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: 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