegal downloading from the internet" he has claimed to now be downloading the game elsewhere. Flipped the mods the birds, now next "Haressment" since then he has create well over ten seperate accounts, writing vulgar messages, attacking the mods and insulting the game itself. And let's not forget spamming, a mountain of spam was created because of him by him. I have no doubt he encouraged other people from other sites to log on and complain about this issue with him.

How many violations is that? Seem's like a stack of them to me. While you may not agree with EA's choice it is not in our right to complain everytime someone get's suspended. His posting privileges were suspended! however that has not shut him up from coming on this site, and yelling like a drunk trucker, kicking in Bioware's front door, spreading rumors and lies to fill his own need

Had he got suspended AFTER he registered their would be no debate. He would be logging in Bioware's game he claims to hate and playing untill dusk till dawn. The man even ordered the SE edition paying months in advance, strange from a company he thinks is the scum of the earth

In closing, you are all tools people who complain on his behalf you are feeding what he wants to happen. His whole situation is to get soo many people outraged by this by telling them he was suspended on the fourm which lead to him being suspended in game! is not true. His overall goal is to get an early released from being suspended. Which will send a clear message to everyone gets suspended, complain, whine enough and you will get your way.

Seriously, go outside for 2 days. There has got to be something else to do in his life besides NERD RAGE posts that make the entire community site look bad all because one poster couldn't log in for 3 days. If I was Mr. Woo I would have suspended him for good for the mess he has created. I would have welcome any lawyer he hires, watch him spend 4grand or more on a lawyer who is likely to fail.

[Lacan2]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

You can replace "criticism of that product" in my statement with anything said on a forum and still not have the right to take away that consumer's right to use a product he has purchased.

Imagine if GE tried to disable your oven for voicing offensive relgious statements on a GE forum. Again, it probably violates United States fair use laws, but this is so minor it's pointless to litigate. A more fitting punishment than engaging in a massive lawsuit over $60 would be the PR black eye.

Perhaps the utility company should shut off your water and power if you voice certain offensive language. That would be acceptable under your opinion, eh? You can quickly see how unethical this sort of thing becomes with just a little thought.

Although it truly is hard to believe you are in fact serious here and not trolling. If I'm mistaken and you're actually serious in this opinion, you have my sympathy.

Modifié par Lacan2, 11 mars 2011 - 07:51 .

[joriandrake]

PretentiousCat wrote...

Illthar wrote...

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.

Ok bro, next time you go somewhere and you get bad service, and complain (throwing a snide remark in there), not only do they kick you out, but as you're leaving they TAKE AWAY the product you paid for without refund.

I do not want to live on this planet anymore.

I considered moving to Sweden or Japan but since a while those places also got their own legal mess so I didn't,
that plus I can't really speak swedish or japanese

[CubbieBlue66]

I don't want to get involved in this flame war, but I would like to chip in my two cents.

I understand the need to have people register their games the first time they use them, in order to prevent piracy. But the bottom line is that if a person is unable to play a game they own a physical copy of because they said something the company who created the game found offensive, there is something wrong. Perhaps it isn't cost effective to implement a method of account bans without restricting access to game registration, but there is a moral obligation to uphold.

[Oslegend]

17thknight wrote...

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!"

good metaphor. *gives cookie*

[Illthar]

PretentiousCat wrote...

Illthar wrote...

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.

Ok bro, next time you go somewhere and you get bad service, and complain (throwing a snide remark in there), not only do they kick you out, but as you're leaving they TAKE AWAY the product you paid for without refund.

I do not want to live on this planet anymore.

Ofcourse not!
Read again!
I'm talking in general terms.
If I go in to a store, scream and shout, behaving like an jerk, namecalling etc etc THEN I excpect to maybe get myself banned from that store.

For complaining in a civil maner? Ofcourse not! (not even if you do an sarcastic remark or two should that be the case imo. Everyone can be upset!)

Read my post again than you. There are more ways then one to complain.

Modifié par Illthar, 11 mars 2011 - 07:53 .

[17thknight]

jussyr wrote...

Wow. I really hope this policy gets reversed ASAP and the person involved gets an apology, or I'm done buying EA games for good. Which is certainly going to be painful, and I'll hope like crazy that Bioware detaches themselves from EA, but this is simply unconscionable, and I cannot support any company who would do such a thing.

Not as painful as you might imagine.

They don't see a dime of preowned sales.

Ebay is your friend

Modifié par 17thknight, 11 mars 2011 - 07:50 .

[PretentiousCat]

Basically for those of you in the dark.

Person A goes onto a live chat session and asks something where he says EA = the devil.
Someone bans him, not a real biggie, happens a lot.
!!!! Enter the problem.
This ban PROHIBITS him from registering his game, which he paid for.
Registration is REQUIRED to play the game.
Thus, it's similar to not letting him use a product due to a snide remark.

it's similar to going to McDonalds, waiting in line and saying you think the place is gross or w/e.
After you order, you sit down and can't open your BigMac box for 72 hours. The manager comes over and says you can't eat it for 3 days because he didn't like what you said.

And yeah, you can eat it after 3 days (it's McDonalds) but it's not near as good as being able to eat it when you paid for it.

So, IMHO the punishment is too harsh, a forum ban is fine. Keeping him from using a product regardless of method is wrong.

Modifié par PretentiousCat, 11 mars 2011 - 07:55 .

[17thknight]

Marionettetc wrote...


You did insult me, you compared me to the NS party in regards to grammar and called me a jerk and petty.

That's not an insult? What world are you living in?

Lol, really now? You've never heard the phrase "Grammar N@zi"? You consider that a "personal insult"? 

Getting a bit hyperbolic, kid.

You do realize that, when saying "____ doesn't hold a candle to ____" people aren't literally referring to candles, yes? No? Alright, whatever.


And yes, typing in ANGRY CAPSLOCK that someone should use "you're" and not "your" is exceptionally petty. It also degrades your argument, severely. Do you study argumentation and rhetoric? You should. You sacrifice a good deal of Pathos when you do things like that.

Modifié par 17thknight, 11 mars 2011 - 07:53 .

[Oslegend]

Illthar wrote...

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.

I can walk into a sony store, call their products crap call them idiots. They however cannot just take away the tv I bought from them yesterday to "teach me a lesson" about not insulting them..

you sir are an idiot.