SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the big-brother-is-morally-judging-you dept.
On December 7, a Magic: The Gathering player with a YouTube channel called "UnSleevedMedia" ( https://www.youtube.com/user/mtgheadquarters ) was banned for life from the game by the Hasbro subsidiary Wizards of the Coast for allegedly harassing others in the MtG community on social media. As a consequence, he immediately lost access to all the virtual items he's previously purchased while receiving no refund, and he may no longer play online, partake in tournaments, or cover events on his YouTube channel (details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIh3ykLBzOM ).
The ban was issued after articles appeared on gaming news sites Polygon ( https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/29/16709796/magic-the-gathering-cosplayer-harassment-youtube ) and Kotaku ( https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/11/magic-subreddit-on-lockdown-after-cosplayer-quit-due-to-alleged-harassment/ ), where a cosplayer accused UnsleevedMedia operator Jeremy Hambly of persistent harassment. (Note: While the articles report on the controversy, neither present any actual evidence for either side.)
While Mr Hambly claims that the allegations of threats and harassment are demonstrably false, and that the evidence against him is based on excerpts from Twitter/Facebook posts taken out of context, he now says he's uncovered something quite chilling while investigating the case: evidence that employees at Wizards of the Coast are trawling the Internet looking for social media activities going back years in search of conduct they might find "objectionable".
In at least one instance they've allegedly requested and gained access to a closed Facebook group only tangentially related to the MtG community, and then issued bans and warnings based on the contents of conversations therein. This includes a one-year ban against professional player Travis Woo, who has now effectively lost his job. Mr Hambly presented the evidence for these claims in a YouTube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGFcLvDRJNQ ) on his other channel, "The Quartering" ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwE_ODI1YTbdjkzuSi1Nag ).
In response to this, he has started a change.org petition ( https://www.change.org/p/hasbro-wizards-of-the-coast-must-reinstate-travis-woo-jeremy-hambly ) asking people to boycott all Hasbro products until such time as the bans are reversed. His main argument is that corporations should not be allowed enforce End User License Agreements that dictate what a person may or may not say or do in their spare time on social media.
(Disclaimer: I've signed the petition, as I wouldn't like to see a future where a Twitter spat could cost someone their Steam games.)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by takyon on Monday December 11 2017, @06:51PM (20 children)
He has every right to raise a stink about it and start a petition. Whether that will gain enough traction to cause Wizards/Hasbro to change course is another story. 10,000 signatures is not a million.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @06:58PM (19 children)
As usual, you're quite correct, Takyon.
But that doesn't invalidate the *contract* whose terms to which he *explicitly* agreed. And Wizards of the Coast exercised their rights under that contract. Whether that's right or wrong isn't really relevant, IMHO.
I'd be very surprised if this guy was reinstated, no matter how many petitions or signatures there are in his favor.
These guys are in it to make money. If banning one user who is pissing off multiple users (who, if they get sufficiently annoyed, will stop giving them money) will have a positive (or at least non-negative) impact on their revenue stream, that's just what they'll do.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Monday December 11 2017, @08:03PM (11 children)
While the contract had a *cover all foreseeable problems* clause, that doesn't make it right. What he was doing was possibly not right either, but we can't know without some amount of proof. Assuming, he was persistently harassing the individual(s). There are legal means to correct said behavior. Otherwise, it seems to be quite some overreach for a company to disassociate a customer based purely on accusations. This is definitely a problem and shouldn't be allowed.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:11PM
"Assuming, he was persistently harassing the individual(s)"
He made some pointed criticisms, not so much of her really as of her business model and 'customers' (people who send her money.) It wasn't diplomatically phrased and I wouldn't blame her for taking offense really, but after all the talk of this long pattern of harassment that's the only thing there seems to be any evidence of - harsh public criticism on one occasion.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @09:49PM (6 children)
Actually, it was a "We can kick your ass out when we feel like it, for whatever (or no) reason." clause. Whether that's right or not, it was part of the contract.
As for what he was doing (or not doing), that's irrelevant to the terms of the contract.
That's reasonable. However, we're not talking about reasonableness here. We're talking about contracts and impact on the financial bottom line.
I suppose that Wizards of the Coast could have engaged an arbitrator, or hired a private investigator, or even filed a lawsuit. However, all of those things negatively impact *profit*.
I agree with you that it's a crappy thing to do to someone. But that has nothing to do with the *business* decision these folks made -- ban someone who was annoying multiple other users (and lose the revenue from that one user), or potentially lose revenue from multiple users.
If the guy who got banned didn't want to have the risk that this would happen, he never should have entered into a contract that allowed this to happen.
It's not like this was a contract (like a lease or for a utility like electricity) that he was *required* to enter into. Caveat Emptor.
That said, if we (as a society) don't want abusive or really one-sided contracts to be the norm, we shouldn't sign such contracts -- businesses will respond (if they want to survive) with less abusive contracts.
If you see a flaw in my argument, please point it out. I'm not trying to be a dick or confrontational, I just don't see (even though your argument reflects fairness and is likely "the right thing to do.") what it has to do, from a practical standpoint, with the current situation.
I read contracts before I sign them. It's not so hard. If I saw a condition like "we can kick your sorry ass out whenever we feel like it and you have no recourse," I wouldn't sign the contract. Perhaps that's too much to ask of some (many? most?) people, but whose fault is that?
Corporations have no moral compass or motivation other than to maximize profit. When you recognize that, you take steps to protect your interests, because the corporation certainly won't do so for you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)
Sometimes countries even make such contracts unenforceable to protect their people. Unthinkable.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:36PM
I'd love to see that in my country. I'm sure that's really high on L'Orange's list of things to get done. Not.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday December 11 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)
One of the things required to constitute a contract is consideration, or something of value that changes hands. Without that, the contract could be considered invalid. In this case, the guy apparently paid more than zero in order to use some virtual items in the online game. If Wizards decided that they wanted to terminate the contract, I think the subject of refunds would be up for discussion. If, on the other hand, they want to assert that there isn't a contract, per se, but rather a "terms of use," the justification for taking money gets muddled.
In the actual Terms of Use [wizards.com] on the Wizards website, they say that "When you directly purchase games or products from our Websites, you are not interacting with Wizards, but rather our third party partners." They cite the third party terms and conditions as applying. I don't know what PayPal (for example) has to say about it, but I imagine they can process a payment dispute for some period of time. Maybe that's where to go for a refund...
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:16AM
IANAL, and I can tell you are not, either. What you say sounds very legalistic, but not actually true.
You are correct that all contracts require Consideration. What you missed, though, is that both sides had Consideration. The Hasboro/Wizards of the Coast lawyers would casually walk into court, and easily argue that, "the plantiff's consideration was the time he had fun playing online before he was kicked off." The courts would accept it, and dismiss the case with prejudice (assuming it even got there and wasn't dismissed way earlier in the process).
In comparison, consider that it's fairly usual to have the contract to buy or sell a house (yes, those things which cost $500,000 USD) have made explicit that the Consideration being given in return for the sale is $1 (yes, 1 USD).
The user could make an argument for a refund, but that would be something with the Better Business Bureau, or the stage of public opinion. A formal legal court would dismiss that lawsuit so fast, it would make your head spin.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:56PM (1 child)
You are quite correct in your line of reasoning. The part about you not signing a contract like that would be that you never use Windows, or pretty much any for profit software. As nearly all of them have similar language to cover the software creator's / publisher's backside. Some of it is reasonable some of it isn't, but we've grown accustomed to just clicking ok on that huge box of legalize when asked. It all comes down to the fact that instead of "purchasing" the software you're licensing it from them. Though, most people off the street will tell you, they bought XYZ Software.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:18PM
Yep. Your points WRT COTS (Commercial, Off The Shelf) software are well taken.
However, this is actually a different animal, given that (well, at least until Windows 10 and I haven't heard about Microsoft bricking someone's Windows 10 PC -- yet, which is yet another reason not to run it) if you license COTS software, the publishers *generally* can't remove their software from your computer, although they might attempt to disable it or refuse updates, if you *allow* them access to your computer.
In this case, (please correct me if I'm wrong), the agreement in question covers a *free-to-play* online game, where all the important bits are housed and stored on the publisher's systems. In my mind, that makes a difference, as there is consideration on both sides, but the end user doesn't fork over any cash to *play*. Which makes the joint termination clause almost reasonable.
IIUC, the game *play* agreement is separate from agreement(s) related to in-game purchases, which is where (again, IIUC) the issues really lie.
The broader issue is why do individuals (as long, complicated and detailed contracts are the norm in B2B contracts) enter into agreements that they don't, possibly can't, or won't take the time to understand.
That "we" have become accustomed to doing something that disadvantages us doesn't make it a smart or reasonable thing to do.
In the ancient world, women used cosmetics made from lead in many cultures. It was, in fact, customary to do so. Why don't we do that any more?
It was less than 100 years ago that women were denied the political franchise. That had been customary (with minor exceptions) for as long as the US existed. As such, why would we do such a thing?
I could go on and on with examples of things that were "customary" but disadvantaged those who participated. Things only change as we recognize the harms (as in lead cosmetics) and/or push to right a societal wrong (as with women's suffrage).
In this case, it's the complexity/length/abusiveness/etc. of online and offline contracts/agreements that are "customary," even though they disadvantage the individual.
I'm not sure what mechanisms would be effective in countering this trend, but educating oneself, supporting relevant laws/regulations, refusing to do business with companies that attempt to shove this sort of stuff down our throats, and speaking out/agitating against these practices would be a start.
But back to the guy who got banned by Hasbro. To be honest, I (but perhaps I'm an outlier) didn't find the TOS/T&Cs to be particularly complex or onerous. Given that this covered a *free-to-play* game rather than a mortgage or an expensive piece of equipment or software. That's a subjective assessment and certainly open for debate, but I don't think the termination clause in question rises to the level of an abusive contract term.
The issues surrounding in-game purchases in this case bear additional scrutiny, IMHO. However, those appear to be separate from the issues surrounding the termination clause and loss of access to the game.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 11 2017, @10:44PM (1 child)
""I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11"
Was he lying when he said this? (Not religious,,,don't know the context)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:19PM
It was probably King David, but it's not specifically attributed to someone. Though, it's very likely whomever wrote it had at one time said "all men are liars" or at least felt that. The sentiment I get from it is that he spoke "hastily" which means "Done or made without due consideration or attention; precipitate or cursory". While it's true that people lie, there is no sense in being so cynical that you assume everyone is lying.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday December 11 2017, @10:48PM
It doesn't matter if it's "right" or not, it's their legal right to be wrong if they want, and even to treat customers poorly as long as it's legal and not in violation of the contract.
Yeah, it sucks, but the lesson here really needs to be that these online services are bullshit, and you're just setting yourself up for this stuff if you become a customer. I don't think petitions are helpful here personally, as the company has its reasons for doing this stuff; instead, the answer is publicity, so that people know what they're getting into before they join one of these online services, and hopefully decide against it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:16PM (1 child)
Google the word "unconscionable". While a megacorp can write anything and call it "a contract", sometimes the courts would disagree.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @09:55PM
I don't need to look up the definition, as I'm quite familiar with that word and its meaning.
You're absolutely correct. And if this guy wants to fight this out in court, I wish him all the luck in the world.
I'd love to see a world where contracts were fair. But as I pointed out in a previous post [soylentnews.org], if we (as a society) don't want abusive or really one-sided contracts to be the norm, we shouldn't sign such contracts -- businesses will respond (if they want to survive) with less abusive contracts.
Until that happens (and good luck to us all with that!), each of us needs to protect our own interests.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:25PM (2 children)
This is one of those weird situations where everybody is correct. It just matters how you look at it, and what people decide is more important.
1) User has a right to be a jerk.
2) Hasboro has a right to kick the jerk off the network.
3) User has a right to complain about it and publicize being kicked off, and to try to raise a stink.
Now it is up to "the market" and "the public" to decide which side is more sympathetic: "I should be able to play my game without being harassed by jerks" vs "I'm not spending any money on a platform where I may lose it without recourse."
I suspect that the public will be more sympathetic to Hasboro because everybody has dealt with jerks before and if they only went after the most drastic jerk then it's "fair." However, we'll see what the court of public opinion says in time.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM
I won't speculate on potential outcomes, but I imagine it will come down to a calculation by Hasbro as to what course of action will maximize (or at least mitigate the loss of) profit for them. Alternatively, a judge/jury may decide.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday December 11 2017, @10:53PM
Unfortunately, the public isn't usually very good at making the correct decisions. But sometimes they do--one example that just popped into my head is the old "DIVX" rental-movie business, which totally flopped after Circuit Shitty spent billions on it. But two counter-examples are Twitter and Facebook.
Honestly, I don't have too much sympathy for people who get too invested in these online games like this, which have in-game currency and possessions. The game company has all the power, both legally and technically. If you want to play games, just play a non-online game where *you* own the game (or a copy at least), and no company can just shut you out of it on a whim. Or join one of the FOSS online games, where there's no big corporation behind it, just a community, and no money is changing hands, just people having fun together. At least there, if you get kicked out, you won't have lost anything monetary, and you can even set up your own alternate server if you want.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Just because it's written into a contract doesn't make it legally binding. There are plenty of contracts that try to enforce illegal terms which are later found invalid. Also, if there wasn't quid pro quo, "consideration" in contract law, the specific term of the contract they invoked may be unenforceable (if he sues). You have to get something in exchange for something. In this case, I think it's clear he did not receive consideration for that particular contractual restriction. If a bought and paid for corprate-tit-sucking judge will rule correctly is another matter.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:20AM
This guy [soylentnews.org] already said it pretty well.
And, as I pointed out in another post [soylentnews.org]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr