6 ms·

If I refuse to serve you (eg in a shop when you want to buy a snack) because I think you are foul I don't get to take your money /then/ tell you while putting y

by harry8 4y ago

If I refuse to serve you (eg in a shop when you want to buy a snack) because I think you are foul I don't get to take your money /then/ tell you while putting your money in my pocket. If I decide to withhold part of my service (eg stop mowing your lawn and leave because you are foul) I don't get to keep all the money for completing the job. This stuff isn't hard. Think about what it is in life when there is no "cpu attached to a network" as a necessary part of the transaction. It's the same. Taking your money for no product delivery, charging you fees for no service is theft even if you are completely foul. Pointing to a "condition of entry" sign at the door of your premises does NOT change the law.

amatecha 4y ago
Your analogy falls flat and is a poor interpretation of the situation of being banned from online games for the reasons I cited. When you buy a snack, you get a tangible good in exchange for money. The implied agreement is the most basic of exchanging goods for cash. When you purchase an online multiplayer game, there's an agreement you have explicitly agreed to that you will not, for example, call other players the N-word or sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing). These are really quite clearly-defined rules you agreed to. You bought the game knowing full well these are the rules, also knowing you _will potentially permanently lose access to the game_ if you violate those rules. In my prior example (and the one I just wrote here), there is zero comparison to buying a snack in a store and then the store owner snatching it back and keeping the money. Like I said, I think there should be consumer rights in place to protect the player against losing access to the game they paid for if they were abiding by the rules. I'd say that is a pretty reasonable expectation. Edit: A more apt analogy would be that you go into a store, buy a snack, eat some of it and then begin pouring hot sauce on other peoples' snacks and yelling in their faces. You don't get to just happily stick around and keep enjoying your snack while you're completely ruining the snacks of others.
- shakna 4y ago
  Except the rules are _not_ clearly defined. The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you, and the matching of bad words is not necessarily well tokenised. You're not always sure what you've said or done, to be removed. And in some cases, they won't tell you what sin you have committed, either.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    If there was a legally-protected right to access the service you pay for unless violation of agreed-upon rules has occurred (barring other situations like "company going out of business" or "gaming shutting down forever"), this would almost undoubtedly elicit the need for better-defined rules and substantiation of claims when bans occur.
    - t0suj4 4y ago
      If random bans get more common the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients if not players packing up and leaving for a competitor. Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
      - RulerOf 4y ago
        >the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients This would be Felony Contempt of Business Model[0], which would be enforced with every move in the legal playbook. >Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. I see the thought here, but it would do so by providing transparency to the license-revocation (banning) process, which greatly benefits customers who are getting screwed as hard as OP is. This in turn should lead to fewer cases of paying customers getting screwed. >In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard This is the case because they're moderated better. The companies are raking in cash. They can hire people to fix the problem. They don't because the current model maximizes profits. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-business-model-lexmarks-anti-competitive-legacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
  - seattle_spring 4y ago
    You're really bending over backwards trying to defend people who get their kicks ruining things for others.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  When we move to GaaS (gaming as a service) as the norm, it will be more like purchasing multiplayer online = buying a ticket to a sporting event. If you misbehave, of course, you can get kicked out. Fairly soon you'll need to maintain a subscription just to play.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    Oh yeah, that has literally already happened: Xbox Live Gold and PS Plus!
    - deafpolygon 4y ago
      It's not yet the norm. When it becomes the norm, it will replace purchasing a game at the store [this has already started to happen for PC]. We will no longer be able to play games except through platforms like Xbox Live or PS Plus. This will eventually give companies like Microsoft and Sony complete control over their platform's IP. When it happens, we'll never be able to collect these games as part of nostalgia growing up playing these games.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  > sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing). Wait, you can be banned for being bad at the game?
  - simiones 4y ago
    Usually yes, if it's deemed that you've been doing it maliciously (just like you would be kicked out of a real-life football match if you were the goalie for your team but you were consistently hovering next to the other team's goal trying to score).
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Um, being benched by your coach is totally different than being banned by the organization putting the event together. Most sports have some sort of anti-cherry-picking rules. In your football example (I'm using the proper football here), there are offside rules. Hockey has the rule about the crease. NBA has the 5s rule for being in the paint. NFL has illegal formation. Baseball actually encourages getting into wrong positions by allowing stealing, but have other rules to ensure runners finish in proper order rounding the bases. As many times as I would love to see a ref be able to issue yellow cards for continued blatant offside calls against a player, they cannot be kicked out for breaking said rule.
      - simiones 4y ago
        I'm not talking about a professional team (which would anyway absolutely kick a player out if they were repeatedly griefing their own team - a power which is usually not given to players in online team games). I am thinking of an amateur tournament - I am quite certain a player who was blatantly acting against their own team would be kicked out by the organizers, even if they weren't explicitly breaking the rules of the game.
- MANSORY888 4y ago
  the point is that they are denying access to the single player experience, even if you cheat in single player, that should not matter.
rale00 4y ago
In real life, if you go to a sporting event or a show, and start harassing the other patrons and causing a disruption, you can expect to be kicked out without a refund. Refunding people who deserve to be banned would only encourage them to create new accounts and continue causing problems.
- harry8 4y ago
  Event ticketing is, imho, one of the most fundamentally corrupt industries I've ever encountered as a consumer so taking it as the example is problematic, (unless you know someone, right? Just queuing up for tickets is naive beyond my expectations of people around here). But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund? What if they weren't yours? What if they were stolen? What if you know the coach? Can they not like your "offensive beard", take your season tickets and re-sell them? How about your date's utterly vile "Ross Perot was right!" shirt? Can they terms of service you out of the cash for next week? (Wouldn't surprise me on one hand how bad that could be but I somehow doubt it). Kick them the hell out for being foul by all means, your house, your rules. "And you take your damn money with you and not come back because I ain't no thief, even from scum like you, you vermin!"
  - scott_w 4y ago
    > Event ticketing is, imho, one of the most fundamentally corrupt industries I've ever encountered That's irrelevant to the discussion. It's a thing that happens, people expect it and the only people who complain about being kicked out are... well being kicked out for being a horrible person. > But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund? Absolutely, yes, they do. On the other hand, they'll probably also tell you _why_ they're doing so. They also won't take your money for _future_ season tickets.
- michaelt 4y ago
  On the other hand, if you went to a sporting event or a show and due to some computer error on the organisers' part you were wrongly denied admission - you would expect a refund. I can't simply start a fake theatre, sell tickets for $100 each, then turn away all ticket holders at the door even if legitimate theatres do have the right to (e.g.) turn away drunk patrons without breathalysing them.

by harry8 4y ago

amatecha 4y ago

Your analogy falls flat and is a poor interpretation of the situation of being banned from online games for the reasons I cited. When you buy a snack, you get a tangible good in exchange for money. The implied agreement is the most basic of exchanging goods for cash. When you purchase an online multiplayer game, there's an agreement you have explicitly agreed to that you will not, for example, call other players the N-word or sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing). These are really quite clearly-defined rules you agreed to. You bought the game knowing full well these are the rules, also knowing you _will potentially permanently lose access to the game_ if you violate those rules. In my prior example (and the one I just wrote here), there is zero comparison to buying a snack in a store and then the store owner snatching it back and keeping the money. Like I said, I think there should be consumer rights in place to protect the player against losing access to the game they paid for if they were abiding by the rules. I'd say that is a pretty reasonable expectation. Edit: A more apt analogy would be that you go into a store, buy a snack, eat some of it and then begin pouring hot sauce on other peoples' snacks and yelling in their faces. You don't get to just happily stick around and keep enjoying your snack while you're completely ruining the snacks of others.

shakna 4y ago
Except the rules are _not_ clearly defined. The list of "bad words" isn't listed for you, and the matching of bad words is not necessarily well tokenised. You're not always sure what you've said or done, to be removed. And in some cases, they won't tell you what sin you have committed, either.
- amatecha 4y ago
  If there was a legally-protected right to access the service you pay for unless violation of agreed-upon rules has occurred (barring other situations like "company going out of business" or "gaming shutting down forever"), this would almost undoubtedly elicit the need for better-defined rules and substantiation of claims when bans occur.
  - t0suj4 4y ago
    If random bans get more common the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients if not players packing up and leaving for a competitor. Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard
    - RulerOf 4y ago
      >the developer risks a game of whack-a-mole with private servers and cracked clients This would be Felony Contempt of Business Model[0], which would be enforced with every move in the legal playbook. >Legal protection sounds like it would actually benefit the cheaters given how long an average court case takes. I see the thought here, but it would do so by providing transparency to the license-revocation (banning) process, which greatly benefits customers who are getting screwed as hard as OP is. This in turn should lead to fewer cases of paying customers getting screwed. >In my experience, private servers deal with cheaters and bots better than Activision/Blizzard This is the case because they're moderated better. The companies are raking in cash. They can hire people to fix the problem. They don't because the current model maximizes profits. [0]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-business-model-lexmarks-anti-competitive-legacy https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
- seattle_spring 4y ago
  You're really bending over backwards trying to defend people who get their kicks ruining things for others.
deafpolygon 4y ago
When we move to GaaS (gaming as a service) as the norm, it will be more like purchasing multiplayer online = buying a ticket to a sporting event. If you misbehave, of course, you can get kicked out. Fairly soon you'll need to maintain a subscription just to play.
- amatecha 4y ago
  Oh yeah, that has literally already happened: Xbox Live Gold and PS Plus!
  - deafpolygon 4y ago
    It's not yet the norm. When it becomes the norm, it will replace purchasing a game at the store [this has already started to happen for PC]. We will no longer be able to play games except through platforms like Xbox Live or PS Plus. This will eventually give companies like Microsoft and Sony complete control over their platform's IP. When it happens, we'll never be able to collect these games as part of nostalgia growing up playing these games.
nkrisc 4y ago
> sabotage the match by repeatedly running into the enemy team (griefing). Wait, you can be banned for being bad at the game?
- simiones 4y ago
  Usually yes, if it's deemed that you've been doing it maliciously (just like you would be kicked out of a real-life football match if you were the goalie for your team but you were consistently hovering next to the other team's goal trying to score).
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Um, being benched by your coach is totally different than being banned by the organization putting the event together. Most sports have some sort of anti-cherry-picking rules. In your football example (I'm using the proper football here), there are offside rules. Hockey has the rule about the crease. NBA has the 5s rule for being in the paint. NFL has illegal formation. Baseball actually encourages getting into wrong positions by allowing stealing, but have other rules to ensure runners finish in proper order rounding the bases. As many times as I would love to see a ref be able to issue yellow cards for continued blatant offside calls against a player, they cannot be kicked out for breaking said rule.
    - simiones 4y ago
      I'm not talking about a professional team (which would anyway absolutely kick a player out if they were repeatedly griefing their own team - a power which is usually not given to players in online team games). I am thinking of an amateur tournament - I am quite certain a player who was blatantly acting against their own team would be kicked out by the organizers, even if they weren't explicitly breaking the rules of the game.
MANSORY888 4y ago
the point is that they are denying access to the single player experience, even if you cheat in single player, that should not matter.

rale00 4y ago

In real life, if you go to a sporting event or a show, and start harassing the other patrons and causing a disruption, you can expect to be kicked out without a refund. Refunding people who deserve to be banned would only encourage them to create new accounts and continue causing problems.

harry8 4y ago
Event ticketing is, imho, one of the most fundamentally corrupt industries I've ever encountered as a consumer so taking it as the example is problematic, (unless you know someone, right? Just queuing up for tickets is naive beyond my expectations of people around here). But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund? What if they weren't yours? What if they were stolen? What if you know the coach? Can they not like your "offensive beard", take your season tickets and re-sell them? How about your date's utterly vile "Ross Perot was right!" shirt? Can they terms of service you out of the cash for next week? (Wouldn't surprise me on one hand how bad that could be but I somehow doubt it). Kick them the hell out for being foul by all means, your house, your rules. "And you take your damn money with you and not come back because I ain't no thief, even from scum like you, you vermin!"
- scott_w 4y ago
  > Event ticketing is, imho, one of the most fundamentally corrupt industries I've ever encountered That's irrelevant to the discussion. It's a thing that happens, people expect it and the only people who complain about being kicked out are... well being kicked out for being a horrible person. > But whatever. Do they confiscate the season tickets you were using with no refund? Absolutely, yes, they do. On the other hand, they'll probably also tell you _why_ they're doing so. They also won't take your money for _future_ season tickets.
michaelt 4y ago
On the other hand, if you went to a sporting event or a show and due to some computer error on the organisers' part you were wrongly denied admission - you would expect a refund. I can't simply start a fake theatre, sell tickets for $100 each, then turn away all ticket holders at the door even if legitimate theatres do have the right to (e.g.) turn away drunk patrons without breathalysing them.