1559 réponses à ce sujet

[Eelzebub]

Perhaps the "glitch" refers to the obvious malfunction in the staff members judgment? c:

[Leon Zweihander]

Now that this issue has been resolved and review sites are now examining EA/Bioware's actions through a fine-toothed comb people will take a closer look at this release-date checker. With this banning error I'm having doubts about Bioware's integrity, I suppose time will tell if it really is or is not Securom. Though I have a hunch there will be an early patch to fix most of the bugs voiced these last few days.

[Melness]

Anathemic wrote...

Good faith works both ways, the topic title came true, so why should I return Good Faith back to EA/BioWare?

You're free to go whatever you consider to be good faith, I just think it isn't good faith to wear a tin-foil hat.

It was said once that the punishment was correct.

It was said once that it was an error.

It was said once it was a glitch of the system.

It was said lastly it was human error.

If you wish to believe neither of these things, then at least bring more than nitpickery as evidence. And do try to consider that companies aren't perfectly aligned hiveminds.

Modifié par Melness, 12 mars 2011 - 02:34 .

[Proviant_germany]

Fernando Melo wrote...

Let me try to summarize and clarify a few things...

 (...)

What happened in this case (the error in the sytem) was human error. 

Thanks for making that clear. I think you could not be any quicker because of the day/night time. Let's hope you use some Desire Demons to "club" e-learnings DVDs into the employees 

[Anathemic]

Melness wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Good faith works both ways, the topic title came true, so why should I return Good Faith back to EA/BioWare?

You're free to go whatever you consider to be good faith, I just think it isn't good faith to wear a tin-foil hat.

It was said once that the punishment was correct.

It was said once that it was an error.

It was said once it was a glitch of the system.

It was said lastly it was human error.

If you wish to believe neither of these things, then at least bring more than nitpickery as evidence. And do try to consider that companies aren't perfectly aligned hiveminds.

It's hard to believe any of these things when they are proven false by the succeeding one. I merely go back to a predecessor (which i have bolded) which I deem true.

[Proviant_germany]

Leon Zweihander wrote...

Now that this issue has been resolved and review sites are now examining EA/Bioware's actions through a fine-toothed comb people will take a closer look at this release-date checker. With this banning error I'm having doubts about Bioware's integrity, I suppose time will tell if it really is or is not Securom. Though I have a hunch there will be an early patch to fix most of the bugs voiced these last few days.

What do you mean by Securom? DA 2 have one?

[Melness]

Anathemic wrote...

It's hard to believe any of these things when they are proven false by the succeeding one. I merely go back to a predecessor (which i have bolded) which I deem true.

Is it then due to personal preference? Or have you found evidence to back that statement, if so I'm interested.

Proviant_germany wrote...

Leon Zweihander wrote...

Now that this issue has been resolved and review sites are now examining EA/Bioware's actions through a fine-toothed comb people will take a closer look at this release-date checker. With this banning error I'm having doubts about Bioware's integrity, I suppose time will tell if it really is or is not Securom. Though I have a hunch there will be an early patch to fix most of the bugs voiced these last few days.

What do you mean by Securom? DA 2 have one? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wondering.png[/smilie]

It appears to be the case. Reclaim your games, I think, found SecuRom hidden in DA2's files; like what EA did to Spore, I think. Though I don't think it is related to this issue. Otherwise it would be more spread out, I suppose.

Modifié par Melness, 12 mars 2011 - 02:37 .

[Zanderat]

Proviant_germany wrote...

Leon Zweihander wrote...

Now that this issue has been resolved and review sites are now examining EA/Bioware's actions through a fine-toothed comb people will take a closer look at this release-date checker. With this banning error I'm having doubts about Bioware's integrity, I suppose time will tell if it really is or is not Securom. Though I have a hunch there will be an early patch to fix most of the bugs voiced these last few days.

What do you mean by Securom? DA 2 have one?

Apparerenly so.  I just found it hidden on my machine.

[Couch-Ninja]

Whatever the integrity of the companies at work is, it is revealed that they have influence on your game acessibility. This tells me that I do not own the product I purchase. In my opinion this makes it inferior to its upcomming compeditors, such as the Witcher 2 or Elderscrolls: Skyrim. Whom do not employ crummy Account-based DLC or acessibility software in their 'user agreement'.
Whatever the error was, the service provided with this product is enough reason to stay away from it.

[Anathemic]

Melness wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

It's hard to believe any of these things when they are proven false by the succeeding one. I merely go back to a predecessor (which i have bolded) which I deem true.

Is it then due to personal preference? Or have you found evidence to back that statement, if so I'm interested.

Not at all, if excuses repeatedly thrown at you are repeatedly false then one will get irritated and search for the answer him/herself.

Now this 'search' can be conducted in many ways, what I did was look into the previous fallacies and determine which one closely fits with the truth. I chose the succeeding (nearest) predecesoor of the latest excuse as the previous two are already proven false by themselves and the nearest predecessor.

Unless there's another excuse to cancel out the specific predecessor I have chosen, then the one I have a chosen I will deem true for the time being.

[Zanderat]

Here is Stanley Woo's quote. 

Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here:



1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24
hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability
to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed
out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum
and/or issues reported by fellow community members.



2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the
result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect
access to your game and/or DLC.



Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as
all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to
abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added
incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.

How is this a "glitch"?

Modifié par Zanderat, 12 mars 2011 - 02:44 .

[Leon Zweihander]

I'd rather not post links as it might be construed as negative behavior and I still have a shiny, unopened DA2 game waiting for me a couple months from now. Search for "Dragon Age 2 with securom". I'm sure you'll get several hits with information about this.

[Melness]

Anathemic wrote...

Now this 'search' can be conducted in many ways, what I did was look into the previous fallacies and determine which one closely fits with the truth. I chose the succeeding (nearest) predecesoor of the latest excuse as the previous two are already proven false by themselves and the nearest predecessor.

And by assuming that the latest 'excuse' is a Lie, you feel compelled to search for the Truth. What I don't follow is if there's any logical reason based on evidence to do so. Since you can't describe exactly what happened (there's even the possibility that no one can) it is very unlikely that there is, therefore this is a Witch Hunt.

Zanderat wrote...

Here si Sta;ey Woo's quote.  

Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here: 

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 
hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability 
to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed
out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum
and/or issues reported by fellow community members. 

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the 
result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect 
access to your game and/or DLC. 

Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as 
all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to
abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added 
incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.

How is this a "glitch"?

Since there's no easy way for Stanley Woo to easily find out why the alleged victim would be temporarily banned from the whole EA internet driven service network (since it would be handled by a different department, I believe outside BioWare), it is very likely that he assumed what happened was the system identifying and finding the need for the most extreme measure to be taken. As such, he made a description of the EULA for the convenienve of V_Ware. You also excluded the part where Woo asks V_Ware to send him any other doubts via a private message.

However, despite all that, your quote makes no description whatsoever of what happened.

Modifié par Melness, 12 mars 2011 - 02:52 .

[stormhit]

Anathemic wrote...

Good faith works both ways, the topic title came true, so why should I return Good Faith back to EA/BioWare?

'Return' implies that something was there in the first place. 

[Kovnic]

I am glad that we have a response, one way or the other. I am also glad that the "Mistake" was fixed.

That however does not change the TOS or EULA, and in spite of the proceedure of "How we moderate the forums" being outlined on here, the TOS and EULA still give you the right to ignore all of that and out right do what you like. (as most people wouldnt be abe to afford to challenge it legally) Basically, you operate these forums and our access to your products (Products that we own) the way you do out of curtesy not policy. Your policies clearly state you can do what you want when you want, you just usually choose not to.

Hopefully a backlash like this will make EA (And other companies) think twice about actually trying to use a TOS or EULA to back up a stunt like this in future. Glitch or not...

[Pjwned]

Fernando Melo wrote...

In rare cases, we may escalate further - at this point it would impact
the account more substantially, including preventing the ability to
access a game's online features.  It should not prevent a player from
playing their game offline. 

It is possible to further escalate
this to the extent that it will affect all EA games/sites or disabling
the account outright - but that is an extreme measure.

It really doesn't matter how often that happens because the fact that it CAN happen AT ALL for ANY REASON (short of blatantly illegal activities that would get you in trouble with the law) is complete crap.  If you get permanently banned from the forums (or whatever other online activities that don't interact with your copy of the game THAT YOU PAID MONEY FOR) then fine, but once it goes past that point it's just outrageous.

[Zanderat]

Melness wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Now this 'search' can be conducted in many ways, what I did was look into the previous fallacies and determine which one closely fits with the truth. I chose the succeeding (nearest) predecesoor of the latest excuse as the previous two are already proven false by themselves and the nearest predecessor.

And by assuming that the latest 'excuse' is a Lie, you feel compelled to search for the Truth. What I don't follow is if there's any logical reason based on evidence to do so. Since you can't describe exactly what happened (there's even the possibility that no one can) it is very unlikely that there is, therefore this is a Witch Hunt.

Zanderat wrote...

Here si Sta;ey Woo's quote.  

Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here: 

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 
hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability 
to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed
out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum
and/or issues reported by fellow community members. 

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the 
result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect 
access to your game and/or DLC. 

Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as 
all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to
abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added 
incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.

How is this a "glitch"?

Since there's no easy way for Stanley Woo to easily find out why the alleged victim would be temporarily banned from the whole EA internet driven service network (since it would be handled by a different department, I believe outside BioWare), it is very likely that he assumed what happened was the system identifying and finding the need for the most extreme measure to be taken. As such, he made a description of the EULA for the convenienve of V_Ware. You also excluded the part where Woo asks V_Ware to send him any other doubts via a private message.

However, despite all that, your quote makes no description whatsoever of what happened.

What happened was that the guy said something naughty (and probably did deserve a forum ban) and got his bought and paid for games shut off.

[Melness]

Kovnic wrote...

I am glad that we have a response, one way or the other. I am also glad that the "Mistake" was fixed.

That however does not change the TOS or EULA, and in spite of the proceedure of "How we moderate the forums" being outlined on here, the TOS and EULA still give you the right to ignore all of that and out right do what you like. (as most people wouldnt be abe to afford to challenge it legally) Basically, you operate these forums and our access to your products (Products that we own) the way you do out of curtesy not policy. Your policies clearly state you can do what you want when you want, you just usually choose not to.

Hopefully a backlash like this will make EA (And other companies) think twice about actually trying to use a TOS or EULA to back up a stunt like this in future. Glitch or not...

Actually, I'm not so sure. From Melo's post, even the most extreme measure doesn't seem to tamper with offline services, or rather is supposed to. I think the problem is that registering the game is connected to the rest of the online services, when it shouldn't.

[Zanderat]

Melness wrote...

Kovnic wrote...

I am glad that we have a response, one way or the other. I am also glad that the "Mistake" was fixed.

That however does not change the TOS or EULA, and in spite of the proceedure of "How we moderate the forums" being outlined on here, the TOS and EULA still give you the right to ignore all of that and out right do what you like. (as most people wouldnt be abe to afford to challenge it legally) Basically, you operate these forums and our access to your products (Products that we own) the way you do out of curtesy not policy. Your policies clearly state you can do what you want when you want, you just usually choose not to.

Hopefully a backlash like this will make EA (And other companies) think twice about actually trying to use a TOS or EULA to back up a stunt like this in future. Glitch or not...

Actually, I'm not so sure. From Melo's post, even the most extreme measure doesn't seem to tamper with offline services, or rather is supposed to. I think the problem is that registering the game is connected to the rest of the online services, when it shouldn't.

Stop it.  It is an admitted deliberate policy.  See Stanley's quote.

[zzqzzq_zzq]

Zanderat wrote...

<snip>

How is this a "glitch"?

The usual ways..

The mod/EA-person/etc isn't supposed to be able to check the "Ban all accounts" box, and was supposed to realize that if they did check it, they'd lock the person out of the game, but due to human error, and a glitch was able to check said box.....

<Shrug>

Fine example of why I don't "buy" rented games.....

Edit: Typo

Modifié par zzqzzq_zzq, 12 mars 2011 - 03:00 .

[Anathemic]

Melness wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Now this 'search' can be conducted in many ways, what I did was look into the previous fallacies and determine which one closely fits with the truth. I chose the succeeding (nearest) predecesoor of the latest excuse as the previous two are already proven false by themselves and the nearest predecessor.

And by assuming that the latest 'excuse' is a Lie, you feel compelled to search for the Truth. What I don't follow is if there's any logical reason based on evidence to do so. Since you can't describe exactly what happened (there's even the possibility that no one can) it is very unlikely that there is, therefore this is a Witch Hunt.

Zanderat wrote...

Here si Sta;ey Woo's quote.  

Please review the EA Community Terms of Service, particularly sections #9 and #11. There are two levels of enforcement here: 

1. BioWare community bans are forum-only and can be for as little as 24 
hours. These bans should have no effect on your game, only your ability 
to use all the features of this website/community. these bans are handed
out by BioWare Moderators as the result of our travels around the forum
and/or issues reported by fellow community members. 

2. EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the 
result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect 
access to your game and/or DLC. 

Because the BioWare community now operates under the same umbrella as 
all EA Communities, community members here have all explicitly agreed to
abide by and be governed by both sets of rules. Consider it an added 
incentive to follow the rules you say you're going to follow.

How is this a "glitch"?

Since there's no easy way for Stanley Woo to easily find out why the alleged victim would be temporarily banned from the whole EA internet driven service network (since it would be handled by a different department, I believe outside BioWare), it is very likely that he assumed what happened was the system identifying and finding the need for the most extreme measure to be taken. As such, he made a description of the EULA for the convenienve of V_Ware. You also excluded the part where Woo asks V_Ware to send him any other doubts via a private message.

However, despite all that, your quote makes no description whatsoever of what happened.

Human instinct, if the 3 latest excuses were lies, would you honestly be inclined to listen to the 4th one?

[Melness]

Zanderat wrote...

What happened was that the guy said something naughty (and probably did deserve a forum ban) and got his bought and paid for games shut off.

Ye-s that much we know. The victim himself agrees that he was unnecessarily vulgar and deserved a forum ban.

However, we don't know how exactly the banning process was handled and therefore can't make any conclusions about wether it was a glitch or not. Better we lash out about we do know, the possibility that the EULA allows EA to permanently disable you from playing the game offline.

Anathemic wrote...

Human instinct, if the 3 latest excuses were lies, would you honestly be inclined to listen to the 4th one?

If the three first excuses were lies, why are you assuming the third is right and not the fourth and latest?

You are required least of all believe. But you don't have any evidence based reason to believe one over the other. Except your own personal prejudice (which isn't necessarily bad) and convenience, of course.

Modifié par Melness, 12 mars 2011 - 03:07 .

[Nyuneko]

Late to the party, but is it confirmed(source please) that they did the banning out of sheer revenge to "suppress" the "small guy"? I am not defending the "big guy", but I think it isn't uncommon for forum mod to ban users for making flamebait/trollbait post, strictness may differ between forums, but they are allowed to differ. Freedom of speech doesn't exempt you from the consequences.

Is it hard to assume that someone who have such hate for the game to have to make his view public on the game's forum to, like, not get the game at all? So perhaps the ban was intended to be a forum ban and not a game ban. Which is rather hilarious if you consider it, "I FREAKING HATE BIOWARE *hands them his wallet*", someone could do a webcomic strip about this.

But then, yes, I do think force-linking our game account to forum account is a tad ridiculous.

[Lone_Anon]

Nyuneko wrote...

Late to the party, but is it confirmed(source please) that they did the banning out of sheer revenge to "suppress" the "small guy"? I am not defending the "big guy", but I think it isn't uncommon for forum mod to ban users for making flamebait/trollbait post, strictness may differ between forums, but they are allowed to differ. Freedom of speech doesn't exempt you from the consequences.

Is it hard to assume that someone who have such hate for the game to have to make his view public on the game's forum to, like, not get the game at all? So perhaps the ban was intended to be a forum ban and not a game ban. Which is rather hilarious if you consider it, "I FREAKING HATE BIOWARE *hands them his wallet*", someone could do a webcomic strip about this.

But then, yes, I do think force-linking our game account to forum account is a tad ridiculous.

http://www.rockpaper...u-out-of-games/

http://www.rockpaper...orum-violation/

[Melness]

Lone_Anon wrote...

Nyuneko wrote...

Late to the party, but is it confirmed(source please) that they did the banning out of sheer revenge to "suppress" the "small guy"? I am not defending the "big guy", but I think it isn't uncommon for forum mod to ban users for making flamebait/trollbait post, strictness may differ between forums, but they are allowed to differ. Freedom of speech doesn't exempt you from the consequences.

Is it hard to assume that someone who have such hate for the game to have to make his view public on the game's forum to, like, not get the game at all? So perhaps the ban was intended to be a forum ban and not a game ban. Which is rather hilarious if you consider it, "I FREAKING HATE BIOWARE *hands them his wallet*", someone could do a webcomic strip about this.

But then, yes, I do think force-linking our game account to forum account is a tad ridiculous.

http://www.rockpaper...u-out-of-games/

http://www.rockpaper...orum-violation/

Also, read Priestly's and Melo's posts on page 57.