Rules not in the TOS should give warnings first, not suspensions

[imported_Lord Kynd]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

You say:
<blockquote><hr>

In fact, if anything, the website is a productivity application that uses...

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahem:
<blockquote><hr>

"23. You will not post, use or distribute any utilities, applications, emulators or other software tools related to Ultima Online that do not have the express written permission of Electronic Arts to be used with the Service. "

[/ QUOTE ]
So again, how is this not illegal? Even if you want to go around the block about the differences between a "utility" and an "application" you are still in the wrong and EA is well within their rights to enforce this.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh dear god. You start with saying you're not going to argue semantics, and then you choose to argue them.

Visiting UO Stratics, by the wide birth of your definition, is, indeed, a bannable offense then. They have skill calculators, they have information about the game, they have a ton of stuff available here that can be considered an "application." I guess they better start the mass bannings.

Now, let's try some better highlighting here:
<blockquote><hr>

"23. You will not post, use or distribute any utilities, applications, emulators or other software tools related to Ultima Online that do not have the express written permission of Electronic Arts to be used with the Service."

[/ QUOTE ]The website is not being used WITH the service. It is being used as an external reference ABOUT the service. How the people constructing the website go about gathering their information is between UO and EA, and if that's illegal, then EA should go about shutting them down. However, banning someone for visiting a website that EA has posted NO clear information regarding, much less ANY specific information defining it as illegal, is above and beyond EA's PROPER use of their own rules.

Sure, EA can do what they want. That doesn't make them correct in doing so.

EDIT : I just realized you're too dense to understand the idea of using something WITH the service, so let me clarify: WITH = used in tandem with. IE: UO Assist, UO AutoMap, and UO The Illegal Cheat Program We Won't Mention by Name. Of those three, only ONE is illegal because it does not have EA's permission. Not sure about UOAM these days since its author no longer maintains it.

But believe me, there are THOUSANDS of websites (okay... hundreds... UO doesn't have the popularity these days) out there that provide information about UO. It doesn't make them illegal. And EA can go ahead and ban me for visiting whatever website they want. I'll thank them for removing my need to pay them.

[/ QUOTE ]



carefull i got banned for using cap's to emphesise(spelling,to tired) certain words.

 

[Guest]

Too bad it was youre friend that was banned and not you for using an illegal application (we both know where that info on those websites are from and since we can mentioned those applications since there illegal and against the roc so is this website).

I love how the pro everything illegal side because everything is too slow and boring is always pushing for things they deem to be acceptable even when they are against the roc. I know it saddens you but you dont make the rules (even though you like to think you know everything about everything) and youre freind just got slapped with the reality of it. I also love how you desperatly try to vilify the person that had the rules enforced like they did something wrong.

I know also many many people that spent years and there whole gametime to become brokers and keep an eye on fluctuating prices and such and you (like every other self entitled toad) thinks its ok to use a script to circumvent the rules and just totaly destroy and undermine what was once a legitimate playstyle.

 

[Arcus]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>



IN RL: For weeks a guy is making right hand turns on red in NYC. He finally gets stopped and is given a citation for making illegal right hand turns on red. His argument is that he didn't know it was illegal to turn right on red in NYC. He still pays the citation and now he knows the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

turning right on red is a neccesity in michigan, NY needs to change there law obviously

[/ QUOTE ]


And he wasn't shot, he was given a citation. Banned = shot.

 

[RaDian FlGith]

<blockquote><hr>

Again, you are implying that he was suspended for accessing the website... that's not what I got out of reading the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not implying anything. I'm aware that he was suspended for mentioning the name of a website that for whatever reason EA has deemed "illegal," and worthy of suspension. The fact remains they've posted this NOWHERE on their site.
<blockquote><hr>

And YES, there is indeed a FINE LINE between giving someone information and flat out advertising. It's called VIRAL ADVERTISING or VIRAL MARKETING.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh good lord. There is not a fine line between the two. Advertising consists of more than "Hey, just go to this site..." Advertising is making an actual effort to advertise, and would consist of more than just mentioning it to your friend. IF the OP was standing around repeatedly saying, "Go to xyz.com for this, that, and the other," then that's one thing, but that's not what he's reported. His version is that he mentioned a site and got reported for it, and then suspended.
<blockquote><hr>

Referring someone to Stratics isn't a problem because they are an official UO Fansite. A partner. I don't see why you keep bringing Stratics into this. You can metagame here, but this is an EA-approved site. And if Stratics ever put up some tool/utility/application that was pushing the boundaries of the TOS, you can bet your bottom dollar EA would ask them to remove it and Stratics would, indeed, remove it. For all we know, EA has already asked that website and others like it to cease and desist. Not all things are made public.

[/ QUOTE ]For all we know, they haven't said anything to these sites. You don't know, and neither do I, and that's part of the problem. If they're going to make it illegal to visit a site, then they need to put it out there somewhere, because once again, it's not a site that -- unless someone's failing to mention something -- makes any applications or utilities available for download (I'm not going to get into the semantics of the vendor database information again).

As for why I bring Stratics into this? Because if they're going to implement something for one site, they need to do it for ALL sites. What's the difference between a skill calculator and a database of items for sale on a vendor? It's still information from within the game made external. The difference, I readily understand, is the method that information gets there, but that returns me to the issue that if they're going to go after people, it should be after the people HOSTING the information -- and at the same time, they need to make it public that these particular types of sites are, in fact, illegal to use. And they need to say it somewhere else than in some deeply buried post here on Stratics.
<blockquote><hr>

Who knows about this guy. Maybe it was innocent like you keep insisting. Maybe not. Maybe he "casually" informed a few dozen people before he was suspended. Maybe not. Maybe he just happened to get caught doing it once and since the site is OBVIOUSLY a touchy subject, EA decided to take action. Maybe not.

[/ QUOTE ]Which returns me to MY point about all of this. If it's a touchy subject, EA NEEDS TO MAKE IT A PUBLIC ISSUE SO THAT WE ARE ALL AWARE OF IT. Capiche?

<blockquote><hr>

Your conjecture, semantics and big juicy metaphors have made for a pretty entertaining read. I appreciate your passion, but in your little crusade, you are refusing to see the other side of the coin.

I think I've made my case a few times now, so that's all the effort I'm going to put into this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, you are the one refusing to see the other side of the coin. I've readily admit several issues of contention and remain steadfast in my stance that EA needs to make this type of stuff public so that we are ALL aware of the issues behind them and so we ALL know to avoid them. Sorry, but just because you or someone else tells me in a thread here that somewhere else someone at EA said this site was illegal doesn't make it so, and if EA is going to crack down on stuff like that then they need to make it public so we all know about it.

I don't know what you're not understanding, except that you feel so importantly that you need to be right that you're failing to see the point.

 

[JoyousGard]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>



IN RL: For weeks a guy is making right hand turns on red in NYC. He finally gets stopped and is given a citation for making illegal right hand turns on red. His argument is that he didn't know it was illegal to turn right on red in NYC. He still pays the citation and now he knows the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

turning right on red is a neccesity in michigan, NY needs to change there law obviously

[/ QUOTE ]


And he wasn't shot, he was given a citation. Banned = shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've heard that in NYC sometimes you will accidentally get shot 50 times by 6 officers if you make a righthand turn on red and have an ice cream cone in your hand.

I don't know... I felt the OP was implying like it was temporary ban. Or suspension or something. No big deal. Time to go out and breathe in some allergens or find a friend to play Mario Kart with.

Now that our mystery friend knows about the evil of the site and its ill repute with EA, he can come back and share his story with fellow Brittanians, "I was suspended for promoting an allegedly illegal website!"

The point of the righthand turn was that... Ignorance of the law does not make a person exempt from it. I am pretty certain this is fact. Maybe not though.

Is their a lawyer? Can a defendant plead Ignorance of the Law? Not mental retardation or insanity, but ignorance of the law thereby not responsible for breaking it.

 

[Masuri]

<blockquote><hr>

Well, I've heard that in NYC sometimes you will accidentally get shot 50 times by 6 officers if you make a righthand turn on red and have an ice cream cone in your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ win. In any case, the original example of which this was a parody, proves the opposite point it intended to. It's not necessary to ticket and warn when a warning alone will suffice. Least amount of force and all that. Not that most people understand that concept, because they get off on applying force to other people. Humans are broken.

EA has absolutely no business suspending or banning anyone based on rules that aren't published publicly, there's really no argument. I suspect it's a handful of untrained or offbook rogue GMs, as usual, and hopefully complaints like this will get the unspoken rule put down in print - or better yet, stop punishing people for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place (and I mean both the talking about the sites, and the sites themselves.) Best case scenario, EA creates its own such site including all vendors. Problem solved.

Oh right, this is EA, and that will never happen. Sigh.

 

[Guest]

<blockquote><hr>

Unfortunatly a player who has recently returned to the game got suspended for giving out the address of one of those popular vendor searching websites. He did not know they were illegal and a (griefing) player paged on him.

I took a close look at the TOS and ROC, there is no rule against such a website. The only rule is you may not advertise websites. Furthemore the location that should have links to all rules (http://support.uo.com/service.html) only links to the Rules of Conduct and Terms of Service. It is completely unreasonable to expect someone to know these magic rules if they are not listed in the place to find them.

If a rule is not written down then a verbal warning should be done first. There were 2 other people replying in the discussion topic about this that didn't know that these sites are not supposed to be mentioned. That is 2 more people who could end up with account suspensions or terminations that could easily be avoided by listing rules like this and adding a permanent filter. How many players could have avoided suspensions/terminations if they simply filtered the word ****? It would probably be thousands. The same could be done to website addresses.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the case imagine all the guilds in game that have a web site listed in there profiles.

 

[JoyousGard]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

Well, I've heard that in NYC sometimes you will accidentally get shot 50 times by 6 officers if you make a righthand turn on red and have an ice cream cone in your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ win. In any case, the original example of which this was a parody, proves the opposite point it intended to. It's not necessary to ticket and warn when a warning alone will suffice.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your opinion it's not necessary to issue the ticket, but it is the ticketing officer's prerogative.

By extension, in UO:
GM_Mr_Happy can say: "Yo little bro, don't write about that retro site. OK dude? Gnarly retro man!"

and

GM_Mr_Meanie has the choice to say: "I punish you to 2 weeks of retro living, but without UO. Dastardly retro man!"

So it depends what day the cop stops you, what kind of person the cop is, and what kind of mood he is in. EDIT: and whether the cop believes and pities your sad story.

Regardless, though, ignorance of the law does not make a person exempt from it. This is fact. It has to be.

I don't use the site and I hate looking through vendors junk.

I hate vendors that say: "Alacrity Scrolls" and are selling shoddy barbed leather armor in their drill down 5 level bags. This is greifing. I should get that vendor owner banned for false advertisement.

 

[Avalonia]

<blockquote><hr>


"Here" we are not IN&gt; the game &lt; ... "Here" is a different part of the internet ... "Here" the TOS/ROC are different ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The OFFICIAL boards of UO should be part of the game and should be governed by such IMO. I think that they could have easily warned the player in question and followed up if he did it again. I think they used their athority as a gm inapropriately. I am all for warning someone before taking actual action and making damn sure they never do it again.

 

[Duke X. Winter]

<blockquote><hr>

<blockquote><hr>

You're not serious are you? This is a no-brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it is a no-brainer then why are so many people unaware that they are illegal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because no one actually reads a TOS when it's put in front of them?

 

[imported_Vyrquenox]

This is all much like your high school (ah the days) telling you they would suspend you if they caught you smoking at home. They can't, unless you say 'hey, while i was smoking at home I ...' to the principal. I myself, every time I need some doo-dad, walk through every vendor in luna. Yes I do. Stop expecting the EA lawyers to enforce the game in any other way than 'plausible deniability' and 'abscense of liability'.

 

[imported_Vyrquenox]

-------------------------------------
I'm not going to argue semantics with you.


You say:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, if anything, the website is a productivity application that uses...




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ahem:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"23. You will not post, use or distribute any utilities, applications, emulators or other software tools related to Ultima Online that do not have the express written permission of Electronic Arts to be used with the Service. "




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So again, how is this not illegal? Even if you want to go around the block about the differences between a "utility" and an "application" you are still in the wrong and EA is well within their rights to enforce this.
--------------------

arguing semantics? not going to? the lawyers that write these TOS do nothing BUT worry about semantics.

 

[imported_Vyrquenox]

EA has absolutely no business suspending or banning anyone based on rules that aren't published publicly, there's really no argument. I suspect it's a handful of untrained or offbook rogue GMs, as usual, and hopefully complaints like this will get the unspoken rule put down in print - or better yet, stop punishing people for something that shouldn't be illegal in the first place (and I mean both the talking about the sites, and the sites themselves.) Best case scenario, EA creates its own such site including all vendors. Problem solved.

Oh right, this is EA, and that will never happen. Sigh.

------------------------
yeah, you forget that giving a warning without making a huge deal and removing a subscribers access to a paid service would mean that they would have to excercise individual judgement. In a giant machine like EA there is no room for individual judgement. Garriot would have said 'oh, don't do that'. Problem with that is then they are possibly liable if one guy does it and gets a warning and the other guy gets a suspension. Zero tolerance! It works so well because there are so many people, a few benign people getting railroaded is ok, its called collateral damage. No grey area! No abbreviating names of foreign countries! What do vikings do to a village? They **** and pillage it, can't say the first part. Pfft I've seen enough good players have pianos dropped on their heads for minor slips of the tongue while 13 year olds speed hack through the game it is pathetic. Enough.

 

[imported_Lord Kynd]

<blockquote><hr>

I don't know... I felt the OP was implying like it was temporary ban. Or suspension or something. No big deal. Time to go out and breathe in some allergens or find a friend to play Mario Kart with.



[/ QUOTE ]

with this thinking, would you want to keep paying to play a game your banned from?
for something silly?

and most of you new(er) players don't relize how addicting UO is, to be 'cut off' is not a good thing. i heard one guy got banned because he accepted a item from someone, 2 minutes later a GM came and banned them, the guy went and got in a fight with his family and shot them all including himself. the person played since 9late 90's. ( trying to find the news article )

point is sometimes banning isn't a good thing.