Jump to content


Fair Play Policy Update: Summer 2018


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

Lexers615 #161 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 09:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15602 battles
  • 372
  • [ZOMB] ZOMB
  • Member since:
    11-01-2013

View PostIndy_Hawkeye, on Jul 22 2018 - 13:32, said:

I vote to ban all mods

All vanilla client players do. But cheating modders have WG's ears and heart...



black_colt #162 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 16:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3704 battles
  • 2,691
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostLexers615, on Jul 20 2018 - 21:54, said:

Okay, let's drop the peuso lawyerism and forum wiki-lawyers... First of all, contracts never have the same strength as actual laws. Many jurisdictions have laws precluding jurisdiction transfers like this one, and most have laws forbidding a contract to includes clauses that result in unreasonable rights deprivations. In such cases, such clauses are void, no matter if you click, sign, swear, etc... In other word, if your state/province says that contacts can't include such a clause, WG has the leisure to decline doing business with the residents of said jurisdiction. That would mean not doing business with more than half of the people living in the US, and arguably 40% of the Canadian people. However, if they do business with them, then the local laws apply, and the usual contract is more or less void and meaningless, either in parts or in the whole, no matter how much BS they put in the TOS and EULA.

 

Second, what the guy intially said was more about presumption of innocence and the burden of proving guilt. Even when it comes to administrative justice, one has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, though administrative justice burden is a lot less than criminal justice (in other words, "far beyond any and all reasonable doubt" does not apply here). In other words, if the HR head calls you to their office because they want to fire you based on claims that you underperformed, they have to presume you're innocent and they have to prove you're guilty in order to fire you. Otherwise, you can sue them.

 

Now, should people accused of cheating have a fair chance to plead that they didn't cheat in any way? I think so ... at a cost. If a guy using Warpack get caught and is getting a 7 days ban wants to appeal saying he didn't use Warpack, he should be entitled to. If he wins, he should be entitled to some compensation for having been unfairly accused etc... However, at that point, I think that if it's proven he cheated, the 7 days ban should be a 60 days ban instead. Just like when you get a fine, challenge it, and lose in court.

 

Contracts are enforceable [have strength] because they are based on actual laws.

 

Please provide case law where local law over-rides the Governing Law and Jurisdiction of an agreed-to EULA?

 

Also please provide case law where actions by Wargaming fall under administrative justice? 



AngusMcFartypants #163 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 20:01

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 96 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    03-27-2015

View Postdominator_98, on Jul 05 2018 - 18:03, said:

 

Tens of thousands of players use legal mods to improve their gaming experience. Banning all mods because there’s a handful of people who use cheat mods doesn’t really seem fair.

 

This is why I will never spend any money on this game. They say they can ban your account without telling you any specifics. They should include all these 'allowed' mods in the game so no-one has to worry about getting banned and losing their investment in the game. A good example are the mods available through sites like Aslains.

Lexers615 #164 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 20:17

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15602 battles
  • 372
  • [ZOMB] ZOMB
  • Member since:
    11-01-2013

View Postblack_colt, on Jul 23 2018 - 10:49, said:

 

Contracts are enforceable [have strength] because they are based on actual laws.

 

Please provide case law where local law over-rides the Governing Law and Jurisdiction of an agreed-to EULA?

 

Also please provide case law where actions by Wargaming fall under administrative justice? 

 

LOL!!! Common "give me a source!" trolling!

 

Then provide me a case where it was rule that the sky is blue!!!



black_colt #165 Posted Jul 23 2018 - 21:32

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 3704 battles
  • 2,691
  • Member since:
    01-11-2015

View PostLexers615, on Jul 23 2018 - 11:17, said:

 

LOL!!! Common "give me a source!" trolling!

 

Then provide me a case where it was rule that the sky is blue!!!

 

I am not the one claiming that local law over-rides the agreed-to EULA and that Wargaming actions fall under administrative law - you are - so the burden is on you if you are making the claim to support if someone calls for verification/proof to support your claim.

 

If you are unwilling to do so then I will take that as there is no case law to support your claims.

 

Why should I provide [... case where it was rule ...] as I did not make that claim?

 

 


Edited by black_colt, Jul 23 2018 - 23:06.


Txm60gunner #166 Posted Jul 27 2018 - 04:07

    Private

  • Players
  • 17150 battles
  • 5
  • [PASF] PASF
  • Member since:
    01-18-2014

View Postdominator_98, on Jul 05 2018 - 18:03, said:

 

Tens of thousands of players use legal mods to improve their gaming experience. Banning all mods because there’s a handful of people who use cheat mods doesn’t really seem fair.

 

No such thing as a handful of players using illegal mods. At any given time there are around 10,000+ players on US Central.. I am certain more than a Hanful use illegal means to improve game play and inflate their BS stats. Wargaming says they have a web address for acceptable mods, however there are mods that require a Premium Account and they are used by solo players with alt accts who are in big league Clans, and those big league Clans all use a credit card to get where they are. Sanctioned or not, hush hush or not, Its a load Of Bull Crap.. I am in a good Clan, and play against very good clans...………. for instance. how does one target your tank only as an arty strike in a Stronghold, when you haven't been spotted, your sixth sense didn't alert you, and you are the once carrying artillery strike, yet I am the sole target and bammo I am out and our arty is out too.  Cheats my friend. map hax, Warpack, whatever it is. it's illegal, it's BS and these Clans that cheat should have every player banned, period...………. 

_Tsavo_ #167 Posted Jul 27 2018 - 13:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 41933 battles
  • 17,167
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

View PostTxm60gunner, on Jul 26 2018 - 22:07, said:

I am in a good Clan, and play against very good clans...………. for instance. how does one target your tank only as an arty strike in a Stronghold, when you haven't been spotted, your sixth sense didn't alert you, and you are the once carrying artillery strike, yet I am the sole target and bammo I am out and our arty is out too.  Cheats my friend. map hax, Warpack, whatever it is. it's illegal, it's BS and these Clans that cheat should have every player banned, period...………. 

 

Or you've gone to a predictable spot against good players who know key positions.  Competitive clans murder, bad clans go to predictable positions and get arty strikes.

Cognitive_Dissonance #168 Posted Jul 27 2018 - 13:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 39570 battles
  • 6,307
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View Post_Tsavo_, on Jul 27 2018 - 06:13, said:

 

Or you've gone to a predictable spot against good players who know key positions.  Competitive clans murder, bad clans go to predictable positions and get arty strikes.

 

Rule number one . . . always shoot key booshed locations, regardless of spotted enemy or not, cuz getting hate PM's after match about cheating are glorious and entertaining.

Lexers615 #169 Posted Aug 03 2018 - 09:51

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15602 battles
  • 372
  • [ZOMB] ZOMB
  • Member since:
    11-01-2013

View PostTxm60gunner, on Jul 26 2018 - 22:07, said:

 

No such thing as a handful of players using illegal mods. At any given time there are around 10,000+ players on US Central.. I am certain more than a Hanful use illegal means to improve game play and inflate their BS stats. Wargaming says they have a web address for acceptable mods, however there are mods that require a Premium Account and they are used by solo players with alt accts who are in big league Clans, and those big league Clans all use a credit card to get where they are. Sanctioned or not, hush hush or not, Its a load Of Bull Crap.. I am in a good Clan, and play against very good clans...………. for instance. how does one target your tank only as an arty strike in a Stronghold, when you haven't been spotted, your sixth sense didn't alert you, and you are the once carrying artillery strike, yet I am the sole target and bammo I am out and our arty is out too.  Cheats my friend. map hax, Warpack, whatever it is. it's illegal, it's BS and these Clans that cheat should have every player banned, period...………. 

 

Back in the day when a mod existed that pigned other cheaters (modders) which cheats(mods) they used, my clanmate showed me screenshots. Passed tiers VI, we were talking about 50%+ of players using Defoliant, TracerZ, Lasersight (or some similar name), Aimbot and the countless variants, Autoaim Enhancer, or such.

 

The only reason the modders stopped was because it immediately exposed people using Warpacks, which is the sole cheat actually getting people banned, and solely for copyright laws infringement.

 

I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed a bit, neither in numbers nor in usage. So called "Fairplay policy" is a joke and a marketing stunt.



Lexers615 #170 Posted Aug 03 2018 - 09:53

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15602 battles
  • 372
  • [ZOMB] ZOMB
  • Member since:
    11-01-2013

View Postblack_colt, on Jul 23 2018 - 15:32, said:

 

I am not the one claiming that local law over-rides the agreed-to EULA and that Wargaming actions fall under administrative law - you are - so the burden is on you if you are making the claim to support if someone calls for verification/proof to support your claim.

 

If you are unwilling to do so then I will take that as there is no case law to support your claims.

 

Why should I provide [... case where it was rule ...] as I did not make that claim?

 

 

 

No, you are a forum wikilawyer trying to discourage players from seeking legal advice regarding WG malpractices. I'm pretty sure they hand you freebies for that, as you do help them quite a bite misleading players into thinking they have no recourses.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users