Curse

deadlynoob · Apr 03, 2008, 08:37 AM // 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by guolisong

If you've been reading this thread you should see the point that other country doesn't have a problem with Anet banning blocking which turns out to be a pretty effective way of shutting down bots. It's the tw government that's not allowing them to use such method and that's the cause of this isolation. How else are you going to stop RMT in game? Are you suggesting them to hire a person going through the "trade logs" and see who's trading everyone 100k each day?

The other side of the mirror meaning seeing how it's pictured in Chinese media which I don't believe you've ever seen any?

For the last time, using 3rd party program/violating the fairness of the game is bannable.
therefore Anet can still ban those accounts.
the 7 day banning period is the maximum allowed time for a short time ban. But if they are really affecting the fairness of the game, Anet could shut down their service toward them.

again, it is Anet's responsibility to reinforce rules/laws that they made. You don't doom the whole society just because few individual are behaving bad

dp deteced above

deadlynoob · Apr 03, 2008, 08:42 AM // 08:42

Or it might be a evil plot of the communist to invade tw by selling gold in the name of tw players, to ruin their global status and appearance, you never know.

deadlynoob · Apr 03, 2008, 08:58 AM // 08:58

how am i suppose to flame back with that bad, lack of content statement
Its getting boring, seems like you were out of points. Anyways,
1. If Anet want to reinforce a law/rule, they have the responsibility to pick out those individuals who are violating the rule, not to doom the whole society.
2. Anet still have the power to ban player who violated the rules/laws they imposed. Its not as rumored of 7 days only ban.
3.Real Money trading isn't a big issue if and only if the gold that they harvest was from a legit method. If the gold that are botted are circulating around the community, it is still Anet's fault for not being able to prevent it from happening. Think of those as counterfeits that got carried over to TW. Its just like another form of NCshop, except they are selling something that NCshop isn't offering
4.Isolating the tw server will violet some people's right to play the game, and Anet should put responsibility into this issue and resolve the problem.

strcpy · Apr 03, 2008, 09:02 AM // 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Lozza

strcpy - I was actually referring to the amount of notice given. It was relatively short notice, but I think Anet did it to prevent either 1) a sudden flood of RMT trying to get rid of their wares, or 2) RMT shifting goods to and NA/EU account.

I understood what you meant then and here and I still say there is WAY more than one thing going into it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadlynoob

untrue

if the gamer has violated one of the below condition, the service provider can contact the gamer and instantly stop providing the service:
the usage of third party applications (bot,hacks), virus programs, game/program glitches, and other actions which violates the fairness
of the game

I will assume that they fear the same thing I would - that people will sue over the "fairness of the game" - being an <insert expletive here> that would normally get a ban may, or may not be, part of violating the fairness of the game. Unless "fairness of the game" is a bad translation (dunno, have to go by what others posted) being a socially disruptive person doesn't violate any of the other reasons.

I too would do isolate given the law as translated - the vast majority of businesses would too. In fact my guess is that if this law had been in effect from the start you just would never have had the chance to play the game. Is there a large market? You bet, but then a really large market where you total cost of doing business is most likely going to be a loss per unit sold isn't a very attractive one. No business is going to go into that situation no matter how much people rant over it or think it is unfair - talk to your govt about being too protectionist.

zwei2stein · Apr 03, 2008, 09:26 AM // 09:26

Idea:

Don't explicitly ban undesirable users, simply delete their accounts. There is difference.

Or:

Don't explicitly ban undesirable users, simply give them connection related errors. (ups 072 - service is down ... for you.)

(Yes, i know those ideas are kinda cheesy like previous ones, but come on, its workable, company should fight for their right not to service undesirable customers)

redrum38 · Apr 03, 2008, 09:35 AM // 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by guolisong

LMAO! I'm ss this. Wow if you ever get it right it's your government's fault not Anet's fault. If you are so blindly loyal have nothing to do but to bias your government you deserver to lose the case.

On the side note I searched your sell threads and you were one of the panda sellers are you pissed cause you'd be losing so much in game money? Speculation and don't flame me back if that's not why you are so enthusiastic about this subject.

As I said .
We can understand the new law maybe will restrict Anet in that region from effectively suspending or banning accounts for participating in professional farming or real-money trading .
But this question is for Anet not players .
Have to try thinking how to solve this question is Anet not players .
We only know when we bought GW , they tell us "GW is different with other online game , it is not independent or regional , only have one consolidated server , even your account belonged to Taiwanese district , you still can play PVE or PVP with other countries players in international district" in their advertisement video .
Now we can't travel to international district , we can't whisper or play together with our friends who in other district , but other district players still can do those .
In Taiwanese district only have a few players , now we can't play RA TA HA AB anytime , it is hard to find other players to make a party , but before 4/1 we can do it easy in international district .
If your district only have a few players and be cut off , would you say "That's OK , don't care about it" ? I don't think so .
In fact now our right be aggrieved by Anet , right ?

How could you know that I had sold my panda or not .
I own a panda but so what .
Because of I own a panda so Anet can aggrieve my right ?
If I get anything by a legal way , I think that I can own those when GW still operate .

Articubone · Apr 03, 2008, 09:56 AM // 09:56

So let's have a quick summary, then...

What we know:

- Anet has restricted Taiwan accounts in ways that could affect non-Taiwan economy, but hasn't restricted them from core gameplay (though technically isolating a small community so they have less people to play with could be argued as reducing quality of gameplay)
- cited reason is "law preventing gold sellers being perma-banned"
- we haven't been given any direct citation of the law, but at the moment we're assuming it's one that says "can't ban players for more than 7 days for any one reason"

What we DON'T know (or are arguing about):

- Can players be legitimately perma-banned or have their accounts deleted? Does the law only apply to bans of a certain time period, or is 'max 7 days' meant to be for ANY ban, including what is meant to be permanent?

- What time did this law come into effect? We've had the date of November '07 tossed around, but we don't know if the law was only proposed/accepted then or if it actually started to apply from that date. It would make a difference between Anet keeping mum about this and Anet waiting till the last possible second to make a decision in the hopes it would be reversed or something.

- Did Anet consider any other options? Could they have done so?

Could the Taiwan-speaking players here please translate as much as they can of the legislation in terms of the things we don't know yet? It would be a great help to not just have the basic summary of the 'max 7 day' statement to go on.

Obviously, for the options part we would need someone from Anet to give a more detailed explanation of why this particular route was chosen, but considering how they're often strapped for time/bound by secrecy of some sort, that probably won't happen.

michfho · Apr 03, 2008, 10:24 AM // 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by guolisong

No the Taiwan RMT don't use bots they hire people to play.

Partly correct and partly wrong. They hire people live in mainland China to farm. The "employees" use bot programs to do their job.

Q: Why use programs?
A: A matter of productivity. With help of programs, one person can control (or actually just monitor most of the time) several computers.

Q: Why I know this?
A: I knew few people who were calling "professional farmers" themselves (in some other popular MMO games in China).

Buzzer · Apr 03, 2008, 01:50 PM // 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Articubone

So let's have a quick summary, then...

What we know:

- Anet has restricted Taiwan accounts in ways that could affect non-Taiwan economy, but hasn't restricted them from core gameplay (though technically isolating a small community so they have less people to play with could be argued as reducing quality of gameplay)
- cited reason is "law preventing gold sellers being perma-banned"
- we haven't been given any direct citation of the law, but at the moment we're assuming it's one that says "can't ban players for more than 7 days for any one reason"

What we DON'T know (or are arguing about):

- Can players be legitimately perma-banned or have their accounts deleted? Does the law only apply to bans of a certain time period, or is 'max 7 days' meant to be for ANY ban, including what is meant to be permanent?

- What time did this law come into effect? We've had the date of November '07 tossed around, but we don't know if the law was only proposed/accepted then or if it actually started to apply from that date. It would make a difference between Anet keeping mum about this and Anet waiting till the last possible second to make a decision in the hopes it would be reversed or something.

- Did Anet consider any other options? Could they have done so?

Could the Taiwan-speaking players here please translate as much as they can of the legislation in terms of the things we don't know yet? It would be a great help to not just have the basic summary of the 'max 7 day' statement to go on.

Obviously, for the options part we would need someone from Anet to give a more detailed explanation of why this particular route was chosen, but considering how they're often strapped for time/bound by secrecy of some sort, that probably won't happen.

Perfect post. I hope everyone reads this.

kenny79321 · Apr 03, 2008, 03:56 PM // 15:56

I come from Taiwan.

-----------------------
Lineage II , a game whose agent is the same as GW in Taiwan,
can Delete the unlawful account, such as bots or money trading.

Lineage II can do that. Why GW cannot?

Darksun · Apr 03, 2008, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by guolisong

Oh please, media can picture anything they want. Also Westerners already have bias toward Chinese people to be honest.

And Chinese have bias against Westerners, what's your point? Every people group has negative views of every other people group, don't make 1 out to be the victim.

deadlynoob · Apr 03, 2008, 04:45 PM // 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Articubone

So let's have a quick summary, then...
What we DON'T know (or are arguing about):

- Can players be legitimately perma-banned or have their accounts deleted? Does the law only apply to bans of a certain time period, or is 'max 7 days' meant to be for ANY ban, including what is meant to be permanent?

- What time did this law come into effect? We've had the date of November '07 tossed around, but we don't know if the law was only proposed/accepted then or if it actually started to apply from that date. It would make a difference between Anet keeping mum about this and Anet waiting till the last possible second to make a decision in the hopes it would be reversed or something.

- Did Anet consider any other options? Could they have done so?

Could the Taiwan-speaking players here please translate as much as they can of the legislation in terms of the things we don't know yet? It would be a great help to not just have the basic summary of the 'max 7 day' statement to go on.

Obviously, for the options part we would need someone from Anet to give a more detailed explanation of why this particular route was chosen, but considering how they're often strapped for time/bound by secrecy of some sort, that probably won't happen.

- law is made 2008.1.07. Anet/service providers has the absolute right to permanent ban/stopping the service if the gamer has violated certain rules(3rd party apps, virus, glitch, RMT etc.) 7 day period is the maximum time if you were to do a period ban. The law is the template for contracting forming for service providers (to avoid unfair contracts game providers make)

zwei2stein · Apr 03, 2008, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadlynoob

- law is made 2008.1.07. Anet/service providers has the absolute right to permanent ban/stopping the service if the gamer has violated certain rules(3rd party apps, virus, glitch, RMT etc.) 7 day period is the maximum time if you were to do a period ban. The law is the template for contracting forming for service providers (to avoid unfair contracts game providers make)

This is how it works: You RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO people, they wont buy from you again. ever. You RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO a lot of people, they monster-sue you in addition to that.

In internet era, its easy to spread word. And it easy to make research. And even easier to choose different game to play. Thats all the protection customers needs.

candyonly · Apr 03, 2008, 06:39 PM // 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chthon

THIS IS A BRILLIANT IDEA! Please permit me to build on it a little more.

Option 1: Reinstate district travel. TW accounts cannot trade or drop except on the TW servers. All other accounts cannot trade or drop on the TW servers. There, economic isolation accomplished, but you can still play together.
(Variant: Allow other accounts to trade on the TW servers, and then monitor them for gold-buyers. Since virtually no one goes to the Taiwan servers to trade for legitimate reasons, it would be very easy to catch gold buyers this way.

Option 2: OK, so we can't ban TW accounts for more than 7 days, but we can still action TW accounts in other ways besides bans. So, in place of a permaban, why not give a bot account a perma-cannot-trade-or-drop-stuff-status? That would screw a bot account just as effectively as a ban. Now, go reconnect TW to the rest of the world.

I particularly like option #2.

These are great suggestions! i think these can perfectly solve the law problems Anet are facing. thanks so much for your advice and, hope Anet will deeply consider these as alternative solutions than totally isolating Taiwan district.

I'm from Taiwan and have being playing this game with my boyfriend for about half year. we bought the Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the North and Bonus Mission Pack as well, in a once payment form.
we love this game, though it may not be so popular in Asia then other MMOs, but GW has indeed fascinated us.

Me and my boyfriend never BOT or RMT or do anything violate the game rules, just play happily with friends online, explore dungeon with guild friends, or some time AB with others. GW is the best online game we ever had and i don't think i can find any other game will make me feel so comfortable, especially in Asia.

But these are all changed after Apr 1st-- no longer than two months after we bought the Bonus Mission Pack, not only because we cannot contact or play with our friends in other district, but also playing in a whelming of fear, fear that our server might be shut down in a short while like that in China.

I've read the new law, hopelessly found how inadvisable it is then, i noticed these two suggestions can solve all the problems that Anet had pronounced.

I'm not here to ask for my right or justice or sort of things, but only ask for some alternative resolutions, the resolution can bring us back to our fellow friends and rescue us from the terrible fear.

Anet, we're sincerely asking you reconsider these suggestions and show us some hope, the things we lost from isolation are not just what you can see in name only.

Gli · Apr 03, 2008, 06:56 PM // 18:56

From what I've been reading on this thread, (and mind you, that's all the info I got) it would seem the 7 day refund thing that was mentioned somewhere might be the dealbreaker for ANet.

Imagine this: Buy an account, bot your ass off for 6.5 days or until ban, whichever happens first, then get a refund. Rinse and repeat.

Gaile Gray · Apr 03, 2008, 10:24 PM // 22:24

I wanted to update everyone that we are continuing to look at various options for players from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. We do, as always, intend to take care of our players. I wish I had more information for you, but we'll update you as soon as we have some details to share.

Articubone · Apr 03, 2008, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

From what I've been reading on this thread, (and mind you, that's all the info I got) it would seem the 7 day refund thing that was mentioned somewhere might be the dealbreaker for ANet.

Imagine this: Buy an account, bot your ass off for 6.5 days or until ban, whichever happens first, then get a refund. Rinse and repeat.

I did notice this, but people aren't focusing on it because the reason Anet gave involved banning, there was no mention of forced refunds.

I can imagine this sort of legislation hitting a company with a 'once-off payment' scheme pretty damn hard.

afya · Apr 03, 2008, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I wanted to update everyone that we are continuing to look at various options for players from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. We do, as always, intend to take care of our players. I wish I had more information for you, but we'll update you as soon as we have some details to share.

I will appreciate that~

Loviatar · Apr 03, 2008, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by redrum38

How do you know we don't do that ?
We are preparing for sue Anet and get a refund if they still don't give us a benevolent reply .

sue away big shot because here is what you agreed to by clicking i accept

[QUOTE](b) You agree that if the Service or your Account is suspended, terminated or cancelled for any reason or length of time, you are not entitled to any reimbursement or refund of any fees or unused access time.

15. GENERAL PROVISIONS

This Agreement is governed by and shall be construed and enforced under the laws of The State of Texas, without applying any conflicts of law principles which would require application of the law of any other jurisdiction. NC Interactive and you each hereby irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Texas for all purposes in connection with any action or proceeding which arises out of or relates to this Agreement and agree that any action or proceeding instituted under this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of Travis County, State of Texas. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly disclaimed.[/QUOTE]

Gli · Apr 04, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

15. GENERAL PROVISIONS

This Agreement is governed by and shall be construed and enforced under the laws of The State of Texas, without applying any conflicts of law principles which would require application of the law of any other jurisdiction. NC Interactive and you each hereby irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Texas for all purposes in connection with any action or proceeding which arises out of or relates to this Agreement and agree that any action or proceeding instituted under this Agreement shall be brought only in the state courts of Travis County, State of Texas. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly disclaimed.

This is another point you should be highlighting. In many countries, people have certain unassailable rights that a EULA can't do away with. Obviously, something like that must be the case in Taiwan, or this issue wouldn't exist in the first place.