Recourse for banned accounts

[Cautery]

sometimes it says LM-17, but when you call them they will tell you that the account is actually banned permanently. However, i've known some people that had LM-11 and got their accounts back. Some of these people bugged SE via phone, and some never even bothered to call, but got their Accounts back.

SE will also ban accounts with the same CC info, i know a friend of mine who payed for 8 different accounts, and they all got banned because of 1 clumsy mistake from 1 character/person. They never got their accounts back.

It's really confusing how this whole banning system thing works.

If you got a previous ban (so u cant use again the same CC) and u get a new CC with a different number but the same name, could your new account be banned for suspictions cause ur name was linked to a previous banned account?

[Jeryhn]

Your link to the Harvard Wiki had this to say:

Casino chips, like virtual property, have value only within a defined place (the casino), and are used only for a defined purpose (gambling). However, unlike virtual property, casino chips have a fixed cash value, and casinos are required by law to provide cash in exchange for their chips. (Cite to Nevada law?)

A similar law for virtual worlds would be difficult to implement. Although virtual world exchange rates are not fixed, it is not difficult to determine the exchange rate at any given time. However, the exchange rate of virtual currency is not necessarily tied to the actual revenues taken in by the virtual world provider; thus, such a law might put an online game provider at considerable economic risk if it required the provider to repurchase any in-game items before terminating an account (including shutting down the game).

And if such a law were to be put in place, a niche market would effectively be shut down, and the government would not be able to charge the company tax revenue for any potential earnings that company would have made selling that service.

There's a distinct difference between making a case for the sake of making a case, and making a case and making it legally and realistically relevant.

[Seyrr]

So then the question is, is it worth the risk for SE to fight it and possibly set a precedent that would screw them over? If the laws aren't especially clear in this situation, then if someone did take it to court, it could end up making them clear in a way that's bad for SE.

Depending on how likely they think this result could be, and how badly it would screw them over, SE might prefer to settle in some cases. I mean, hell, it's just reopening an account.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, especially not one for SE, so take with a grain of salt.

[divisortheory]

And if such a law were to be put in place, a niche market would effectively be shut down, and the government would not be able to charge the company tax revenue for any potential earnings that company would have made selling that service.

There's a distinct difference between making a case for the sake of making a case, and making a case and making it legally and realistically relevant.

I'm not here to debate virtual ethics and/or laws since neither you nor I is a philosopher or a lawyer and as such we're both blowing smoke out of our asses if we try to pretend like we know what we're talking about.

As stated in my original post I was looking for people who have gotten their accounts back. If you want to ponder over virtual laws, be my guest. The links are there. For the record, your quote is related to a virtual economy, not a person's property and/or rights.

[Tordall]

I think using the same credit card is kinda a no-brainer for getting a re-ban.

The question might be, if you get a new credit card with the same billing address, are you going to get rebanned?

[Jeryhn]

So then the question is, is it worth the risk for SE to fight it and possibly set a precedent that would screw them over? If the laws aren't especially clear in this situation, then if someone did take it to court, it could end up making them clear in a way that's bad for SE.

Depending on how likely they think this result could be, and how badly it would screw them over, SE might prefer to settle in some cases. I mean, hell, it's just reopening an account.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, especially not one for SE, so take with a grain of salt.

If it was a case SE had a chance of losing, SE could simply settle out of court, and maintain that they had no legal culpability in the issue (usually an important factor in cases that end in settlements). They could simply repeat this process until some simpleminded Joe Schmoe tries suing them over his account, and either makes a weak case or drops it entirely, setting a precedent that virtual property is under the ownership of the provider and they themselves determine the perceived value of said property.

[rydiu]

[If you got a previous ban (so u cant use again the same CC) and u get a new CC with a different number but the same name, could your new account be banned for suspictions cause ur name was linked to a previous banned account?

probably depends how common your name is and if billing address match up... and if pol ppl do that much checking.... but i wouldn't take any chances

ps. divisor IRC go.

[Jeryhn]

I'm not here to debate virtual ethics and/or laws since neither you nor I is a philosopher or a lawyer and as such we're both blowing smoke out of our asses if we try to pretend like we know what we're talking about.

As stated in my original post I was looking for people who have gotten their accounts back. If you want to ponder over virtual laws, be my guest. The links are there.

If I remember correctly, you were the one touting some flag about how banning accounts would infringe upon someone's supposed virtual property rights. Now you don't wanna talk about it anymore?

For the record, your quote is related to a virtual economy, not a person's property and/or rights.

If vitual economies do not exist, a person does not own virtual property, nor do they have virtual rights.

Tricky business, no?

[divisortheory]

I said it's pointelss debating it, because neither you nor I is a philosopher. There are no laws surrounding it, therefore it's open for discussion. What's there to debate?

[Jeryhn]

There are no laws surrounding it, therefore it's open for discussion. What's there to debate?

Read these two sentences again. You make no sense.

[divisortheory]

There are no laws surrounding it, therefore it's open for discussion. What's there to debate?

Read these two sentences again. You make no sense.

Sometimes I like to debate, other times the only thing I'm really concerned with are results. Right now is the latter. Us debating is not providing any results (nor is you attempting to find loopholes in my wording), and we certainly don't have the power to change actual laws, therefore I choose not to waste my time doing it. Is that clear enough?

[Jeryhn]

There are no laws surrounding it, therefore it's open for discussion. What's there to debate?

Read these two sentences again. You make no sense.

Sometimes I like to debate, other times the only thing I'm really concerned with are results. Right now is the latter. Us debating is not providing any results (nor is you attempting to find loopholes in my wording), and we certainly don't have the power to change actual laws, therefore I choose not to waste my time doing it. Is that clear enough?

If that's the case, why mention such a debate, and try to back it up with sources, only to drop it off when it becomes uninteresting to you?

Maybe you just have ADD.

[divisortheory]

If that's the case, why mention such a debate, and try to back it up with sources, only to drop it off when it becomes uninteresting to you?

Because people keep saying SE can clearly do whatever they want legally, when clearly it isn't so clear?

[Jeryhn]

If that's the case, why mention such a debate, and try to back it up with sources, only to drop it off when it becomes uninteresting to you?

Because people keep saying SE can clearly do whatever they want legally, when clearly it isn't so clear?

It is clear. Like Aurik said, anything is "legal" until it is outlawed.

And that's all you need to know.

[divisortheory]

It is clear. Like Aurik said, anything is "legal" until it is outlawed.

And that's all you need to know.

Since you obviously fail to understand

a) the purpose of this thread
b) anything I'm talking about in this thread
c) the meaning of the word "recourse" and how it relates to the legal system

I'll just leave it at that.

[Jeryhn]

It is clear. Like Aurik said, anything is "legal" until it is outlawed.

And that's all you need to know.

Since you obviously fail to understand

a) the purpose of this thread
b) anything I'm talking about in this thread
c) the meaning of the word "recourse" and how it relates to the legal system

I'll just leave it at that.

I'm perfectly aware of the definition of the word. There is no legal recorse for someone who got their account banned, nor is there any feasible, realistic or financially sound way for them to make a case and earn it in a court of law.

I'm no lawyer, and I'm not a philosopher either, but I don't have any delusions of grandeur about being the little man who's going to topple the big bad coporation with no case to stand on.

[Raineer]

It is clear. Like Aurik said, anything is "legal" until it is outlawed.

And that's all you need to know.

Since you obviously fail to understand

a) the purpose of this thread
b) anything I'm talking about in this thread
c) the meaning of the word "recourse" and how it relates to the legal system

I'll just leave it at that.

It's always an option to chase them with a lawyer...but my problem with the whole process was the physical inability to reach ANYONE or get ANY response from them.

Unfortunately there's alot of truth to "whatever they put in the EULA is fair game", it might not work like that in real life applications (i.e. our wavier thread last week re: hold your pee for a wii). However our courts aren't really caught up on procedure for MMORPGs and electronic property. You would probably need a lawyer to practically visit their HQ in order to even get a response from them.

[Tordall]

As to ownership of virtual items in MMORPGs:

http://games.slashdot.org/games/07/01/26/2026257.shtml

Apparently ebay doesn't want to get involved, but apparently believes that there is at least enough doubt as to the player's ownership of virtual items (as opposed to SE's ownership) that selling virtual goods from MMORPGs violates the 'you must own something to sell it' condition for the sale of digitally delivered goods.

[Nystul]

There is no issue of virtual property. SE owns your character. They do. Not you, them. It is on their server space. Furthermore, according to the user agreement you accept upon logging in, nothing on your account has any material value anyway. You can not sell items etc so basically there IS no property other than digital space on servers that SE owns and you simply rent.

Digital property pertains to situations where there is an actual claim of ownership. You do not own anything on your account because there isn't anything to own.

You can not sue someone for not fulfilling their part of a drug deal because a drug deal in itself is simply not legal and therefore the law can not force someone to uphold their end of an illegal agreement. You can not force SE to relenquish your account to you because legally speaking it has no value, and you were merely renting it anyway. They do and always have had ownership. Just as any health club can end your membership whenever they want, just as any social club can remove you from their premises whenever they want, any bar can kick you out whenever they want...it is their business and they are entirely within their rights to engage with whoever they choose (with the possible exclusions of decisions based on race or sexuality or gender).

You don't get to go over to your friends house, play with his toys, then sue him for the toy when he kicks you out because of the emotional connection you made wiht that toy during your visit. So just be nice so they don't have to kick you out and you can still keep playing with that bad ass purple transformer.

[aurik]

IThere are no laws surrounding it, therefore it's legal. What's there to debate?

Fixed that for you. Laws only serve to make things illegal; anything not in the law as illegal is legal.