Banned - Exploiting the economy..

[Osmeric]

it STILL COUNTS as 'intentional interference with contractual relations' WITH OR WITHOUT A VALID CONTRACT

Um, no, it doesn't. Did you even bother to read what I quoted? The judge's statement directly contradicts what you just wrote there.

"In California, '[t]he elements . . . for intentional interference with contractual relations are (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; [...]'"

I mean, all the text is right there on the wiki. I already posted it once. I'm not 'confusing anything with anything else', you're the one not understanding that it doesn't matter if there is or is not a valid contract is place, because regardless, Blizzard's relationship to their customers is a business relationship. Any third party that gets in the way of that is guilty of tortious interference with or without a contract. With or without a contract. Is it sinking in yet?

But Blizzard didn't get a judgement for some other flavor of tortious interference. They got a judgement for tortious interfere with contractual relations. So your attempt to pretend the judgement was for something other than what it was for is mere irrelevant blather.

I suggest you remember the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

[Kryos]

I don't believe that you did nothing.

[Daerio]

I suggest you remember the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Suffice to say you're wrong, and either I lack the ability to effectively explain to you why, or you lack intelligence required to understand why. Or somewhere in between, I guess. But right on!

[Osmeric]

Suffice to say you're wrong, and either I lack the ability to effectively explain to you why, or you lack intelligence required to understand why. Or somewhere in between, I guess. But right on!

Your problem with finding a convincing explanation follows from you being wrong. I mean, you go so far as to directly contradict a statement a judge made that I quoted for you. It takes a special level of potato to do something like that.

[Daerio]

Your problem with finding a convincing explanation follows from you being wrong. I mean, you go so far as to directly contradict a statement a judge made that I quoted for you. It takes a special level of potato to do something like that.

The problem is I've been giving explanations for 3-4 pages now, and you just aren't being "convinced" by them. You say that's my problem, I say that's yours.

[fredsterr]

Why would the MMO champion community have an answer to that question? We're not blizzard, and we know about as much about the inner machinations of blizzard's GM team as you do.

I hate to say it, but try giving them a call and demanding an explanation if feel you were banned in error, and have been banned in error multiple times.

Thats not true, a few people of the MMO-Champ community have ins at Blizzard or worked for them before.

Yes, contacting blizz and asking them is the best way to go though.

[Osmeric]

The problem is I've been giving explanations for 3-4 pages now, and you just aren't being "convinced" by them. You say that's my problem, I say that's yours.

You've given explanations that are wrong. For example, you deliberately blurred "tortious interference with contractual relations" into "tortious interference", and then pretended the judgement was about something other than what it was actually about.

I'm not sure if you tried to pull this switcheroo deliberately, or if you're just too dim to see the mistake you made. In any case, anyone else reading this thread can see your mistake as well. You are wrong, and the plain language of what I linked shows you are wrong.

[Daerio]

You've given explanations that are wrong. For example, you deliberately blurred "tortious interference with contractual relations" into "tortious interference", and then pretended the judgement was about something other than what it was actually about.

I'm not sure if you tried to pull this switcheroo deliberately, or if you're just too dim to see the mistake you made. In any case, anyone else reading this thread can see your mistake as well. You are wrong, and the plain language of what I linked shows you are wrong.

There was no "deliberate blurring" of the terms. It's right there on the wiki. Both of those specific situations fall under the same general term of "tortious interference", now whether that's the fault of the English language, I can't say. I didn't alter the quote or the words at all. You're the one determined not to comprehend what I'm puttin' down. But if you keep arguing I'm sure you'll win something, like a door prize.

They can make that claim in a judgement that has nothing to do with ToS, and it can remain unchallenged, because it's irrelevant. What would be the point in taking the time and money to prove that the ToS is invalid, if it doesn't put them in the clear to sell their bot? (which it doesn't, because it STILL COUNTS as 'intentional interference with contractual relations' WITH OR WITHOUT A VALID CONTRACT)

http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...#ixzz35aCVPQq1

'Contractual relationship':

Legal relationship between contracting-parties evidenced by (1) an offer, (2) acceptance of the offer, and a (3) valid (legal and valuable) consideration. Existence of a contractual relationship, however, does not necessarily mean the contract is enforceable, that it is not void (see void contract), or not voidable (see voidable contract).

Are we there yet? (I'll throw this back in there again just for quick reference too)

Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

So again in summary, that case you linked absolutely does not prove or even imply that the ToS/EULA cannot be voided. Or that the ToS allows Warden to globally monitor every WoW player's computer just because you say so.

[xindralol]

Could be that someone had compromised your account and used it as a mule to transfer gold from account to account. Blizzard do not just randomly ban their subscribers.
Just ticket them and explain yourself to their support and they will do a deeper review on your account and lift the ban.

correction: they will do a review.

most of these bans are automated and (99% sure) not reviewed at all.

[Deleted]

All the time you have spent here harping about your ban on the forums you could have called Blizzard and had it figured out by now.

Yeah, cause Blizzard answers the next minute right after sending a ticket right? Cause getting second opinions and additional advice and experiences from others is always a bad idea, right? Because this thread has no potential for helping others, right?

So much stupidity in your post it's unbelievable.

[Battlegrounds]

Yeah, Blizzard's never lost a lawsuit in the history of the world, because it's not on the first page of google. There's common sense.

Losing a lawsuit doesn't mean they were successfully sued by banned accounts.

Post #115 regarding sealed civil case suits.

Sealed cases that you know everything about? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right?

[Deleted]

So, if you can't provide a link, where exactly did YOU learn about these supposed lawsuits? And why did you believe that source, assuming you are not just making shit up?

- - - Updated - - -



You're totally wrong. You agree to let Warden do that when you click through the ToS. Otherwise, they don't let you play the game at all.

As far as I know it works like this:

Law>Company ToS

If a company's ToS goes against Law or Human Rights, it's invalid.



- - - Updated - - -

They don't do it for no reason, you don't have to be the reason for them to bann your account. And yes it is a useless post. The one about pens that don't work is more interesting then this.

The usefulness of this post is completelly subjective, fool. It's not a post for everyone.

I assume you are not trying to get a banned account back at this time, so it's not useful for you. For me? It's useful.

Wow, think a bit before posting stuff that makes you look like an ignorant prick.

[Daerio]

Sealed cases that you know everything about? You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right?

Well, I never said I know everything about them. I don't know the names of the individuals involved. I know as much as I researched about them at the time, and I'm sure the facts of those cases vary plenty. I did a little bit of reading, and I figured out what legal argument they used to get their money back, and I remembered it. I think everyone should at least have cursory knowledge of our legal system. The opposite of learning how the system actually works is assuming you know things like "Blizzard can't be sued because ToS." Wrong.

You also shouldn't assume that as an individual you have less rights than a corporation or another individual, or that you can't use those rights.

[pinkz]

Never even touched the account for months. Just added some time, played a few bgs and arena and that's it. No hacking, no exploiting, no nothing.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, I did and waiting for reply. However why do these happen?

you say you subscribed and have been playing 4 days, also did BC and arenas. did you pay $$ for a arena, RBG, etc type boosts? they have been banning on this too as economy exploiting

[Deja Thoris]

This happened to me as well today. It got overturned in about 90 minutes with me just writing a ticket.

The response I was given was
"Having investigated the actions taken against this account, we believe this account may have been accessed via a Proxy Service.

We appreciate there are circumstances when use of a proxy can be beneficial, however such services are routinely used to hide the actions of Online Trading companies and by users attempting to operate exploitative third party programs. As such, we do not support the use of proxy services and continued use may result in further account action. Furthermore, any losses suffered while using a proxy cannot be restored.

After a careful investigation of your account warning, we have agreed to remove the warning and suspension of your account from the World of Warcraft servers."

I do use a proxy because I live in South Africa and it gives a better ping (its WTFast) I was skeptical about them but it does actually reduce my ping a bit and my spikes a lot. Thing is I've been using it for about 5 months without issue and then suddenly the ban. Oh well, it got overturned. Can't say I'm thrilled with the ban but the response time was A+

[Didacticus Syntacticus]

the First Rule of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

Holes are a difficult subject.

[Marema]

I've had several bans for this reason. If you move a large some of gold from one account to another you will be auto banned. You'll have to call and have it settled. It's not that hard.

[Flatspriest]

This happened to me as well today. It got overturned in about 90 minutes with me just writing a ticket.

The response I was given was
"Having investigated the actions taken against this account, we believe this account may have been accessed via a Proxy Service.

We appreciate there are circumstances when use of a proxy can be beneficial, however such services are routinely used to hide the actions of Online Trading companies and by users attempting to operate exploitative third party programs. As such, we do not support the use of proxy services and continued use may result in further account action. Furthermore, any losses suffered while using a proxy cannot be restored.

After a careful investigation of your account warning, we have agreed to remove the warning and suspension of your account from the World of Warcraft servers."

I do use a proxy because I live in South Africa and it gives a better ping (its WTFast) I was skeptical about them but it does actually reduce my ping a bit and my spikes a lot. Thing is I've been using it for about 5 months without issue and then suddenly the ban. Oh well, it got overturned. Can't say I'm thrilled with the ban but the response time was A+

The main rule to remember when using a proxy server is to use the same tunnel each and every time you connect to any Blizzard site or game. Otherwise, it can appear that you are logging in from different places in violation of the laws of physics since you can appear to be logging in from your home one second, and half way around the world another. These will cause the "exploiting the economy" bans as the criminals love to use proxy servers to try and hide their crimes and guilt.

I've had several bans for this reason. If you move a large some of gold from one account to another you will be auto banned. You'll have to call and have it settled. It's not that hard.

Considering that Account Administration, the department that deals with bans and suspensions, does not have a direct access phone number, that would be impossible. Blizzard also did away with direct calling them and set it up where they have the call back service now instead. Even then, it is only Billing, and the Tech Support departments that are reachable that way. All others require going through the ticketing system to reach the correct departments and wait for a resolution.

[zephid]

Yes they do. They are allowed to suspend you for any reason.

Yes they are allowed to do that but they don't. They don't ban people randomly, they always have some kind of reason behind it.

[Mirishka]

It's because warden banned you for sending a bunch of mats to others with the wow mail system. Warden isn't smart enough to know when you are MAILING YOUR OWN FUCKING ALTS. If you were logging in and out back and forth between your own characters it triggers the stupid ass WoW spying system

Horseshit.

I've mailed tens of thousands of gold (at once), countless mats and items, stacks upon stacks upon stacks of gems and countless other things and I have *never* been banned or so much as warned for it.