EVE General Discussion

Thanks for the laugh!

I'm curious, what lawsuit do you see coming? I'm interested in knowing what you claim.

I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

There is technically no grounds to sue CCP over this, because technically they can ban you for any reason they feel like it. So yeah... Some judge would look at this and laugh whoever does sue out of the court room.

I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.

The Rules:
11. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a petition under the Community & Forums Category.


As there seems to be a bit of confusion as to why certain posts get deleted even if they are perceived not to be rule breaking, a little bit of explanation might be in order.
If a post is found to be rule breaking it either gets edited or it gets deleted. If the latter, all posts quoting them (or replying to them without direct quoting) AND all post reacting on those quotes/replies get deleted as well for thread consistency. Even if those posts are not rule breaking in and of themselves.

For example: Post A is rule breaking and gets deleted. B replies to A, C replies to A, D however replies to B and E to K reply to D.
The entire string of posts gets deleted because A is the origin of that string of posts.

Please accept this explanation as is and do not reply to it. That would be off the topic of this thread. If you are perceiving a problem with ISD behaviour on the forum or are disagreeing with the way (your) posts are being moderated, please feel free to read the CCP policies and follow the procedure found under the header 'Complaints'.

This is actually not totally the case. The fact that CCP has instated PLEX, which now directly equates in game assets to real life money, put them in a precarious position. Some countries may feel that a company has no right to take away the assets of an individual even under certain guidelines. Though if it goes to court maybe the judge will laugh at the case. Who knows.

The fact is, as of now there are no precedents for a court to refer to. And this is not by chance. If you do end up in a lawsuit over some such issue there is going to be pressure from many 3rd parties (such as EA or Activision) to settle out of court. They don't want there to be a definite line in the sand so that they may continue to operate in a non-regulated fashion.

But then again, in this circumstance, the perpetrating individual might have their own legal ramifications if there does become a legal link between in game assets and real life valuation. Scamming is not legal in many places.

It ends when you cancel your sub.

Mr Epeen

i'm not sure what question you're asking me....

what i'm saying is that these things don't have a legal standing currently

If you decided to hire a lawyer to get your LoL account un-"perma'd" or a refund on the purchases you made then either you settle out of court or we'll finally have some legal precedence as to how this stuff works.

That's like you buying your cable modem from your cable provider and they drop you because of whatever reason and they come and take your cable modem.

There are lots and lots of implications in areas that companies profit off of. So there's a lot of pressure to prevent cases like these from going to trial.

There are a few routes people can to sue a games company.

I could likely sue CCP for breach of contract, and have been looking into it n regards to recovering money I paid them in return for services they promised and did not provide.

The general idea is that every transaction is a contract. If you pay some money to somebody for something you have created a contract, the terms of contract if not specified will be what a reasonable person expects to be promised in exchange for their valuable contribution, this is so even if no specific contract is in existence - refer to Donaghue v Stevenson 1932 regarding the snail in the bottle of gingerbeer.

When a specific contract exists that contract spells out the requirements of what is promised and while a company can try to indemnify itself with clauses those clauses often have no effect on the contract if they fall outside what can be reasonably be expected to be provided.

A company can say "you agree to indemnify XXX Pty Ltd for any damages caused even if those damages are a result of negligence of XXX Pty Ltd" however that clause is in most places invalidated by statute and case law. Its only put into the contract to dissuade people from taking action or to cover XXX Pty Ltd in the limited circumstances where the clause is valid in limited areas.

Regarding Virtual Property Law, there have been some judgements made which have found virtual property to not be the sole property of the company which 'owns' them.

The main thing that stops people from suing I think is more related to the value of the property vs the cost of persuing legal action against the companies in question.

In CCP's case, I think the big issue is going to be that certain entities in game now hold vast amounts of virtual property, some properly in the area of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars given the conversion rate of isk to plex. In light of that it may become worthwhile and cost effective for someone to eventually sue CCP for damages in respect of losses.

Lol I never got banned and you shouldn't be implying I did since discussing bans is not allowed haha.

Also you must have not read what I wrote. Any company can put whatever it likes in its EULA but that does not mean its legally binding.

I'm sure Shanda had a similiar clause and button in its EULA however they still lost a lawsuit filed by a player in regards to his virtual property and were ordered to pay thousands in damages in regards to losses incurred by that player on his virtual goods after he was banned.

Second life was sued in 2010 by a group of players over ownership of virtual property, I'm not sure how that went but the reality is that you can sue and apparently can win in court over ownership of virtual property irrespective of what EULA's say. EULA's are not laws and if an EULA and a law conflicts, the EULA will always, not sometimes, but always fail.