DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Uh, what? I'm simply talking about personal liability and the inability to avoid it. It applies to EVERYTHING, not just malpractice. Try again. Oh, now it's personal liability instead of Bioware being liable? Like I said, moving the goal posts... I don't think you're going to find anyone that disagrees with the idea that the person being obscene is liable for their actions. If you think Bioware is responsible for the crap their users say and is legally bound to mitigate it, that's where you're dead wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Oh, now it's personal liability instead of Bioware being liable? Like I said, moving the goal posts... I don't think you're going to find anyone that disagrees with the idea that the person being obscene is liable for their actions. If you think Bioware is responsible for the crap their users say and is legally bound to mitigate it, that's where you're dead wrong. If EA gives a rating to a game where public interactions occur, and some of those are obscene, then they are liable according to the statute, especially if they fail to take action when such interactions happen. Not my rules....I'm just pointing them out. If you don't like them then have the government change them. Also, companies are treated as people under the law....just saying... Edited February 2, 2016 by Narasil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If EA gives a rating to a game where public interactions occur, and some of those are obscene, then they are liable according to the statute, especially if they fail to take action when such interactions happen. Not my rules....I'm just pointing them out. If you don't like them then have the government change them. Then you fail to understand the rating system. EA is just advertising the rating the ESRB has provided for the game. The ESRB specifically says they're not rating the content you insist that they are. Unless EA has their own rating system, in which they specifically state they do govern online interactions. If that's what you're saying, I'd appreciate a link, because the only rating I find on swtor.com is the ESRB one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 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. If a parent is going to let their 13 or older child play this game they should be well aware of the risks of any form of public chat rooms. If their child gets "damaged" by the experience then their poor parenting skills are much more to blame than EA. Lastly they aren't hard to enforce AT ALL. I've seen companies enforce them quite well in the past. Got some good examples? I was having a discussion around EULAs like this the other day and in terms of actually litigating against an end user ( I guess the reverse of what you're implying? ) I don't see how they would really ever prove someone clicked the agree button to begin with. I never clicked anything, there was no screen that told me by playing this I agreed to anything prove there was, oh you have an electronic record on your servers showing my ip that anyone could have used or spoofed or you could have faked entirely? Point being I don't see anyone litigating over gaming EULAs but I could be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ 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. That's nice and all but where is your examples you spoke of earlier? You'd witnessed enforcement ... I want to see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 The ESRB specifically says they're not rating the content you insist that they are. EA can specifically say unicorns fly over the moon every night. If they provide a vehicle for minors to have obscene interactions then they ARE liable. They can't waive that liability by saying we're not responsible for interactions that happen on OUR PROPERTY (ie our servers). Good luck with that one if you get a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge/community. I didn't write the statue but it's as clear as a bell if you read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Again, to be CLEAR, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. Chill on the personal attacks FFS. There is devil's advocate and there is just making rather outlandish comments around litigation with nothing to support it. MMO's have been around a long time now ... surely you can find at least one successful case of a publisher being litigated for how their other users treated a user? Especially in the US where you seem to hear someone about suing someone else over a stubbed toe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) EA can specifically say unicorns fly over the moon every night. If they provide a vehicle for minors to have obscene interactions then they ARE liable. They can't waive that liability by saying we're not responsible for interactions that happen on OUR PROPERTY (ie our servers). Good luck with that one if you get a good lawyer and a sympathetic judge/community. I didn't write the statue but it's as clear as a bell if you read it. Just because you say they're liable doesn't actually make it so, and you have provided absolutely NO evidence to back up your assertion. You keep claiming rating, but that's been thoroughly debunked. No one is saying liability doesn't exist. You're just not assigning it properly. And you're incapable of admitting that you might actually be incorrect. And sympathetic judge nothing. If you did find that, it'd be overturned on appeal. I strongly suspect that any appellate court would find that the plaintiff would have no standing against Bioware because they don't have any liability, the plaintiff would have to go back and sue the right party. Judges are, generally, not stupid, and they don't like having their decisions overturned, so sympathetic or not, most aren't going to rule in favor. Edited February 2, 2016 by DayneDrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 That's nice and all but where is your examples you spoke of earlier? You'd witnessed enforcement ... I want to see this. I know someone in WOW who earned a three day ban for saying racial epithets in Orgrimmar chat. I know a family member who was perma banned in DAOC for defaming French people on the pads you stand on just before porting to the pvp zone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 You can't waive liability, especially when it's possibly criminal.... how many times do people need to say this? Why then aren't EA being litigated for the allowing of false/stolen credit cards to be used in this game? That's a criminal activity. Also have you read the EULA and ToS in depth to assume there isn't anything that covers themselves from the abuse of other players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just because you say they're liable doesn't actually make it so, and you have provided absolutely NO evidence to back up your assertion. You keep claiming rating, but that's been thoroughly debunked. No one is saying liability doesn't exist. You're just not assigning it properly. And you're incapable of admitting that you might actually be incorrect. Heck no I'm not. I very well may be. It just depends on a lawyer willing to take the case, and a judge or jury willing to convict. What I AM saying is that it's not a stretch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 If EA gives a rating to a game where public interactions occur, and some of those are obscene, then they are liable according to the statute, especially if they fail to take action when such interactions happen. Not my rules....I'm just pointing them out. If you don't like them then have the government change them. Also, companies are treated as people under the law....just saying... Right so you and me go to a base ball game ... I beat the crap out of you for no particular reason and you suffer long term mental effects and can no longer work. Is the stadium liable for not guaranteeing your safety? What about the lunatic who wandered into a movie theatre and decided to shoot people ... was the theatre liable in the case because the movie might have been PG and I'm pretty sure people didn't expect to get shot watching it ... Ironically I wouldn't be entirely surprised if indeed the stadium and threatre were liable in the USA ... strange liable laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I know someone in WOW who earned a three day ban for saying racial epithets in Orgrimmar chat. I know a family member who was perma banned in DAOC for defaming French people on the pads you stand on just before porting to the pvp zone... That's not legal action. That's a company exercising their right to terminate or suspend service under the EULA. Do you think either gaming company got told by a judge to ban those users? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I know someone in WOW who earned a three day ban for saying racial epithets in Orgrimmar chat. I know a family member who was perma banned in DAOC for defaming French people on the pads you stand on just before porting to the pvp zone... Right and that's been known to happen in this game too but certainly not all the time. You keep raising liable etc. so I was hoping you had something to more prove that that's been tested in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 That's not legal action. That's a company exercising their right to terminate or suspend service under the EULA. Do you think either gaming company got told by a judge to ban those users? No, but EA would have a better case if they actually did these things...moreover they'd have fewer instances of it if they actually did this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Heck no I'm not. I very well may be. It just depends on a lawyer willing to take the case, and a judge or jury willing to convict. What I AM saying is that it's not a stretch.... It is a stretch. This is the kind of case that Counsel for the Defense would love. A plaintiff insisting that their client is liable for something that they're not. As I said before if, by some miracle, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the appellate court would smack that down. And the plaintiff would likely be open to a countersuit. In reality, the defense would just file for summary dismissal, and they'd probably get it. Edited February 2, 2016 by DayneDrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 No, but EA would have a better case if they actually did these things...moreover they'd have fewer instances of it if they actually did this... Try this ... abuse us as vehemently as you can in a post and see if EA takes action against your forum account. I already know the answer ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) Right so you and me go to a base ball game ... I beat the crap out of you for no particular reason and you suffer long term mental effects and can no longer work. Is the stadium liable for not guaranteeing your safety? What about the lunatic who wandered into a movie theatre and decided to shoot people ... was the theatre liable in the case because the movie might have been PG and I'm pretty sure people didn't expect to get shot watching it ... Ironically I wouldn't be entirely surprised if indeed the stadium and threatre were liable in the USA ... strange liable laws. Apples and oranges. EA can ban the lunatic who goes into the movie theater. In this hypothetical example they're doing nothing, or at least I've seen them do nothing many times in fleet chat... Edited February 2, 2016 by Narasil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Apples and oranges. EA can ban the lunatic who goes into the movie theater. In this hypothetical example they're doing nothing. Ah but in this hypothetical example they can advise someone they can ignore them ... they aren't obligated to ban anyone just to do their best to ensure a user can't be "abused". Making them aware of this feature gives us this solution. You ignore them you don't get abused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pagy Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 You can't waive liability, especially when it's possibly criminal.... how many times do people need to say this?aaaaaaaand this is where i laugh and walk away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasil Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Ah but in this hypothetical example they can advise someone they can ignore them ... they aren't obligated to ban anyone just to do their best to ensure a user can't be "abused". Making them aware of this feature gives us this solution. You ignore them you don't get abused. I agree, you and I don't have the final say though. According to the statute a minor even seeing obscenity once technically constitutes a crime. That's a fact. All we're discussing is who's liable...the individual, the company who failed to provide a proper rating, both, or neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I agree, you and I don't have the final say though. According to the statute a minor even seeing obscenity once technically constitutes a crime. That's a fact. All we're discussing is who's liable...the individual, the company who failed to provide a proper rating, both, or neither. It's not really a question. It's pretty well established that the one uttering the criminal phrases is the one liable. If you're willing to do the work and pay the legal fees, you could probably get a criminal conviction out of it. Seeking damages through a civil suit? That would be more difficult. While the standard is lower in a civil suit, actually proving damages because someone called you a mother****er and arriving at a suitable number.... good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I agree, you and I don't have the final say though. According to the statute a minor even seeing obscenity once technically constitutes a crime. That's a fact. All we're discussing is who's liable...the individual, the company who failed to provide a proper rating, both, or neither. They do provide a correct rating per ESRB. They rate their content accurately and ESRB ensures parents know they cannot rate the online component ... it's pretty easy to comprehend really. If a parent allows their child to be damaged by online abuse then the parent is at fault for not ensuring the safety of their child knowing full well the rating that ESRB has given and the risks involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNaCe-NZ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 It's not really a question. It's pretty well established that the one uttering the criminal phrases is the one liable. If you're willing to do the work and pay the legal fees, you could probably get a criminal conviction out of it. Seeking damages through a civil suit? That would be more difficult. While the standard is lower in a civil suit, actually proving damages because someone called you a mother****er and arriving at a suitable number.... good luck Especially when you could literally prove that many people are indeed one of those ... not minors though of course and I can't see it being brought to court of a minors treatment within the game due to the fact the parents are as much to blame as EA imo. ESRB gave a rating, they know the rating of the content that EA has provided but it also goes on to say the online content cannot be guaranteed ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DayneDrak Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 They do provide a correct rating per ESRB. They rate their content accurately and ESRB ensures parents know they cannot rate the online component ... it's pretty easy to comprehend really. If a parent allows their child to be damaged by online abuse then the parent is at fault for not ensuring the safety of their child knowing full well the rating that ESRB has given and the risks involved. Yup, our kids are closely monitored in their online activities (hell, I even blocked them from Youtube, though not because I was afeared of obscenities). We do let them play Star Wars. For the most part, they pretty much ignore chat. Every once in awhile, they come and ask what someone was talking about, and we explain it. As far as the obscenities go, that I don't worry too much about... they've heard it all before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts