EA is at it Again (lolbans)

[UnSub]

There already is though. You just get banned from forums.

And how easy is it for the troll to come back to an online forums? Very. So that's not a consequence of any impact.

[Samwise]

There already is though. You just get banned from forums.

And how easy is it for the troll to come back to an online forums? Very. So that's not a consequence of any impact.

If the forum account is tied to the game purchase (which it would have to be for this to even be an issue), then no, a ban is pretty permanent unless the troll buys another copy of the game.  Bricking the game therefore would not do any more or less to stop the troll from posting.

What I find curious about this thread is that the same people who traditionally liken pirating a game to stealing a car have no problem with the equivalent of Honda repossessing your fully paid-for Civic because you were rude on the phone with them.

[Stephen Zepp]

There already is though. You just get banned from forums.

And how easy is it for the troll to come back to an online forums? Very. So that's not a consequence of any impact.

If the forum account is tied to the game purchase (which it would have to be for this to even be an issue), then no, a ban is pretty permanent unless the troll buys another copy of the game.  Bricking the game therefore would not do any more or less to stop the troll from posting.

What I find curious about this thread is that the same people who traditionally liken pirating a game to stealing a car have no problem with the equivalent of Honda repossessing your fully paid-for Civic because you were rude on the phone with them.

Once again, I don't think this is a good idea. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's legal in accordance with the case law we've seen so far.

I also think (and my original point was) that while EA currently doesn't have a game where this matters, in some games forum participation is part of the game experience (shadowbane politics, as shallow as they may have been would be one example), where actions on forums could be considered part of game play.

In that case, I think there is an argument for developers being responsible for both aspects of game play, and holding their players to standards in both aspects. Just as we don't see games banning players from parts of game play if they abuse another (they get banned from the whole game), I again see a possible argument for complete suspension/banning.

It's also becoming more and more obvious that several people can't see the difference between debating a topic, and swearing undying resolve to implement and support all possible logical conclusions of that topic simply because someone recognizes the merit of a particular argument or perspective.

To answer your analogy Sam, a better example would be if the DMV/Police replaced Honda, and that the person that your are indicating was driving that Honda on sidewalks, running people repeatedly off the road, breaking the flow of traffic, and otherwise drastically inconveniencing other drivers.

The person is breaking the law, and the entity that has the ability to enforce the laws should do so, especially if it is impacting the experience of others.

[Samwise]

To answer your analogy Sam, a better example would be if the DMV/Police replaced Honda, and that the person that your are indicating was driving that Honda on sidewalks, running people repeatedly off the road, breaking the flow of traffic, and otherwise drastically inconveniencing other drivers.

Um... no?  EA isn't a government agency, the forum isn't part of the game (your hypothesizing about future EA titles notwithstanding), and being a meanie on the Interwebs isn't in any way comparable to running over old ladies.

[ashrik]

To answer your analogy Sam, a better example would be if the DMV/Police replaced Honda, and that the person that your are indicating was driving that Honda on sidewalks, running people repeatedly off the road, breaking the flow of traffic, and otherwise drastically inconveniencing other drivers.

Um... no?  EA isn't a government agency, the forum isn't part of the game (your hypothesizing about future EA titles notwithstanding), and being a meanie on the Interwebs isn't in any way comparable to running over old ladies.

You forgot to tell him that the analogy doesn't hold water because Spore doesn't have tires.

[Litigator]

To answer your analogy Sam, a better example would be if the DMV/Police replaced Honda, and that the person that your are indicating was driving that Honda on sidewalks, running people repeatedly off the road, breaking the flow of traffic, and otherwise drastically inconveniencing other drivers.

Um... no?  EA isn't a government agency, the forum isn't part of the game (your hypothesizing about future EA titles notwithstanding), and being a meanie on the Interwebs isn't in any way comparable to running over old ladies.

Game makers regulate their games' online components and their forums.

[UnSub]

There already is though. You just get banned from forums.

And how easy is it for the troll to come back to an online forums? Very. So that's not a consequence of any impact.

If the forum account is tied to the game purchase (which it would have to be for this to even be an issue), then no, a ban is pretty permanent unless the troll buys another copy of the game.  Bricking the game therefore would not do any more or less to stop the troll from posting.

What I find curious about this thread is that the same people who traditionally liken pirating a game to stealing a car have no problem with the equivalent of Honda repossessing your fully paid-for Civic because you were rude on the phone with them.

I don't know how EA manages its forums, but it isn't hard to buy another EA game if that is all it takes to access the forums since EA releases a lot of titles.

Also, gaming software isn't like a car. This kind of thing is like getting kicked out a sports club you pay membership fees to for pissing people off, then also not being allowed to play for the team anymore. It's not completely out there as a concept in the real world.

[Signe]

This can't possibly be legal and it totally not ethical!  You piss off some unpaid mod who is in a bad mood because he got herpes from his grandmothers toilet seat and you can't play your game anymore?  Someone needs to kick someone in the junk!

[UnSub]

This can't possibly be legal and it totally not ethical!  You piss off some unpaid mod who is in a bad mood because he got herpes from his grandmothers toilet seat and you can't play your game anymore?  Someone needs to kick someone in the junk!

It's legal, it has its ethical defences and YOU JUST CALLED HIS GRANDMOTHER A WHORE AND WANT TO KICK HIS INFECTED TESTICLES. You'd be sooo banned. 

I know of business orientated applications with licenses that cost thousands of dollars a year who would be quite willing to pull the license and blacklist you if they felt you were violating their TOS and being abusive on their forums. For a commercial company to go down a similar route isn't unforeseeable.

As such, the easiest thing to do is not be abusive on the forums. It isn't that hard.

And I also think a lot of this fallout is because it is EA doing it (or maybe considering it, given that there appeared to be some backpedalling). If EA gave out free unicorns, people would see it as a conspiracy to somehow ruin video games involving horses. (Of course, said free unicorns would actually turn out to be donkeys with broomsticks glued to their foreheads, but that's another issue.)

[Stephen Zepp]

Also, gaming software isn't like a car. This kind of thing is like getting kicked out a sports club you pay membership fees to for pissing people off, then also not being allowed to play for the team anymore. It's not completely out there as a concept in the real world.

Definitely a much better analogy. Another in that line might be getting booted from an indoor soccer league for verbally abusing the ref, and further having your membership revoked from the club, which indirectly removes you from any other leagues you were signed up for at that same club. You're not getting refunded, and you aren't going to be let back in--and it's both legal and "ethical" (in an abstract sense).

The overall point I am trying to make personally is that the game provider (developer/community manager/whatever) is responsible for the game experience of the entire customer base, not just the guy being an asshole. If the asshole decides he can't play within the rules, and the game provider feels it's enough that it's hurting the game experience of others, they have a responsibility to do whatever they feel is necessary.

Again, I think tying forum ban and game ban together is in 90% of the circumstances a bad idea, but given the right conditions, it's a valid one. As Unsub mentions, this is not unusual at all in some software circles.

[SnakeCharmer]

Eh.

What it comes down to is that forum jacktards have had zero accountability, and now that it's possible they may now be held responsible for being jacktards, it's only natural they're going to protest it the loudest.  They're not used to having real consquences to their actions (or words, as the case may be).  Note that people that DO mind their manners and DO keep it civil and DO keep it on an even keel don't give a rats ass one way or another, and are probably saying 'About time'.

Act like a jacktard in the movie theater?  Get tossed, possibly banned from the theater. 
Act like a jacktard in a bar?  Get your ass beat by a bouncer and/or possibly the guy you're being a jacktard to.

Act like a jacktard on a forum?  Have your forum account banned.  Make a new one.  Rinse repeat as necessary.

If it went through the way that was original posted, I'd say "Good for them".  Now that they're relaxing a bit, I'm disappointed.

[Samwise]

And how easy is it for the troll to come back to an online forums? Very. So that's not a consequence of any impact.

If the forum account is tied to the game purchase (which it would have to be for this to even be an issue), then no, a ban is pretty permanent unless the troll buys another copy of the game.  Bricking the game therefore would not do any more or less to stop the troll from posting.

I don't know how EA manages its forums, but it isn't hard to buy another EA game if that is all it takes to access the forums since EA releases a lot of titles.

And if they brick your game, you buy a new one as well.  You're agreeing with my point.  Bricking the game does no more or less to stop the troll, because whether you brick the game or just ban the forum account, the troll needs to buy a new game to get back into the forum.  The difference is that in one case you're doing what's necessary to stop the bad behavior for the good of your community as a whole, and in the other you're being punitive just because you can.

Also, gaming software isn't like a car.

I agree, it's a completely shitty analogy.  Buying a piece of software is nothing like buying a physical object.  But if we were having a conversation about piracy the same usual suspects would be defending that same ridiculous analogy to the death so that they could draw a simple equivalence between piracy and theft of physical goods.

[Triforcer]

I'm torn between my hatred of EA and my hatred of douchebaggy retards. 

[Stephen Zepp]

I agree, it's a completely shitty analogy.  Buying a piece of software is nothing like buying a physical object.  But if we were having a conversation about piracy the same usual suspects would be defending that same ridiculous analogy to the death so that they could draw a simple equivalence between piracy and theft of physical goods.

And the same entitlement driven children would continue to claim piracy isn't stealing. But we're not talking about piracy, so go pick a different thread please if you want to talk about that topic.

[NiX]

This is a thread of shitty analogies. Simple and plain, there are enough fucking idiots running around, like HRose, who get off on pissing people off repeatedly. When you slap a monetary value on their actions, much like fines that police give out, they tend to think twice. When they don't? They incur a penalty. Holy fuck, it's just like the real world.

[UnSub]

And if they brick your game, you buy a new one as well.  You're agreeing with my point.  Bricking the game does no more or less to stop the troll, because whether you brick the game or just ban the forum account, the troll needs to buy a new game to get back into the forum.  The difference is that in one case you're doing what's necessary to stop the bad behavior for the good of your community as a whole, and in the other you're being punitive just because you can.

I agree that bricking the online component of the game won't stop all trolls from coming back. But it is a much more severe penalty than just banning the forum account. The hard core troll won't worry that they can't play any EA game online if they are willing to burn all those bridges. A douchebag, on the other hand, might think twice the next time they want to insult someone's sexuality on the official forums.

[Litigator]

And I also think a lot of this fallout is because it is EA doing it (or maybe considering it, given that there appeared to be some backpedalling). If EA gave out free unicorns, people would see it as a conspiracy to somehow ruin video games involving horses. (Of course, said free unicorns would actually turn out to be donkeys with broomsticks glued to their foreheads, but that's another issue.)

Well, someone earlier up the thread commented that all it takes to get banned from EA's forum is a post about their widely-detested new DRM on Spore, Bioshock, etc.

I don't post on EA's forums, so I don't know if that's true.  But it does make sense that the inconvenience they've imposed on legitimate customers through their new measures would generate outrage on their forums, and it doesn't strain credulity that they might engage in extreme measures to quell that response.  

[Samwise]

I agree that bricking the online component of the game won't stop all trolls from coming back. But it is a much more severe penalty than just banning the forum account. The hard core troll won't worry that they can't play any EA game online if they are willing to burn all those bridges. A douchebag, on the other hand, might think twice the next time they want to insult someone's sexuality on the official forums.

How does the douchebag ever get a next time if he's just been banned from the forums?  Remember, we're assuming that he has to buy another copy of the game to get back on the forums, and that the douchebag (as opposed to the troll) isn't willing to do that.  So simply banning him from the forum keeps there from ever being a next time.  Bricking the game is unnecessary because the forum has already been made safe from the douchebag.

When you slap a monetary value on their actions, much like fines that police give out, they tend to think twice. When they don't? They incur a penalty. Holy fuck, it's just like the real world.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that EA isn't the police, nor are they judge and jury.  Banning someone from your forums because they were a dick on your forums, that's fine.  Voiding someone's subscription because they were a dick in your MMOG, that's fine.  Banning someone from every game they've purchased from you because of something you allegedly did that has no bearing on any of those games?  That's kind of troubling.

If being a dick on the Internet is so terrible that people need to face "real-life consequences" for it in the form of fines, imprisonment, or whatever, we should make it illegal and issue warrants for people who are suspected of posting tubgirl or whatever.  And give them their day in court.

[ashrik]

What it comes down to, for me, is that the palatability of this type of policy is entirely dependent on those who are doing the banning- namely their impartiality and the reasoning behind each case.

If, in some perfect universe, there would be able to look at each ban and be in consensus as to whether or not it was deserved... then it'd be fine. Protect the customers you want, fuck those who ruin things for everyone else. I'm okay with that as long as it doesn't get any deeper than that.

Once you start mixing in companies like EA trying to save face on their forums, then I do have issues with it.

[Samwise]

If, in some perfect universe, there would be able to look at each ban and be in consensus as to whether or not it was deserved... then it'd be fine. Protect the customers you want, fuck those who ruin things for everyone else. I'm okay with that as long as it doesn't get any deeper than that.

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

[Megrim]

Do you look as good in a flight suit?

[UnSub]

I agree that bricking the online component of the game won't stop all trolls from coming back. But it is a much more severe penalty than just banning the forum account. The hard core troll won't worry that they can't play any EA game online if they are willing to burn all those bridges. A douchebag, on the other hand, might think twice the next time they want to insult someone's sexuality on the official forums.

How does the douchebag ever get a next time if he's just been banned from the forums?  Remember, we're assuming that he has to buy another copy of the game to get back on the forums, and that the douchebag (as opposed to the troll) isn't willing to do that.  So simply banning him from the forum keeps there from ever being a next time.  Bricking the game is unnecessary because the forum has already been made safe from the douchebag.

Given this is EA, they release a lot of games. So perhaps they can't play C&C online anymore, but have learned for when they fire up Madden or whatever.

I'm not completely comfortable defending EA on this issue, but I support the principle. MMOs can ban someone completely because of how they behave on the forums, although most prefer to just ban the forum account and let the game account continue. Is that okay? If I'm offensive enough on the WoW forums I can get banned out of playing the entire game. With EA's policy, at least I'd still have the offline verison to play.

Can you get your Steam account banned for being offensive on the Valve forums? That'd be a similar issue too.

I'm sure a lot of this comes down to EA doing the banning. If it was Stardock, who released a press release saying how they were protecting player rights to a grief-free play environment I'm sure they'd get a lot of accolades from the community.

[Samwise]

Can you get your Steam account banned for being offensive on the Valve forums? That'd be a similar issue too.

I'm pretty sure you can't.  I actually thought about VAC (Valve Anti-Cheat) in relation to this issue, because that's a form of player banning I wholeheartedly support.  Important differences:

1) Banned players are prevented from playing on "VAC secured" servers, but it's up to individual server operators whether they want to run "secure" servers or not.  So Valve isn't "banning" so much as "blacklisting".  If you're banned from secure servers for cheating, you can always start up your own cheater-friendly server and invite all your cheater friends to play with you.  The Steam service itself won't shut you out in any way (apart from letting secure servers know that you're a cheater).

2) The "bans" are only handed out for using cheats in-game on secure servers, which is an activity that significantly devalues the game for everyone else playing it.  They aren't handed out for just being a tard on the forums, or every TF2 server would be empty.

[IainC]

About the whole 'banned for complaining about DRM' thing that's being brought up, I don't know what the actual posts in question said (obviously) but, as someone who's seen a lot of 'whaa-whaa I was banned for NO REASON!!!' type posts from the other side I would be honestly surprised if someone was actually banned for general discussion of DRM. I can see however that EA would not want to be hosting a conversation about ways to circumvent the DRM or ways in which potential buyers could get a DRM free copy of the game.

[schild]

About the whole 'banned for complaining about DRM' thing that's being brought up, I don't know what the actual posts in question said (obviously) but, as someone who's seen a lot of 'whaa-whaa I was banned for NO REASON!!!' type posts from the other side I would be honestly surprised if someone was actually banned for general discussion of DRM. I can see however that EA would not want to be hosting a conversation about ways to circumvent the DRM or ways in which potential buyers could get a DRM free copy of the game.

There's three major reasons those types of posts exist on official/unofficial forums/fansites for a game/company:

1. The rules aren't clearly defined, well-stated, or possibly even read by anybody.
2. Moderators aren't properly keeping the enforcement of rules in line with understood policy which not only reasons in shitty posts but also a culture of disrespect and animosity.
3. The forums are run badly.

Yes,  in some cases the poster as the IQ of a winter melon, but honestly it's up to the administrators and forum members to keep things proper and prevent that shit from happening. And frankly, identifying the winter melons from the possibly human posters is not that hard.

I am 99% sure EA violates all three of these rules in their forum management and general community culture. In short, this situation will make them aware of problems they didn't even know they had and this rule will fall by the wayside in the land of forgotten bad decisions. Too bad the internet never forgets. Oh, finally, it also helps if you give a shit about your community, and I don't think EA does.

[IainC]

I have zero experience of EA's official forums so I won't claim any insight into the community there or how well the mods/admins are doing their jobs. You did however miss a big reason for those kind of posts (and, to be clear, I'm talking about the 'whaa I got banned' posts not the 'DRM discussion' posts). That is that the poster has done something they know to be wrong and wants to make controversy. It's amazing (or perhaps not considering this thread in particular) how many members of the community will immediately jump to support a random forum poster with no corroborating evidence and innately assume that he is telling the truth in his screed about injustice. EA are particularly easy to demonise in this regard, but no companies are really immune to it. Tell a horror story with at least a ring of truthiness about it and a lot of people will simply accept it as likely true.

Like I said, I've seen a lot of whine posts from people who have been banned where I've known the precise circumstances of the ban, and in general the reaction to their whine posts is 'OMG those jerks!' rather than scepticism and appeals to reason.

[NiX]

Of course all this arguing is moot because someone didn't check to make sure the policy actually existed and wasn't just an over zealous EA employee.

[Signe]

HA!

[Reg]

I'm very confident that if the original policy hadn't stirred up a huge fuss that it would have been implemented. I don't believe that forum mod was being "over-zealous." I think he's just taking one for the team right now.

[NiX]

Now you're just finding a reason to hate on a policy that really never existed and still doesn't exist. Doesn't matter how long you sit here and bitch about it, it didn't exist outside of a forum post.

[ahoythematey]

When EA is involved in the matter, there is a big difference between finding reasons to hate them, and making guesses about what actually happened based on their history.  This mystery policy that everybody is talking about really does sound like the kind that would be used by EA, and while I know everybody would agree that it'd be nice to have more meaningful ways of dealing with forum trolls, people don't like hearing that customer complaints about a product can very well equal being prevented from using said product as was intended.  Any company with management that's worth a shit will tell you that customers who complain are, potentially, your best and most-needed customers; better to have a customer tell you why they are upset than to simply move on and refrain from ever again doing business with you.  EA's big problem in that regard is that they think they are big enough and have enough control over their corner of the game industry that they don't have to listen to their customers when they complain until it physically hits them in the face.