Curse

Stabber · Apr 17, 2006, 02:17 AM // 02:17

I support a policy of banning anyone for any reason at all, no explanations needed. I imagine their EULA already boils down to exactly such a policy. A company is not a government -- their policies are, and should be, geared towards maximizing their profits and sustainability, not bending over backwards to guarantee their customers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If they want to eradicate bot farming, they can ban everyone who has ever had a transaction with--or even been in the same district as--a botter, and still be within their rights. (They will lose a lot of customers if they do anything that crazy, but one assumes that they will balance this risk with the benefit of the action they take.)

On the personal aspect: Anet haven't banned me yet, but if they do, I'll take it as a blessing and stop giving them money. No need to take it as a personal affront -- just a termination of a business relationship. There are other companies, other games, and other ways to spend one's time.

lishi · Apr 17, 2006, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

I support a policy of banning anyone for any reason at all, no explanations needed. I imagine their EULA already boils down to exactly such a policy. A company is not a government -- their policies are, and should be, geared towards maximizing their profits and sustainability, not bending over backwards to guarantee their customers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If they want to eradicate bot farming, they can ban everyone who has ever had a transaction with--or even been in the same district as--a botter, and still be within their rights. (They will lose a lot of customers if they do anything that crazy, but one assumes that they will balance this risk with the benefit of the action they take.)

On the personal aspect: Anet haven't banned me yet, but if they do, I'll take it as a blessing and stop giving them money. No need to take it as a personal affront -- just a termination of a business relationship. There are other companies, other games, and other ways to spend one's time.

so if for error they kick you out from a hotel in at middle of night after you paid the fee you will just find new hotel?

Stabber · Apr 17, 2006, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by lishi

so if for error they kick you out from a hotel in at middle of night after you paid the fee you will just find new hotel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Banin Galori · Apr 17, 2006, 02:39 AM // 02:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

I support a policy of banning anyone for any reason at all, no explanations needed. I imagine their EULA already boils down to exactly such a policy. A company is not a government -- their policies are, and should be, geared towards maximizing their profits and sustainability, not bending over backwards to guarantee their customers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If they want to eradicate bot farming, they can ban everyone who has ever had a transaction with--or even been in the same district as--a botter, and still be within their rights. (They will lose a lot of customers if they do anything that crazy, but one assumes that they will balance this risk with the benefit of the action they take.)

On the personal aspect: Anet haven't banned me yet, but if they do, I'll take it as a blessing and stop giving them money. No need to take it as a personal affront -- just a termination of a business relationship. There are other companies, other games, and other ways to spend one's time.

Sure, you might support that. Most game companies don't, because it's commercial suicide. Most customers don't either, because they have purchased the game with an expectation of continued service provided they satisfy the rules of conduct.

When I have purchased a game for $50 dollars, I expect to be able to play it within the rules that the game company provides. Banning me for any reason at all is a violation of the EULA, since Guild Wars has agreed to provide me subscription-free access to the game as long as I follow their rules. No where in their rules do they reserve the right to ban someone for no reason.

I'm not sure what you're thinking, but you've already given them your money. Really, I'm sure the company would like it best if you bought the game from the store and promptly threw it in the trash. After all, this is a subscription-free service.

That being said, I believe it is necessary for Guild Wars to provide a valid reason for banning someone - which they do. Ideally, Guild Wars would provide concrete evidence for their reason as well. Realistically, however, the sheer amount of effort required to deliver evidence to all banned accounts is probably too much for them to handle.

If you really believe you're innocent, you'll just have to nag at them, all the way from the bottom to the top, until your complaint is heard. There's nothing else you can do.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

False analogy? Consider:

I have paid for the Guild Wars game to play it, with the guarantee that I won't be banned unless I violate our contract.
I have paid for a room in the hotel to stay there with the guarantee that I won't be kicked out unless I violate our contract.

Guild Wars bans me when I have not violated our contract.
The hotel kicks me out when I have not violated our contract.

The hotel has violated our contract.
Guild Wars has violated our contract.

Both are business models that involve paying for a time-dependent service. They are both fundamentaly similar, and the analogy is a valid one. Their contract with their customers is a fundamentally similar aspect.

Stabber · Apr 17, 2006, 02:49 AM // 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banin Galori

When I have purchased a game for $50 dollars, I expect to be able to play it within the rules that the game company provides. Banning me for any reason at all is a violation of the EULA, since Guild Wars has agreed to provide me subscription-free access to the game as long as I follow their rules. No where in their rules do they reserve the right to ban someone for no reason.

IANAL, but from the EULA:

3. LICENSE TO USE

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, NC Interactive grants to you, for your personal use only, a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Service, and a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Software in connection with the Service, without charge except for new Chapters which will be charged on a prepaid basis according to Section 5.

(emphasis mine)

Banin Galori · Apr 17, 2006, 03:00 AM // 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

IANAL, but from the EULA:

3. LICENSE TO USE

Subject to the terms of this Agreement, NC Interactive grants to you, for your personal use only, a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Service, and a non-exclusive, revocable, nontransferable (except as permitted in Section 4(a)) license to use the Software in connection with the Service, without charge except for new Chapters which will be charged on a prepaid basis according to Section 5.

(emphasis mine)

1. TERMS OF AGREEMENT

(a) Terms of Agreement. NC Interactive, Inc. and ArenaNet Inc. (collectively, "NC Interactive") offer to allow you to play its multi-player online computer game "Guild Wars" conditioned on your agreement to all of the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement and your compliance with the posted Rules of Conduct.

14. TERMINATION

(a) NC Interactive reserves the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement (including your Software license and your Account) immediately and without notice if you breach this Agreement or willfully infringe any third party intellectual property rights, or if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us, or upon game play, chat or any player activity whatsoever which is, in our sole discretion, inappropriate and/or in violation of the spirit of Guild Wars as described in the Rules of Conduct.

Should NC Interactive decide to suspend or terminate this Agreement with a User under any circumstances, the User will lose access to your Account.

(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.

Of course the license is revocable. If it wasn't, they won't be able to ban ANYONE, would they?

As stated in the first section, NC Interactive allows us to use their service provided we do not violate any terms of the agreement.

Nowhere in the terms of agreement does NC Interactive reserve the right to terminate any license for any reason at all.

What the DO reserve is the right to terminate the agreement should you conduct any inappropriate activity that violates the EULA or the spirit of Guild Wars.

Just because the license is revocable does not mean they can revoke it for ANY reason.

Edit:
Source: http://www.guildwars.com/legal/users-agreement.php

dsd · Apr 17, 2006, 03:04 AM // 03:04

man there is to many words on this page 4 me or some 1 else to read lol

Stabber · Apr 17, 2006, 03:05 AM // 03:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banin Galori

14. TERMINATION

(a) NC Interactive reserves the right to suspend or terminate this Agreement (including your Software license and your Account) immediately and without notice [...] upon game play, chat or any player activity whatsoever which is, in our sole discretion, inappropriate and/or in violation of the spirit of Guild Wars as described in the Rules of Conduct.

[...]

Nowhere in the terms of agreement does NC Interactive reserve the right to terminate any license for any reason at all.

I read the bolded bit above as saying that Anet reserves the right to do, essentially, whatever it wants, as it keeps the definition of "inappropriate" vague and in their sole control.

However, I am not a lawyer. Also, as Slashdot constantly reminds us, "EULAs have never been tested in court", so this is all moot anyhow. Personally, I believe that they have left enought things undefined that any particular interpretation of the EULA is not necessarily the only one.

Metanoia · Apr 17, 2006, 03:13 AM // 03:13

EULA's mean about as much in court (and thus, legally) as used toilet paper, to be fair.

IMO if they're going to ban an account they should provide their evidence even if they're not willing to dispute the issue. At least that way the owner of the account has something to present their lawyer... assuming they're willing to take it further.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia is your friend

EULA: Enforceability

The forceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.

Banin Galori · Apr 17, 2006, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

I read the bolded bit above as saying that Anet reserves the right to do, essentially, whatever it wants, as it keeps the definition of "inappropriate" vague and in their sole control.

However, I am not a lawyer. Also, as Slashdot constantly reminds us, "EULAs have never been tested in court", so this is all moot anyhow. Personally, I believe that they have left enought things undefined that any particular interpretation of the EULA is not necessarily the only one.

I agree. All the iffy language in a EULA does leave the company much room to do whatever it wants. And, as Metanoia says, it seems that they don't really count for much - which might be a good thing.

My point was, anyhow, that most customers of a service expect to be able to continue to use the service under normal circumstances. Even when a EULA claims the right to modify itself at any moment, most customer expect that nothing drastic will happen without good reason and some warning. This is simply good business on the company's part.

That being said, having your service discontinued when you felt you've done nothing wrong would naturally feel like an injustice. In that case, it would be much to the company's advantage to provide concrete evidence.

Phaern Majes · Apr 17, 2006, 03:41 AM // 03:41

I guess the moral of the story is only sell items to merchants. That way you can't "assist ebayers".

noice1 · Apr 17, 2006, 03:45 AM // 03:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ricebox

Response (GM Mollusk) 04/15/2006 01:02 PM
Hello,

Thank you for contacting us about your Guild Wars game account.

Your account was permanently closed because you engaged in the sale of in-game items for cash or other items with real world value, or you engaged in gathering items to be sold for cash or other items with real world value. Both actions are against our User Agreement, where Section 7 states, "You may not sell or auction any Guild Wars accounts, characters, items, coin or copyrighted material, nor may you assist others in doing so."

I want every auction on ebay for Guild Wars gold closed and the ebay accounts banned permanently. If Anet wants to wield a ban stick, why not Ebay? They are allowing this crap to continue. I say again, I thought this crap was taken care of a few MMORPG generations ago?

Ricebox · Apr 17, 2006, 03:48 AM // 03:48

Hi everyone! Thanks for participating in this thread, my Deepest thanks goes to you all! Thank you very much!

Anet has finally Unban my account!

This is the last answer i got from their Automated Support Team!

Response (GM Dynamite) 04/16/2006 05:32 PM
Hello,

Thank you for contact Guild Wars Support.
Upon further review of the issue, it appears that your account was blocked in error. Your account is now released and you should be able to log in to Guild Wars. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Take care,
The Guild Wars Support Team

>> Same with Leprekan eh... hehehe! see ya guys! and thanks!

Omega X · Apr 17, 2006, 04:00 AM // 04:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banin Galori

I agree. All the iffy language in a EULA does leave the company much room to do whatever it wants. And, as Metanoia says, it seems that they don't really count for much - which might be a good thing.

My point was, anyhow, that most customers of a service expect to be able to continue to use the service under normal circumstances. Even when a EULA claims the right to modify itself at any moment, most customer expect that nothing drastic will happen without good reason and some warning. This is simply good business on the company's part.

That being said, having your service discontinued when you felt you've done nothing wrong would naturally feel like an injustice. In that case, it would be much to the company's advantage to provide concrete evidence.

Yeah, EULAs in court without concrete evidence is garbage. I remember when AOL tried to change the EULA on AIM a while back trying to allow itself to invade privacy. IT sent the entire user community into outrage. The EULA changed a couple of days later and removed that addition.

So, that means that they can change the EULA however they want. But its the customers who decide what they are going to tolerate.

shezbian · Apr 17, 2006, 04:15 AM // 04:15

Should have stopped farming

SnipiousMax · Apr 17, 2006, 04:16 AM // 04:16

Have you ever sold a -50 Grim Cesta to someone?

Stabber · Apr 17, 2006, 04:18 AM // 04:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by noice1

I want every auction on ebay for Guild Wars gold closed and the ebay accounts banned permanently. If Anet wants to wield a ban stick, why not Ebay? They are allowing this crap to continue. I say again, I thought this crap was taken care of a few MMORPG generations ago?

Yeah, I often wonder this myself. Why doesn't Anet simply ask Ebay to shut these auctions down and ban the auctioneers? The only plausible reasons I can come up with are: (1) there are too many of these auctions for Anet's staff to handle, and (2) Ebay is not cooperative.

Reason #2 is more serious, and I think a cartel of MMO(RP)G companies can easily band together and put some collective pressure on Ebay to get their act together. I get the impression from my friends who play WoW that this Ebaying problem is many times worse there. Surely NCSoft and Blizzard can find a common interest in stopping these goldfarmers!

Kakumei · Apr 17, 2006, 04:38 AM // 04:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stabber

However, I am not a lawyer. Also, as Slashdot constantly reminds us, "EULAs have never been tested in court", so this is all moot anyhow. Personally, I believe that they have left enought things undefined that any particular interpretation of the EULA is not necessarily the only one.

Haha you read Slashdot what's wrong with you?

Stabber · Apr 17, 2006, 04:59 AM // 04:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kakumei

Haha you read Slashdot what's wrong with you?

Good question. It's a pale shadow of its former self now, but after seven years, it's become too much of a habit. Slashdot also helped me gain 40 pounds, an incorrigible slouch, an overinflated sense of my own worth, and a thick beard (even though I'm not exactly, you know, male), so I can't say it was all a waste.

leprekan · Apr 17, 2006, 05:15 AM // 05:15

Congratz Ricebox (told you blow up their email) =p

After reading most of this page ... I see many people just post to post something not to help people.