SOE to attempt policing all your online activities.

Elsabolts

Some how im seeing a clarification statement from Sony Entertainment coming soon !

Asbo

So no more 5th amendment can be used and rightly so imo trolls do not need feeding but decapitating is the only way to deal with idiots. People need to be held accountable for their action and someone needs to stand up to these small minority and nip it in the bud.

However it will need to be looked at correctly and not used to silent the people who have a genuine grievance as it's real easy for people who have power to drop an axe without cause if they got out of the wrong side of bed. So this does need to be policed correctly and in the spirit that it's meant too. The problems which I can see are that it's difficult to see when people from different cultures are trying to debate the same thing it tends not to cross over well due to language issues.

There are many other issues and if we are not careful we could end up policing things which are not meant to be policed and loose sight of what gaming is all about too, so it's a tight line. So many people use the same name that this could be the main problem and unless all social media is tied into one person it would be impossible to police and this is where the danger could lie.

What if someone has had their email hacked and then the hacker starts to abuse people where could this end up...There has to be some kind of arbitration system to prevent or at least allow an appeal process. The powers that be in games need to look into this very careful before pushing the cull button.

 

Bandit

 

PAL-18

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by PAL-18

If they can do it then they should allow players to use those same tools also.

For example : If I blacklist xXTwinTurboKiller666Xx ,blacklistin should have effect on every account he have on that game,every SOE game and if they know his social media accounts then on those too.

Which means they give me all his characters names of any game they know he is playing.

Or if i ignore someone then all of his accounts gets ignored.

 

You're forgetting they have access to personal info as well. We'll need the names and addresses of those we blacklist/ignore so we can file restraining orders and such.

Naah ,we are playing games and we deal with these problems in game.

 

Elsabolts

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Elsabolts

Some how im seeing a clarification statement from Sony Entertainment coming soon !

Most likely followed by a "sudden departure of a much valued team member", leading to an opening for a new Community Manager.

Elsabolts

In your Signature the CEO of EA makes a statement of replaceing ammo in a clip. Military clips ended with the M-1 he needs to refer to it as a Magazine. The only clip fed weapons I know of are your shoulder fired sniper rifles that some folks will use because they like to make signature headshots that at a glance you know who pulled the trigger. IE: Remmington and Winchester bolt actions, smaller caliber entry points.

Nadia

sounds like a customer service nightmare for a hacked account

k61977

You are 100% wrong about having to be signed.  A digital signature which is what you create when you accept the Terms of Service is all they need to ban you from their products.  They do hold up in a court of law.  I had to sit in on a case of that very nature while in the military and can tell you 100% digital signature with your ip adress is just as binding as if you signed with a pen.

Kyleran

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by Morrok

 

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

---

But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by evilastro

If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

Excellent examples too.

And both bad examples. Those are examples of specific owners of specific properties enforcing their own rules. What we are talking about here is Sony taking it upon themselves to police the entire fucking internet because some horse-faced nitwit Community Manager didn't get laid enough in high school, has found herself in a dead -end job, and wants to play with what little bit of power she can grab..

And if she's reading this, she can ban my ass for all I care, it's not hard to find my accounts. Numbnuts broad makes Smedley look like a freakin' Grade A genius.

Good job, I do believe you've managed to prove Linda's point perfectly.

 

ray12k

Originally posted by k61977
You are 100% wrong about having to be signed.  A digital signature which is what you create when you accept the Terms of Service is all they need to ban you from their products.  They do hold up in a court of law.  I had to sit in on a case of that very nature while in the military and can tell you 100% digital signature with your ip adress is just as binding as if you signed with a pen.

Its differs state to state. Contract law is a state matter in the USA. As well as country to country in the rest of the world.

 

I think most people have a problem with a private company using information  you give them to investigate their clients with the sole reason of dissolving a contract

 

This doesn't fly in the real world and should be under foot in the virtual...

SOE is a joke of a company IMO!!

Elsabolts

Originally posted by Robokapp
I think SOE will reconsider their views...

I think your on to something. Can you just picture the color draining form Smeds and Linda's face when there told that Robert Shapiro and Gloria Allared would like to talk to them and are on hold !

Neo_Viper

And I can't wait for the first banned people to come whine here trying to explain us they did nothing wrong.

Elsabolts

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

And I can't wait for the first banned people to come whine here trying to explain us they did nothing wrong.

Naw Innocent till proven guilty ? or broke

Hulluck

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by Morrok

 

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

---

But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by evilastro

If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

Excellent examples too.

And both bad examples. Those are examples of specific owners of specific properties enforcing their own rules. What we are talking about here is Sony taking it upon themselves to police the entire fucking internet because some horse-faced nitwit Community Manager didn't get laid enough in high school, has found herself in a dead -end job, and wants to play with what little bit of power she can grab..

And if she's reading this, she can ban my ass for all I care, it's not hard to find my accounts. Numbnuts broad makes Smedley look like a freakin' Grade A genius.

Good job, I do believe you've managed to prove Linda's point perfectly.

 

I'm trying to understand where he's coming from and it really doesn't make sense to me.  I get it to a point but here's where I keep getting stuck.

-Is "ok" and has no problem with putting  real info out there for the world to see.  Or at the very least linking multiple accounts together across networks / services so that these accounts are easily identified as being said person if any of them are linked to an SOE run site. In that case real information wouldn't be needed as they are linked.

(Stop here if the above is not true:  SOE would not know who you are across sites if you didn't do one of the above. Simple fact is they are not going to try and find out either unless this person has done something severe enough to warrant it.

- If first is true: Be a dick, actually no. More like be the worst of the worst cunts out there on the World Wide Web so that you stand out above all the other trolling SOE customers.

- Raise Hell: When SOE decides that they might not want said persons money anymore or to be associated with this person because of their public behavior, raise hell.

 

Seems like there's a simple solution/work around for the moment at least if one wants to be a total dick-wad.  That said and in general: I'm almost to the point of smacking myself in the face over and over.  How is this even an issue? Does anyone who doesn't agree with this not see the irony? Not in regards to anything Zorvan said or anyone else but the "broad picture" and this so called "issue".  At some point a person has had to breach their own precious privacy enabling SOE to link their SOE held accounts to social media / off-site accounts. Maybe I am thinking to much into it and the hamster got going a bit to fast. 

 

 

Icewhite

Originally posted by Elsabolts

Originally posted by Robokapp
I think SOE will reconsider their views...

I think your on to something. Can you just picture the color draining form Smeds and Linda's face when there told that Robert Shapiro and Gloria Allared would like to talk to them and are on hold !

"Bobby Kotick on line 4, sir. Says he wants to give you sage advice on handling PR firestorms. Riccitiello's on line 5."

ray12k

Originally posted by Hulluck

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by Morrok

 

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

---

But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by evilastro

If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

Excellent examples too.

And both bad examples. Those are examples of specific owners of specific properties enforcing their own rules. What we are talking about here is Sony taking it upon themselves to police the entire fucking internet because some horse-faced nitwit Community Manager didn't get laid enough in high school, has found herself in a dead -end job, and wants to play with what little bit of power she can grab..

And if she's reading this, she can ban my ass for all I care, it's not hard to find my accounts. Numbnuts broad makes Smedley look like a freakin' Grade A genius.

Good job, I do believe you've managed to prove Linda's point perfectly.

 

I'm trying to understand where he's coming from and it really doesn't make sense to me.  I get it to a point but here's where I keep getting stuck.

-Is "ok" and has no problem with putting  real info out there for the world to see.  Or at the very least linking multiple accounts together across networks / services so that these accounts are easily identified as being said person if any of them are linked to an SOE run site. In that case real information wouldn't be needed as they are linked.

(Stop here if the above is not true:  SOE would not know who you are across sites if you didn't do one of the above. Simple fact is they are not going to try and find out either unless this person has done something severe enough to warrant it.

- If first is true: Be a dick, actually no. More like be the worst of the worst cunts out there on the World Wide Web so that you stand out above all the other trolling SOE customers.

- Raise Hell: When SOE decides that they might not want said persons money anymore or to be associated with this person because of their public behavior, raise hell.

 

Seems like there's a simple solution/work around for the moment at least if one wants to be a total dick-wad.  That said and in general: I'm almost to the point of smacking myself in the face over and over.  How is this even an issue? Does anyone who doesn't agree with this not see the irony? Not in regards to anything Zorvan said or anyone else but the "broad picture" and this so called "issue".  At some point a person has had to breach their own precious privacy enabling SOE to link their SOE held accounts to social media / off-site accounts. Maybe I am thinking to much into it and the hamster got going a bit to fast. 

 

 

NAH.... They want to control how their games are perceived. And are making a policy of threatening their player base for opposing them.

Sad part is the fan boys are lining up in carebear stare  mode protecting this idiotic stance...

5Luck

We are on a scary front with all of this here..

 

I mean Government agencys share information but seperate corperations do not. But if they ever did it becomes monopolistic and extreamly intrusive.

 

Corperations are NOT bound by the same set of rules that the government is...

Bigmamajama

Originally posted by Mtibbs1989

Originally posted by Tygranir

Originally posted by PGrimm

I personally find it a little over the top.  I mean they are a game company, not your parents.  I am kinda set back a bit by the tone.  It really does make me think, now, twice about their game.  Not very good  to open threaten people. 

 

And for the people who keep saying a business has the right to refuse service, while some states do offer those kinda of laws, this is an internet based business, and there is no laws allowing the right to refuse service, or else it would be taxed at all states/fed gov't.  Playing the games  is not a sale anyways, its a service, and its against the law to discriminate upon servicing,   I can see it now...they ban person x cause he acts like an asshat, asshat then sues them claiming he has mental handicaps, and this lady banned me cause  i don't act like the other sheep in the pen... and he wins his case!

 

Thing is the only effective way to deal with the asshats with out trampling on good people/players  is the give the players the tools.  Players could vote off people  if they act stupid,  players could " silence" them if they annoyed others ( i don't mean ignore, i mean silence them where they can't talk to no one for 3 days... try joining a raid that youcan't communicate in...many other tools as well.

 

I hope they get it all worked out, but if this lady keep threatening the player base before the game even starts...  I might just look for a different game, Which I might do anyways as the games Sony has right now are irrelevant !

The Terms of Service (ToS) you agree to when starting your account with any online game is a leagally binding contract. Once you violate the Terms of Service, you no long have any claim to said service.

Technically you're not legally bound to anything that is not actually signed.

Talk about spreading misinformation.  Apparently you haven't been in court recently.  You don't need a wet signature these days to be held accountable for your actions or to be held to a contract.  Email's, text messages, and agreeing to electronic documents are all now being submitted and deemed acceptable in courts.

No, you cant hide behind your keyboard these days and do whatever the hell you want.  Those days are over.  But you can believe that if it makes you feel safer somehow.

Neo_Viper

Originally posted by ray12k

Originally posted by Hulluck

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by Morrok

 

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

---

But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by evilastro

If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

Excellent examples too.

And both bad examples. Those are examples of specific owners of specific properties enforcing their own rules. What we are talking about here is Sony taking it upon themselves to police the entire fucking internet because some horse-faced nitwit Community Manager didn't get laid enough in high school, has found herself in a dead -end job, and wants to play with what little bit of power she can grab..

And if she's reading this, she can ban my ass for all I care, it's not hard to find my accounts. Numbnuts broad makes Smedley look like a freakin' Grade A genius.

Good job, I do believe you've managed to prove Linda's point perfectly.

 

I'm trying to understand where he's coming from and it really doesn't make sense to me.  I get it to a point but here's where I keep getting stuck.

-Is "ok" and has no problem with putting  real info out there for the world to see.  Or at the very least linking multiple accounts together across networks / services so that these accounts are easily identified as being said person if any of them are linked to an SOE run site. In that case real information wouldn't be needed as they are linked.

(Stop here if the above is not true:  SOE would not know who you are across sites if you didn't do one of the above. Simple fact is they are not going to try and find out either unless this person has done something severe enough to warrant it.

- If first is true: Be a dick, actually no. More like be the worst of the worst cunts out there on the World Wide Web so that you stand out above all the other trolling SOE customers.

- Raise Hell: When SOE decides that they might not want said persons money anymore or to be associated with this person because of their public behavior, raise hell.

 

Seems like there's a simple solution/work around for the moment at least if one wants to be a total dick-wad.  That said and in general: I'm almost to the point of smacking myself in the face over and over.  How is this even an issue? Does anyone who doesn't agree with this not see the irony? Not in regards to anything Zorvan said or anyone else but the "broad picture" and this so called "issue".  At some point a person has had to breach their own precious privacy enabling SOE to link their SOE held accounts to social media / off-site accounts. Maybe I am thinking to much into it and the hamster got going a bit to fast. 

 

 

NAH.... They want to control how their games are perceived. And are making a policy of threatening their player base for opposing them.

Sad part is the fan boys are lining up in carebear stare  mode protecting this idiotic stance...

Each new post from Ray2K, containing more or less veiled insults towards those who don't agree with him, proves that SoE may be on the right track actually. Even worse with OG_Zorvan, who is directly insulting a SoE female worker on her physical appearance and with childish assumptions about her sex life.

If people like that get perma-banned from future games I will play, I won't waste a tear.

Kyleran

Originally posted by 5Luck

We are on a scary front with all of this here..

 

I mean Government agencys share information but seperate corperations do not. But if they ever did it becomes monopolistic and extreamly intrusive.

 

Corperations are NOT bound by the same set of rules that the government is...

Bad news, financial institutions, insurance companies and others frequently share information about you with each other, including your credit history, driving record, criminal history etc.

Why not misbehavior in their games or on the internet?

 

5Luck

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by ray12k

Originally posted by Hulluck

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by Morrok

 

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

---

But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by evilastro

If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

Excellent examples too.

And both bad examples. Those are examples of specific owners of specific properties enforcing their own rules. What we are talking about here is Sony taking it upon themselves to police the entire fucking internet because some horse-faced nitwit Community Manager didn't get laid enough in high school, has found herself in a dead -end job, and wants to play with what little bit of power she can grab..

And if she's reading this, she can ban my ass for all I care, it's not hard to find my accounts. Numbnuts broad makes Smedley look like a freakin' Grade A genius.

Good job, I do believe you've managed to prove Linda's point perfectly.

 

I'm trying to understand where he's coming from and it really doesn't make sense to me.  I get it to a point but here's where I keep getting stuck.

-Is "ok" and has no problem with putting  real info out there for the world to see.  Or at the very least linking multiple accounts together across networks / services so that these accounts are easily identified as being said person if any of them are linked to an SOE run site. In that case real information wouldn't be needed as they are linked.

(Stop here if the above is not true:  SOE would not know who you are across sites if you didn't do one of the above. Simple fact is they are not going to try and find out either unless this person has done something severe enough to warrant it.

- If first is true: Be a dick, actually no. More like be the worst of the worst cunts out there on the World Wide Web so that you stand out above all the other trolling SOE customers.

- Raise Hell: When SOE decides that they might not want said persons money anymore or to be associated with this person because of their public behavior, raise hell.

 

Seems like there's a simple solution/work around for the moment at least if one wants to be a total dick-wad.  That said and in general: I'm almost to the point of smacking myself in the face over and over.  How is this even an issue? Does anyone who doesn't agree with this not see the irony? Not in regards to anything Zorvan said or anyone else but the "broad picture" and this so called "issue".  At some point a person has had to breach their own precious privacy enabling SOE to link their SOE held accounts to social media / off-site accounts. Maybe I am thinking to much into it and the hamster got going a bit to fast. 

 

 

NAH.... They want to control how their games are perceived. And are making a policy of threatening their player base for opposing them.

Sad part is the fan boys are lining up in carebear stare  mode protecting this idiotic stance...

Each new post from Ray2K, containing more or less veiled insults towards those who don't agree with him, proves that SoE may be on the right track actually. Even worse with OG_Zorvan, who is directly insulting a SoE female worker on her physical appearance and with childish assumptions about her sex life.

If people like that get perma-banned from future games I will play, I won't waste a tear.

And for some reason the ignore list isnt enough for you. are you so inept that you would threaten freedom of speech across the entire internet just because you dont know who to click a button?

Kyleran

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by ray12k

Originally posted by Hulluck

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by OG_Zorvan

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by Morrok

 

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
Any business (at least in America) can refuse to serve someone.

---

But no business can take my money and not deliver the service or product.

Movie theater example again for those who missed it the first time...

Got to a theater, purchase a ticket for a movie, and once inside, start to behave like a douche, making noise and shouting during the movie, launching popcorn and spraying soda on other moviegoers. Let's see how long you last, let's see if they let you finish the movie, let's see if you get a refund.

Point being, if you purchase access to a place with specific rules, be it in "real" life or online, and you break the rules, they can kick you out, and rightfully so, without refunding a cent. They will actually also make you pay the eventual damage you did.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by evilastro

If you had a subscription to a gym and you started abusing the staff there, you would be asked not to return and you would no longer be able to access the service, even though you paid for it. 

Frat boys partying in their hotel rooms (legally paid for, service) get tossed out by the cops every day,somewhere. Nope, no refund boys, and that damage is going on your CC too. Is she 21? The cops are going to ask.

Excellent examples too.

And both bad examples. Those are examples of specific owners of specific properties enforcing their own rules. What we are talking about here is Sony taking it upon themselves to police the entire fucking internet because some horse-faced nitwit Community Manager didn't get laid enough in high school, has found herself in a dead -end job, and wants to play with what little bit of power she can grab..

And if she's reading this, she can ban my ass for all I care, it's not hard to find my accounts. Numbnuts broad makes Smedley look like a freakin' Grade A genius.

Good job, I do believe you've managed to prove Linda's point perfectly.

 

I'm trying to understand where he's coming from and it really doesn't make sense to me.  I get it to a point but here's where I keep getting stuck.

-Is "ok" and has no problem with putting  real info out there for the world to see.  Or at the very least linking multiple accounts together across networks / services so that these accounts are easily identified as being said person if any of them are linked to an SOE run site. In that case real information wouldn't be needed as they are linked.

(Stop here if the above is not true:  SOE would not know who you are across sites if you didn't do one of the above. Simple fact is they are not going to try and find out either unless this person has done something severe enough to warrant it.

- If first is true: Be a dick, actually no. More like be the worst of the worst cunts out there on the World Wide Web so that you stand out above all the other trolling SOE customers.

- Raise Hell: When SOE decides that they might not want said persons money anymore or to be associated with this person because of their public behavior, raise hell.

 

Seems like there's a simple solution/work around for the moment at least if one wants to be a total dick-wad.  That said and in general: I'm almost to the point of smacking myself in the face over and over.  How is this even an issue? Does anyone who doesn't agree with this not see the irony? Not in regards to anything Zorvan said or anyone else but the "broad picture" and this so called "issue".  At some point a person has had to breach their own precious privacy enabling SOE to link their SOE held accounts to social media / off-site accounts. Maybe I am thinking to much into it and the hamster got going a bit to fast. 

 

 

NAH.... They want to control how their games are perceived. And are making a policy of threatening their player base for opposing them.

Sad part is the fan boys are lining up in carebear stare  mode protecting this idiotic stance...

Each new post from Ray2K, containing more or less veiled insults towards those who don't agree with him, proves that SoE may be on the right track actually. Even worse with OG_Zorvan, who is directly insulting a SoE female worker on her physical appearance and with childish assumptions about her sex life.

If people like that get perma-banned from future games I will play, I won't waste a tear.

Yeah, he seems to feel people who disagree with him are corporate sheep or something, when the truth is we're just people able to exercise restrain in our communication with others therefore have no real fear of actions such as these.

Sort of like those worried about the NSA spying on them.  I say go for it, they'll find my communications about as boring as they get.

 

Neo_Viper

Originally posted by 5Luck

And for some reason the ignore list isnt enough for you. are you so inept that you would threaten freedom of speech across the entire internet just because you dont know who to click a button?

And again, freedom of speech was never an excuse for behaving like an asshat without consequences. See the many examples that have been given in this thread, I don't feel like typing my movie theater example again, which is with 2 others in the huge quote pile you quoted anyway.

Just because you're safe in your home, more or less anonymous behind a screen, doesn't mean you are immune to consequences for breaking rules.

Ravenwolfie

Originally posted by Jyiiga

If they really try this, it would just lead to more trouble than it is worth. Having been a mod and having dealt with other mods in my lengthy MMO career, people can get a little power mad at times. You can't expect a company like SOE to make and enforce rules that are going to reach out across the social online spectrum.

Several problems come to mind immediately. How do you identify someone outside of the game? There are plenty of people using the same or similar user names of other players. There are also plenty of people with the same names in real life. Naturally they can't ask someone like Facebook or Twitter to divulge RL information.

Second issue. Could something like this be used to silence decent? SOE is not your friend, they are a business. Their number one priority is not looking out for your best interests, its looking out for their interest and the interest of their share holders. They are not a neutral party like say, a jury.

Third. This wouldn't be transparent. Anything they decide to do, would be done behind closed doors and they could tell you whatever they want. You wouldn't have a leg to stand on, unless you took them actual court over it. They could assassinate your character however they saw fit.

My problem is with the tone of the article I posted and not just the one extreme example that was given in said article.

Willing to bet at least one way they will find said accounts is via in game media sharing. Some games allow you to add your twitter and facebook information so you can post in game screen captures and accomplishments to your chosen social media outlet. Once you add those, they have a line on you to watch your behavior or whatever else it is they decide to do.

5Luck

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by 5Luck

And for some reason the ignore list isnt enough for you. are you so inept that you would threaten freedom of speech across the entire internet just because you dont know who to click a button?

And again, freedom of speech was never an excuse for behaving like an asshat without consequences. See the many examples that have been given in this thread, I don't feel like typing my movie theater example again, which is with 2 others in the huge quote pile you quoted anyway.

Just because you're safe in your home, more or less anonymous behind a screen, doesn't mean you are immune to consequences for breaking rules.

And this... coming from the company that just this month released a game where you can kill the police pick up hookers and rob banks... yea Im buying into this hookey

Neo_Viper

Originally posted by 5Luck

Originally posted by Neo_Viper

Originally posted by 5Luck

And for some reason the ignore list isnt enough for you. are you so inept that you would threaten freedom of speech across the entire internet just because you dont know who to click a button?

And again, freedom of speech was never an excuse for behaving like an asshat without consequences. See the many examples that have been given in this thread, I don't feel like typing my movie theater example again, which is with 2 others in the huge quote pile you quoted anyway.

Just because you're safe in your home, more or less anonymous behind a screen, doesn't mean you are immune to consequences for breaking rules.

And this... coming from the company that just this month released a game where you can kill the police pick up hookers and rob banks... yea Im buying into this hookey

They also released tons of games where you can kill innocent animals and other humans with swords, hammers and bows. That has nothing to do with a player breaking the rules of said games.

You don't make any sense.

If you are talking about GTA btw, it's not published by SoE at all, but by Rockstar Games.