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, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday December 11 2017, @05:36PM (15 children)
Buy into an ecosystem where the manufacturer has absolute control, and this is the kind of thing you get. It's not like they're going to show up at your house and seize your physical cards; it is much easier for them to deny access to a central platform.
When everything is centralized, the owner is naturally going to be put under more pressure from all sides to use that power. We see this all over the place in all sorts of things, from software to government. Often, the issue can be mitigated by having a set of strong rules ahead of time that proscribe how the control can be used. But most people don't seem to even notice that such control exists until it has already been abused. They simply do not think about the fact that now that 'cards' are just a number on someone else's computer, that someone else can add or remove them at will. Or, it is considered such a remote possibility that it is ignored compared to the convenience benefits.
But such crap happens all the time. This reminds me of the "cloud" garage door opener which was disabled because the owner made angry posts about the company. We're going to see more and more of these. And your only recourse will be mob rule; whoever gets the most angry people on social media on their side wins. That is a recipe for unfairness.
Just buy physical cards. They're safer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @05:45PM (1 child)
If Microsoft disabled Windows 10 on people who curse the OS... there would be a helluva lot of happy people installing Linux.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Snow on Monday December 11 2017, @05:59PM
Or Google making you sit in the dark if you use Bing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by melikamp on Monday December 11 2017, @05:46PM (3 children)
Good points. This sort of player abuse is virtually guaranteed in any ecosystem where the software is nonfree (and especially when closed source), and so designed from the ground up to exploit and subjugate the user.
As far as virtual items go, it would be interesting to see a game with its own crypto-cash built in, so that item ownership is checked against a block chain. Not an ideal system, but notably less centralized, and much harder to abuse with respect to banning than the current bank-style setups, where the same party has the total and exclusive control over game code, the virtual assets, and all the player information.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday December 11 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
Rules ahead of time could even solve this problem. If the company made a strong public guarantee, included in the user agreement, that "virtual items" were immutable, it could be enough.
Instead though we get weasel talk and "all rights to do anything we want for any reason". And people don't mind this until it is too late.
People seem to think that the mob will save them in cases of injustice, so it's okay. Live by the mob, die by the mob.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 11 2017, @07:00PM
Someone said it best [youtube.com].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JNCF on Monday December 11 2017, @06:15PM
I haven't played this, or even read the white paper: https://novablitz.com [novablitz.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ingar on Monday December 11 2017, @06:15PM (3 children)
Trading card games have always been about milking more money from the customer.
The "game" is where you buy a "card" with an almost zero chance of it being a rare and powerful one.
The "trading" happens when the victims of bad fortune start to swindle each other.
Just print your own cards, they're cheaper.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday December 11 2017, @08:39PM (2 children)
This. I played MtG for several years. I dipped a toe into the cutthroat tournament scene a few times, but went no further. Stuck with the physical cards, and never went online. Mostly I played with friends, for fun. We were always trying weird stuff that would never work in a tournament because it was too weak for "serious" play. I saw no reason why we shouldn't fire up the scanners and printers and copy whatever valuable rare cards we wanted to play with. But, wow, do most MtG players get zealously bent out of shape over that. It's like they're all suffering a mental block. I wasn't trying to pass off fakes as the real thing. I made sure the copies were obviously copies. I just wanted to play with cards I didn't own, that's all.
For those who don't know, it was clear from the first that MtG was an unusually expensive game. There are of course monster games and stuff such as miniatures that can run up a lot of expense, but most board and card games, you pay somewhere between $10 to $100 for a copy, and if the game is a success they will likely try to milk the players for an additional couple hundred with expansions, but that's usually it. For the most hardcore, there might be deluxe editions and special high quality playing pieces, but we're still talking well under $1000. MtG on the other hand can easily soak up over $10k, $5 to $100 at a time.
The best course of action is not to play the game. Don't start. There's plenty of other entertainment as good or better, and a heck of a lot less expensive. But if the players would accept playing with copies of cards, MtG wouldn't be such a money pit. Doubt that will ever happen. Seems using wealth to obtain unfair advantage, buy your way to a greater chance of victory, is part of this game.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @09:07PM
Warhammer 40K is a good example. What they don't tell you is that the 40K is the average amount spent before people realize its a scam.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 11 2017, @10:38PM
In my family, we play Catan: the Gathering, lol.
Catan is just too much fun.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday December 11 2017, @06:23PM (2 children)
Exactly, I don't see the problem here. If you don't want some company to ban you from an online game or from your own garage, don't buy their internet-connected products or services. Don't hand over control of your life to some company that can restrict you at any time in the future on a mere whim.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 11 2017, @10:39PM (1 child)
I read this as ESPECIALLY Microsoft and Apple.
but is it just me? :|
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:24AM
Actually, I wasn't thinking that when I wrote it, but that's a very good point, especially considering that Windows 10 blatantly sends data ("telemetry") to MS.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Monday December 11 2017, @07:34PM
> Buy into an ecosystem where the manufacturer has absolute control, ...
Are you talking about the game here or the social media?
Maybe both?
Someone who spends a great deal of time gaming AND on social media couldn't have any time left for any meaningful contributions to society. Why should we get all up in arms when the puppet string they tied to their own left hand gets tangled in the string they tied to their right hand? Walk Away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:02AM
or like, don't like, play like, video gamez like.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:15PM (6 children)
Boo-hoo-hoo. Gamer gets boot for Social Media posts.
Rewind to 1980 or so - people were quite adept at surviving without SM or 24/7 gaming. Happier times. Remember going OUTSIDE? Walking in a park, enjoying the sunshine and the rain, TALKING with friends, WRITING a letter and the joy of getting one in the MAIL (not Goog, HooYa! .. REAL mail, sometimes with an interesting stamp).
That was the longer version. Short version: get a LIFE.
PS - and get off my lawn, kid!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:20PM (3 children)
There are chilling overtones to this that can't be hand waved away by a crabby Luddite. We need privacy laws!!
No opinion on the specific event, but in general this is like anyone being able to run full background checks on someone checking out in the grocery store, or going to a movie theater. It is pretty strange how easily we wave off internet privacy like it has no bearing on our lives.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:55PM (1 child)
lawl, flamebait for crabby luddite? It is a 100% accurate description backed up by their "get off my lawn" comment. While I agree with minimizing social media etc. prohibition has repeatedly been shown to be a bad solution to problems and should be used as a last resort. I prefer to address these new problems in our ever interconnected world.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @07:20PM
Thanks mod troll, you're doing god's work!
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday December 11 2017, @10:18PM
We just played Rogue for weeks at a time.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:29PM
Agree 100%. Actions have consequences. Perhaps this person learned something valuable here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:43PM
Meh.
Snail mail died with Fidonet and RFC822 mail. Get over it. I admit that postcards are still fun.
What this does mean, however, is that one should assume that posting in the Corporate Centralized Sheep Corral includes an implied CC to anybody you can imagine. This is what a centralized service where all posts are public--even posts that were supposed to be restricted by being in a private group--means.
If you want free speech, you need to stop going to the Corporate Centralized Sheep Corral. If you want to talk about things that may or may not be legal depending on the value of $current_year and $current_president and whatever other political vagaries, if you don't want to worry about 10 years from now when the thing that is ethically and morally above board is being attacked by TPTB is the thing you're interested in and has suddenly become prohibited speech, you need to stop posting in the Corporate Centralized Sheep Corral.
Everything that everybody was worried about or fearful of or even irrationally paranoid about as we all played around with PGP decades ago, well, we were just playing back then. Those fears are now coming to pass. The necessity is coming into being.
(A small side benefit is that you can keep playing M:TG online with friends without worry. They've actually done a pretty good job for once at bringing the experience of a CCG to a computer. And it's free to play. I'm not sure I'm paranoid enough yet to physically disconnect my Linux drive when booted into Windows.... But as we've seen, paranoia becomes legitimate fear becomes reality. Over and over and over again.)
Do you really think that putting your private message in a thin paper envelope and physically handing it to a government service controlled by these exact same unprincipled fascists is the solution?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday December 11 2017, @06:40PM (7 children)
And again we see the Impossibility of SJW Convergence demonstrated. Hasbro has been infected, a company devoted to building a big profitable business would never consider banning high value customers and risking a stampede of the rest. It is because they have allowed SJWs to worm their way into decision making positions where they now feel safely embedded to the point they can begin converging the company towards the goals of Social Justice.. And the more they work toward Social Justice the less time and energy can be devoted to growth and profit, beyond the obvious destructive side effects of their actions.
The takeaway is you should realize that ANY entity that doesn't take explicit counter measures (and most such would be illegal under the laws of most Western nations) they will be converged, become a menace and eventually implode. Don't tie your interests to ANY such entity beyond what is absolutely required. That means don't depend on social media, closed corporate controlled online communities, etc. It goes a lot farther, don't tie yourself to anything that is going to eventually go through convergence and drag you along.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @07:10PM (3 children)
JMcCarthy is right! We must ignore the common sense of corporate PR distancing itself from possibly controversial personalities and instead blame a giant conspiracy! The jews are coming for you jmac!
I do find the precedent this sets rather alarming and I do not like the idea of combing through people's histories to search for "offenders", but you are just a total loon. I guess you're concern is not about privacy, just specters of SJW conspiracies.
I will agree with: " That means don't depend on social media, closed corporate controlled online communities, etc." Not due to progressive SJW mind control, but the actual threat to your privacy and livelihood. Decentralize or bust!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @08:12PM (2 children)
Doublethink is strong in this one.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday December 11 2017, @08:25PM (1 child)
No doublethink here. Corporate PR is as predictable and dumb as a slime mold. That's what common sense is about: predictability over correctness. In this case, distancing itself from controversy is the most predictable response possible.
Whether or not it is the correct response depends on whether they will lose more business from angering progressives or from angering the sad puppies. Those that like actually owning things they paid for already removed themselves from the market anyway.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:33PM
^ yup, not double think, just acknowledging how corporations work. Perhaps a few employees are overly zealous about pursuing their personal idea of "social justice" but the general trend is pure corporate PR looking after its own best interests. This is a scary aspect to the world, where the smallest actions can have long term repercussions. We will all cease to be normal humans and will carry around extra mental stress about maintaining a proper image. I'm not sure how we'll come to terms with it, I just hope we don't go 1984 on OURSELVES!
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)
So what you're saying is the highest goal of anyone in life should be to make money?
I'm happy to argue about what the ultimate goals should be, and I'm not saying WotC is correct in their actions here...I think it's utterly immoral for them to revoke paid property after the fact for actions that have nothing to do with their platform...
But on the one hand we have companies like Facebook/Google/Microsoft violating our rights to privacy and security just to make a quick buck off advertising, and on the other hand we have companies like WotC violating our rights to privacy and security to try to influence the lifestyles of their players...how about instead of asserting that only one of those reasons is valid we agree that neither should be acceptable? It's not about "SJWs" or golden parachutes; it's about companies pissing on one resource (be it cash on hand or public relations or the external environment) to get a quick boost on another. It's all the same thought process -- maximizing one variable at the expense of all the rest.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:22PM (1 child)
Not exactly. I'm saying seeking to maximize shareholder value should be the prime mission of Hasbro, as a joint stock corporation. Pure neutral profit maximization is the least destructive goal for a corporation. Personally I think their government charters should be reopened for debate and severely curtailed to only be granted in cases where only a joint stock corporation can accomplish a publicly useful function. I'm currently in the minority on that though. I do hope a majority can at least be convinced that allowing SJWs to seize huge corporate assets and wield them as hammers against their political foes is dangerous and should be 'discouraged' by the shareholders.
Or do YOU want to risk living in a world where your ability to shop at Walmart depends on your expressing the 'correct' political views? Are you certain you can chase $current_year politics at every mega corp your daily survival depends on? Do you really want to find out? The holiness spiral is spinning ever faster ya know. Barack Obama of 2012 is a horrible h8er homophobe now, sure you are holier than The Won? And now the Pervnado demands we judge you not on what you say or do now, but up to forty years back. Sure you will measure up?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @07:40PM
I (possibly?) disagree. People don't usually create companies primarily as a profit mechanism. Soylent for example is incorporated (...right? I think we did that...) but the goal isn't to maximize profit, it's to maximize utility. Maximizing profit is why our economy is such a mess in the first place, with companies being created purely to play shell games with money and siphon off a percentage in the process. Hasbro's primary goal should be the production of enjoyable toys and games, and turning a profit should only be a necessary condition for continuing that mission.
And I don't think being publicly traded should influence this at all. Invest in goals, not in profits. If you're just blindly investing in any company that's been giving good returns, then you have no idea what your money is actually financing. Might as well invest in some wannabe gangsters ripping off corner stores, because for all you know *that's exactly what you're doing anyway*. You share responsibility for any actions by any company you invest in, because you gave them the money to do it.
Yup, that's more or less what I'm getting at...return on investment is not, by itself, a useful mission. So if that's the primary goal of a company, then that company has no reason to exist.
We've already got club stores where you can only shop there if you pay certain fees and abide by certain terms...so this exists, it's just that "seeking profit" is generally the behavior you must adhere to. So if someone wants to make an SJW club store I don't really see the problem. Not sure I'd want to shop there, but I see no reason why they should be prevented from trying it. And hell, if it meant the store actually had a reasonable code of ethics and held to it, I probably *would* shop there. If it's implemented in a way that sacrifices profits in order to boost social utility, then I'd absolutely prefer that store. If on the other hand it exploits empty virtue signalling in order to boost profit margins, then it's no different from any existing major corporation. That is, in many cases, exactly what big advertising budgets are for. That's why Starbucks sells "Vente" instead of whatever fuckin size that is, and it's also why the Ford dealership blankets their shop in flags and holds a big sale every Memorial Day. It's all the same bullshit.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @06:45PM (37 children)
He agreed to the Terms of Service [wizards.com] (last updated in 2014).
Those terms include:
This guy agreed to abide by these terms. Wizards of the Coast exercised their rights under the contract agreed upon by both parties.
If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't accept the contract. It took me less than two minutes to find the above clause and I don't even play that stupid game, nor had I ever visited that page or read those TOS before.
Are these folks being heavy-handed? I don't know. However, if I received complaints from multiple users about a single user being a dickhead, I'd be inclined to boot the user complained about to protect my income stream.
For those who bring in the whole "but, but muh free speech!" should remember that this isn't a public (government run/funded) forum.
Think "No shirt. No shoes. No service." Private entities may (generally) refuse service to anyone, for any reason. Full stop.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(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
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday December 11 2017, @08:10PM (1 child)
But that term doesn't state he's not entitled to part of the money he paid, as he didn't get what he paid for. Note that it also says that he is entitled to terminate his account at any time; I strongly doubt that if he did so at a time when he still owed them money, this would invalidate their money claim.
Also note that this being written in the condition is not proof that this is in effect. Rather, to determine that, you'd also have to check applicable law whether such a clause is actually valid.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:01PM
All of those are reasonable and valid points. And this guy can take these guys to court to recover that money.
IIRC, the issue is the claim of *stored value* in virtual objects purchased "in game." IANAL, so I don't know how that translates into the real world. If this guy sues Hasbro, perhaps we'll find out.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday December 11 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
Fair enough, but let's say we bury all such information in the middle of a pile of Perl regex's. You're certain to sift through all that to get to and understand the terms of the thing you are agreeing to, right?
That's effectively what all this legalese is for nearly all regular humans, a pile of indecipherable gibberish that you vaguely feel must be important and that you would really like to be able to understand, but that fat book on studying for the LSATs that you peeked at a couple years ago when you were toying with the idea of going to law school has an inch of dust on it, and you just haven't found the time to grok it amid endless emergency meetings and overtime at work...
Contract language and legalese have been the source code of civilization for a thousand years, but saying that all of us must first be quasi-professional lawyers to understand it before we want to play a video game to unwind is a little bit unreasonable, do you not think?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:10PM
Yes. You are correct, sir.
What ever shall we do about it?
I suggest not signing contracts that aren't clear, concise and in plain language.
Perhaps there's a business opportunity for someone to create a filter to parse contracts and translate them into language *anyone* can understand?
I'd bet that such a business would have TOS that were at least as dense as the contracts they're translating.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Monday December 11 2017, @09:49PM (2 children)
Yea, there's a bit more to creating a valid, legally enforceable contract than just writing down a bunch of stuff you say you will be allowed to do, and getting somebody to click "Agree."
Generally, any contract requires a "meeting of the minds" to actually exist, and there must be some "consideration." A contract that says "you will give me X dollars" and offering nothing in exchange is not valid or enforceable, as it lacks consideration. In this case, he paid money for access to their services, and they cut him off. If there was some time period involved, then they absolutely owe him some money back if the cut off his account prematurely.
This is why a lot of gym memberships are not legally enforceable. They want you to commit to a year or two. But then you stop going and stop paying the monthly fee. They then try to come after you because you didn't cancel properly in writing 60 days in advance or whatever it is. Courts don't enforce that. The member paid while he was accessing the services, when he stopped paying they cut off his access. Consideration is done at that point. You can't force someone to pay for something they're not using through that kind of contract.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:23PM (1 child)
Yep. Everything you said is reasonable and, in general, true.
I've personally had the experience of a gym coming after me in exactly those circumstances. And when the collection agency called me (this is before VOIP robocalling) to *demand* that I pay up or they'd sue me, I informed him (per my state's laws) not to contact me by phone and wished him luck with a lawsuit and with collecting even a nickel. Unsurprisingly, that was the end of it.
But this guy *did* agree to the contract, and (at least AFAICT) received value and consideration -- for a time. As to whether or not the terms to which he *explicitly* agreed are enforceable, that's up to the courts.
Honestly, I'm not really sure why this is news at all. It reads to me something like, "Online jerk gets booted from online game and whines about that unfairness of the contract to which he agreed to abide."
There may well be a claim WRT in-game objects he purchased, as he no longer has access to those. Whether he should be refunded his money for those or just sent a file with the results of a SQL query like 'SELECT * from [in-game-objects-purchased-table] where USER=[user]'.
Depending on your ideas about what was, in fact, purchased, either one (or perhaps something else) might be reasonable.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Monday December 11 2017, @10:32PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if he paid real money for the items the part of the contract that made them able to cancel his account at any time was illegal and therefore he is entitled to a refund.
But it depends on what state he's in, since contracts vary by state.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday December 11 2017, @09:55PM (1 child)
From the summary, with my emphasis:
From the terms:
How does that provision allow Wizards to ban him from "cover[ing] events on his YouTube channel"?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Monday December 11 2017, @10:40PM
Well I assume that they could stop him from attending them. But if he gets the footage from other people, there's nothing they can do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:04PM (1 child)
The concept of free speech is much broader than the legal implementation of it. You're thinking of the first amendment. Saying "but, but muh free speech!" may actually be appropriate here, in the sense that you have every right to want the company to become more respecting of free speech. I think it is preferable for a company or website to strongly favor freedom of speech, like SoylentNews does.
Just because you can do something (ban anyone who says something you don't like) doesn't mean it is ethical to do so, and certainly does not mean you're exempt from criticism.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday December 11 2017, @10:33PM
Absolutely. And while I generally don't buy stuff that Hasbro sells, if I did, I certainly wouldn't do so any more after this.
My point was that from a *legal* (not ethical) standpoint, free speech is irrelevant in this case.
From an ethical standpoint, it may well be (and it wouldn't surprise me in the least) that Hasbro is acting completely unethically. It's a corporation, what do you expect? An LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) isn't around to be ethical or "do the right thing," even though some small percentage may do so. They are around to make profit.
I'm not surprised that Hasbro took the action they did and I explained why. Is it ethical? Probably not. Was it the right thing for them to do? I don't know enough about it to say one way or another.
However, Hasbro was within their rights, based on the contract explicitly accepted by this guy, to do what they did.
That's not to say this guy (and others) shouldn't piss and moan about it. Even better, he should file a lawsuit and hold daily press conferences to shame Hasbro.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:42AM (3 children)
It is a contract of adhesion and it is possible that the section could be found unconscionable: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Adhesion+Contract [thefreedictionary.com]
It might be worth trying a lawsuit -- the terms are so broad that this provision can amount to pure theft.
Contract rights aren't absolute -- for example, if Hasbro had a term in their contract that at its discretion, it could pay you $50 in exchange for stabbing you in the kidney, that wouldn't be enforceable and you could certainly sue if they tried.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @11:16AM (2 children)
Perhaps. In fact, I suggested just that elsewhere [soylentnews.org].
What's more, that was implied in my initial post:
At the same time, termination clauses are pretty standard in these types of agreements and that one isn't very unusual IMHO.
How exactly could terminating someone's access to a *free-to-play* amount to theft? Or perhaps I'm missing something.
It's important to understand not only what you're getting (consideration), but also what rights both you and the other party(ies) have under such a contract. The contract clearly states that either party could terminate the agreement at any time for any reason.
While it's certainly possible that this guy could file suit over being terminated, it seems unlikely (at least to me) he'd get much traction with such a claim.
As I've learned a little more about this situation, it seems that the person terminated by Hasbro is mostly concerned about the stored value of in-game purchases made. He may well have a claim to recover either the in-game purchases (fat lot of good it will do him if it he can't play the game) or monetary recompense for loss of use of the in-game objects he purchased.
I suspect he would have a much better chance to recover at least some of the money spent on in-game purchases.
Was Hasbro heavy-handed here? Maybe. Should they have taken a different approach? Maybe. Maybe they did. For all we know, they contacted this guy to discuss the issue they perceived and didn't get the answers they wanted. Or maybe they just decided that having one user driving other users off their platform was bad for their rep and their bottom line.
From a contractual standpoint, who is the "wronged" party here? Hasbro? Not even close. Is the banned guy the wronged party? I say probably not, given that many (most?) agreements have termination clauses, and this one seems pretty straightforward. As such, getting kicked out of a *free-to-play* game was absolutely a foreseeable consequence, whether it be because Hasbro decided to shutter the game (would you make a different argument if that were the case?) or they decided they didn't want him around, as they did.
I don't know all the details surrounding the termination of his access to the game, but it was clearly within Hasbro's purview (as well as the guy who was terminated) to do so. Will a court decide otherwise? Possibly, but I doubt if a court would find the mutual termination provision to be invalid.
What I expect will happen (which is probably, given the situation the best-case scenario for this guy) is that he will eventually be paid however much money he spent on in-game purchases. This may happen as a result of the bad PR or as a result of an out-of-court settlement after a lawsuit is filed. I also expect that he will never be re-instated.
As I said a bunch of times in this thread, while there certainly is an issue with abusive or one-sided contracts, the guy had a responsibility to understand what his position was WRT the agreement *prior* to entering into it. What happened to him was a foreseeable consequence of the agreement he freely entered into with Hasbro.
IANAL, but this isn't really such a complicated issue and the "fine print" wasn't all that fine.
This is (or should be) a cautionary tale for all of us. What's more, it should motivate us all to refuse to sign contracts that are overly complex or give enormous leverage to one side over another. If enough people refuse to enter into such contracts, corporations will need to modify their contracts to be less complex/broad/abusive/etc. if they want to do business.
Alternatively, there could be legislation (there's a patchwork of laws across not just the several states, but around the world) which have varying requirements as to what contract terms are enforceable. Perhaps a simplicity requirement or even a relevant summary (as is done with credit card offers in the US) of terms and conditions in plain language would be useful.
AFAICT, Hasbro didn't defraud this guy or not provide the services agreed to in the contract. They merely exercised their rights under that contract. Caveat Emptor. It was incumbent on this guy to know what his agreement actually entailed before entering into it.
The in-game purchases are another issue, and (potentially) a more complex one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 12 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, because I do think a refund (potentially a partial refund) would be the proper course of action...however, it's also a somewhat dangerous precedent. People might decide once they tire of the game that they need to get themselves banned so that they can get a full refund on their way out.
Part of this is the problem of digital items -- they don't wear out, they don't really depreciate. There's a couple solutions to that though. First, you can make the items actually "wear out" over time -- it's good for 1k uses, then you've gotta buy a new one. So if you've got 500 uses left, they'll give you a 50% refund. Or they could potentially base it on average usage -- if the longest active account is six years old, and you've played for three, then you get 50% back. Another option is a user marketplace, so you can come up with an actual fair market value for the item...although in that case you'd want a constant stream of new (and better) items to drive values down over time. Or you could link the item to some kind of physical good -- perhaps a special card with a redemption code which gets reactivated if the account is deleted. That way you can resell those cards to other players and WotC wouldn't have to get involved at all. But as long as the items are still just as valuable five years later as they were when you first purchased them, then it's reasonable to want a full refund for that purchase. Or I guess they could offer a warranty and give refunds within that warranty window.
If companies are going to sell digital goods, they really need to consider how to handle refunds. Especially if those digital goods can only be used on their servers with their permission. Any item that fails to be usable for the intended purpose is defective and should be refundable, regardless of whether that good is physical or virtual.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:46PM
I think those are good ideas. However, it seems unlikely that (at least in the current environment) that sellers of such items will voluntarily liberalize their contract terms absent a legal requirement that they do so.
I imagine that much of this would hinge on legal precedent regarding digital items and the first sale doctrine [wikipedia.org]. When we pay for such items, do we actually own them or are they licensed [wikipedia.org] to us? If the latter, what are the *terms* of such a license?
This is especially important in circumstances like this, as the in-game purchases are useless outside the context of the game, as I (snarkily) alluded to in another post [soylentnews.org]:
The "remedy" I suggest, while it quite literally provides the user with the "objects" purchased, is completely worthless in practical terms.
Should this guy choose to file suit over the in-game purchases, it will be interesting to see how that plays out. If the agreement governing those sales do not meet the requirements as "licensed" goods, then he will likely have a good case for a refund. If, however, the objects are deemed "licensed" then the license agreement will likely cover whatever remedies are available to him.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @01:18PM
I hope he takes them to court to see how that actually plays out. This clause basically states that wotc is allowed to steal from you, as it costs money to access the service and to buy the specific cards, it may be successfully argued that is property theft. And when a contract doesn't respect the law, it usually is the contact or certain clauses of contracts that are declared null and void.
Alternatively, I definitely think the player has a good chance for a lawsuit of his own against wotc for harassing, stalking, privacy violations, ...
Also, if you have to read all TOS licenses, and only enter into contracts if you agree with them, I wouldn't be on the internet anymore and probably, neither would you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:50PM
Every online game is full of them, just like the average urban bus station is mostly populated by everyday travellers but also full of bums, bible thumpers, hookers, addicts, and boosters. Games imitate life.
Being businesses, game companies have a need to protect and manage their brand. No mystery there. Some companies do it better than others, by varied means and methods.
If $game_company does not please you, play another game. I quit Everquest after almost 18 years b/c I finally got fed up with what Daybreak was doing to a once-legendary franchise. I help work on Pantheon RotF development now.
It's just a damn game. Nobody is making you play.
Unlike the bus station of life.
(Score: 3, Informative) by nobu_the_bard on Monday December 11 2017, @07:50PM (2 children)
I don't know this guy, I don't know a lot about the wider MTG community outside my local environment, so bear with me.
MTGO (Magic The Gathering Online) is a mess. It's just terrible. The interface is bad. The features are bad. I'm not even talking about the potential usual "the man controls me" topics, I'm talking about basic stuff. I played it a little bit and realized how antiquated it is, and got out, years ago. I check back in every year or so and am amazed its actually somehow gotten worse. I could go into this at length but I'll keep it brief to spare you non-gamers. Suffice to say, it has a very early 90s approach to many things. For various reasons many players either don't know this (not realizing there's a multitude of better game environs out there) or just live with it (because they just want to play MTG so badly).
Now, for various reasons, a lot of players buy into it. Many players, to some degree, have to; Wizards (and by extension, Hasbro) occasionally run tournaments on MTGO that are effectively required for many "professional" players. This was initially (I think) to try to push MTGO adoption but it's become a cost-saving and control-enabling measure.
Unlike games such as poker, professional players are practically unofficial MTG employees. They end up pushing the product and getting (indirectly) paid by Wizards through tournament winnings (which are only cash at the highest levels), ad revenue they earn talking about MTG, and paid blogs/streams etc. Whether or not they want to, or even realize it, they live and die by the grace of Wizards. Wizards can block them tournaments and cut them off MTGO at their grace.
Many of the merchants are likewise, practically Wizards' agents, in many senses. The secondary market merchants have more say in their fates though, because they drive a lot of business via their after-market transactions, are much smarter and more organized in general, and Wizards knows it. Any one secondary market merchant guy isn't important (except maybe for a handful like Star City Games who are practically subsidiaries of Wizards, so closely tied to MTG products they are) but they can collaborate very fast.
Anyway a lot of that was opinion mixed with fact. I didn't have the time to write something more lucid. Sorry about that.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheReaperD on Monday December 11 2017, @08:42PM (1 child)
Even 10+ years ago when I was involved the the gaming industry, we always referred to WotC as "Whip out the Cash" because every action they took was solely based on money generation and nothing else and their purchase by Hasbro has done nothing to improve this fact. I even said it right to their rep's face. Merchant relations, customer relations and nurturing an active community don't even come in second in their consideration. And we thought Games Workshop was bad at the time. WotC passed them up in dickishness in every category.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday December 11 2017, @09:31PM
You can trace it pretty directly to the gameplay decisions they've been making the last few years, even. They're kind of warping Standard (the format that actually makes them most of their money) around the strategies generally considered most fun for new players. Which is understandable, but when you go too far that direction it unbalances the distribution of decks people play, because obviously few people want to play a deck that loses often.
For reference, this year they've banned cards in Standard on 3 separate occasions. The last time that happened before this year was like 10 years ago.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Monday December 11 2017, @09:26PM (3 children)
Reddit (/r/magicTCG/) has been on fire for the last two weeks with people starting threads, outside people coming in and downvoting everyone not saluting hard enough, then the mods lock the threads and permaban people.
I got banned, not even for disagreeing with the right viewpoint, but for not agreeing hard enough. There may have been some slight sarcasm [reddit.com] involved.
All I can say is that I'm glad SN doesn't permaban for first offense like at least some subreddits do.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @09:48PM
Drink the koolaid..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @10:35PM (1 child)
Did they delete your comment? I found the comment on archive.org, however. This is why I prefer sites that actually promote free speech (as in the concept, not the first amendment).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday December 12 2017, @03:38PM
No, they didn't delete it. I suppose somebody got butthurt when I pulled out the term "white knight," lol.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @09:56PM
> Polygon and Kotaku ... neither present any actual evidence
Of course not. What did you expect, games journalists to do any actual journalism?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DBCubix on Monday December 11 2017, @10:17PM (3 children)
Please help me because I am really not understanding this. If Hasbro were instead General Motors (GM) and GM was trolling through social media and saw a post that said "Chevy Trailblazers suck," then using the same logic they could use OnStar and disable your vehicle? Is this the right analogy? I mean this player was using the Hasbro ecosystem, bought items of value (could it even be considered property), and now they are preventing his lawful use. If property rights could be argued, that trumps EULAs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by arcz on Monday December 11 2017, @10:23PM (1 child)
It's just more bullshit we let corporations get away with. We need to draft a law to prevent this kind of abuse and lobby for it.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:14AM
I agree with this. This is probably the only realistic way to get things changed. The reality is that laws are bought and paid for. We need to put lobbying money behind citizens' interests. I know, our representatives should be doing this by default. "should". What does that mean in the age of money = votes and corporations = people (that cannot die or even be effectively sued)? Not much. If we care enough we will have to show it with money or continue to be smacked around like a misbehaving piggy bank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @12:00PM
That's mostly correct, but you missed two conditions. You also need to add that you're never allowed to take a ride in or use any GM product again for the next year and you're not allowed to talk about GM in anyway. If you have an older GM fridge, well sorry, you'll need to ship it back to GM and buy a new one.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday December 12 2017, @04:12AM
Mistakes were made.
Paying money for not-real things, not controlled by you and that you cannot re-sell at your discretion (and therefore you do not own)
Posting anything meaningful to the internet under your real name. How did this even come about? Why do people do this?
Corporation with an SJW infestation engaging in their sleazy but oh so predictable witchhunt.
Ridiculous, over-reaching EULAs that unfortunately for everyone will be upheld by our corporate circus courts.