Poll: Who is in the right here?

[Savagezion]

All this is, in effect, is a fine (socially for sure, then monetarily, or time wise) for breaking terms he agreed to. All he has to do is pony up money for another XBL profiles' online functions, and he's left the same as he was the day before. Or he can wait till his subscription is up, and make a new profile then. That way he won't be out any money, he'll just be punished with time. If his social status (gamertag and score) is sooo important to him, he shouldn't be trolling using the same tag. This is a great way to instill a life long lesson in him, due to his own violation of rules.

Oh yeah, and like I said in a previous post... Jewish and Iranian discord is not a joke. It may be to you, but not to others.

Dude, for someone so morally "high grounded", you need to quit claiming anyone who sees the legalities involved in favor of the consumer see Jewish and Iranian discord as a joke. You are committing the same "hostile" poor joke as the guy that got banned by EA that you are so clearly against. Because I see EA in a legal wrong here I clearly must disrespect Jewish and Iranian conflict. That is the same type of pigheaded statement that guy got banned for. According to your own logic you need to have your games taken from you so you can be taught a lesson.

First of all: Take away my multiplayer for my XBLA profile Sober Thalantyr, I don't mind.

Second of all: What? When people quote me, and say "what he said wasn't bad" I disagree, like many others.

How am I being pig headed? I'll admit my head looks a tad animal like, and I have been known to be a sloppy eater.... but I haven't called out anyone's nationalities like the kid who got banned, I haven't threatened violence on anyone like the kid who got banned, I take threats seriously, UNlike the kid who got banned...

You wanna edit your post now?

No. You're making outlandish claims about anyone who can see the actual legality in this. ToS don't mean squat here. It is a contract signed under duress which makes the contract worthless as I have explained before. You may not have called out nationalities but you are making fabricated parallels to "thinking what EA is doing is illegal" with "thinking Jewish/Iranian conflict is a joke." Just like that guy was making fabricated parallels that "being in Iraq" was the same thing as "being IN Battlefield 3." At least that guy's comment was based on outdated world events whereas yours is based more on your own perception of anyone not agreeing with you is clearly cheering this guy on.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Wow, that was disgraceful. Sure, the guy was being a dick on the forums, but I'm with everyone else: Ban him from the forums, not the game! If anything, he's going to troll the forums MORE now. At least give him a refund. At the VERY least, suspend him. I assume they banned him to try to stop behavior like his, but a ban is too much. And I know some of you will disagree, but a solid 24-hour suspension would be enough to tell me not to do it again.

They didn't ban him from the game. They banned his EA account which he had connected to his XBox gamertag. Big difference

 

[Vrach]

It's kinda like asking whether a guy jaywalking deserved to be shot by the cop.

Yeah, cuz having to make a new XBLA profile is like being shot.

Right.

Jaywalking is not like typing offensive text on a gaming board either, there's far less risk of causing a car accident for one. That's why we call it an analogy.

More importantly, it's not about making a new XBLA profile, it's about losing access to all EA games tied to two of his separate accounts (so generously joined at the grace of EA)

 

[Savagezion]

No. You're making outlandish claims about anyone who can see the actual legality in this. ToS don't mean squat here. It is a contract signed under duress which makes the contract worthless as I have explained before. You may not have called out nationalities but you are making fabricated parallels to thinking what EA is doing is illegal with thinking Jewish/Iranian conflict is a joke. Just like that guy was making fabricated parallels that being in Iraq was the same thing as being IN Battlefield 3. At least that guy's comment was based on outdated world events whereas yours is based more on your own perception of anyone not agreeing with you is clearly cheering this guy on.

Sorry, you lost me. I don't understand any of what you're saying now.

If you think what he said was just a harmless joke, I want you to know that there are people who don't agree.

Him: Living in Iraq = Being in Battlefield 3. (i.e. People in Iraq don't need the game, they live it.) That was his "joke/offense"
You: Seeing EA as legally in the wrong = Thinking Jewish and Iranian discord is a joke.

It is the SAME thing. Your quip = His quip.

I ain't saying it was a good joke, but yeah, it was a harmless joke. Just distasteful. Your parallels are both along the lines of fabricated (made up) slander

 

[Kopikatsu]

He paid for the games. Being an asshole shouldn't exempt him from playing.
Way to abuse your powers EA.

]

Don't see why not. Punishing assholes for being assholes might make them less of an asshole.

Everyone wins!

I don't think so.
He paid for the game. This practice is like fining someone for being an asshole.

Say you bought a computer from an electronics store.
You go there and start being an asshole to the manager.
Would the manager then be justified in taking your computer away?
No. It wouldn't make sense because it is completely non-sequitur.
Someone being an asshole should not result in a loss of property.

I understand that EA hosts the servers, but he paid for that with his money.
He paid for the game and the servers. Being an asshole changes nothing.
They still have his money and as such should be giving him the privileges he paid for.

I'll repost this.

It has nothing to do with defending corporations. It's 'Don't be a asshole and life is much easier for you.'

Edit: Clarification. It's defending other consumers from the one asshole consumer.

They aren't "protecting" anyone. Banning him from the forums is perfectltoy reasonable, banning him from playing games that he payed for and did not sign a contract or ToU form for and did not cause any trouble in is just an incredibly disproportionate action that will probably alienate customers and potential customers.

I have a problem with this line of reasoning. He paid for it, big fuckin' deal. That doesn't mean he gets a free ride.

It baffles me how people can say 'I/They paid for it, so they can do whatever they want.' then turn around and ***** about how the wealthy can do whatever they want. They're paying for shit, too. You can't have it both ways.

For video games, especially on the PC, you're buying the privilege to use something, not the actual game. He was an asshole, so he was punished for it.

Life lesson: Don't be an asshole.

Also, as I've said, what's wrong with him being fined for being an asshole? Since when has that been acceptable? Anyway- his paying $60 doesn't give him the right to harass OTHER people who have paid their $60. He paid as much as the people he's bothering have, so EA would rather get rid of a single person rather than risk him turning one or more people away from the game with his behavior.

I have zero problem with EA for doing this.

 

[Tiamattt]

It's kinda like asking whether a guy jaywalking deserved to be shot by the cop.

Yeah, cuz having to make a new XBLA profile is like being shot.

Right.

How easy is that to do? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I just never owned a x-boz/360 so I have absolutely no idea. Can he just make a new profile and play all his games online, just under a different name? Because if that's the case then this topic feels extremely pointless.......

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

It's kinda like asking whether a guy jaywalking deserved to be shot by the cop.

Yeah, cuz having to make a new XBLA profile is like being shot.

Right.

How easy is that to do? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I just never owned a x-boz/360 so I have absolutely no idea. Can he just make a new profile and play all his games online, just under a different name? Because if that's the case then this topic feels extremely pointless.......

It honestly takes a decent amount time and money to do

 

[Savagezion]

Him: Living in Iraq = Being in Battlefield 3. (i.e. People in Iraq don't need the game, they live it.) That was his "joke/offense"
You: Seeing EA as legally in the wrong = Thinking Jewish and Iranian discord is a joke.

It is the SAME thing. Your quip = His quip.

I ain't saying it was a good joke, but yeah, it was a harmless joke. Just distasteful. Your parallels are both along the lines of fabricated (made up) slander

Yeah, you're really all over the place now...

Your interpretation of his 'comments' aside, I do not see EA as legally in the wrong, and I do not think Jewish and Iranian discord is a joke.

The dude implied Jewish and American planes were going to 'hit' his house, 'for real'. Why are you defending that? He has to make a new XBLA and EA account to play multiplayer, it's not a big deal.

Haha, that cracked me up. Let's see if I can simplify it further.

Him He is stating: Living in Iraq = Being in Battlefield 3. (i.e. People in Iraq don't need the game, they live it.) That was his "joke/offense"
You are stating: Seeing EA as legally in the wrong = Thinking Jewish and Iranian discord is a joke.

The = sign on a forum usually means "is the same as". I assumed someone with 4000+ posts would know that etiquette. That isn't your views, that is your claim. If it needs to be simplified even further... someone else is gonna have to do it because I can't break it down any further than that.

The "for real" part. Oh man, that is still funny. So if I tell someone that aliens are gonna invade their country tonight "for real", it is assault? You don't think he could possibly have meant "for real" as opposed to "in a game"?

It is a big deal because of Project 10 dollar - that copy of the game, is attached to his account. So trying to make a new one for multiplayer will cost 10 dollars. All because he said something against forum rules, not the actual stipulation of a contract that doesn't matter anyways (EULA). That is illegal. Period. Murdering someone trying to break in a car is still illegal no matter how justified you think it is because you are ridding the world of a thief. No matter what you think of this guy, EA is doing something illegal. It is possible that they are stepping on Microsofts toes here as well. But there isn't any use in explaining that unless you can grasp the previously mention concept.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

I was going to say something, but I think I'm impressed by your Turtle-Tamer icon. I myself, regardless, am a Pastamancer.

 

[Savagezion]

Also, as I've said, what's wrong with him being fined for being an asshole? Since when has that been acceptable? Anyway- his paying $60 doesn't give him the right to harass OTHER people who have paid their $60. He paid as much as the people he's bothering have, so EA would rather get rid of a single person rather than risk him turning one or more people away from the game with his behavior.

I have zero problem with EA for doing this.

Well, technically, we don't know if the guy he "harrassed/made a joke about" even paid for the game legitamately considering he was talking about going through black market channels to get a copy. It could have been stolen or whatnot considering the game was banned there. He may have just been poking fun at someone who robbed EA of $60.

 

[Crazy]

I hope we all learned a valuable lesson here: Use a different email when trolling. Silly child wasn't using his brains.

 

[Imat]

Not right to ban him from any games, no, but to completely squelch him would've been fine. Only well-behaved players get access to forums/in-game chatter.

 

[Ragnarok185]

Don't trust EA. EVER. EA had NO right to do this shit to anyone

 

[Savagezion]

You can think what you want of the legalities, disagree with me forever for all I care. But don't think everyone finds his comments as just a joke.

That is why I fear for this newer generation. The political correctness is reaching astounding levels. People never cease to amaze me at how much they can overreact to something. It seriously makes me think of the movie Demolition Man and those little fine dispensers everywhere. One day it will be illegal to cuss at all or illegal to not say "please" when asking for something because some people find it offensive instead of just impolite. Impolite doesn't even exist nowadays, now everything is either offensive or acceptable.

For instance, not once did I get upset over your comments. Hell, by the end I was cracking up. I was merely pointing out a fallacy I spotted. In case you forgot, I said I would do the same thing EA did. However, I would give him his account back in a couple weeks and claim "glitch" to save my butt from legal action.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Don't trust EA. EVER. EA had NO right to do this shit to anyone

Did you actually read what happened? It's not really like the guy was singled out or anything.

 

[targren]

And that, boys and girls, is why I will never buy a digital download (nor even a physical game disc) that requires some sort of publisher-account as part of its DRM, be it Origin, Steam, or GFWL.

And why I shall weep with all of manhood's tears, if my fears come to life and Torchlight II is using Steamworks DRM across the board.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

And that, boys and girls, is why I will never buy a digital download (nor even a physical game disc) that requires some sort of publisher-account as part of its DRM, be it Origin, Steam, or GFWL.

And why I shall weep with all of manhood's tears, if my fears come to life and Torchlight II is using Steamworks DRM across the board.

Not to diminish your point there, but it wasn't a digital download. He had a physical copy

 

[targren]

Not to diminish your point there, but it wasn't a digital download. He had a physical copy

Don't worry, it doesn't . It's still a case of corporate butthurt leading to widespread denied access of his rightfully purchased product. In his case, it was "just" the online portion (though, as I understand it, that's 99% of the value for Battlefield and CoD-type games) as opposed to any access.

Still, it does reinforce my decision since, while EA may be the scummiest of the scumbags that everyone loves to hate, Valve's ToC give them the ability to do the exact same thing.

I'm glad it happened now, though. I mean, it sucks for this guy, but I'll admit, some of the sales on Steam lately have had me starting to reconsider.

 

[OriginalLadders]

It's still his fault for breaking the ToS agreeing he agreed to knowing full well he could be banned from the forums, and subsiquently lose his EA account

That still doesn't make it not excessive.

If someone posted a bunch of nasty comments on Youtube and was banned (if only), it would be draconian to ban them from access to their associated Gmail account. Google may well be within their rights to do this, the hypothetical person may well have agreed to it in the terms of service, but that doesn't make it right or fair.

 

[DementedSheep]

He shouldn?t get off scot free but they should not be locking you out of the stuff you bought because of comments on a forum. They should only be banning you from commenting on the forum.