This guy is insane. He's just assuming he has special rights because he poured a lot of money into the service, despite having broken the code of conduct. Isn't that just the digital equivalent of bribery?
Ayup, people are that dumb. The whole Account Suspensions and Console Bans sub-forum on xbox.com is full of people with a false sense of entitlement and an inability to understand that the Terms of Service can rightfully smack them down no matter how many times they claim freedom of speech or threaten to cancel Xbox Live/sell their 360.
if they ban people for modding they should go to sites like TTG and se7ensins and holymods and hack hound
And how would he know about all these places? He can't sue them anyhow. Every day he went on XBox Live, he was accepting the terms that allowed Microsoft to ban his ass if they pleased.
I liked this one: http://forums.xbox.com/33603704/ShowPost.aspx He seems confused as to whose account it is. 1st it is his "friends" then he mentions it is his account at the end? I admit I have that forum bookmarked for the lols. Does that make me a bad person?
ha, i enjoy when people claim that they are innocent but did something stupid like hack. all the time this happens they say they are going to sue but in the end they never do.
" Did anyone else notice they could ban you for using third-party controllers? I know it refers to modded controllers, but it seems a little excessive. "
I love the people that form an idea in their mind that what they did wasn't really wrong and that if they are paying loads of money for the service, then they have full rights to tamper with games.
" @Axxol: Do you have a better one? It's being banned for not using "approved" equipment, e.g. not first party. "
Comcast doesn't make Televisions.
When you accept the terms of a contract, it informs the contractor that you understand the rules and intend to abide by them. It also shows that you're aware of the consequences of breaking the rules.
@Axxol: If you want to be semantic, Microsoft doesn't make their stuff either. Foxconn does. It's licensed by Microsoft.
Comcast doesn't make televisions, but if they licensed it so that only a certain kind of televisions were allowed on their service, it would be ludicrous. It's not a stretch of the imagination to figure this out.
When you accept the terms of a contract, it informs the contractor that you understand the rules and intend to abide by them. It also shows that you're aware of the consequences of breaking the rules.
I don't disagree with this. But it's not wrong to say it's excessive to force first party on people who want an alternative. Would it make it right if Microsoft had made it in the software EULA that using Netscape is breaking the rules?
@jim_dandy: You're completely right, but that's not the point of EULA's and ToS's and the like.
The point is to restrict the consumer in every way possible, to allow no loopholes and no "scapegoats" . These "agreements" essentially allow the company complete control over every aspect of their service. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but that's generally what it is. They ban a consumer, the consumer complains, and then the reps point out that they have no right to complain because they agreed (lulz) to the EULA/ToS.
Really, that's what it's about. Restricting option and alternatives to only a select few that the company provides. Whether that's right or wrong is really up to the individual consumer, but to the company at large it's necessary to have complete control of their service/medium.
" @Axxol: If you want to be semantic, Microsoft doesn't make their stuff either. Foxconn does. It's licensed by Microsoft.
Comcast doesn't make televisions, but if they licensed it so that only a certain kind of televisions were allowed on their service, it would be ludicrous. It's not a stretch of the imagination to figure this out.
When you accept the terms of a contract, it informs the contractor that you understand the rules and intend to abide by them. It also shows that you're aware of the consequences of breaking the rules.
I don't disagree with this. But it's not wrong to say it's excessive to force first party on people who want an alternative. Would it make it right if Microsoft had made it in the software EULA that using Netscape is breaking the rules? "
But if you don't agree with the rules, you can always go to another service.
Internet's funny like that...though, Microsoft's TOS is pretty obnoxious when it comes to what you can put on yer profile. which is why my profile says "..." and " Code of Conduct" all up in it...it's the safest possible solution for me.
@KingWilly: I understand the point of a TOS. I'm just saying that we can say certain parts of it are wrong, like restricting third party gear (that doesn't assist or cheat).
In this case though, I'll definitely side with Microsoft and point at the TOS and laugh in this dude's face.
i think wrongfully banning someone because/when they have a lot of points saved up might be reason for a lawsuit most lawsuits arent about money but ethics
i think there was a notable case about this before? sued an MMO company due to ban, reason being "emotional distress" or something like that. Its justifiable when its wrongful banning/no proof.
Anyway, just because something is in a EULA or ToS doesn't make it legal or enforceable. He would have to challenge it in civil court though. Which I guess he threatened to do, but then he went and wrote his stupid internet post for some reason. Yeah pretty dumb. Just sue if you think you have a case and post the results when you're done.
I think EULA's that you have to agree to AFTER the sale is made to use the service or product are particularly slimey and unethical. Maybe that's why they are popular now. You should sign at the time of sale with the ability to make amendments as with any other contract. If there is no "meeting of the minds" there is no legal contract.
Log in to comment