How many of you are aware under the WF EULA you can be banned permanently without reason and without warning?

[--Soup--]

1 minute ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 So you admit your example was bad?

 Yes they can ban me whenever they want. They can ban YOU whenever they want. They can do this without reason if they want.

 Now if after reading the above you don't see a problem, I'm not sure what else we can say on the topic.

How was my example bad ? it explained a lot. even though it was not in business terms does it actually matter ?   yes they can ban me so what ? i'll submit a ticket asking to politely unban me if they can't well then i'll just move on play some other game. 

[Ryim_Drykeon]

Just now, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 I am simply talking about the morality of the EULA and TOS for this game that we all enjoy but it seems that the topic is too taboo to discuss.

Not taboo. It's simply that no one agrees with your opinion. You're allowed to have yours, but so are others.

If you think the EULA can be better, write up your suggestion and put it in Feedback. however, I'm betting DEs lawyers are more experienced with contracts than you are, so I doubt it will change.

Good luck though.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

Just now, TheSchorch said:

How was my example bad ? it explained a lot. even though it was not in business terms does it actually matter ?   yes they can ban me so what ? i'll submit a ticket asking to politely unban me if they can't well then i'll just move on play some other game. 

  And if you have spent time and money on the game? If your friends are still playing this game?

 You're ok with the idea a service can be withdrawn without reason at all, regardless of whether this would happen or not, the fact it is in the EULA is the problem because it means it is possible,

[--Soup--]

1 minute ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

  And if you have spent time and money on the game? If your friends are still playing this game?

 You're ok with the idea a service can be withdrawn without reason at all, regardless of whether this would happen or not, the fact it is in the EULA is the problem because it means it is possible,

Question is. Did you agree to the terms ? 

[(PSN)Shelneroth]

Going back to the bus and resturant example from earlier (not quoting becuase it's horrible using the forums on ps4). You are correct that removing someone from a bus, banning them from a resturant, or banning them from Warframe without reason would likely result in legal action. It may be deemed to in fact stem from discrimination or violate some consumer right. I belive the point of the clause is that an immediate problem can be dealt with in the quickest way possible so to minimize harm. Oncethe situation is stabalizied further proceduers can take place. The party banned can appeal and if necassary take legal action.

Also when people spoke about preventing unforseen situations that somehow avoid all the other TOS and any law an example is hard to give as they are by their nature unimagineable. Perhaps there are examples in history. 

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

1 minute ago, Ryim_Drykeon said:

Not taboo. It's simply that no one agrees with your opinion. You're allowed to have yours, but so are others.

If you think the EULA can be better, write up your suggestion and put it in Feedback. however, I'm betting DEs lawyers are more experienced with contracts than you are, so I doubt it will change.

Good luck though.

 What's the point, all of you are ok with the idea of handing this much power over to a service provider regardless of the morality of the situation.

 I'm actually surprised that so far posters have been unanimous in having their accounts potentially removed without reason should DE choose to. It's not a matter of if they will or not, it is that they can and you're all enabling that by finding it acceptable. Hell I can sum up most of your arguments by saying "that's how it always has been in other games so it should stay that way".

[Maqabir]

Just now, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 What's the point, all of you are ok with the idea of handing this much power over to a service provider regardless of the morality of the situation.

You are also ok with it, you agreed to the EULA.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

2 minutes ago, TheSchorch said:

Question is. Did you agree to the terms ? 

 This is a redundant question, regardless of the answer it doesn't make the EULA more morally acceptable.

[Ryim_Drykeon]

Just now, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 What's the point, all of you are ok with the idea of handing this much power over to a service provider regardless of the morality of the situation.

 I'm actually surprised that so far posters have been unanimous in having their accounts potentially removed without reason should DE choose to. It's not a matter of if they will or not, it is that they can and you're all enabling that by finding it acceptable. Hell I can sum up most of your arguments by saying "that's how it always has been in other games so it should stay that way".

We are okay with it because 1) We don't do anything to deserve a ban, and 2) We actually trust DE to be decent (at least I,personally, do).

[Hypernaut1]

16 minutes ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 And then if it happened to you, would you still be fine with it? If it happened to your friends would you be fine with it?

 People are usually happy with unfair rules/laws until they effect them.

 There is a clear lack of empathy here that is difficult to be avoid being disgusted by...

That's irrelevant. No one is happy when they get banned. 

But we will gladly take the risk of DE abusing their powers to ban, than take the risk of DE being tied up in a frivolous lawsuit which is far more likely.

We want the Sacrifice this year! We couldn't care less if some YouTuber was banned and is trying to argue a loophole. 

So you're on an island in caring about this (non) issue. 

Edited April 28, 2018 by Hypernaut1

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

Just now, Maqabir said:

You are also ok with it, you agreed to the EULA.

 I'm clearly not ok with it, I simply don;t think it will likely effect me. But here's the thing, just because a negative thing doesn't effect me, doesn't mean I cannot point it out.

 So no, I'm not ok with it.

[Maggituete]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb (PS4)vektorwithak:

Again, real world example... A lot of people were against ending slavery... Didn't mean it was a bad idea to abolish it.

 A lot of people thought the world was flat... Didn't make it true.

 A lot of people denied the theory of evolution, hell even today we have flat earthers and holocaust deniers. If they are the majority opinion does it make their claims more true or are they still inaccurate regardless of the popularity of their opinions?

 Funny I never blamed anyone for anything. I am simply talking about the morality of the EULA and TOS for this game that we all enjoy but it seems that the topic is too taboo to discuss.

The slavery thing is funny, because there were also a lot of people for ending slavery.

The people believed that the earth was flat because very few people, who actually had education and/or money, wanted that world picture. Kopernikus actually was not seen as the devil by a lot of people, hell, the majority back then couldn't understand such a thing because of a lack of education.

Evolution theory i cannot comment on cause i suck at biology.
Flat earthers and holocaust deniers are not in the majority and i don't think you believe that.

Why talking about morality of the Eula and ToS before talking about the Morals of the Company enforcing said things first? That's probably the main issue with your stance here.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

1 minute ago, Ryim_Drykeon said:

We are okay with it because 1) We don't do anything to deserve a ban, and 2) We actually trust DE to be decent (at least I,personally, do).

I like how you all use emotive arguments or fallacies. Nobody has a moral argument for why this is acceptable.

[Maqabir]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

I like how you all use emotive arguments or fallacies. Nobody has a moral argument for why this is acceptable.

It is morally acceptable because you are free to not agree to the EULA and thus not play the game.

It only affects people who agree with it.

 

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

1 minute ago, Maggituete said:

The slavery thing is funny, because there were also a lot of people for ending slavery.

The people believed that the earth was flat because very few people, who actually had education and/or money, wanted that world picture. Kopernikus actually was not seen as the devil by a lot of people, hell, the majority back then couldn't understand such a thing because of a lack of education.

Evolution theory i cannot comment on cause i suck at biology.
Flat earthers and holocaust deniers are not in the majority and i don't think you believe that.

Why talking about morality of the Eula and ToS before talking about the Morals of the Company enforcing said things first? That's probably the main issue with your stance here.

 There were wars fought to end slavery... WARS TO END IT! Can you grasp that idea? Yeah, some people slightly disagreed with the idea...

 But not the point, my point was just because a majority agree on something does not make it right, you yourself just made a case for me by bringing education(or lack there of) into the argument.

 A majority view does not make their views any more right than if they were in the minority. The views validity doesn't change.

 Not sure about your last point, can you clarify? Are you saying that the morals of the EULA don't matter, I should worry about the company itself? That would be ignoring the problem if that is what you are implying.

[Firetempest]

In the end, Its just boilerplate. If you have so much of a problem with it, you have to go live a life without a computer or phone. Why exactly is WF different over everything else you blindly agree to use.

Go set your life goal to be a circuit court judge and set a precedent in validity of EULAs or something. You are not going to start some revolution in a gaming forum.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Firetempest

[Ryim_Drykeon]

Just now, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

I like how you all use emotive arguments or fallacies. Nobody has a moral argument for why this is acceptable.

Fine. Then it's acceptable due to the fact that DE can not possibly list every single thing that could earn a ban. The EULA would have to be updated daily, and no one wants to log into that every day to accept. The blank clause covers this. You claim immorality, or laziness, but it works. It is offset by mutually assured destruction. IF DE would do this, their business would collapse. Therefore, they will only use it as it is intended, as a catch 22 clause.

If you would look into all business contracts of the nature of the EULA, you would find a majority of them have such a clause. Verizon has such a clause in that they can end your service without notice or warning, and that's a service you pay for.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

1 minute ago, Maqabir said:

It is morally acceptable because you are free to not agree to the EULA and thus not play the game.

It only affects people who agree with it.

 

 You can agree to many things in this world that are immoral, luckily we have laws now to prevent indentured slavery for example, but without that law, a citizen could enter an agreement to be a slave. This used to happen, usually homeless people or those in poverty could become indentured slaves and they now get meals and a roof over their head. They can agree to it, doesn't make it morally ok in practice though does it?

 Can we agree on that? Just because something doesn't effect you directly, doesn't magically make it morally acceptable.

 There are atrocities going on in the middle east at the moment, doesn't effect me personally but I can still say those things are immoral.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

2 minutes ago, Firetempest said:

In the end, Its just boilerplate. If you have so much of a problem with it, you have to go live a life without a computer or phone. Why exactly is WF different over everything else you blindly agree to use.

Go set your life goal to be a circuit court judge and set a precedent in validity of EULAs or something. You are not going to start some revolution in a gaming forum.

 This is probably the most intelligent and coherent reply yet.

 Though I started the post to gauge the communities awareness on the issue, it turned into a moral debate with people who are ok with immoral agreements as long as they aren't effected right now by them directly.

[Maggituete]

Gerade eben schrieb (PS4)vektorwithak:

 There were wars fought to end slavery... WARS TO END IT! Can you grasp that idea? Yeah, some people slightly disagreed with the idea...

 But not the point, my point was just because a majority agree on something does not make it right, you yourself just made a case for me by bringing education(or lack there of) into the argument.

 A majority view does not make their views any more right than if they were in the minority. The views validity doesn't change.

 Not sure about your last point, can you clarify? Are you saying that the morals of the EULA don't matter, I should worry about the company itself? That would be ignoring the problem if that is what you are implying.

And i tried to tell you that your examples lacked the proof that there was a majority against said things. But that apparently doesn't matter.
What i was trying to imply is, that an in your opinion immoral clause in the Eula is only immoral in the moment it is used in such a way. We tried to show is just a reassurance for the company to be save in uncertain situations since DE, in our "emote opinion" wouldn't abuse a privilage given by us users via EUla to ban us for no reason.

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

Just now, Maggituete said:

And i tried to tell you that your examples lacked the proof that there was a majority against said things. But that apparently doesn't matter.
What i was trying to imply is, that an in your opinion immoral clause in the Eula is only immoral in the moment it is used in such a way. We tried to show is just a reassurance for the company to be save in uncertain situations since DE, in our "emote opinion" wouldn't abuse a privilage given by us users via EUla to ban us for no reason.

 There were WARS FOUGHT! If the majority agreed, there wouldn't have been a damn war! Seems pretty self evident.

 So an immoral law or rule is acceptable until it is acted upon? Until then it is actually moral to have that law/rule in place and for all to be aware of it, but it is only in enforcement that it is immoral? Sounds pretty gross to me personally but you do you.

[sleepychewbacca]

Look at it this way; 

ToS/EULA is a blanket provision for a provider to cover every aspect of a service they provide against all possible incidences that occur. It's simply a means of protection, and isn't something that would be used maliciously and not have any repercussions if it was so. 

Think of it as you renting a house to a tenant, and having an eviction clause, even if your tenant did nothing wrong. 

Now you, have remedies under consumer law. If you feel like an action was wrongly done, you can contest it under these provisions, and seek remedies.  

That's all there is to it. If you really want something to be concerned about, try looking up promissory estoppel clauses in EULA's. Apple in particular has a very very scary set of terms well hidden. Best one is an agreement by use of service/product not to sue. 

My source: I went to law school. 

[NekroArts]

Oh FFS. Just go ask a lawyer, any lawyer, heck multiple lawyers if you have to. It's obvious that after sound reasoning it's still not enough to explain that line being there. So why continue this discussion here? What you need is a credible first-hand source to answer your concern over this termination line.

[Ryim_Drykeon]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)vektorwithak said:

 There were WARS FOUGHT! If the majority agreed, there wouldn't have been a damn war! Seems pretty self evident.

In what fantasy world do you live in that you think humanity will EVER have a majority agreement to avoid conflict?

[(PSN)vektorwithak]

1 minute ago, sleepychewbacca said:

Look at it this way; 

ToS/EULA is a blanket provision for a provider to cover every aspect of a service they provide against all possible incidences that occur. It's simply a means of protection, and isn't something that would be used maliciously and not have any repercussions if it was so. 

Think of it as you renting a house to a tenant, and having an eviction clause, even if your tenant did nothing wrong. 

Now you, have remedies under consumer law. If you feel like an action was wrongly done, you can contest it under these provisions, and seek remedies.  

That's all there is to it. If you really want something to be concerned about, try looking up promissory estoppel clauses in EULA's. Apple in particular has a very very scary set of terms well hidden. Best one is an agreement by use of service/product not to sue. 

My source: I went to law school. 

 Many of these terms are being slowly found to be unlawful when taken to court such as the recent TOS that opening a tech device voided a warranty, this has been recently found to be unlawful and anti-consumer and big tech companies such as Nintendo, Apple and Sony have been forced to alter their TOS due to this.

 I'm sure Apple will see other cases against them that lead to further tweaks to their TOS.

My source: recent news.