Recourse for banned accounts

[aurik]

Lawyering up may not help if they decide to play hardball. Giving your L/P to a 3rd party is against the ToS (mainly because the 3rd party hasn't necessarily agreed to the same conditions that you, the owner of the software and of the account, have agreed to). Thus, you may not have cheated on the account, but giving your login to someone else who may have cheated is in itself a violation.

But if you can spook them, they may give you the account back to make you go away. (See the lawsuit regarding the disabled fish "botter" getting unbanned that Septimus referred to)

[Mysterio]

but hiring a lawyer to look into this will run you about a thousand dollars, minimum lol

[Darkhearted]

So "your friend" loaned out the account and the person used hacks... and it's not "your friend"s fault? If you want to be dumb enough to loan out info, for whatever reason, brace yourself for the consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly with the people who say "your friend" deserves the ban. I would be just as pissed at you if you were on my server and loaned your account to a botter.

[divisortheory]

So "your friend" loaned out the account and the person used hacks... and it's not "your friend"s fault? If you want to be dumb enough to loan out info, for whatever reason, brace yourself for the consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly with the people who say "your friend" deserves the ban. I would be just as pissed at you if you were on my server and loaned your account to a botter.

Easy to play hardball like that when you're separated from the person involved.

And I didn't say it wasn't "my friend's fault" (also please re-read the OP where I describe we're not actually friends, I just know of the person). All I said was they did not use 3rd party tools. Did they violate the ToS? I guess so, by loaning their account info. But that's a weak argument at best, since pretty much every single person reading this forum violates the ToS by using Windower.

P.S. The fact that people who had no knowledge that said acount was even loaned out in the first place adds a whole new dimension. Did that person "deserve" to be banned as well? I'm not saying I don't agree with taking a hardline stance on 3rd party tools because I'm strongly against them, I'm just saying the issue isn't so black and white as you make it out to be. If your brother loaned his account to a friend and you got banned because of it, you'd understand where I'm coming from.


There are certain people in the game I'd loan my info to. I'm sure everyone knows at least one person they'd loan their info to. Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

[Skjie]

There are certain people in the game I'd loan my info to. I'm sure everyone knows at least one person they'd loan their info to. Hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

The only person I'd loan my info to lives about 15 minutes from me, and knows I'd beat the ever loving shit out of him if I ever asked him to play my char and he got me banned.

[Nystul]

if you want the account back, get a lawyer, said lawyer will have to put pressure on SE to actually do an exact review of the connection information, prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, the person involved in using the 3rd party tools was on that account at that time. If they cannot do that, they then forfeit the right to use their get out of jail card that says they can ban anyone. There will be lots of pressure involved from the lawyer though, and it might get expensive.

Its basically bully and threat tactics to get them to do a real full review, not just review that the person hacked, but review that the hacks were used by that person.

I don't think you understand. It's SE's game. You sign on to an agreement when you log on, they can basically terminate your account for whatever reason they see fit. Yes, youpay to play. No, it doesn't matter. You can pay cover at a bar, and they can throw you out for any reason. It is ultimately their establishment. It doesn't matter if you get 20 lawyers. In fact the only kind of lawyer that would bother taking your case on this is one thats just looking to get paid to make some phone calls and then tell you sorry.


You do *NOT* have rights here. SE is not the government, they are not bound by notions of reasonable doubt and fair trials. They can choose to end business with you at their sole discretion whenever they choose.

[aurik]

All I said was they did not use 3rd party tools. Did they violate the ToS? I guess so, by loaning their account info. But that's a weak argument at best, since pretty much every single person reading this forum violates the ToS by using Windower.

Doesn't matter how weak it is, it will stand if for some reason lawyers and the legal process get involved.

P.S. The fact that people who had no knowledge that said acount was even loaned out in the first place adds a whole new dimension. Did that person "deserve" to be banned as well? I'm not saying I don't agree with taking a hardline stance on 3rd party tools because I'm strongly against them, I'm just saying the issue isn't so black and white as you make it out to be. If your brother loaned his account to a friend and you got banned because of it, you'd understand where I'm coming from.

From the playonline agreement:

In addition, SEI shall be entitled to terminate the account (immediately and without notice) of any User who
...
(2) SEI believes (in its sole discretion), based on the User or other account information provided by such User now or at any time in the past (including, but not limited to, such User's name, date of birth, telephone number, mailing address, e-mail address, and credit card account information), that such User is related to one or more Users who are responsible for, or have participated in, Prohibited Activities of any kind.

So yea if you are related in any way to someone who got banhammered, SEI is entitled to revoke your POL account.

[Tordall]

Pretty sure the 'this game and everything in it is the property of SE' clause in the click-through shields SE from any lawsuits. You'ld have to start any lawsuit by first convincing the court that the terms of service were illegal. Only once you proved that you did in fact own what they took from you could you sue them for taking it wrongly.

Suing someone for something you never actually owned isn't gonna be a strong legal stand. Also, don't underestimate how slow the legal system is, or how much it will cost you in time, energy, and money.

Unfortunately, if you got banned, your only real recourse is gonna be to nicely ask SE for your account back.

[divisortheory]

You do *NOT* have rights here. SE is not the government, they are not bound by notions of reasonable doubt and fair trials. They can choose to end business with you at their sole discretion whenever they choose.

Actually there are no laws concerning virtual property. Does that mean that SE can choose to terminate business with you at their discretion? No. Does it mean they CAN'T, and that you have rights? Also no. It means the issue is still open, and has the potential to go either way in the future. You'd be surprised how big the issue of virtual property rights is currently.

So yea if you are related in any way to someone who got banhammered, SEI is entitled to revoke your POL account.

Just because they say it doesn't make it so. See above.

If SE puts in their ToS "If you are caught using 3rd party tools, SE has at its sole discretion the right to send a reprensative to your house to rape your mother", you might say they're going to have some problems there. Why? Because there are laws. In this case there are no laws, one way or the other. It's future litigation that will determine how virtual property rights are shaped.

[aurik]

So yea if you are related in any way to someone who got banhammered, SEI is entitled to revoke your POL account.

Just because they say it doesn't make it so. See above.

Unless you can prove that this is clause is illegal, it will stand up in court if for some reason you choose to pursue it.

[divisortheory]

So yea if you are related in any way to someone who got banhammered, SEI is entitled to revoke your POL account.

Just because they say it doesn't make it so. See above.

Unless you can prove that this is clause is illegal, it will stand up in court if for some reason you choose to pursue it.

That's the point. It's not illegal, but it's not legal either.

[aurik]

So yea if you are related in any way to someone who got banhammered, SEI is entitled to revoke your POL account.

Just because they say it doesn't make it so. See above.

Unless you can prove that this is clause is illegal, it will stand up in court if for some reason you choose to pursue it.

That's the point. It's not illegal, but it's not legal either.

It is entirely legal until proven otherwise.

[Jeryhn]

So yea if you are related in any way to someone who got banhammered, SEI is entitled to revoke your POL account.

Just because they say it doesn't make it so. See above.

Unless you can prove that this is clause is illegal, it will stand up in court if for some reason you choose to pursue it.

That's the point. It's not illegal, but it's not legal either.

And how does that change the fact that SE can and will ban accounts at their sole discretion? It is fully legal for any company to terminate business with a client if they so choose.

[Sixtail]

but hiring a lawyer to look into this will run you about a thousand dollars, minimum lol

More, because SE can just unleash their legal HNM department and make it drag on for years and years. It's also the peak of stupid unless you got cash to burn, a waste of money over a account that will vanish when the servers get taken offline.

However, it's likely to happen one day, FFXI has proven there are clearly people with little brains and big wallets playing.

[Kyreth]

I love how people justify how a "good" person's account should not be banned when it was used to do a bad thing.

If you handed someone your car keys and they used it as a getway vehicle for a bank robbery- do you think you're getting the car back from the impound lot when it's recovered?

They're screwed. Doubly and triply screwed, since by lending out their account to a cheater they've ended up blacklisting themselves for good measure. Like I said before, I'd see if you can help them find their "friend" with a few sticks of their own for the bansticking they recieved. It's about the only karmic justice anyone's getting out of this.

Read the rules. Accounts aren't transferrable. They transferred control of the account to a third party, even on a temporary basis, and it was used in a TOS violation. Banned. Along with anything else on the same personal information used to register the account.

Anything less and you'd end up with the old revolving-door RMT accounts, where they'd ban one account and the RMT would just register a new one with the same card 5 minutes later.

[divisortheory]

And how does that change the fact that SE can and will ban accounts at their sole discretion? It is fully legal for any company to terminate business with a client if they so choose.

If it were that simple there wouldn't be so much legal controversy surrounding virtual property rights, would there?

[aurik]

What legal controversy? Cite plz.

[Don Katsu]

This is the message you get if you get suspended.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3...uspended-1.jpg

This is the message you get when you're banned.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3...xab/banned.jpg

No that's not my account. :wink:

If your friends don't use tools and they did get LM-17 this will be a good lesson taught and they wont have anything to worry about.

[Jeryhn]

And how does that change the fact that SE can and will ban accounts at their sole discretion? It is fully legal for any company to terminate business with a client if they so choose.

If it were that simple there wouldn't be so much legal controversy surrounding virtual property rights, would there?

I dunno, it seems pretty black and white to me. SE can make the case that it's their account for the fact that it exists on their server and you pay them to play it.

The actual controversy surrounding virtual property rights in the majority of cases surrounds the investment of time and effort into a particular account, much the same way when you buy gil, you aren't actually buying the gil, you're buying the person's time it took to farm it.

Which doesn't matter, because SE could just have something in their financial records that states: "Maintaining this account costs 1 dollar per year.", or even attribute the "worth" of the account to the monthly fee, which would make anyone who tried to sue SE over the perceived value of their account pretty much a fool.

Or, as said before, their legal team could simply draw out the process until its no longer makes financial sense for you to carry on with the lawsuit. Not that it would be in the first place.

[divisortheory]

Here's one article from Harvard's Wiki on virtual property rights:

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~cyberlaw/wi ... rty_Rights


Here's a link with a bunch of articles about actual lawsuits that stemmed from virtual property disputes:

http://davis.ca/community/blogs/video_g ... oryID=1029

There's hundreds more, you can find a lot by just googling and wikipedia.


The point is not to say that SE can or can't do whatever they want to your account. The point is that, at least from the legal perspective, it's open for discussion.