Thank you for your s…oh…
Well, can I at least have your s…oh…
Cleaned up the threat a bit, by removing some Off-topic, Spam and Troll posts.
1 Like
Ask on twitter…
Nice troll 
Ban the Dots! The END is Nigh!
Plexpiration dates - I love it Coming soon!
2 Likes
(2) Termination of EULA
CCP may terminate the EULA, close all your Accounts, and cancel all rights granted to you under the EULA if: (i) your account has been inactive for a number of 90 days; (ii) CCP is unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide; (iii) you or anyone using any of your Accounts materially breaches the EULA, makes any unauthorized use of the System or Software, or infringes the rights of CCP or any third party; or (iv) CCP becomes aware of game play, chat or player activity under your Account that is, in CCP’s discretion, inappropriate, offensive, or in violation of the Rules of Conduct. Such termination shall be effective upon notice transmitted via electronic mail, or any other means reasonably calculated to reach you.
CCP reserves the right to terminate any and all other Accounts that share the name, phone number, e-mail address, internet protocol address or credit card number with the closed Account. Termination by CCP under this section shall be without prejudice to or waiver of any and all of CCP’s other rights or remedies, all of which are expressly reserved, survive termination, and are cumulative. You will not be entitled to receive a refund of fees for a termination pursuant to this section.
From the EULA.
2 Likes
OMG this is priceless. Thanks, Bernie!
It’s pretty standard language for any company that provides a service, really.
For the most part, companies don’t actually do that sort of stuff, and in the rare cases they do, the people being hit don’t usually pursue any recourse (because they think that “yeah, I got caught cheating, nothing I can do now”). But I imagine that one of these days someone will actually press a full case against this, and terms like these will be found to be against the law. Or some lobbying will happen, and they’ll change the law to erode some more human rights so that corporations can get away with this.
My guess is that they will have a hard time getting a jury together that will feel sorry for some gamer nerd. It would need to be an amazing set of circumstances.
They got rid of those years ago (they are bad for the economy).
Jury trials are usually reserved for criminal cases, though. This would be a civil dispute. It wouldn’t be so much about feeling sorry for a gaming nerd as it would be about determining whether something is actually legally-binding according to the law.
It depends on the country. Some countries really like juries and encourage their use.
The overarching rule of law throughout the world is that posession is 90% of the law. If the customer paid the company for something and the company has the money, then the courts are probably going to side with the company. If the company is trying to get money from the customer (that has not been paid yet), then the law is MUCH more likely to take the customer’s side.
That would be highly concerning. I’m sure it’s not that black and white. Otherwise, companies would be empowered to charge your credit card without you having purchased anything, and then claiming you did.
But if true, oh well. We’re all pretty old and will be dead soon anyway. Let the Zoomers take care of it.
Credit cards do make a grey area.
- No one knows
- Your stuff is only really safe in a highsec station.
- PLEX Vault = Money = Trust. They can’t touch that, otherwise they’d implode. The PLEX Vault solely exists exactly because they wanted to stop people from moving PLEX just to get ganked, exactly because people pay real money for PLEX.
I would normally agree with you, but CCP arbitrarily gimped asset safety. To me, that was pretty much the same as the Plex wallet - probably more important to the long term prospects of the game. And CCP just changed their mind on that one. BOOM, so sad.
1 Like
Arbitrarily?
It was a necessity to get people to remove Citadel spam …
… and a lot of people were really happy about the ABANDONED feature.
It looks like CCP cared more about making those happy who were around …
… than about making those happy who aren’t.
1 Like
They could have achieved the same ends by removing the need to war dec the structure holder. “Abandoned” could have meant that anybody can shoot it and just get a suspect flag. There was no need to remove a key feature.
What key feature did they remove?
Am I missing something, or are you talking about Asset Safety,
which is only missing specifically for ABANDONED structures?
Suspect flag. Yeah, no. That would have deterred a LOT of people …
… putting the feature into the hands of far fewer people.
Think about it. Random clouds of suspects around random citadels in any random system during that time. Literally everywhere. Nothing would have ever gotten done, because people would have just shot eachother.
If they merely intended to do that, they could have simply teleported inactive citadels to their owners’ hangars.
Yeah, the ones getting the drops were happy.
Actually, that’s not even true.
Many of those people thought it was an absolutely ridiculous decision by CCP, and only killed the citadels because, well, someone would have done it anyway.
Yeah because that makes so much more sense than letting people destroy it. Why not just teleport it away, magically. And everyone gets his stuff back, too. Come on, you can’t be serious.
Sure … if you think so.
In any case …
Since BlackOut we’ve had PvP Events.
We’ve had more PvP events than ever before.
Looks pretty clear to me that they’ve made the right decisions.
Yeah, I can. I don’t think you understand what the argument here is.
Here’s a chain of events:
- CCP creates citadels and announces and explains the asset safety system.
- Players play the game, and use citadels according to the rules presented to them.
- Some players leave the game temporarily, as is normal.
- With very little lead time, CCP announces this new gameplay mechanic, leaving some players, who initially used citadels under the current understanding of the existing rule set, with either no information, or no ability, to respond to it.
All of this was laid out in the big thread in which we discussed this.
The consensus overall was that this was a very specific, intentional move by CCP to get some new stories into the media.
To highlight the issue, specifically: it’s not a bad thing that abandoned citadels can from this point on drop their contents, but that CCP applied the rule retroactively to stations that were abandoned even before the rule was announced.
3 Likes