What are you going to press when the social contract pops up?

[Gaidax]

This is just not a case to be contrarian about.

I have no idea what goes through a head of people who'd choose "exit game" here. It's like 2 yo that learned the magic word - "no".

Blizzard's failures in managing the community are irrelevant in context of practically agreeing to not be a dick in-game.

[Talon8669]

Ah you're my southern neighbour. Guess that makes a lot of sense.

- - - Updated - - -



So on one side of the Social Contract they're asking you to try and help out and be a decent person by not insulting or harassing someone. Maybe even go the extra mile and help them out with a quest or provide information. That isn't a rule they're making. You don't HAVE to do any of the positive things they're asking you to do in the first part of the Social Contract. You won't get banned because you didn't say Hello or answer someones question.

On the other side of the Social Contract they're reminding you not to do these bad things to people like harassing, insulting, etc. and if you think they're JUST telling you to stop doing this now then you haven't been paying attention to the rules for the last 17 years. That kind of behaviour has never been accepted. Has this rule evolved over time? Yes, because times has changed and some sections of life has gained a bigger voice then before.

So being told what to do? They've technically been doing that the second you accepted the terms of their ToS. You literally cannot go through life without being told what to do. What do you think instructions are? Or the rules at your work? Or even the rules for driving? So the whole "I don't like being told what to do" argument is just stupid.

Right...I never said it wasn't a stupid argument I tossed it out there for perspective. Some people tend to hear someone say hey you have to do this and they immediately go "oh no I don't." Like I said the need for the social contract I think is ridiculous to begin with. The idea that you have to ask/remind people to be decent is pretty shity; you would think that would come naturally. But then you can watch trade chat or some of these other chat channels like LFG in classic and the majority of it is just toxic trash; the WoW community in general from my experience is pretty toxic. I don't really think flashing a social contract and having people click the accept button is going to do much. I am concerned people may try abuse it to troll or hurt others they may not like; time will only tell on this one. Personally I am neither for nor against it, I don't particularly behave in any negative behavior in game unless someone starts something with me; has rarely happened but when it has it's either been around PvP or a group of players in LFG trolling people and when this happens the block button goes a long way.

[Aydinx2]

Right...I never said it wasn't a stupid argument I tossed it out there for perspective. Some people tend to hear someone say hey you have to do this and they immediately go "oh no I don't." Like I said the need for the social contract I think is ridiculous to begin with. The idea that you have to ask/remind people to be decent is pretty shity; you would think that would come naturally. But then you can watch trade chat or some of these other chat channels like LFG in classic and the majority of it is just toxic trash; the WoW community in general from my experience is pretty toxic. I don't really think flashing a social contract and having people click the accept button is going to do much. I am concerned people may try abuse it to troll or hurt others they may not like; time will only tell on this one. Personally I am neither for nor against it, I don't particularly behave in any negative behavior in game unless someone starts something with me; has rarely happened but when it has it's either been around PvP or a group of players in LFG trolling people and when this happens the block button goes a long way.

Based on how hard you backlash against this, I'd say them asking for a confirmation is fair.
They need a clickable social contract because they can then use that as an argument for why they ban/punish someone. "You accepted the terms, so you accept the punishment".

What's wrong with guns? Guns save lives.

Yeah just don't give them to the general population.

[Diaphin]

Yeah just don't give them to the general population.

Could you maybe not contribute quotes from others to me? Thanks.

[Aydinx2]

Could you maybe not contribute quotes from others to me? Thanks.

Blame the other guy. His bad formatting messed with the quotes :^)

[loras]

As I said; the proof is in the pudding. If Blizzard were worried about people charging back 3 years of subscriptions on their credit cards as you say, there is zero chance they would implement something like this. They aren't. Ergo: You think you know more than the people in charge of a multi-billion dollar company and their desire to keep their money.

What you say is utterly irrelevant if it is not born out in reality; the current reality simply does not reflect what you say in any location. If it did, everyone who quits WoW would just charge back the 3 years for free money. I live in Australia, whose consumer protection laws are as strong or stronger than Europe. It still doesn't and won't stop Blizzard banning people if they think it will benefit their bottom line to do so.

You claim this is all the case because nobody has challenged it, but that is utterly your own opinion; as you say, it has never been tested. As a result, the entirety of your opinion is based on your rationalizations of the law and not the applied reality of the law.

- - - Updated - - -



And as a result your steam account was banned in the process, along with any other products associated with it. If it wasn't, you are lying. Charging back to steam, or to Blizzard, results in an immediate and irreversible ban on the account until "the dispute has been settled", which means you ain't getting your account back unless you pay back the chargeback. This is true of almost any large company, since it is the only protection they have against fraudulent chargebacks. You are within your rights to request a charge back, but that doesn't mean the company are just going to say "oh well, sucks for us". Hope you didn't link any other games to steam or play any other Blizzard games you wanted to keep playing.

The TLR; is that you can absolutely get your money back by issuing a charge back, but it will absolutely mean that you lose your account in its entirety, permanently.

Given that i meet regularly with the lawyers they hire to handle these sorts of affairs daily (they happen to be family; no none have worked on cases pertaining to Blizzard directly so far), yes, yes i do.
I mean i can't expect you to believe such a claim so i will not use it further, but it is nonetheless vital to understanding why i am saying this stuff.
Also i was not the one who claimed the random "3 years" thing, that stuff is defined in local law at least here and can be stretched up to at least twenty years here, depending on the exact nature of the case of course.

I think you're not completely there mate, the three years would be charged from Blizzard; this stuff is not based on consumer protection per se but rather on fundamental differences between at least dutch law (and by extension European law in at least France, Germany and Belgium) and American (and apparantly also Australian) law; We do not consider a group of people to be in any way comparable to singular people; an entirely different set of laws applies. It's why going simplistic "better" vs. "worse" is pretty pointless, as here you can just upend corporate contracts without infringing on individual liberties by restraining their freedom of decision (i.e. we have a black list of things that immediately voids any given contract in favor of the individual if such clauses are included, one among them is any clause that imfringes on constitutional freedoms by demanding, say, censorship on unreasonable basis and yada yada; obviously i'm simplifying stuff here and doing shoddy translations of legal terms).
(apologies for poor translations here, it's specialised language i'm no lawyer per se but rather i am specialised more in the practical side of implementing the rules in an organisation).

You seem to care about this stuff an aweful lot, and it does not seem to do your coherence any favors.
Perhaps it would help if you just said what bothers you so, rather than pretending that people nodding mindless agreements will change anything.

[Talon8669]

Based on how hard you backlash against this, I'd say them asking for a confirmation is fair.
They need a clickable social contract because they can then use that as an argument for why they ban/punish someone. "You accepted the terms, so you accept the punishment".


Yeah just don't give them to the general population.

I think your misconstruing what my intentions are. I 100% will be clicking the accept button because I 100% don't care. The social contract will 100% not affect me in anyway. I was merely playing devils advocate for everyone who says this is a great thing to perhaps see or another perspective. You know, so people can have constructive conversation. But I guess that's kind of pointless these days as people only want to live in an echo chamber. But then again you read my last comment and considered this to be "hard backlash." Still confused on this because I don't read any "backlash" in my comment.

[Drudi]

Yeah good luck with that then. You have a right to play a video game by law after you break their EULA?

My right to use a product is defined by applicable law, which includes general rights guaranteed by the law and rights accrued through a binding contract - when the product was purchased. EULA, being part of that binding contract, is applicable only to the extent allowed by the law.

So yes, if EULA forces me to agree on something that violates applicable law, my agreement means nothing in the eyes of the law: appropriate condition is de jure not part of the contract. And yes, I will keep using the product of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that i meet regularly with the lawyers they hire to handle these sorts of affairs daily (they happen to be family; no none have worked on the three years would be charged from Blizzard; this stuff is not based on consumer protection per se but rather on fundamental differences between at least dutch law (and by extension European law in at least France, Germany and Belgium) and American (and apparantly also Australian) law; We do not consider a group of people to be in any way comparable to singular people; an entirely different set of laws applies. It's why going simplistic "better" vs. "worse" is pretty pointless, as here you can just upend corporate contracts without infringing on individual liberties by restraining their freedom of decision (i.e. we have a black list of things that immediately voids any given contract in favor of the individual if such clauses are included, one among them is any clause that imfringes on constitutional freedoms by demanding, say, censorship on unreasonable basis and yada yada

Exactly the same for me here. Including "censorship on unreasonable basis" part - it's grounds enough for claiming a disfunctional product case and receiving a 100% refund plus interest-based compensation. So yes, when someone deletes your post on Steam, because, say, they do not agree with your opinion - or because that post "violates their ToS that you're implicitly agreed to" - it's censorship and you basically have the right to get a refund for ALL your spendings within 3 years period.

And you WILL get this refund processed if you file for it.
And Steam knows that. Pretty much blizz and major platforms too.

- - - Updated - - -

If you refuse to play because of a contract that in broad terms boils down to "don't be a cunt", look inwards.

It's not about disagreeing to not being a cunt. It's about following some idiotic rules that you shouldn't care about. Or you're really paying $15/mo to follow the rules that somebody got outta their ass, and not to enjoy yourself?

[Hitei]

It's not about disagreeing to not being a cunt. It's about following some idiotic rules that you shouldn't care about. Or you're really paying $15/mo to follow the rules that somebody got outta their ass, and not to enjoy yourself?

It is about not agreeing to "not be a cunt", because that's what the rules "that somebody pulled out of their ass" equate to.

A decent person would find that such rules don't even begin to impact them playing the game "to enjoy themselves". But given how your brief post history includes you whining about how gay people are "disgusting" "sexual deviants" who are "damaging society"...

...I can see why you might find agreeing not to be a cunt a disruptive and impactful rule to have to follow.

[Jester Joe]

My right to use a product is defined by applicable law, which includes general rights guaranteed by the law and rights accrued through a binding contract - when the product was purchased. EULA, being part of that binding contract, is applicable only to the extent allowed by the law.

So yes, if EULA forces me to agree on something that violates applicable law, my agreement means nothing in the eyes of the law: appropriate condition is de jure not part of the contract. And yes, I will keep using the product of course.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly the same for me here. Including "censorship on unreasonable basis" part - it's grounds enough for claiming a disfunctional product case and receiving a 100% refund plus interest-based compensation. So yes, when someone deletes your post on Steam, because, say, they do not agree with your opinion - or because that post "violates their ToS that you're implicitly agreed to" - it's censorship and you basically have the right to get a refund for ALL your spendings within 3 years period.

And you WILL get this refund processed if you file for it.
And Steam knows that. Pretty much blizz and major platforms too.

- - - Updated - - -



It's not about disagreeing to not being a cunt. It's about following some idiotic rules that you shouldn't care about. Or you're really paying $15/mo to follow the rules that somebody got outta their ass, and not to enjoy yourself?

This sounds more like you've heard of a few situations where gaming companies lost lawsuits in the EU and now you think that the law is some ultimate shield against the company doing any behavior you don't like.

Like hell you're going to get all your money back from Steam over a 3 year period because a post was deleted. Like, do you genuinely believe that? Because you seem to be missing the disconnect between WoW as a product and Steam as a storefront.

[Drudi]

It is about not agreeing to "not be a cunt", because that's what the rules "that somebody pulled out of their ass" equate to.

A decent person would find that such rules don't even begin to impact them playing the game "to enjoy themselves". But given how your brief post history includes you whining about how gay people are "disgusting" "sexual deviants" who are "damaging society"...

...I can see why you might find agreeing not to be a cunt a disruptive and impactful rule to have to follow.

I see that you were unable to comprehend the case with long term damage to the society. No wonder. But I will give you a hint: what would happen to the society if 100% of the population is gay? We - humankind - would cease to exist as a species. If you don't understand why this is a long term damage, then talking to you is similar to talking to a wall.

[FelPlague]

I see that you were unable to comprehend the case with long term damage to the society. No wonder. But I will give you a hint: what would happen to the society if 100% of the population is gay? We - humankind - would cease to exist as a species. If you don't understand why this is a long term damage, then talking to you is similar to talking to a wall.

you do know gay people can still have kids right?

[ChairmanKaga]

I would love it if the 20% assholes would just disappear from the game.

[Lochton]

you do know gay people can still have kids right?

Don't tell him. Some live in blissful ignorance.

[Drudi]

This sounds more like you've heard of a few situations where gaming companies lost lawsuits in the EU and now you think that the law is some ultimate shield against the company doing any behavior you don't like.

Like hell you're going to get all your money back from Steam over a 3 year period because a post was deleted. Like, do you genuinely believe that? Because you seem to be missing the disconnect between WoW as a product and Steam as a storefront.

I had several refunds with Steam (7-8 total), 3 or 4 being what you call a "chargeback" when Steam refused to refund, so I had to refund through filing it with my bank. One of those cases was this: I went to Steam's discussions (part of the Steam's service) to ask a game-related question, the game was a driving sim and it had incorrect maps, resulting in incorrect statistics being produced in-game. Somebody else replied in a very aggressive manner, challenging my point about maps being incorrect and trying to claim that a geographic region in question is part of a different country than it actually belongs to. While I do understand that world is big and there's no universal view on certain things, asking that your own country is correctly present in a product that you buy in the said country is certainly safe.
Or should be. Steam (apparently not steam itself, but mods related to the specific game) banned my account from the game's forum with some makeshift reason. Steam refused refund, then I got it from my bank - on the basis that I was illegimately denied access to the discussons section related to the specific game, which was part of my purchase; so generally service that I've paid for was not provided in full.

- - - Updated - - -

you do know gay people can still have kids right?

You know that they actually can't, right? You need a man and a woman to produce a child.

[Mysterymask]

You know that they actually can't, right? You need a man and a woman to produce a child.

If only there was some artificial way to do that....like a way to artificially fertilize an egg or even have a person carry the child for the couple..something like a surrogate or something

oh wait

[AcidicSyn]

From what I can understand with my teenie tiny brain. This is just a "Hey the ToS says to not be a dick, remember to not be a dick, do you promise to do that?
If you're feeling froggy, maybe help someone out from time to time, but mostly just don't be a dick." button.

Considering this is already how I play any multiplayer game, I'm not worried.

[Drudi]

If only there was some artificial way to do that....like a way to artificially fertilize an egg or even have a person carry the child for the couple..something like a surrogate or something

oh wait

Yes. This still involves an actual man and a woman - to carry a child and give birth. Gays are not involved here anyhow.

[Jester Joe]

I had several refunds with Steam (7-8 total), 3 or 4 being what you call a "chargeback" when Steam refused to refund, so I had to refund through filing it with my bank. One of those cases was this: I went to Steam's discussions (part of the Steam's service) to ask a game-related question, the game was a driving sim and it had incorrect maps, resulting in incorrect statistics being produced in-game. Somebody else replied in a very aggressive manner, challenging my point about maps being incorrect and trying to claim that a geographic region in question is part of a different country than it actually belongs to. While I do understand that world is big and there's no universal view on certain things, asking that your own country is correctly present in a product that you buy in the said country is certainly safe.
Or should be. Steam (apparently not steam itself, but mods related to the specific game) banned my account from the game's forum with some makeshift reason. Steam refused refund, then I got it from my bank - on the basis that I was illegimately denied access to the discussons section related to the specific game, which was part of my purchase; so generally service that I've paid for was not provided in full.

...Chargebacks are not even nearly the same as what you're initially talking about. The fact that you were refused initially because of some weird issue you had with a game specifically, and then getting banned on the forums has nothing to do with being able to use a chargeback.

That also isn't how chargebacks are meant to be used. The steam forums for games isn't some privilege you buy the game to get, it's just meant for discussion/help. If you keep using chargebacks as a fancy return system, you're the one who's going to land in hot water. They're meant for protection against fraud and scams, not "company wouldn't refund me >:( ".

[Drudi]

...Chargebacks are not even nearly the same as what you're initially talking about. The fact that you were refused initially because of some weird issue you had with a game specifically, and then getting banned on the forums has nothing to do with being able to use a chargeback.

That also isn't how chargebacks are meant to be used. The steam forums for games isn't some privilege you buy the game to get, it's just meant for discussion/help. If you keep using chargebacks as a fancy return system, you're the one who's going to land in hot water. They're meant for protection against fraud and scams, not "company wouldn't refund me > ".

I understand what you're talking about here. Even more - I completely agree with that system and that reason. They are totally fine, as long as I can use my rights guaranteed by the law - as opposed to their limited version implied by some EULA/TOS - in full, including the refund scenario.