Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
That is not how a EULA works. This is not a common law system. There is a document, and when we sign up we agree to abide by that document. We do not agree to abide by a set of precedents dating back 52 rounds.
Yes, I want the EULA to tell us specifically which actions are disallowed. There is no confusion whether signing up a second account on your tablet or phone is allowed, the EULA specifies one account per person, in 3 sentences. There is no confusion whether you can let yourself be attacked by a friend, the EULA explicitly forbids both being a farm and farming, in 3 sentences. There is no confusion whether you can let yourself be defended by a friend, because the EULA does not specifically forbid it.
If you want hiding in c200 to become illegal, then yes, it must be part of the document that enumerates all the actions that are forbidden in the game. That's what the damn thing is for! It wouldn't take more than a couple of sentences, either, there's no need for a 10,000 word essay.
As long as the EULA does not forbid idling in c200, then the MHs do not have the authority to force people out of c200. If they've done so in the past, then that was wrong. I for one would rather not give the MHs the authority to enforce rules that are not documented anywhere.
|
Problem with such a system is that people find holes, they get fixed, people find new holes, those get fixed.... i.e. the system always lags behind. So why have a system that fails? :/ (Not to mention it would require more effort from the PA team which is also not realistic.)
I'm certain atleast 95% of the community thinks this is lame and even more people know this is not what C200 is intended for (Dav himself aswell). What's wrong with relying on that?
In reality nobody would complain if his resources got removed except for a few people stating it's not in EULA (not stating it's not what c200 is for). But that's arguing for the sake of argument.