New Terms of Service

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by SlikRick

The only bans I allowed to happen,without warning, while I was manager was willful destruction of the server, deleting files, etc., and hacking.

Exactly. You allowed it, therefor there was a "clause" for it, so to say. If it can happen, then in a set of rules typically you should disclose that it CAN happen. That's all that's going on here.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Exactly. You allowed it, therefor there was a "clause" for it, so to say. If it can happen, then in a set of rules typically you should disclose that it CAN happen. That's all that's going on here.

That's two different scenarios.

Rick was protecting the actual server's stability. Which yes is the same goal as UN's, but I'm certain that the scenario of why it had been allowed could have changed whether a warning was necessary or not.

These rules are merely dictations of punishment for committing them, They appear to say that they don't need to warn you AT ALL, no matter the situation.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

That's two different scenarios.

Rick was protecting the actual server's stability. Which yes is the same goal as UN's, but I'm certain that the scenario of why it had been allowed could have changed whether a warning was necessary or not.

These rules are merely dictations of punishment for committing them, They appear to say that they don't need to warn you AT ALL, no matter the situation.

No it's not different. They would ban without warning if needed. It doesn't matter if it's for server stability, it's still the point that they would ban someone without warning them. UN is simply telling players that it can happen if it needs to happen. This is important because not every situation is the same. Massing porn for example. Maybe massing goatse would qualify to let them off with a warning, MAYBE(and that's being lenient). But massing CP? Does that mean because the rules say you're allowed a warning first that massing CP would get you off with a warning since it was just your first time? Do you think that's acceptable? No. Therefor the disclosure makes sense.

I seriously don't see what the hell all the commotion/confusion is about.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

No it's not different. They would ban without warning if needed. It doesn't matter if it's for server stability, it's still the point that they would ban someone without warning them. UN is simply telling players that it can happen if it needs to happen. This is important because not every situation is the same. Massing porn for example. Maybe massing goatse would qualify to let them off with a warning, MAYBE(and that's being lenient). But massing CP? Does that mean because the rules say you're allowed a warning first that massing CP would get you off with a warning since it was just your first time? Do you think that's acceptable? No. Therefor the disclosure makes sense.

I seriously don't see what the hell all the commotion/confusion is about.

Goatse I'm certain would not be a warning at all. Last I checked the ******* is as offensive as any other part of the middle region of the body, back or front.

But back on topic: I think I'm understanding better, I promise my intention isn't to play devil's advocate.
Like you said, there's commotion and confusion, I'm merely on the confused portion.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Goatse I'm certain would not be a warning at all. Last I checked the ******* is as offensive as any other part of the middle region of the body, back or front.

Exactly. No warning = the rule everyone is whining about is being applied. What's the problem? Certain situations call for punishment without warning, which is what that clause covers. It has to be vague because they can't predict or narrow down every circumstance that would qualify for action without warning.

I get the feeling people are throwing up their arms in protest for very little reason other than the fact they want to act like a problem is there when it's not for drama or something.

[SlikRick]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Exactly. You allowed it, therefor there was a "clause" for it, so to say. If it can happen, then in a set of rules typically you should disclose that it CAN happen. That's all that's going on here.

It is a well known fact that if you delete content on the server without permission, you're done. As for the hacking that is in Graal's ToS that it will not be tolerated.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by SlikRick

It is a well known fact that if you delete content on the server without permission, you're done. As for the hacking that is in Graal's ToS that it will not be tolerated.

Same ToS says your account can be terminated without warning.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Same ToS says your account can be terminated without warning.

You're right about this. But it doesn't hold relevancy towards UN's ToS for it's about the way undesired actions are to be treated and agreed upon not doing. This is merely stating that Graal itself holds the right to do what they wish with the account you've rented.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

You're right about this. But it doesn't hold relevancy towards UN's ToS for it's about the way undesired actions are to be treated and agreed upon not doing. This is merely stating that Graal itself holds the right to do what they wish with the account you've rented.

He's saying graal tos gives him the right to ban without warning; I'm saying the same tos gives un the same rights to do the same thing.

[SlikRick]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

He's saying graal tos gives him the right to ban without warning; I'm saying the same tos gives un the same rights to do the same thing.

The Graal ToS I was referring to was hacking, which gives you an advantage to do whatever you want and makes the game unfair to others.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by SlikRick

The Graal ToS I was referring to was hacking, which gives you an advantage to do whatever you want and makes the game unfair to others.

Ya and what I'm saying is the very ToS that says you can be banned for hacking because it's unfair says you can be banned at any time for no reason. All I'm saying is UN's ToS isn't going against the same ToS everyone agrees to when they signed up for Graal, so I don't see the problem.

And again, these are things that were all applicable(and apparently in place for an entire year) that no one ever even knew about. Just reinforcing my stance that it's no big deal.