Wrong.
A claim was made that a law was broken. Law is very much about jurisdiction, so where he lives is important to a claim that he broke the law.
Nothing other then that. Internet lawyering is stupid. The issue of breaking the EULA is enough without assumptions and layman’s views on whether laws have been broken, because none of us are qualified to comment on that.
Holy ■■■■ at this point.
Go read my earlier posts. I agree 100% (more is that made any logical sense) that he broke the EULA. That is totally in CCP’s ballpark to decide how to respond.
No disagreement that he broke the EULA. The only thing we disagree on is the extent of the punishment. Move past it. I’m just one random guy on the internet. It’s not like my opinion matters at all, yet I’m still entitled to it.
the claim you maybe referring to is when I mention that in my country of Canada indeed a law was broken - however maybe in the country where gigx lives this is not the same law. CCP still has the right to notify the authorites, and let them act on it in the Real world. the fact that you agreed to their eula throws away all your rights once you break it.
No, a threat to bodily injury was made in-game, repeatedly, by gigx and under his alt account, and just today by people who want to punch Judge at Vegas. The terms of the EULA are what matter and CCPs enforcement of said EULA.
agreed, your opinion is invalid but you are free to give it. #bangigx4life
The fun thing about a crime commited in multiple Jurisdictions is you can be tried multiple times!
You wot?
The Australian wot?
Lie down. There is no such law as you have cited.
The crime you want to discuss is actually two crimes, statutory “assault” and common law assault. Now statutory assault is defined at s.31(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 and it requires the actual application of force to the victim. So gigx is clear.
One of the elements of common law Assault is the “imminent” threat of force. It has to be proximate in time and place. So gigx is clear here, too.
Therefore, it is nonsense to suggest that gigx has committee any kind of crime against the judge under australian law.
Indeed, the only remedies for aggrieved parties here would be civil suits, and the only person to have lost anything of significance is gigx.
In his jurisdiction, a judge may entertain a suit against CCP simply because that judge might believe CCP are a vile institution. In fact, CCP better hope gigx doesn’t have a grandmother who is inclined to hear such a claim. It would cost them a bomb in legal fees.
That is strange to hear - the person was heated due to his dedication to the game for the last 10 years and such and then due to his in-game actions opposite to others he was ripped off and then got mad and said some words which against EULA so is that mean that official rules should be changed and excuses given that person was acting under anger so no punishment at all.
If you known for your ‘cowboy’ style - first shoot than talk you better take couple of days break and assign all management to the trusted folks the only thing is if you don’t build up a trusted team due to your angrish behaviours.
Feel sorry for him but Karma is something you won’t hide.
Apparent Ability = Asking several hundred people to engage in a manhunt for his personal details, stating hell be visiting him soon
And I’d say transmitting harassing messages through an electronic device requires some form of bodily act.
Yes. I haven’t said anything different. This is stupid at this point.
The only thing I have said is that:
claiming that he broke a law is pointless, unless you are in law enforcement or criminal justice in Serbia. None of us are qualified to make that judgement (but it has been made above); and
I personally think the permaban of all his accounts was a bit harsh.
That’s it.
He broke the EULA? Absolutely.
He should be punished? Absolutely.
What he did was wrong, both morally (from my perspective on morals) and EULA? Absolutely.
Should he have had all his accounts permabanned? Not in my view, given the circumstances.
30 days. Absolutely.
However, it’s perfectly fine that other people agree with the decision that CCP have made. No problem there. I just don’t happen to agree with the punishment they have handed out.
however, in the eula we all agreed that any and all greivences will be seen in a court in Iceland. so enjoy your 3 months sub refund.
he broke the EULA how many times in a matter of 5 minutes. breaking it once is one thing, but soo many infractions define a stiffer penalty. blame gigx for not knowing when to stop. he brought this upon himself.
Then quote for me what legal clause he broke.
No wikipedia links. Quote the actual laws that he broke.
Oh Oh!! [ jumps up & down ] I know this one, the answers mittani isn’t it? 
hmm… and maybe me, I think deep down inside I might want that as well, but then don’t we all 
The EULA applies to civil disputes, assaults criminal. The Eula doesn’t exonerate you from following the laws of the country you live in or the country you’re sending electronic communication to.
Idk. But to build trust over several years and then break it in a moment of game history. I want to be a part of that someday. You guys want to be friends?
Yes, he broke the EULA. Maybe if I say it one more time, you’ll understand that I agree with you.
He broke the EULA (this is about the 10th time I’ve written it now).
Yes, he bought it on himself. Yes, he should not have done it. Yes he deserves to be punished.
Move past it. I’m a nobody. My opinion on the punishment isn’t worth this much attention. It’s just an opinion…one that’s completely irrelevant.
Yes, at this point it is stupid, because the local laws don’t matter when it comes to the rules of playing the game. Disagree with CCP’s decision all you want, but you can read gigx’s ban letter yourself (another violation) and determine whether CCP acted within the rules they set.
Yes thank you. That’s what I was saying. Somewhere, it seems people think I have taken the opposite view.
From http://www.osce.org/serbia/18244?download=true
Place of Commission of Criminal Offence
Article 17
(1) A criminal offence is committed both at the place where the perpetrator acted or was
obliged to act, and where full or partial consequences of the act occurred.
(2) An attempted criminal offence shall be considered committed both at the place where
the offender acted and at the place where consequences of his intent should or could have
occurred.
Endangerment of Safety
Article 138
(1) Whoever endangers the safety of another by threat of attack against the life or body of
such person or a person close to him,
shall be punished with fine or imprisonment up to one year.
(2) Whoever commits the offence specified in paragraph 1 of this Article against several
persons or if the offence causes anxiety of citizens or other serious consequences,
shall be punished with imprisonment of three months to three years.