Should people lose access to a game because of how they act?

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
2,119
2
43
At most there should be a way to ensure you don't play with a certain person.
Not just because being an asshole is no reason to take a game off someone, but because there isn't a game community in the world that doesn't report people just for losing or doing bad. Or being young. Or having a different opinion.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
I'm with a lot of other people here in that 'consumer rights' only go so far.

I go to a cinema. I purchase a ticket. I sneak some speakers and a laptop in a bag I'm carrying, set it up and start blasting rap music all through the latest chick flick. I WILL get kicked out, and everyone will agree this is completely reasonable. I am not the only person who paid for the movie, and just because I have paid for use of a service does NOT mean I am entitled to break the terms and conditions, and other rules, of that service. If I go to an all-you-can-eat buffet, and start throwing food everywhere, I'll get kicked out. If I go to a uni lecture and start watching youtube videos on max volume blasting to the class, the lecturer will kick me out.
In all of the above, I've paid for service. Because I am being a shit, I get kicked out. Consumer protection isn't there for the shits. Its there for your normal consumers, and they have a right to be protected against the shits.

That said, provided it comes at not extra cost to the publisher/developer, they should just off greifers/trolls to a separate server and leave them to play with each other. If it does incur significant extra costs to run those services and such, they may choose to charge a subscription to the trolls in order to use them, or they could just ban their access - either would be valid IMO.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,461
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
I could probably try to find screencaps and evidence of instances of this (not on the escapist), but i'm not sure I have the time to find them, though off hand I can think of examples of it happening.
I'm sure there are examples of it happening. There are examples of people dying trying to have sex with horses, so it stands to reason you'd be able to find examples of people being douches on forums. The specific claim was regarding this forum, "many people", and "strategic attempts" to get people warned or banned. I'm perfectly receptive to actual evidence that supports those claims, but I'm not anticipating seeing any. And from the looks of it Signa is now annoyed with me so he's not about to put the legwork in either way.
Well, I meant "strategic attempts" elsewhere, but again, that's elsewhere. I don't mean to be rude, but would you like me to try to find some I might have saved already or not? I'm pretty busy so I'd appreciate a direct answer.

Joccaren said:
Its there for your normal consumers, and they have a right to be protected against the shits.
I'm 99% sure that most of the people who are wary about this are wary that it will go beyond that, and it will apply to people who don't deserve it or that it won't just serve as protection but rather punitive measures that will prevent people from being able to play the game period, not just from playing it online with public servers.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
I'm 99% sure that most of the people who are wary about this are wary that it will go beyond that, and it will apply to people who don't deserve it or that it won't just serve as protection but rather punitive measures that will prevent people from being able to play the game period, not just from playing it online with public servers.
Then its more an issue not with being banned from games, but with how you determine whether someone was greifing or not. That is a more complex issue, and one that would be more interesting to discuss, however. In principle, there is nothing wrong with someone losing access to a game because of how they act, provided it is made clear how you are not supposed to act beforehand. Exact implementations of this can be difficult, however there is nothing wrong with it in principle.
Additionally, I believe the game in question is online-only, and thus losing access to online servers means you lose access to the game period. If the game contains a single player portion, its actually more effort to lock down that single player portion than it is to just block the IP/game code from multiplayer, and thus the latter is likely the measure that would be taken.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
I don't mean to be rude, but would you like me to try to find some I might have saved already or not? I'm pretty busy so I'd appreciate a direct answer.
I'm not sure why that's rude, but "not really"? As I said, I'm quite certain someone can establish that just about anything can happen once or twice over a long enough timeline and over a large enough sample. It doesn't have any bearing on the claim I was refuting, so it creates work for you to no discernible end.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Signa said:
That's entirely hyperbolic. No one buys a game just to screw off for every game they ever play. For the few that do, there isn't enough warrant this new system to take care of the problem.
Many years of experience in multiplayer games suggests otherwise.

Signa said:
There's no need to accept it and allow Tripwire this kind of power.
I'm not concerned with evil corporate overlords flexing their muscle and banning me from games to force new purchases because in 30+ years of gaming this has happened to me never. In the same 30+ years of gaming I've had literally thousands upon thousands of incidences of unchecked asshats blowing up an evening's entertainment because pissing people off is their driving passion in life.

I don't play Killing Floor, but I do play DOTA, and "vote kicking" toxic people accomplishes absolutely nothing. The moment a single person decides to go toxic and fuck up a game, the game is fucked. Whether it's 10, 20, 30, or 60 minutes of your time, that game is now fucked. One guy fucks over nine guys, and if you go read the "I stopped playing DOTA because of..." stories it's about 95% "toxic community".
See, what this reminds me of is CS: GO. When I decide to play a few rounds, it's hit and miss, having not progressed so far in the rankings (Silver IV represent!) Every few games there is one asshole who insists on mic spamming, verbally abusing his team, and generally being useless. It messes up people's calls, messes up their concentration, and brings the whole team down. It isn't like it's great players doing it either. Routinely the people screwing up your game are at the bottom of the ladder hurling abuse wherever they can at their frustration at the game.

Or worse, acting against their team, flashing them, shooting them, or going afk.

In CS:GO, there is no way to deal with this. You can kick the person, but only if they don't have any friends, because you need a 4-1 to vote kick, so often you'll have a pair of trolls, and only teams can vote the player off, so you can't appeal to the other team. You can report them, but that doesn't change anything, they're still going to mess up your game. You can mute them, and then you just have to hear everyone else on your team who hasn't getting into arguments with them. And even if you kick them, you now have a bot, who is useless. The only thing good about a bot is players taking it over, and that only happens if someone plays deliberately aggressively to die, which doesn't work with CS: GO's economy, and relies on you already winning for them to be able to spare their equipment repeatedly, and if that was the case, you wouldn't need it. And if this happens to you, you're stuck with that, because you can't leave, without a ratings hit, and a match ban (And these get progressively worse, so it's in your interest to avoid them, for instances where you can't help it, emergencies, crashes, etc).

I like playing multiplayer. I'm sick of the assholes. We should clean this shit up. Most of these people aren't worth defending.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
Signa said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Sniping out the rest

See I have absolutely zero fear of being a victim of such a ban, because I know I comport myself like a sane, civil adult in online settings when I'm gathered with strangers for what is ostensibly supposed to be a fun time. I've no idea why we cannot expect others to do the same.
Backing up one second, since not one person in this thread has explained it to me, why is a vote-kick option not enough? Why does it have to be the ownership of the game that is threatened instead?



As far as fear goes, I don't think I've ever done anything banworthy in my time online, but that could change at any time. Not because my conduct would change, but what the other players consider to be socially acceptable can. Something like an odd comment about not liking the current state of feminism if the topic comes up, or not supporting the team the way the team wants support could get me banned by some pissy people with no patience. Hell, look at this forum and how many people attempt to strategically get people warned or banned, just because they don't like what someone said. If the players know that someone is able to be banned, and they don't like them, what's to stop them from trying to get a person completely removed from the game forever? That's my slippery slope.
After playing various MMOs over the years like SWTOR, WoW, and many others I don't think vote-kicks do all that much. There were about four separate times over the span of a few months where I was grouped with the same toxic player. Every time the person was vote-kicked he/she would send me a couple of insulting messages and I would place that person on ignore. Of course since there isn't an account wide ignore the player would just create a new character and continue. After the fourth time and screenshots I took of evidence I reported the player. I never heard from them again after that so I am guessing they had their account banned or were warned if they did it again it would result in an account ban.

For KF2 though I already said it in the OP but I feel that server bans from the official servers are fine. If someone proves that they are toxic and just an overall unpleasant person I think it is for a dev to ban them from their main servers. If I ran a server and some guy was being toxic and unpleasant I wouldn't hesitate to ban them. If they can't act like decent person they don't deserve to play on my server. As for the slippery slope while I do believe that is an issue I would hope the devs would actually do their jobs and pull up chat logs and any other evidence or non-evidence instead of wrongfully convicting someone. Personally I don't think someone should get kicked based on reports alone. There should be evidence along with said report. Kinda like how on here and many other sites if someone feels someone else is breaking the CoC they can report the post and boom, there is the evidence.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
BloatedGuppy said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
I could probably try to find screencaps and evidence of instances of this (not on the escapist), but i'm not sure I have the time to find them, though off hand I can think of examples of it happening.
I'm sure there are examples of it happening. There are examples of people dying trying to have sex with horses, so it stands to reason you'd be able to find examples of people being douches on forums. The specific claim was regarding this forum, "many people", and "strategic attempts" to get people warned or banned. I'm perfectly receptive to actual evidence that supports those claims, but I'm not anticipating seeing any. And from the looks of it Signa is now annoyed with me so he's not about to put the legwork in either way.
Well, I meant "strategic attempts" elsewhere, but again, that's elsewhere. I don't mean to be rude, but would you like me to try to find some I might have saved already or not? I'm pretty busy so I'd appreciate a direct answer.

Joccaren said:
Its there for your normal consumers, and they have a right to be protected against the shits.
I'm 99% sure that most of the people who are wary about this are wary that it will go beyond that, and it will apply to people who don't deserve it or that it won't just serve as protection but rather punitive measures that will prevent people from being able to play the game period, not just from playing it online with public servers.
That is what I am worried about. About a year ago I downloaded a mod for Mass Effect 3 that gives me massive war assets. That way if I make a mistake or don't do a side-quest I won't be penalized later on. That is a purely single player thing though. Is it cheating? Yeah. Should I lose my game over it? No, I don't think so. I'm not harming anyone else by doing that. I'm worried about issues such as that being used against people in the future. Right now the KF2 EULA only applies to a MP game. I'm worried people will try and apply it to a SP game later on.
 

Loonyyy

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,292
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
I don't think anybody here is not in favor of banning people who are being disruptive to other people playing thr game as well inside the game. A better comparison is if you feel if a person who is sitting in their own home should have the movie taken away from them just because they said something disruptive while they were out taking their dog for a walk.
That's really not. Yes the person is at their home (Or a gaming lounge). But they're participating in your game. It's multiplayer, it ain't new. They're in your game, you're in their's, and you can communicate through text and voice, and some assholes insist on using that to fuck with everyone else's game. It is exactly analogous to someone deciding to start shouting whatever in a movie theatre.

And Killing Floor is a team game, which gets much harder with griefers and trolls. Some people have, and do, just join servers to up the difficulty, and then throw away all their dosh, trap other players, and generally make it harder for everyone, and that gets especially bad on the higher difficulties of the game where the core player base ends up playing regularly, where you can't do it all yourself and rely on some help.

It'll probably mean they can't play offline too, which does suck for them(But at least Killing Floor, has very little value when played solo), and maybe they could fix that, but I'm not going to be at all upset if they lose the whole thing.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
Rebel_Raven said:
The developers have control over their game. They set the rules. Break the rules at your own peril. If people want to forget (or don't care) that they're making the lives of others miserable, then they should own up to the repercussions.

Of course it'd help to have their games set aside so only the people misbehaving only play with their ilk, but not every game developer has the resources to set it up.

The problem is, like any ratings system, or just about any system that allows a community to police itself are, essentially the assholes that are going to abuse it.
Do you think disruptive players should be banned from playing the game alone, though?
Basically, you're asking if people should loose access to the single player part of the game, like story mode in CoD, or Vs AI/Season in madden, or some such?
Not immediately, no.
If they maintain being trolls by what ever means after being punished before they lose access to the game, then yes, they should. It's a likely next step in punishing someone that was bypassing the game's guards against this behaviour.

captcha: ring-fencing
I wonder if it has to do with the medieval fighting in a ring I saw on TV once?
But if they are being trolls on a platform outside of the game itself, (which they would be since by this point they would have been banned from playing on online public servers), shouldn't they be punished on that platform rather then by taking away their stuff? Ban them from that platform then. If they do it on other platforms, ban them from those.

Don't punish them for something unrelated to what they did wrong, IMO.

Like, would you be in favor of a company taking away somebodies blu ray movies just because they said something rude on twitter?
Well, the problem with banning people from pulic servers is the fact that it's difficult to do it to a person deterimined to play. Fake accounts, fake I.P adresses (nevermind that 2 people can end up with the same I.P. adress or one gets the I.P. of a banned person), and so forth make the truely determined quite formidable.

Outside of the game? Then it becomes how much of a headache they are for the people involved with the game. If people are a pain on the game's forums, and they refuse to stop, especially if it's known that there's going to be in game repercussions, by all means remove their ability to play.
If they're on Twitter making life miserable for a game dev, then if they can link the account to the gamer, then by all means they have the right to kick the troll in the balls and then to the curb.
If they make people miserable enough on a PC version of the game, then be ready to shut them down on XBL. Why reward them for being nice on one platform when they're assholes on another?

If the person makes death threats or threatens acts of violence, pushes a person towards suicide, SWATS, or is generally just a shitty person to others often on twitter and it's not related to the game, I'm a bit on the fence. It'd be case by case.
The problem is honestly linking the twitter user to the game account, or what ever account to what ever account what ever account.
If, say someone threatens the family of someone working on CoD because of a patch/change they shouldn't be able to play CoD period, and I wouldn't blame other games from preventing them from playing their games, too.

Honestly, I'd not mind some consequence happen to trolls on the internet. I can't imagine a much better way than the game industry cracking down on them. It's hitting them where it hurts. The game industry might be the only force on the planet that can create enough impact, really. They're international, and it's getting to the point that every person on the internet cares about them to some degree, from the farmville player to the GTA player.

I'm not saying all trolling has to stop, mind you. There's varying degrees, and definitions of trolling so each incident requires an individual look through.
I mean there are "good" trolls that target the assholes out there more oft than not. Even the bad trolls aren't bad in doses, but maybe making trolls realize they have to pick their fights a bit more carefully might be in order.

The last sentence changes the question drastically. Pardon me if I split hairs to much.
Blu rays aren't a game, rather the media that they play games off of (well, just two consoles from sony, IIRC) and it's a physical medium.
Blu Ray players aren't limited to the afore mentioned consoles.
Do you mean the company kicking in the door and pillaging the discs, and/or putting an ax in their players?
It'd be impossible to remotely destroy a person's ability to watch blu-rays because not all of them are online.
I think the matter would have to be resolved on the software end of things, like trophy/achievement checks (which aren't exactly private), use of some digital serial code on the game and/or console to help filter out the software they're banned from, etc.
Even then, the truly determined will find a way.

You're gonna have to define "rude" here. There's many levels of rude, and rude is also a matter of opinion.
Well, what makes games special? Why is it okay for it to happen with games but not with movies or a car or sheets of paper (IE: the manufacter of paper coming into your home and confiscating the paper you bought because you wrote something mean on it) Regarding the "I'd be impossible to remotely destroy...", yes, it would be, but the issue here is SHOULD it happen, not can it.

Regarding the good troll vs bad troll thing, I entirely disagree. You cannot say "well it's okay for a good cause" because what causes are just or unjust are entirely subjective. (Again, I think you and I will probably agree that killing people is bad, but there's no objective measure of why that is true, and if somebody disagrees with that statement then there's really nothing you or I could say to prove them wrong) In fact I have a great article regarding the importance of the freedom of speech for very rotten things and how lawa and rules do not distinctify between context and as such why it's important rules and laws are worded carefully: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Personally, I don't feel trolls need to be cracked down on. If they break the laws (which serious threats of violence and swatting does) then arrest them, if they are causing a problem somewhere then they should get banned from that location. Anything beyond that is vigilantism. I similarly do not support schools punishing students for actions they do not commit while at or inside the school. It's not the school's job to parent a child, or should it be a companies job to parent an adult.
What makes games so special? Because they're near and dear to everyone, like I said. Especially to the troll!
Everyone likes gaming! Imagine the displeasure if games were taken away? Out goes something that brings so many layers of pleasure!
What makes them so special? Unlike movies, and unlike books, and frankly unlike anything short of the internet (which trolling is reliant on, basically), you see something you don't like in a movie, or a book, you can say "I don't like that" and not have someone pressing the issue in a hostile way almost instantly. If you say it on the internet, especially in an area of low moderation, you're almost destined to have someone trying to troll you within the day, easy.
I mean it can happen IRL. You see a picture out in public, and say "I don't like that" out loud and there's a chance someone will get in your face, and press the issue, but lets be real here, this is reality where there's higher risk of consequences happening. Physical altercation, police, getting thrown out, being banned from the property, these things can happen far easier and far more permanently than the internet.
That's why trolls are more brazen on the internet. The people they tick off can't smash them in the back of the head with a baseball bat through the internet. :p

Honestly, it's really hard to get around that "can it happen" issue in favor of a pure "should it happen" issue because it really feels like apples and oranges with different mediums.
I've yet to see a book that comes with a Terms of Agreement, or even a newspaper. There's really nothing regulating the use of either of these when someone uses them. Burn the paperwork, use it as toilet paper, frame and worship it, you don't really have the same sort of social impact as you would on the internet without taking it to the internet. You may get widely known for such acts but unless the person is talking to you directly, odds are you won't know their opinion of what you're doing, and they can't form an opinion of what you're doing because they don't know what you're doing.
I guess in short there's no back and forth, or not enough of it to really be the same as the internet.

Cars differ. I have experience in selling cars... USED CARS!!
<youtube=QAlE9CglItI>
and sometimes cars some with a ToA. Especially when financing. These vary from state to state, I imagine, I'm no expert on the matter.
See cars, when financed where I have experience, require full coverage insurance because if there's an accident the people financing the car need protection against loss. If the car were to get totaled without protection the value of the car evaporates tens of thousands of dollars that could have been made otherwise.
If one fails to maintain full coverage, one forfeits the car and the car gets repo'd same as if one failed to make one's payments. Because it's a repo, it negatively impacts credit. Banks, lenders, etc. will look at why the car was repo'd and say "Huh, this person screwed over this person that trusted them to make good on a car. Why the hell should I trust them?" and that hole gets deeper and deeper with every repo. 2, or 3 and the odds of financing a car are basically 0.
That said, short of paying in cash, or via a loan of some sort, you can actually have not only your car taken away, but your ability to buy them taken away because you were bad. Not necessarily in the same way we're discussing, though.
Believe me, I've seen all sorts including the people willfully out to screw the dealership.
This can impact your ability to finance other things, including homes.
On a side note, even if you give the car back because you can't make the payments on either the car or insurance, it can count as a repossession. Financing a car is important as hell, so don't screw it up! :p
If you flat out buy the car in hundred dollar bills, insurance isn't important anymore because the gamble is entirely on the buyer. No one is owed anything.
It's more complicated than that, really, but that's the gist of it.

So we've established that people can come and take your car, nevermind the other ways you can lose your car in committing a crime, and so forth. Moreover they can even make it difficult to get another car, which is kinda similar to what we're talking about with gaming. Being bad making it harder to stay in the game.

I guess we can look at it this way. Your time spent online is equivalents to making payments, and/or being out in public, money's involvement aside. Being bad, be it speeding, DUI, or, well, trolling can be viewed as similar. Sure you may not have physically hurt people (but you well could have) but the risk is there and willfully neglected, so you get your car taken/get banned from the game.
Why would this be different between driving an SUV, Truck, Car, or motorcycle, likewise forums, social media and the game itself?

Now think of game developers as banks. You want to purchase from them, you want to make payments with your time and/or money, but you abuse the bank/developer. Believe it or not there's lines you can cross that get your deal dropped with banks and online gaming. It's just that with games, I believe, it's more clear they won't take you screwing with them, and the higher number of people that may well leave and take their money with them. A single troll isn't worth it when there's people leaving that offer more to not just the company, but the community more, and not just with money, but mood.

I dunno, if some troll is arbitrarily being mean to someone, or being an ass, or being a bigot and another troll makes them leave, that's not a good thing? Trolls may be motivated by hate, but what they hate kinda changes things. If a troll hates bigots, racists, and so forth and trolls said racists and bigots, are they bad? I guess that would be a matter of opinion.

The thing is, when you are online, you are basically in the home of person, the people that own what you game online with. You play by their rules coz it's their private property. You can't walk into a business, then up to a cashier or a customer, and scream racist things at them for any reason and not expect to get thrown the hell out. Even screaming freedom of speech won't help you. Going to another store, and doing the exact same thing might get you barred from all the stores, and screaming freedom of speech won't save you.
I remember a disgruntled customer doing that to a sales rep (screaming racist slurs), leaving, calling the news and trying to get the business slandered in the news. My boss said "spend 5 minutes talking with the guy and you will understand why we did what we did" (and the customer was a rude mofo so it wasn't a huge exaggeration.) and basically and said that there was video proof that the customer was screaming racist slurs, and yes there was that proof. The newspapers dropped it like a flaming nickel ball.
I mean any privately owned business can bar you across the board. I've had experience renting transport, and I've met a person banned so hard from renting from the company that he didn't even KNOW he was in the company that banned him from doing business at all locations for screwing the company.

Freedom of speech doesn't really make you bulletproof, you see.

So, here we are, I gotta ask, what do trolls really do for a company that makes them worth keeping? I guess in Eve they're worthwhile, coz the game is based off it. Sure we might get some funny videos, too. But I ask, what do trolls offer over people who pay the same, and don't cause undue trouble?

Why would a server owned by a privately run business be any different than a brick and mortar private business, and why would they value someone causing undue trouble over someone that can give the same benefits minus the trouble?
In the long run, why wouldn't habitually hurting an industry not leave a negative impact across it?

It's not so simple as "arrest them" because there's lots of people getting away with swatting, death threats, and threats of violence, and so forth. What about the stuff like goading someone into suicide? Or harassing a person in general? Arresting someone over the internet isn't as easy as seeing their facebook profile with a picture of their stolen loot, and a confession.
It's not necessarily vigilantism, it's more denial of business based on exhausted credit. If a person plays CoD and does massive amounts of trolling and causes more headache than they're worth, gets banned, goes to modern warfare and repeats the process, then after 3, or 4 more games repeats the process, and then wants to come to your game, and do the same, would you want that person?

You're changing focuses.
Honestly, I feel like the schools have to protect the students.
No one's perfect, not even parents. They screw up, even when they normally wouldn't be seen as screw ups, and the kids act out. Would you want your child to be beaten within an inch of their life because the school wouldn't do anything to prevent the bullying from escalating because it's up to the parents who are unable, or unwilling to change the ways of their child?
It takes a village to raise a child as the old saying goes.

A company is different. They have every right to maintain the security of their own business, and escort you out if they don't like what you're doing.
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,461
0
0
Joccaren said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
however there is nothing wrong with it in principle.
I'd disagree but I've explained why I feel that way in other posts in this thread
Joccaren said:
Additionally, I believe the game in question is online-only, and thus losing access to online servers means you lose access to the game period.
My understanding is said game also has private servers and you can still play by yourself, but even so, you must have missed that steam is now implementing this for all games: http://steamcommunity.com/actions/WhatIsGameBan

Loonyyy said:
Jabberwock xeno said:
I don't think anybody here is not in favor of banning people who are being disruptive to other people playing thr game as well inside the game. A better comparison is if you feel if a person who is sitting in their own home should have the movie taken away from them just because they said something disruptive while they were out taking their dog for a walk.
That's really not. Yes the person is at their home (Or a gaming lounge). But they're participating in your game. It's multiplayer, it ain't new. They're in your game, you're in their's, and you can communicate through text and voice, and some assholes insist on using that to fuck with everyone else's game. It is exactly analogous to someone deciding to start shouting whatever in a movie theatre.
I'm sorry, my post there wasn't clear. I mean that comparison in the context of being banned from offline play or private servers. In those situations, it is like a company taking away a movie you are watching in your own home because you are being disruptive there. I've updated that post to be more clear.

Rebel_Raven said:
I wanna respond to this but doing so would take more time then I have available to me right now. If I remember i'll do so tomorrow.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,932
47
53
Country
United States
Joccaren said:
I go to a cinema. I purchase a ticket.
Going to use the most recent cinema post as an example, because to be frank it is pissing me off because of how this is actually working, but I'll try to use a cinema as the base even though it'd fit much better if it was home based.

Pretend that you could buy a ticket at a cinema and it will give you permanent access to whatever movie is on the ticket at any place playing the movie. Pipe dream, I know.
Now, you can go see this movie at "official" theaters where the stuff is all nice and fancy and crap, but you have to abide by that company's rules. Fair.
You either act like a dick or just do a few things not fitting too well with the company's terms to watch the movie at their specific theater. You get the boot. Perfectly fine.

Now pretend, that this could also grant the ability for someone else to host a showing of said movie at another location by their own rules. Maybe the ability to do whatever you really like during the movie if people like to have a bit of non-quiet fun and scream and laugh their asses off constantly or even be a bit of a dick, in good fun or not.

This is like the official company coming over and taking your ticket access away permanently so you can't see the movie anywhere, even if you didn't see it at one of their hosted locations, for anything you do beyond their locations, with no refund, and possibly having the movie host's rights revoked because they allowed behavior that the company did not like, also with no refund.

Don't know about anyone else but I think that's far beyond the desired scope of power for any company to have.
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
Signa said:
*sigh*

I'm done.
Thank god.

OT: Please stop asking if that EULA actually says "call your mom" or stating that the wording is vague. That is not the EULA(as anyone that has actually read one before would know). That is the "plain-speak" summary of what is in the EULA for the game killing floor 2. An EULA is nothing but "legal-speak", ie. party of the first party, etc, and it is very difficult for most people to read without a law degree.

The real EULA is actually extremely exact, because it has to be to avoid assholes using loopholes, which is why most of them cover so much that there usually isn't much left to question(Everything the sun touches simba, is against the ToS).

The very worst thing about this fiasco, is that people think this is new, that Tripwire is some how breaking new ground in violating your freedom to be a raging asshole online. Guess what guys, EVERY SINGLE game you have ever played that had an online component, YOU, yes you with the stupid surprised look on your face, signed a EULA that looks and says pretty much EXACTLY this. It has existed since before Wow and you guys are only acting like idiots and getting outraged now, because Tripwire is a decent enough company to put it into a language you can understand instead of hiding it behind the lawyer's cyphers.

Every single one of you that are against this, I need you to do something for me. Take your stand and delete EVERY SINGLE game from your computers, take the discs out of your consoles and break them and never again play a game with a online component, boycott online EULAs. Do something other than acting pointlessly self righteous about a "travesty" that if it were a human would be entering middle school and you've never even heard of till someone mentioned the possibility. Next you can get upset about the heat death of the universe. Here you go! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
 

Jabberwock xeno

New member
Oct 30, 2009
2,461
0
0
snekadid said:
Signa said:
*sigh*

I'm done.
Thank god.

OT: Please stop asking if that EULA actually says "call your mom" or stating that the wording is vague. That is not the EULA(as anyone that has actually read one before would know). That is the "plain-speak" summary of what is in the EULA for the game killing floor 2. An EULA is nothing but "legal-speak", ie. party of the first party, etc, and it is very difficult for most people to read without a law degree.

The real EULA is actually extremely exact, because it has to be to avoid assholes using loopholes, which is why most of them cover so much that there usually isn't much left to question(Everything the sun touches simba, is against the ToS).

The very worst thing about this fiasco, is that people think this is new, that Tripwire is some how breaking new ground in violating your freedom to be a raging asshole online. Guess what guys, EVERY SINGLE game you have ever played that had an online component, YOU, yes you with the stupid surprised look on your face, signed a EULA that looks and says pretty much EXACTLY this. It has existed since before Wow and you guys are only acting like idiots and getting outraged now, because Tripwire is a decent enough company to put it into a language you can understand instead of hiding it behind the lawyer's cyphers.

Every single one of you that are against this, I need you to do something for me. Take your stand and delete EVERY SINGLE game from your computers, take the discs out of your consoles and break them and never again play a game with a online component, boycott online EULAs. Do something other than acting pointlessly self righteous about a "travesty" that if it were a human would be entering middle school and you've never even heard of till someone mentioned the possibility. Next you can get upset about the heat death of the universe. Here you go! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Unless I am extremely misinformed, the actual EULA doesn't specify or distiinctfy, which is part of the problem, and the problem is that it will ban you from playing the game locally or on private servers, not just online with other people, which is pretty unusual
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
If you want the punishment to mean something then it needs to fit the crime.
Being an eternal forum asshole gets you an eternal forum ban, being an eternal in-game chat asshole gets you an in-game chat ban, voice chat assholes get a voice chat ban, eternal griefers deserve a public MP ban (should still allow them to play with friends/run own servers), and maybe achievement cheat ban... but that shit is the least important nonsense on the fucking planet.
That is still however a very crude system, a gradual progression of infractions is a far more effective, sadly it would require a very large moderator team so most games will not see it.

And if you are an asshole dev you remove the whole game for any issue that comes up. Killing floor devs said this only came up twice in their history but taking products back by force while also keeping the money is very nasty, yet under US law completely legal since you guys don't own your software.
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
The only company done regulations right (so far) are the makers of Titanfall.
If you are marked a cheater, you will only allowed to play with ther cheaters.

So if you are marked a troll you should only allowed to play with other trolls.

Feeding assholes their own medicine is the way to go!
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
Jabberwock xeno said:
Unless I am extremely misinformed, the actual EULA doesn't specify or distiinctfy, which is part of the problem, and the problem is that it will ban you from playing the game locally or on private servers, not just online with other people, which is pretty unusual
Only because most games don't give that specification as a possibility. You're not allowed to play Wow, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Battlefield 3, endlessly etc on private servers. You're not given the option and it is increasingly popular for publishers to not allow you to play the game without being online, where they then block your single player because they wont let you on their servers. Check Uplays games EULA(I've only read 2 but I am willing to bet they are copy pastes for every game), same shit. Killing floor 2 has fewer baseline restrictions so people are treating this is some evil plot because they lose more when they act like shits, but only because they're given more from the word go.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
snekadid said:
Signa said:
*sigh*

I'm done.
Thank god.

OT: Please stop asking if that EULA actually says "call your mom" or stating that the wording is vague. That is not the EULA(as anyone that has actually read one before would know). That is the "plain-speak" summary of what is in the EULA for the game killing floor 2. An EULA is nothing but "legal-speak", ie. party of the first party, etc, and it is very difficult for most people to read without a law degree.

The real EULA is actually extremely exact, because it has to be to avoid assholes using loopholes, which is why most of them cover so much that there usually isn't much left to question(Everything the sun touches simba, is against the ToS).

The very worst thing about this fiasco, is that people think this is new, that Tripwire is some how breaking new ground in violating your freedom to be a raging asshole online. Guess what guys, EVERY SINGLE game you have ever played that had an online component, YOU, yes you with the stupid surprised look on your face, signed a EULA that looks and says pretty much EXACTLY this. It has existed since before Wow and you guys are only acting like idiots and getting outraged now, because Tripwire is a decent enough company to put it into a language you can understand instead of hiding it behind the lawyer's cyphers.

Every single one of you that are against this, I need you to do something for me. Take your stand and delete EVERY SINGLE game from your computers, take the discs out of your consoles and break them and never again play a game with a online component, boycott online EULAs. Do something other than acting pointlessly self righteous about a "travesty" that if it were a human would be entering middle school and you've never even heard of till someone mentioned the possibility. Next you can get upset about the heat death of the universe. Here you go! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
There isn't any need to bring insults into this. I would prefer if people acted civil in my thread and didn't flame or bring insults.
 

snekadid

Lord of the Salt
Mar 29, 2012
711
0
0
Bat Vader said:
There isn't any need to bring insults into this. I would prefer if people acted civil in my thread and didn't flame or bring insults.
Then stop acting hypocritically and deserving it.
 

Bat Vader

New member
Mar 11, 2009
4,996
0
0
snekadid said:
Bat Vader said:
There isn't any need to bring insults into this. I would prefer if people acted civil in my thread and didn't flame or bring insults.
Then stop acting hypocritically and deserving it.
No one deserves to be insulted. How am I or anyone else acting like a hypocrite? People are stating why they like or dislike the idea. That doesn't seem hypocritical to me. Again, I would prefer if people didn't sling insults or flame others in here.