Eillack Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I like how no one notices that the OP left days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesixxpack Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) I like how no one notices that the OP left days ago. We're too toxic and busy harassing each other in his thread to notice or care. Edited February 1, 2016 by Joesixxpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Not socially conditioned well enough LOL. What does that even mean? Take whatever anyone gives you and smile.... If someone tried to commit suicide and then upon their return to school they had pills thrown at them in front of the staff saying things like "get the job done right this time"...if that person cried or was emotionally damaged because of that would they not be socially conditioned well enough? What amount of abuse do you consider perfectly acceptable and any "properly conditioned" person SHOULD be able to take? What's your limit? Racial epithets? Cursing at 5 year old kids? How low is perfectly socially acceptable? I agree that what you're saying is something to strive for, and I also agree with your general sentiment (oddly enough), but I'm also wise enough to realize that not everyone is ME... Edited February 1, 2016 by Narasil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagy Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Hopefully you don't sign contracts often...I'd love to hear you say that to a judge or a jury.a jury? I've signed many multi-million dollar infrastructure and application development contracts but judging from your "jury" comment with regards to policing foul language in swtor i'm beginning to wonder what on earth we're even talking about anymore. Collectively this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that lands companies in court with class action suits...in short YES it does matter what's in a EULA or a TOS document.software end user agreements are often tossed out and are very hard to enforce. having said that this is hardly ever a matter for the courts because there is nothing to really argue. in this case EA revokes a users right to play the game and that's the end of it. how could it be any more complicated than that? where is the potential for litigation or damages? ANYWAY my snarky remark was to what you said specifically. the EULA does not dictate how players should act, nor does it guarantee any environment to its users. what it DOES say is that it can terminate the agreement with players for reasons x,y,z. so your assertion that players are entitled to a specific experience is false. they provide you with reporting tools and will decide on their own if that qualifies as a breach of terms. in most cases, they will simply remind you that there are language filters and ignore lists for you to use. Edited February 1, 2016 by Pagy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagy Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 You're still missing the point. It shouldn't matter how strong or weak a person is socially. Not one person, no matter how weak or strong, should have to face up against such behavior in the first place. Yes, ideally. Now I know better too, I know life is hard and the real world is a champion at kicking you repeatedly while you're at your lowest already and in that aspect it's a far harsher place than 'the internet' but does that mean I can't hope for better? We just.. what? Sit back and watch as everything turns to potty because that's just the way it is and oh well why try to be better than that? Guess I'm a dreamer then, but a proud one at that. i dont completely disagree with you; but trying to make everyone behave a certain way is a fool's errand. life will always have jerks. better to try to cope with the jerks' then try to change how people feel. if someone is a bully or is bitter, or salty or a jerk, there are reasons for it. we can't fix that. we can't own how people behave we can only own how we react. Being offended is a choice? So if some choice words hit a raw nerve with a person then that person is choosing to let it hit a nerve? If a racial slur gets tossed at someone and they're hurt by it then what, it's their own fault for choosing to be offended? Well if that's the case then we really don't have any true problems in this world at all do we? Just a bunch of people who choose to be offended, toss 'em a xanax and move on.it's absolutely a choice. a word affecting you, or seeing something that affects you emotionally is just that; an emotion. you can choose to be offended and whine about it as if anyone should care, or you can own your own emotional state and choose not to be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 a jury? I've signed many multi-million dollar infrastructure and application development contracts but judging from your "jury" comment with regards to policing foul language in swtor i'm beginning to wonder what on earth we're even talking about anymore. software end user agreements are often tossed out and are very hard to enforce. having said that this is hardly ever a matter for the courts because there is nothing to really argue. in this case EA revokes a users right to play the game and that's the end of it. how could it be any more complicated than that? where is the potential for litigation or damages? Denial of services/poor services in answer to your last question. Parents allow their kids to play the game with a rating which is reflected in the EULA. Their refusal to enforce their rules effects the entire player base and constitutes damages. Lastly they aren't hard to enforce AT ALL. I've seen companies enforce them quite well in the past. my snarky remark was to what you said specifically. the EULA does not dictate how players should act, nor does it guarantee any environment to its users. what it DOES say is that it can terminate the agreement with players for reasons x,y,z. Exactly, what is so hard to understand about that? If they fail to do so they aren't living up to what they advertised. so your assertion that players are entitled to a specific experience is false. they provide you with reporting tools and will decide on their own if that qualifies as a breach of terms. in most cases, they will simply remind you that there are language filters and ignore lists for you to use. They ARE required to give you a specific experience, the rating is just one example....there are many more, and all of which would constitute a breach of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagy Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) Denial of services/poor services in answer to your last question. Parents allow their kids to play the game with a rating which is reflected in the EULA. Their refusal to enforce their rules effects the entire player base and constitutes damages. i spat out my coffee. thanks for that. what damages? Exactly, what is so hard to understand about that? If they fail to do so they aren't living up to what they advertised.what have they advertised? online interactions aren't guaranteed by the esrb. sorry, guy. They ARE required to give you a specific experience, the rating is just one example....there are many more, and all of which would constitute a breach of contract.what is this specific experience that you are referring to (that ea/bw has promised) and can you please cite the eula? Edited February 1, 2016 by Pagy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LrdScorpio Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Denial of services/poor services in answer to your last question. Parents allow their kids to play the game with a rating which is reflected in the EULA. Their refusal to enforce their rules effects the entire player base and constitutes damages. Lastly they aren't hard to enforce AT ALL. I've seen companies enforce them quite well in the past. Exactly, what is so hard to understand about that? If they fail to do so they aren't living up to what they advertised. They ARE required to give you a specific experience, the rating is just one example....there are many more, and all of which would constitute a breach of contract. Sorry dude but online interactions aren't governed by any game ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roccobb Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Denial of services/poor services in answer to your last question. Parents allow their kids to play the game with a rating which is reflected in the EULA. Their refusal to enforce their rules effects the entire player base and constitutes damages. Lastly they aren't hard to enforce AT ALL. I've seen companies enforce them quite well in the past. Exactly, what is so hard to understand about that? If they fail to do so they aren't living up to what they advertised. They ARE required to give you a specific experience, the rating is just one example....there are many more, and all of which would constitute a breach of contract. Please show a case with similar characteristics as to what you describe, and a court not immediately throwing it out. Or the game company not winning on appeal. To tell you the truth, after searching for only 5 minutes, and reading various articles, I can see failed cases. There are many failed lawsuits against game companies. And what you are talking about here is either, 1) bad language or 2) cyber bullying. You could successfully sue someone for cyber bully. However, every case that has been filed that included Facebook as a party was dropped, because even though they claim to try to help, they are under no legal obligation to do so. As for bad language, or anything of the sort, any judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 To all of the above.... http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Advocacy/recommendedguidelines/fair-practice-guide.html You can't advertise something, which includes the rating, and not provide it. It's basic stuff. The fact that you all are having such trouble getting that is baffling. It's BASIC buisness, not advanced stuff, this is stuff a three year old knows....you promised him chocolate and gave him vanilla. He knows you rooked him. And AGAIN, for the record, I don't think any of what we've been talking about merits legal action. I don't think it needs to be policed beyond a filter (which they have) and an ignore function (which they have)....but what I THINK doesn't matter. I'm certain if anyone wanted to push it they'd have a case, a laywer to take it, and a judge or jury that would rule against EA on a bad day. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) To all of the above.... http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Advocacy/recommendedguidelines/fair-practice-guide.html You can't advertise something, which includes the rating, and not provide it. It's basic stuff. The fact that you all are having such trouble getting that is baffling. It's BASIC buisness, not advanced stuff, this is stuff a three year old knows....you promised him chocolate and gave him vanilla. He knows you rooked him. The rating only applies to content supplied by the gaming company. It doesn't govern content supplied by the users of the game. So the gaming company wouldn't be actionable, but the end user could be if you were willing to test it in court. But hey, if you've got standing, go ahead and bring suit. You'll find out for yourself Edited February 1, 2016 by DayneDrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesixxpack Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 To all of the above.... http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Advocacy/recommendedguidelines/fair-practice-guide.html You can't advertise something, which includes the rating, and not provide it. It's basic stuff. The fact that you all are having such trouble getting that is baffling. It's BASIC buisness, not advanced stuff, this is stuff a three year old knows....you promised him chocolate and gave him vanilla. He knows you rooked him. And AGAIN, for the record, I don't think any of what we've been talking about merits legal action. I don't think it needs to be policed beyond a filter (which they have) and an ignore function (which they have)....but what I THINK doesn't matter. I'm certain if anyone wanted to push it they'd have a case, a laywer to take it, and a judge or jury that would rule against EA on a bad day. Period. Hehe. It's good to see the court observations that class made you do are paying off, Matlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 (edited) The rating only applies to content supplied by the gaming company. It doesn't govern content supplied by the users of the game. So the gaming company wouldn't be actionable, but the end user could be if you were willing to test it in court. But hey, if you've got standing, go ahead and bring suit. You'll find out for yourself Actually they would be as the interaction is part of the advertised content. Is anyone here under the impression they're going to be playing this game alone? No? Didn't think so.... Neither does EA, in fact they advertise it as a feature, which is WHY they have rules of conduct. If they don't enforce them they're making a choice not to live up to the content they've advertised. Go fish. Again, to be CLEAR, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. Chill on the personal attacks FFS. Edited February 1, 2016 by Narasil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Actually they would be as the interaction is part of the advertised content. Is anyone here under the impression they're going to be playing this game alone? No? Didn't think so.... I have never seen chat advertised as part of the content. Grouping doesn't actually require communication. And I think that with the recent changes introduced with KOFTE, Bioware could make a decent case for player interaction not being one of the games primary functions Neither does EA, in fact they advertise it as a feature, which is WHY they have rules of conduct. If they don't enforce them they're making a choice not to live up to the content they've advertised. Go fish. Ok, you're making the assertion, so I'll go ahead and ask you for the proof. Please provide a link to EA advertising positive and friendly chat as a feature. As far as their rules of conduct.... not legally binding. Note that the EULA (you know, the thing you agree to?) doesn't contain one iota of language regarding online interaction. The simple truth of the matter is that there's no requirement for Bioware to maintain a family friendly environment. It's good policy, it's good PR, but it's in no way required. It is, unfortunately, also a fool's errand. No MMO in history has been able to successfully police a player base with it's own resources. Again, to be CLEAR, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. Chill on the personal attacks FFS. What personal attack? All I said was that if you have standing and you think you have a case, go ahead and bring it. If you think that's an attack... man your skin is way too thin to be online Edited February 2, 2016 by DayneDrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roccobb Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 To all of the above.... http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Advocacy/recommendedguidelines/fair-practice-guide.html You can't advertise something, which includes the rating, and not provide it. It's basic stuff. The fact that you all are having such trouble getting that is baffling. It's BASIC buisness, not advanced stuff, this is stuff a three year old knows....you promised him chocolate and gave him vanilla. He knows you rooked him. And AGAIN, for the record, I don't think any of what we've been talking about merits legal action. I don't think it needs to be policed beyond a filter (which they have) and an ignore function (which they have)....but what I THINK doesn't matter. I'm certain if anyone wanted to push it they'd have a case, a laywer to take it, and a judge or jury that would rule against EA on a bad day. Period. OK, so this is from ESRB. Rating Category: Content Descriptors: Blood and Gore, Mild Language, Sexual Themes, Violence Other: Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB (Windows PC) Rating Summary: In this massively multiplayer online (MMO) role-playing game, based on the Star Wars universe, players engage in a fictional conflict between the Galactic Republic and the Sith Empire. Players can choose from classic Star Wars roles (e.g., Jedi Knight, Bounty Hunter, Trooper) and complete quests to determine their path down the light or dark side of the Force. Players use light sabers, laser blasters, and telekinetic powers to battle a variety of human-like enemies and fantastical creatures (e.g., aliens, cyborgs); battles frequently depict characters getting shot with lasers, slashed with light sabers, o[r shocked with lightning bolts. During the course of the game, players are presented with interactive cutscenes in which their choices play a vital role in the outcome of their story (e.g., using electrical attacks on restrained characters to collect information; killing someone instead of letting him go). Some sequences depict brief instances of blood and gore: to complete one quest, players must dip a skull in a pool of blood; in another mission, players deliver a severed head to a specific location and place it on a pike. Players can freely explore many areas in the game, including clubs that depict scantily clad female dancers with exposed cleavage; some sequences include dialogue with sexual innuendo (e.g., “An hour. I think I'm insulted. We'll need the whole night,” “I'll be sure to make conjugal visits,” and “Come, dear, let's forgo the nuptials and proceed to the honeymoon.”). The words “damn” and “hell” can be heard in dialogue throughout the game. What does that say under other? Other: Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB (Windows PC) Online interactions. Could that possibly mean interacting with other players? That is how it is advertised? http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.aspx?from=home&titleOrPublisher=star+wars+old+republic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Both wrong, ratings do matter. In fact I'm surprised some enterprising parent not only hasn't sued but hasn't won....at least in the United States. There is VERY little wiggle room here... http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity "to the community"....that's EXTREMELY broad....and if you sue or file charges in the "right" place you're gonna win that one. Edited February 2, 2016 by Narasil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roccobb Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Both wrong, ratings do matter. In fact I'm surprised some enterprising parent not only hasn't sued but hasn't won....at least in the United States. There is VERY little wiggle room here... http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity online interactions are not rated. That is straight from the ESRB. What source do you have? Or are you really just refusing to admit you are wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesixxpack Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) ...Again, to be CLEAR, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. "Devil's Advocate" the movie? OK GJ that crazy movie is more like RL-like than the other fiction ITT. Chill on the personal attacks FFS. Sorry. I blame OP though for labeling us as toxic and harassing. I can't help but meet those classifications now. Edited February 2, 2016 by Joesixxpack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Both wrong, ratings do matter. In fact I'm surprised some enterprising parent not only hasn't sued but hasn't won....at least in the United States. There is VERY little wiggle room here... http://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity I wasn't aware that playing devil's advocate meant turning your brain off (see, now THATS a personal attack!) It's pretty simple - the online interaction is NOT RATED. The ESRB quite clearly spells that out. So there's no rating to violate or sue on. I understand why you're ignoring that fact, as if you acknowledge it, your entire case breaks down. If a parent were to try and bring suit against the gaming company based on the ESRB rating, it would get thrown out. They could potentially sue the end user that's being obscene, but in that case, Bioware's only responsibility would be to comply with discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 online interactions are not rated. That is straight from the ESRB. What source do you have? Or are you really just refusing to admit you are wrong? I'm not saying that online interactions are rated, I'm saying no reasonable person would expect that providing a vehicle for interactions you KNOW are going to occur, or not taking actions when they do occur when it involves minors opens you up to liability. Surgeons have you sign paperwork which makes it SEEM like you waive personal liability every time they operate on you....it doesn't work though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm not saying that online interactions are rated, I'm saying no reasonable person would expect that providing a vehicle for interactions you KNOW are going to occur, or not taking actions when they do occur when it involves minors opens you up to liability. Surgeons have you sign paperwork which makes it SEEM like you waive personal liability every time they operate on you....it doesn't work though Ok, awesome, you've reached the moving the goalposts phase, which means you're in full retreat. Interactions in an online game and malpractice aren't even remotely in the same ballpark. You can go ahead and keep being obstinate and stubborn (both hallmarks of a small mind) if you want. By the way, I called Lucy. He says you're fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Ok, awesome, you've reached the moving the goalposts phase, which means you're in full retreat. Interactions in an online game and malpractice aren't even remotely in the same ballpark. You can go ahead and keep being obstinate and stubborn (both hallmarks of a small mind) if you want. By the way, I called Lucy. He says you're fired. Uh, what? I'm simply talking about personal liability and the inability to avoid it. It applies to EVERYTHING, not just malpractice. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 To all of the above.... http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Advocacy/recommendedguidelines/fair-practice-guide.html You can't advertise something, which includes the rating, and not provide it. It's basic stuff. The fact that you all are having such trouble getting that is baffling. It's BASIC buisness, not advanced stuff, this is stuff a three year old knows....you promised him chocolate and gave him vanilla. He knows you rooked him. And AGAIN, for the record, I don't think any of what we've been talking about merits legal action. I don't think it needs to be policed beyond a filter (which they have) and an ignore function (which they have)....but what I THINK doesn't matter. I'm certain if anyone wanted to push it they'd have a case, a laywer to take it, and a judge or jury that would rule against EA on a bad day. Period.the esrb does not rate online interactions. how many times do people need to say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) the esrb does not rate online interactions. how many times do people need to say this? You can't waive liability, especially when it's possibly criminal.... how many times do people need to say this? Edited February 2, 2016 by Narasil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillack Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 You can't waive liability, especially when it's possibly criminal.... how many times to people need to say this? That escalated quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts