Using account recovery on an account that you sold

[Silvara]

For whatever reason, I feel compelled to reply to this thread.

This all just goes to show that most people are only "good" because there are consequences to not being so. Regardless of the argument of property/ownership/ToS/whathaveyou... DOUCHE MOVE!!!

To rehash any of the arguments of legality(drug dealer/buyer, illegal guns, etc.) if you were to go to your local (pot dealer) and buy a pound of his best shit, then beat him over the head and take your money back and the weed I'd say there's a good chance you're about to get fucked up in the near future. And you know what? You'd deserve it.

The same argument applies to any agreement legal or not. The fact that you can hide behind your anonymity and avoid repercussion/retaliation because of a ToS or lack of relevant legal structure doesn't make you any less of a douchebag. Regardless of the fact that (and yes, I agree) buying accounts is implicitly stupid and you think less of someone who does it that doesn't give you free reign to be a morally devoid asshat.


So yeah...nobody will be swayed by what I have to say. Some will agree, some will disagree, some will pretend to be an e-thug badass who stole a large sum of money from someone just because they could without fear of getting caught. Either way it comes down to what kind of person are you when nobody is looking?


I will leave you with this thought:
To anyone who sold/recalled an account...if someday your doorbell rings and there is a nerd with a louisville slugger in hand you deserve every last swing you get. And I believe that you would agree because were the situations reversed you would want to fuck someone up who did that to you.

[Wrish]

Again, a poor analogy to the physical world; you can't transfer ownership of your person (legally or otherwise), which necessarily means that you could never voluntarily give up access to your own fingerprints

You say that as if you had authority. Why should SE not have authority to stake their claim in all caps in its contract with you? "YOU DO NOT OWN YOUR ACCOUNT OR CHARACTER OR HAVE ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS TO YOUR CHARACTER OR ITS VIRTUAL ASSETS."

Why do you insist on overwriting their clear intentions with your beliefs that selling an account is legitimate while selling your fingerprints isn't? What is the crux of your claim (since it isn't legally recognized) that you own your fingerprints but SE cannot own the game data you place on its servers despite that glaring contract? Are you taking into your hands the notion of property, just as we regrettably took into our hands the notion of owning not just others' fingerprints but entire other persons as recently as 150 years ago?

You're talking about determining the amount of the damages, which is a completely different issue. There can't be any damages at all if she was not wronged; using your logic, the only party that could claim civil damages would be Yahoo. Again, she "doesn't own the account."

You sue someone when you can prove the existence of damages. The court quantifies the damages and then orders payment. That's pretty much all civil suits are about. As far as I know, Palin hasn't sued the hacker. Maybe the wrongs to her were trivial. Maybe he's penniless.

If you talk of the act of hacking, that's in the criminal realm. The state/feds prosecute the hacker for breaching Yahoo's security. They may incidentally protect Palin by locking up the offender, but (1) they're primarily protecting Yahoo from further breaches, (2) they won't pay Palin for damages, and (3) they won't even collect on a civil outcome for Palin.

I think you need to look up what the word objective (as an adjective) means.

Okay, I want you to pull excerpts from the SE contracts that you feel are uniquely not objective for an online document. I don't want you to tell me what objective means - any dictionary can do that - but to connect the essence of subjective to a highlighted portion of the pol/ffxi agreements. Bonus points if excerpt relates to this thread!

- Account buyer doesn't choose to have account recalled
- Nowhere in the contract does it discuss account recovery requirements

Account buyer actively and knowingly exposes himself to recall. A hacking victim, on the other hand, passively neglects to secure the gaming device. This section was about sympathy we may feel for the victims. I'm sure you can see the difference between buying and getting hacked. As for the recaller and hacker, no one is calling either moral... it would appear moral arguments have little sway over them.

What I've done is cleanly separated the parties for you. It is messy and confusing to think of a wrong in terms of player A getting rich at the expense of player B. Player A getting rich alone wouldn't be a complaint here. You have to single out player B's loss and look at what's behind that.

No part of the contract states account recovery conditions because nowhere do they guarantee recovery. Where you learn that selling game currency, accounts, and "time and effort" is prohibited is where you should realize that SE won't legitimize an account buyer and protect him from the claims of the original registrant/seller.

Try as I might, I cannot determine the point you are trying to make here. They don't make enough money off of you to care, or something?

And what lawsuit is there to be had? They own everything, remember?

SE is unwilling to dig in their logs and testify on your behalf in the event of a buyer/seller dispute. That section is called "indemnification." It's just at the end and not in all caps. When I mentioned monthly fees, I was pre-empting the claim of ignorance in not having read that part of the contract by preparing the affirmative defense, "reasonable knowledge."

This all just goes to show that most people are only "good" because there are consequences to not being so.

Welcome to the BG community. Where moral arguments are made and shot down for convenience. Have you seen the futility of my getting them to stop using Windower?

[Spider-Dan]

Why do you insist on overwriting their clear intentions with your beliefs that selling an account is legitimate while selling your fingerprints isn't?

Relinquishing access to your fingerprints (which is presumably referring to an identification that's part of your body) isn't illegitimate, it's f*cking impossible. There is literally no physical way to release your interest in your fingerprints, as they are part of your body (and, more specifically, your DNA). Stop using this analogy.

What is the crux of your claim (since it isn't legally recognized) that you own your fingerprints but SE cannot own the game data you place on its servers despite that glaring contract?

When did I dispute that Squenix owns the data? Reaffirming this just serves to further invalidate any claims of anyone having "their" account hacked.

I am aware that Squenix's EULA says that you never owned anything. (I'm also aware that EULAs are not necessarily legally binding; illegal contracts are still illegal.) Repeatedly stating that "you never owned anything" carries no informational value; Squenix can legally ban your account for any reason or no reason at all, transfer it to any person on the planet, etc. Arguing your "rights" under the EULA is like arguing over God's horsepower (except the opposite); no one has any.

You sue someone when you can prove the existence of damages. The court quantifies the damages and then orders payment.

You don't sue someone when you can prove the existence of damages, you win your lawsuit when you can prove the existence of damages. A small distinction, but a rather important one.

As for proof of damages, since damages can be awarded for "emotional distress," I'm not sure how far we need to travel down this road.

Okay, I want you to pull excerpts from the SE contracts that you feel are uniquely not objective for an online document.

Um, it's not in the contracts, and that's the whole point?

The fact that they allow original account codes, or DOB, or anything else to override the current password is subjective in that there is no way to know which of those criteria they would choose.

Account buyer actively and knowingly exposes himself to recall. A hacking victim, on the other hand, passively neglects to secure the gaming device.

Saying that all account buyers should inherently know that there is a backdoor to let the original account owner back in is absurd. I think it's fair to say that there are many electronic accounts where if I change the password and billing information, that will be enough to stop the account security from being changed without my authorization.

[Tankjr]

There is literally no physical way to release your interest in your fingerprints, as they are part of your body (and, more specifically, your DNA).

Fingerprints aren't part of your DNA. Carry on.

edit: I phrased that incorrectly, but you know what I mean.

[Wrish]

Relinquishing access to your fingerprints (which is presumably referring to an identification that's part of your body) isn't illegitimate, it's f*cking impossible.

Yet, it was possible pre-Civil War. If you were born a slave, you didn't own your fingerprints. It's been 150 years? Well yes, you take for granted that our laws and values have changed in the developed world to outlaw that sort of relinquishment, but remain steadfast that you can buy and sell identification-based access right under a glowering owner's nose.

When did I dispute that Squenix owns the data?
...
I am aware that Squenix's EULA says that you never owned anything. (I'm also aware that EULAs are not necessarily legally binding; illegal contracts are still illegal.)

Well, looks like in the same post, you insinuate that SE may not really own the data. If you're going to make an argument, make it fully or not at all. If our legal platform is wishy-washy (we're not on the same page), we can't have a discussion of consequences.

Reaffirming this just serves to further invalidate any claims of anyone having "their" account hacked.

Hacking is about wrongful access, not ownership. The latter is the subject of stealing. So their contract accords fine with account recalls. That you or I might use possessive pronouns has no weight.

Um, it's not in the contracts, and that's the whole point?

The fact that they allow original account codes, or DOB, or anything else to override the current password is subjective

Hey, that's not the meaning of subjective! A password is a quick and imperfect way of proving identity. Their contract is ironclad on their intentions without a word about protocol: If you're not allowed to transfer a POL account, then the only party with legitimate access must be the original registrant. How they go about identifying that registrant is not an issue of objectivity but reliability... unless you mean to tell me a guy at the call center listens to the inflections in a caller's voice to decide if they're telling the truth about making the account.

You don't sue someone when you can prove the existence of damages, you win your lawsuit when you can prove the existence of damages.

So you can win without suing... or so you do sue someone without proof and piss away money just because you can... or so you're guaranteed a win if you prove you were hurt... go to hell with that hypocritical nitpicking lol. I'll shorten a statement if the semantics are obvious to all, and they were at least apparent to you, so you must have gotten my point that Palin doesn't sue anyone for the act of hacking.

[Howard Roark]

I like you. Have we met?

kawaii :3

[McGoonagle]

People would care if it was suddenly turned off, so that's a stupid thing to say. Just because FFXI (or anything else that resides within a computer) isn't a tangible object that we can reach out and touch doesn't mean that it's not connected to people in a similar way that everything else we fill our lives is.

The game exists only at SE's fiat. If they choose to close it down overnight, that would be it. Neither RMTs nor players could do anything about it.

Your second paragraph is completely devoid of any logic, it's just more garbage. It's also somewhat ironic that you're implying people who played the game for enjoyment would care if the game vanished immediately after stating that the world wouldn't care if it did.

Maybe if you had the backbone to repost the original and refute it line by line, I would take you seriously. As it is, you're just blustering. You are confusing two things. The players would care, certainly, but there are less than a million of them in a world of six billion. What impact is the loss of a diversion to <0.1% of the worlds population going to have on the rest of it?

Any sort of declaration on how the game is closed based on the ToS is unrealistic, wishful thinking. Even without RMT, people with jobs are able to invest less of their time into the game, so it already transcends that border. Also, if you're assigning causality of "The Great Inflation" on RMT, then you know nothing about the history of this game. There were very specific reasons as to why that happened. RMT certainly exacerbated the situation but it would have occurred regardless.

This is ridiculous. First of all, you do admit that RMTs did harm the game. The game only exists the way it does because SE decides it does. It is their business, and nobody has any additional rights outside those granted by SE. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. Otherwise, go away.

[Celeras]

I enjoy these discussions. What I would like to see is someone actually make a decent attempt at explaining why RMT is so bad, but I guess that's impossible.

How about the fact that the RMT's presence in the game actively ruins the game experience of everybody playing? Whether it be monopolization, fucking with the economy or just spamming my goddamn chatlog... none of it would exist if there wasn't a market for this garbage.

I suppose the destruction of your hobby in the eyes of millions of your peers doesn't count for anything? Forget everything else, you perpetuating this market directly hinders the fun I have in my favorite pasttime. To that, I say: Fuck you.