New Terms of Service

[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.

[Unkownsoldier]

What is this business about limiting your rights? As long as you behave maturely I don't ever see you even encountering the rule system on UN. If you don't behave maturely then what can you say? You deserve to get punished. It is as simple as that.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Unkownsoldier

What is this business about limiting your rights? As long as you behave maturely I don't ever see you even encountering the rule system on UN. If you don't behave maturely then what can you say? You deserve to get punished. It is as simple as that.

Because UN is clearly known for it's highly mature and sophisticated image

[Unkownsoldier]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Because UN is clearly known for it's highly mature and sophisticated image

We have all played UN and know what type of people play it, rules being enforced strictly probably helps the server rather than hurts it. If we let the players do what they wanted to do this game would probably be a crappier version of Gary's mod and a turn off to new players.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Unkownsoldier

We have all played UN and know what type of people play it, rules being enforced strictly probably helps the server rather than hurts it. If we let the players do what they wanted to do this game would probably be a crappier version of Gary's mod and a turn off to new players.

Do you mind me asking how confident you are in this statement?

[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.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

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.

Very true, but at the same time, this isn't on topic, but my question is this.

How many people actually read through that ToS at all back then when they agreed to it?
I also doubt many can actually remember. Anything presented nowadays would probably be by recent glances.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Very true, but at the same time, this isn't on topic, but my question is this.

How many people actually read through that ToS at all back then when they agreed to it?
I also doubt many can actually remember. Anything presented nowadays would probably be by recent glances.

ToS agreements can always be viewed at a later time, so even if a user agrees without reading the terms they can always go back and look at them later.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Draenin

ToS agreements can always be viewed at a later time, so even if a user agrees without reading the terms they can always go back and look at them later.

But do you expect them to naturally go and read the ToS without having a reason to need to know..?

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

But do you expect them to naturally go and read the ToS without having a reason to need to know..?

Nope. It's there for reference. So that you can go back and look at it if you need to.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

But do you expect them to naturally go and read the ToS without having a reason to need to know..?

Not sure why you think they're responsible for making sure someone actually reads the ToS. Then again would it matter? Would you read it if they listed it right there when you have to click to accept it? Would you read it if they made it so that you can't click that you accept until you scrolled to the bottom?

In the end ToS aren't as binding as people think they are. Courts know that companies bull**** around with ToS and most things in ToS are only there to dissuade a costumer from pursuing legal action; and it works.

I still don't see the issue here. This ToS has been in place for a year apparently. Did you notice a sudden and abrupt change a year ago that this thread is proposing would happen as all the players rights are stripped away?

And I agree with it. People deserve to be punished without warning. Warnings are a privilege. I know many players on Graal are *******s and trolls that try to skirt the rules to the best of their ability and get away with as much as they can. Again, someone with a long history of being a nuisance player, but never actually breaking the rules but always walking a fine line deserves to be more severely punished(and possibly with no warning) than a player who commits their first offense for something minor like accidentally getting worked up and cursing.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

I know many players on Graal are *******s and trolls that try to skirt the rules to the best of their ability and get away with as much as they can.

Well put.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Not sure why you think they're responsible for making sure someone actually reads the ToS. Then again would it matter? Would you read it if they listed it right there when you have to click to accept it? Would you read it if they made it so that you can't click that you accept until you scrolled to the bottom?

It does matter if you read it, because that's what the intention of the ToS is for, if you're aware of the rules, you are unable to argue against a wrongdoing if you're in violation. If it is a legitimate violation claim, then yes this is perfectly fine, no arguments on it, but what about a false positive, so to speak? If they hadn't read it, they couldn't properly defend, but I think this is just my own opinion based on a hypothetical, so feel free to agree or disagree.

About your questions though, I can see where you're directing this, people are ignorant towards things in their way for their desire to play and I'll probably not be an exception.
But when I get on Graal, I'm aware that there are risky rules that can be touched upon, so on here, I do read. Usually when it's a different game, one that does not focus on social interactions as much as Graal. I will usually stick to proper etiquette and manners.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

In the end ToS aren't as binding as people think they are. Courts know that companies bull**** around with ToS and most things in ToS are only there to dissuade a costumer from pursuing legal action; and it works.

Mhm, that's true.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

I still don't see the issue here. This ToS has been in place for a year apparently. Did you notice a sudden and abrupt change a year ago that this thread is proposing would happen as all the players rights are stripped away?

I wasn't really on Graal for the year that is being spoken up, I barely visited the game, with UN, I believe I merely posted on their forum(here and UN's in-game forums) and chatted to friends through PM. But as for people suddenly having trouble, I think there was trouble from those who spoke to me, but again, I can't really speak of that because it's trivial now.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

And I agree with it. People deserve to be punished without warning. Warnings are a privilege. I know many players on Graal are *******s and trolls that try to skirt the rules to the best of their ability and get away with as much as they can. Again, someone with a long history of being a nuisance player, but never actually breaking the rules but always walking a fine line deserves to be more severely punished(and possibly with no warning) than a player who commits their first offense for something minor like accidentally getting worked up and cursing.

Warnings are a privilege, I can agree to that. Does that mean they should be entirely disregarded? Because the way I'm reading this, it feels like you are stating it should be.

[DustyPorViva]

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

It does matter if you read it, because that's what the intention of the ToS is for, if you're aware of the rules, you are unable to argue against a wrongdoing if you're in violation. If it is a legitimate violation claim, then yes this is perfectly fine, no arguments on it, but what about a false positive, so to speak? If they hadn't read it, they couldn't properly defend, but I think this is just my own opinion based on a hypothetical, so feel free to agree or disagree.

To agree to any terms implies that you have read them, whether or not you did. But I am not a lawyer, so I can't really elaborate on such a thing.

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Warnings are a privilege, I can agree to that. Does that mean they should be entirely disregarded? Because the way I'm reading this, it feels like you are stating it should be.

Hmm? But they're not being entirely disregarded. Simply stating staff have no obligation to give you a warning prior to further punishment, and they don't. Chances are however that staff still heavily hand out more warnings than actual punishment, not that I can back that up with stats though.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

To agree to any terms implies that you have read them, whether or not you did. But I am not a lawyer, so I can't really elaborate on such a thing.

I get what you're saying, but what I'm saying is that people don't entirely understand that. That's why these agreements are such bull**** to cover their own ends.

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Hmm? But they're not being entirely disregarded. Simply stating staff have no obligation to give you a warning prior to further punishment, and they don't. Chances are however that staff still heavily hand out more warnings than actual punishment, not that I can back that up with stats though.

I'm not saying that as a general fact, I'm saying from your point of view that they should be by the way you see them. Nothing being held against you, I'm merely curious about how you see that.