No I don't, he shouldn't have been harassing people. He got what he deserved. In fact, he got off easy, cuz he can always go sell his games and get probably half his money back.Jitters Caffeine said:
Poll: Who is in the right here?
- Thread starter Jitters Caffeine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Isn't this something like having an unruly customer pissing off other customers in a bar and having the owner/employee kicking the unruly customer from the establishment? Its in the interest of the business to remove such customers, no?
Edit: On a funnier note, this [http://www.indiewire.com/article/alamo_drafthouse_kicks_out_customer_for_texting_creates_an_excellent_new_ps].
Edit: On a funnier note, this [http://www.indiewire.com/article/alamo_drafthouse_kicks_out_customer_for_texting_creates_an_excellent_new_ps].
It may be in the ToU, but it's a bit stupid.
I also don't know the context of the harassment claims. I know what he said, but not why. I'm also not sure two offenses is worth a ban across all services.
Who's in the right? Nobody.
The problem is, this probably wouldn't hold up to a legal challenge, but nobody's going to do anything.
Meanwhile, the people complaining about EA will likely prop it up themselves by continuing to support EA.
I also don't know the context of the harassment claims. I know what he said, but not why. I'm also not sure two offenses is worth a ban across all services.
Who's in the right? Nobody.
The problem is, this probably wouldn't hold up to a legal challenge, but nobody's going to do anything.
Meanwhile, the people complaining about EA will likely prop it up themselves by continuing to support EA.
He should have been banned from the forums, not from being able to play the games, especially games wholly unrelated to the source of the issue.
The dickhead was participating in what was, probably, a retarded fanboy flamewar on the internet between CoD fanboys who are, ostensibly, the lowest common denominator and Battlefield fanboys who are, ostensibly, the second-lowest common denominator who have managed to convince themselves that they are the hyper-intelligent shooter master race. Anyone who will condescend to participate in such a flailing moron-fight deserves the inability to play the precious game he was probably spewing obscenities and slurs to defend.
Seriously, go EA. Ban all of the people who spend the best part of their time being morons on the internet and arguing with other morons from your games and you have my unending respect. Before anyone goes right ahead and argues that I'm generalising, I would like to argue that I have seen far, far too many arguments of this sort on the internet to believe that he was banned for educated discourse of the shooter genre.
Seriously, go EA. Ban all of the people who spend the best part of their time being morons on the internet and arguing with other morons from your games and you have my unending respect. Before anyone goes right ahead and argues that I'm generalising, I would like to argue that I have seen far, far too many arguments of this sort on the internet to believe that he was banned for educated discourse of the shooter genre.
Even if he is a bit of a dick, the customer's right in this case. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure something like this violates the trade descriptions act (or whatever the US equivalent of this law is - you folks do have an equivalent of it, right?)
This. The consumer is in the right justifiably but EA is in the right technically. This is some shit I would do if I ran EA though. People need to quit being douchebags. If I caught you being a douchebag in my community, I would make things as hard on you as I could and show you how much of a douchebag I can be. (I would give you your games back in a few days) What we are seeing is one douchebag getting mad at another douchebag for being a douchebag. It doesn't matter who's side you take. Both sides are douchebags.The_ModeRazor said:
It doesn't take a genius to learn not to be a dumbass and make an EA account. Even if you must make an EA account, don't post there. There are plenty other gaming forums to post to that can't take away your games. Why post on the one with a history of it?
This policy has caused numerous problems before and it'll continue for a long time yet. It's a dick policy by EA, but that guy agreed to it and as accepted all punishment for any and all misbehavior. If he doesn't like it then he shouldn't have agreed to it.
I hate to say it, but EA are in the right here, despite how wrong that right is.
I hate to say it, but EA are in the right here, despite how wrong that right is.
LOL no it isn't. It's like buying a video game, going online and saying something rude on the internet and having the game get taken away from you. It is illegal to not give him the refund. What if EA saw a post of yours and said "I don't like the 'tone' of your post" and took your game away for being "self-righteous" and they don't want people like that playing their game? Suddenly, I bet you would think a refund would be in order. If they don't want him playing their game, fine, but give him the 60 bucks back. More than likely they will give him the right to play his game back before legal action can be taken place. They are just trying to make a point to their community with douches like him.Sober Thal said:
For a clearer view, this is what I originally put so I mostly agree with you but lets not pretend EA is acting on some type of right:
Savagezion said:
Criminal charges? I don't even know what to say to that, honestly. It is a random guy on the internet talking crap on another one. The court systems around the globe would be overrun with too many cases. What would these criminal charges be exactly?Sober Thal said:
When I say random guy, I mean like "regular Joe". This guy is in no way connected to military intelligence, I assure everyone. I also doubt he owns a jet. I doubt he has any way to make this "threat" come to fruition. Thus, it makes it an opinion or guess at best, and a crappy one at that. What it is, is a racial/cultural slur joke based on limited knowledge of world events. If it is a threat, they have to prove he had any type of means to execute that. You can't file charges against someone for saying "I am gonna kick your ass" or even "I will kill you" for "Harassment by way of threatening physical harm.... 'for real'". You can get a restraining order, you can file a report. But you can't file charges.Sober Thal said:
But 1 time does not show a pattern or series of acts. It was once. That is not harassment, that is a remark.Sober Thal said: