Its not that back and white, sadly. They're somewhat screwed due to the RoC items against harassment (bullying):So, just playing devils advocate, wouldnt it be better for EA legally if there are not gms or supervision of chat, because if there were broadsword could be liable under that law. if they do not have it supervised tho, and know nothing of it, you yourself said they cant be held liable.
From the RoC:
- You may not victimize, harass, threaten, or cause another player unwanted distress or discomfort, as determined by Support Staff.
- You may not use any offensive or sexually explicit language, graphic descriptions, or accounts of sexual acts (including but not limited to sexual language of a violent or threatening nature directed at another individual or group of individuals).
- You may not use any unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable language toward any other player.
Now, the ToS muddies things further with the limitation of liability and indemnification clauses...however...they couldn't use it to escape criminal prosecution (should there be a DA willing to charge) and courts have laughed out online game ToSes before as being too lopsided.
In the end, simply enforcing their RoC, which all UO account holders have to agree to, would be the best option. If other studios can do it, so can Broadsword. If they're worried about losing too much revenue due to axing scumbags, then they should just shut the servers down and be done with it.
Ignoring it just makes EA/Broadsword look weak and callous. Not a reputation they should want to foster while trying to bring in new customers. Not everyone is a masochist.