Planetarion Forums - Closed by the law or by the mass??

JonnyBGood · 4 Apr 2003, 20:35

It has been said that we live in a litigation culture, where if you hurl yourself off a pier into the sea and smack your head off a rock it's the city's fault for not informing you the rock was there, drawing a diagram for you and having scuba divers down there to move any awkward looking rocks out of the way. When you play this game you agree to all the rules, regardless of whether or not you actually read each and every single one of them and all it's subsections. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. Farming is not allowed and the creators are right to delete anyone who has broken the rules.

N0VA · 4 Apr 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
It has been said that we live in a litigation culture, where if you hurl yourself off a pier into the sea and smack your head off a rock it's the city's fault for not informing you the rock was there, drawing a diagram for you and having scuba divers down there to move any awkward looking rocks out of the way. When you play this game you agree to all the rules, regardless of whether or not you actually read each and every single one of them and all it's subsections. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. Farming is not allowed and the creators are right to delete anyone who has broken the rules.

Johnny, if you actually read the user agreement, it is rather obvious that PA Crew allows ignorance of a rule to be an excuse until the rule is made known to the user. The rule was never made known to him, so it is not a deletable offense.

It's like if the city tells you that the pier is a fine place to dive off of, and then places a big rock there, but only tells a couple of people about it. You get up on the pier to dive off, and crack your head into the rock.

Biggdogg · 4 Apr 2003, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by N0VA

Similarly, Rabbagast is not accountable for information that a couple hundred people discuss in Creator's Hour. Rabbagast is not accountable for what people who were there neglected to tell him. Rabbagast is not accountable for what the Creators should have told him.

That just doesnt fly. It isnt the creators jobs to be universal baby sitters and hold everyones hand and breast feed them until they are responsible to be accountable for their own actions. It is the PLAYERS responsibility to know the rules. And creators hour is far from a couple hundred people. It has been going on for many rounds and everyone knows that important game questions and answers go on there. That has happened for many rounds. If someone chooses to not keep up to date with game happenings that is their fault. But that is all only if you believe the crap that he didnt know it was illegal in the first place. Which is completely impossible to believe for anyone who has been around this game any amount of time.

Sun_Tzu · 4 Apr 2003, 20:44

1) Rabba was well aware of the rules he was breaking.
2) Even if he wasn't they actually have the right to close you just because you looked at them strange, read the user agreement, you've agreed to it.
3) PA-crew could indeed do a better job of making the rules clear and available to all.
4) This thread would imho be a waste of space if everyone else reported had been delt with, but none have.
5) The original solution by the crew to deduct ships stolen from the fleet was wrong. The farmed ships had aided Rabba in attacks and had given him a faster roid growth, thus he had more ships left even after the farmed ships were removed. The only way to correct this and the only way fair to the community is to delete players who cheat.
6) VVOMM HC wasn't the first to report him nore the first to ask for him deletion, the first ones can be found within his own ranks and for their safety will not be disclosed.

JonnyBGood · 4 Apr 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by N0VA
Johnny, if you actually read the user agreement, it is rather obvious that PA Crew allows ignorance of a rule to be an excuse until the rule is made known to the user. The rule was never made known to him, so it is not a deletable offense.

It's like if the city tells you that the pier is a fine place to dive off of, and then places a big rock there, but only tells a couple of people about it. You get up on the pier to dive off, and crack your head into the rock.

One could argue that the logs from creators hour are as good as law as anything else. If they are freely available for all then it is not rational that someone who simply does not bother to read them is innocent of any associated wrongdoing. If I was dyslexic and couldn't read the user agreement does this make it null and void as no facility was provided for people with dyslexia? The point does also remain that if I was a betting man (which I am) I'd stake my house on rabbagast knowing exactly what he was doing. Much as a law court does not attempt to prove the world wasn't merely created eight seconds ago and all these memories planted in our heads, all we're trying to establish is truth beyond all reasonable doubt.

N0VA · 4 Apr 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
I think you are based in america if i am correct Nova, but hence your opinions are based on your (I would hazard a guess at rather limited) knowledge of uS law.

Tort is a complicated subject in the uk and an area i have a greta deal fo experience. I am actually in contract meetings on monday and tuesday of the forthccoming week discussing the contracts that my company will put in place with the gas national transmission ooperator (transco)>

Your contractual argument is complete *****e. But keep going Its funny :-)

Correct me if I am wrong, but clause 7 of the User Agreement allows PA crew to close all of Wolfpack because of Rabba's ship farming. They could say "everyone agrees that we can delete for whatever reason, and Wolfpack as a whole benefitted from having a top planet - therefore we are deleting the whole bunch".

Therefore, under your tort law, WP could not win in court if they were all deleted. For this very reason, I have said from the beginning that this is not an argument to be taken to court. Their blanket deletion clause prevents that.

I would like your expert legal mind to look at clause three and explain the implications so a layman like me can understand how a question and answer session amongst a couple hundred people equates to PA crew letting Rabbagast know of the change.

N0VA · 4 Apr 2003, 20:56

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
One could argue that the logs from creators hour are as good as law as anything else. If they are freely available for all then it is not rational that someone who simply does not bother to read them is innocent of any associated wrongdoing. If I was dyslexic and couldn't read the user agreement does this make it null and void as no facility was provided for people with dyslexia? The point does also remain that if I was a betting man (which I am) I'd stake my house on rabbagast knowing exactly what he was doing. Much as a law court does not attempt to prove the world wasn't merely created eight seconds ago and all these memories planted in our heads, all we're trying to establish is truth beyond all reasonable doubt.

What if Spinner was parading around in a dress in front of a web cam and stated "Joining an alliance is illegal in Round 10". Let's also assume that PA crew puts a link up saying "Footage of Spinner wearing a dress!" A large number of people will view the footage to see Spinner in a dress - but they are not required to. These people would then be aware that joining an alliance is illegal in round 10 - but are under no obligation to tell others. Are you telling me that people that did not view that web cam footage should be deleted for joining an alliance?

Every time that there was a rules change first discussed in Creator's Hour - there has been a change in either the Manual, The User Agreement, or a notification in the Overview. There is no reason for any individual to think that reading Creator's Hours is required for playing Planetarion.

Anyone that says that PA crew did not screw up royally is either deceiving themselves, or merely after Rabba's blood.

RooKie · 4 Apr 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sun_Tzu
6) VVOMM HC wasn't the first to report him nore the first to ask for him deletion, the first ones can be found within his own ranks and for their safety will not be disclosed.

If you are reffering to Cochese, you are wrong m8

Cicada · 4 Apr 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Pin
1st rumad from ure previouse response, im certain that no1 was deleted during round7 for ship donations!

for ****s sake why can you not grasp this simple concept?

ship farming was NOT illegal in r7, and was stated to be legal at the beginning of the round.

in a CH before the start of r8, ship farming was made illegal, therefore any president of ship farming before r8 became illigitimate.

this statment was duplicated on the motd, the portal and the forums and was widely known by most if not all.

i can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp for people, i just don't get it..

it states in the user agreement

Code:

7. We may terminate this Agreement (including your Account) immediately and without notice if you breach this Agreement or repeatedly infringe any third party intellectual property rights, or if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us, or upon gameplay, chat or any player activity whatsoever which is, in our sole discretion. If we terminate this Agreement under these circumstances, you will lose access to your Account for the balance of any prepaid period without any refund.

notice the bold...

though being no legal expert at all, i can clearly see that this means they can do what they want with no refend for you..

4 Apr 2003, 21:37

Yes Cicada, they absolutely can. We've been trying for the last day or so to illustrate to them why it makes good business sense for them not to exercise "escape clause 7" and undermine their established rules in the game by deleting someone for a rule that they have not adequetly made known.

Cicada · 4 Apr 2003, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Doongar
Yes Cicada, they can. We've been trying for the last day or so to explain to them why it makes good business sense for them not to undermine their established rules in the game by deleting someone for a rule that they have not adequetly made known.

who said this was about business sense...if they had any at all, do you really think spinner would have been in charge of finances for 8 rounds?

this is about whats right, and the fact is the rule was made, it was widely known, there is the legality for a deletion by it and it was broken.. end of story

4 Apr 2003, 21:50

Widely known? I read the manual, I've read the EULA. I didnt read the Portal, and I don't read Creator's Hour. I never have. It was news to me that so-called "ship farming" was explicitly illegal. Incidentally, I would posit that "farming" has always coloquially meant "stealing asteroids."

Attempting to determine "widely" is an extremely difficult prospect. Most people would not admit to not knowing the "rule" against ship farming. However, the Creators have very excellent resources to make the changes crystal clear, namely the Manual and the EULA. This was not the case. And that is where the crux of the problem lies.

While I agree that PA Crew has not often exercised good judgment, I'm simply saying that they have a chance to do so now, and they should try to establish a sense of constancy in rules and rules enforcement.

Goatie2k1 · 4 Apr 2003, 22:36

Pleading Ignorance is clearleh admitting ure a n00b

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Petru
Don't be silly, there would be no legal case. It states in the EULA that every user agreed to that HQ has the right to close a planet as it sees fit. They can do so without justification or reason if they so desire. You, Rabba and everyone else agreed to it.

People misunderstood my original post as defending Rabba, saying that if others were let off he should be too. I'm saying the opposite, if he's now been closed why can't others who were given the benefit of an ambiguous EULA now be closed.

Well I doubt they are allowed to do this as it says in the user agreement... even PA is under the basic laws of UK. I don't know much about them and this isn't something that I can back up very seriously so don't quote this at all, but lets put up a scenario:

I buy an account and pay my $10 and I login to my account and after 5 mins they close me...

Then I ask the creators why they closed me and they say that they wanted to earn some easy $10 and I can't do a **** about it.

I don't consider myself stupit and as far as I know I have quite a bit of logic sence, and my logic sence says that they can't just do that!!!

As I said I can't back that up by law but still... think about it... it simply can't be that the UK law system is that ****ED up... and if it is you can be 100% sure that I will create a whole lot of games in the future just to get ppl to pay a little amount of money and then take the service that they have bought away from them again.

cbk

4 Apr 2003, 22:44

If you had bothered to look at my sig Rumad, or the date that this forum account was created, you'd notice that I'm not new to this game. In fact, I'm not even playing this round, but I have access to the same resources (excluding the Overview screen) as all the other players, and I didn't know. I've asked about changes to this round (similar to a question someone would ask about said Creator's Hour), and I've been told "ship stats changed, overburn gone, check the manual." Either the people I've spoken to didn't know that ship farming was "illegal" or they felt that it was insignificant to mention. Either way, I wasn't informed about a very important change to the rules of the game. What if I wanted to be a Zikonian? Would my planet potentially be on the chopping block if I assumed a strategy that was perfectly fine the last round I played in, and I was utterly oblivious of in this round?

Word-of-mouth is not clear notification, particularly when there are far better alternatives available. Spinner does not have ex cathedra powers to change the rules of the game by fiat (as the oft-cited clause 3 indicates). More cyncially, if we could trust things the CH has said, we'd have had a free Round 9, to say nothing of other situations in the past too numerous to mention.

Razorback · 4 Apr 2003, 22:46

is it just me or is it now only rumad and rabbas gal argueing ?

Pls give us all a break, Creators will deal with it, and anyone who even talks about legal basis for a 10€ online game is hillarious.
Lets just face Rabbas situation IF he would take a legal track and would win. The best case scenario for him, he would get refunded 10 € (UK have a maximum refund to the original value if im correct, rumad might correct me here if im not) , the round would be over for month, his planet would remain closed or deleted. He would WIN nothing.
In the worst case he sues them, loses because of the EULA he signed and the paragraph #7 which was over and over mentioned, he would pay the courtbills and would WIN nothing.
Now the case 3 he gets just deleted silently because creators think its correct that he cheated (what we all think doesnt matter for them), he is out of the game and WINS nothing.

Now the most hillarious and illogical 4th option, they would actually reopen him. He would have lost his ressources for 5 days, which they cant and wont refund. His capped ships vultures and demeters would be removed as otherwise creators would openly announce "shipfarming is fine aslong as you are deaf and blind", also to keep fair play they would have to remove all roids gained by vultures or demeters to make it "fair" again for the other competitors in the top10, also they would have to relocate all roids gained by those ships to the planets which were raped by "illegal" ships ( eta -1h CO-advantage is not a Zik ability). After that they would relocate the ressources of those roids and the lost ships and recalculate all planets every interfered with rabba because this had influenced the game (yes this is nitpicking and hairsplitting but its logical as its fair to the majority).
So Rabba wins in the 4th case NOTHING again.

What are we debating about ? For Rabba its a loss/loss situation, the only thing he could regain by a creators decision is his reputation and credibility, something more important then roids or stolen ships.
And now stop beeing pathetic and try to split hairs over things you dont know details on, because so far no Creator or Rabba replied anymore to this thread on this case, and i doubt they will.

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
Your lawyers are wrong. I work with UK law daily atm, more importantly I work with CONTRACT LAW.

Pls do attempt to go to court though it wont get past a initial hearing.

Btw its COUNTY COURT and its a petty claim.

And he still wouldn't get anywhere.

I should warn you initially in my previous roles as assistant accountant I have also had to prepare small claims. Trust me when I say you are aguing with the wrong person.

Still you fail to back up what you are saying with hard proof and since you apperently work with law every day you of all should know that unless you have hard proof you can't get anywhere... so please try to back up what you are saying with some proof and argumentations.

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
Your lawyer is tottally correct a contract usually is the binding relationship for an agreement,but in this instance the contract itself is so grey it would be impossible to prove breach on behalf of jolt.

Secondly your’s and Rabba’s numerous supporters is based on ignorance. Ignorance in a UK court is that you didn’t know or weren’t communicated relevant changes. This is not an excuse under UK law, hence the argument is dead.

Possibly what you could argue is negligence on behalf of the creators, this is also not valid due to the coeverall.

Since this is now beginning to bother me I have forwarded the agreement and the situation to my company solicitor – he is a bit busy but has promised to get back to me within the next week or so. However he agree’s with me that this has no legal case .

AHHHHHH so that master man of yours manage to find the final result b4 he has the info?? Now that is some hell of a guy. Can't you give me his number cause such a person is probably the most wise person on this planet and I would love to have a little talk with him...

btw. hope you gave him all relevant info cause together with his result(the real one and not that mystic one) I want to see what reasons and laws he backs it up with, and I want to see what info he has been given... I don't say that I don't trust you Rumad but I don't think you have given him all relevant info, since to gather that info will take quite a few hours.

cbk

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
Yes Gayle, under UK law the contracted party are as much legally responsible for making sure they understand the rules and any subsequent changes as much as the contractor.

Unfortunately the ppl arguing here know about as much about UK law as I know about Norwegian/swedish or ugandan law, so they sort of miss the point :-)

Then teach us FFS!!!!

you seam to be 100% sure in your case but why haven't you shown us those paragraphs that back up what you are saying then?

cbk

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
The manual is A SOURCE of information, not a bible.

CBK u have lost this argument - there is no recourse and you are aguing poorly presented points of law.

Rabab was caught, he was deleted. There can be no debate as there can be no compromise. Cheating is wrong.

Once again you fail to back up what you are saying...

cbk

Goatie2k1 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Doongar
I'm sorry Rumad, _you_ are wrong. Contract law has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. We have conceded that PA Crew has the _legal_ right to delete anyone at any time for any reason that they chose, without any sort of review or appeal. That is not the issue. Likewise, the notion that we (or anyone else) would even attempt to bring litigation against PA Crew (for an insignificant sum) is preposterous and should be ignored as a non-issue.

The argument here is whether they _ought_ to delete Rabbagast for violating a rule that was not clearly articulated so that all players understood it. All players. Not the 11-or-so percent that regularly attend Creators Hour. Not those who lurk on the AD boards and cry for blood against whomever appears to be winning at any given point. Every player reads the EULA, most every player reads the Manual (particularly in a round where ship stats were changed). These are places where it would be most appropriate to make a change in the rules (and it has been done there in the past).

Arbitrary deletions undermine the EULA, and are simply bad business. PA Crew would do well to consider that when trying to re-build faith in a game that has suffered from bad business decision after bad decision.

Whether they "ought" to have closed him or not, they DID, so why cry over spilt milk?

I'm sure if this had been a n00b planet with 20 roids and 40k score people wouldn't care less and it would never have reached AD. Just because this is the account of an alliance HC with a big score doesn't mean that he should be exempt from judgement. As HC of an alliance he should know the rules better than anyone, otherwise how would he be able to punish his alliance members for breaking the rules, and if he didnt punish them for breaking rules he clearly doesnt see it as something wrong and would no doubt do it himself.

He knew the rules, he got caught, he got closed. I'm sure there's at least 20 cases like this every week or so, I dont see why this one is so important.

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
THERE IS NO NEED FOR EVIDENCE. You agreed to the T & c’s at the start of the round and he was caught doing something which the community feels is unacceptable.

Your argument has shifted from a legal argument which has been defeated to a moral one.

You can support your friends, you can say how unfair you feel it is, but anything else is pure and unadulterated crap.

I am the last one to say anything about supporting friends. I am glad you would support your mates like you are, but don’t try and justify his actions and don’t try and get a decision which is RIGHT reversed.

Ahh there is no need for evidence... why you have a law then?

Why not make it much more simple and then creators have a CH where they say what you can and can't and then beside that they just do as they want, when they want, and to whom they want.

You are working with law so you of all should know that ofc they need proof to close rabba.

and btw. since when has it been posible to justify ppl acording to a morally law??

If you work with law you should know that the answer is NEVER.

You have the laws and ONLY according to those you can be punished.

You also fail to remember that I said I didn't only do this for rabba, but also to let justice happen!!!

cbk

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Neither do you have to read your mail nor answer your phone nor read your email nor the anouncements on the forums.

You'd be a fool if you didn't though.

So you can be closed for not doing it? ofc you can't...

The reason why they have a user agreement is that then they are sure that ppl accept the rules and see the rules. If they want ppl to see them they post them there...

cbk

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by sirad
for Once I agree with Rumad
but only because hes right

cbk your trying to stickup for your friend thats cool and all, but ignorance would not get you out of a drunk driveing charge in Canada, (from what i read UK either) we can relate the ignorance of the NO farming rule that was posted on the overview (which is all encompassing ship/roid ) and is not appliciable here either,.
All farms and multies should be closed.

Drunk driving is illegal stated by law both in Canada and in UK... Ship farming is not illegal stated by any law in PA.... do you see a differese?

cbk

Obfuscator · 4 Apr 2003, 23:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Goatie2k1
Whether they "ought" to have closed him or not, they DID, so why cry over spilt milk?

I'm sure if this had been a n00b planet with 20 roids and 40k score people wouldn't care less and it would never have reached AD. Just because this is the account of an alliance HC with a big score doesn't mean that he should be exempt from judgement. As HC of an alliance he should know the rules better than anyone, otherwise how would he be able to punish his alliance members for breaking the rules, and if he didnt punish them for breaking rules he clearly doesnt see it as something wrong and would no doubt do it himself.

He knew the rules, he got caught, he got closed. I'm sure there's at least 20 cases like this every week or so, I dont see why this one is so important.

If this had been a noob with 20 roids and 40k score, no one would have cared because no one would have noticed. Does that make it right?

If a friendless person gets put to death unfairly, no one may notice because no one pays attention to him, but that hardly means that it is fair to do so. I'm not saying that Rabba deserves special attention or treatment. What I am saying is that he is being treated unfairly, and even if 20 peope have been deleted for ship farming every week, which I HIGHLY doubt, that doesn't make it right to do it in this case. The creators dropped the ball in changing the rules without giving reasonable notice to the players. To say that they should be allowed to get away with deleting players for not following these rules is preposterous. It turns the players of the game on the mercy of the bloodthirsty trolls that inhabit AD, and think that clause 7 makes it RIGHT for PA-crew to delete any and all people they wish.

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Pin
to all u guys talking about presendence!!!!!

In round 7 i was a Zik player, i remember in a CH Spinner got asked question:

Is ship donation allowed?

he answered: I can see nothing wrong in that, so yes it is.

This burnt into my mind, im at school now so dont have the loggs here, but if some1 care to check theyre CH loggs, or get the old one posted on the portal im sure this will make a presedence.

So until last night when i heard about Rabba i was sure it was allowed, and no im not a Zik this round

So twats, all u that been screaming and saying that this have been known rule, HOW THE FCK CAN U SAY THAT????? Spinner have said it was allowed, and Prince changed his mind this round in an CH!!!!!

I cant see in ANYWAY this can be just to close him for this. Hell if i had been a zik this round i would prolly had farmed Ships as i was sure it was allowed ( i read teh user agreement before every round).

And if u ask if im not to active in comunity so i dont get to read everything, well ive played since round1 and normally attend every CH, but this 1 was my GF birthday so didnt see dreadnaugth asking the question and didnt read the log on the portal (have now tough )

OI OI OI interesting!!!

lokken · 4 Apr 2003, 23:31

Note, UK contract law is quite different to what you will find in Europe. It's less interventionalist and only goes so far to protect consumers in order to protect business (and therefore) the economy.

The courts usually like to take the point of view of the 'reasonable person' which is why companies only have to take 'reasonable steps' to make consumers aware of things (e.g. by printing terms and conditions) and on the same hand the 'reasonable consumer' would be wary of the terms and regulations if there was anything of concern. Rabba is beyond this - he's an experienced player, which makes it worse, not that it would matter to the result with anyone else, because everything was made public - the portal is a site for all planetarion users, and that's enough. Creators hour is in itself the equivalent of an online press conference, ffs. There are cases where illiterate people have been unable to escape from contracts even though they can't read the terms. This is the option with me being quite generous.

The other option is that they can delete a player for any reason they deem appropriate and what the law would deem 'reasonable' because the user agreement says they can.

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
You really are clueless aren't you?

Stealing is the most profitable it has been in a long time. This gives zik an edge. To abuse it my ship farming goes against the rules of the game (as explained in the MotD) and the ethics.

If you seriously believe what you are saying why has it being virtually non existent except to those seeking a unfair competitive advantage?

Talking of precedent is in a legal sense, not a in game sense. I am in a very legal mood today so i will look at my keenan book now!

Now isn't it you who is clueless when you totaly fail to read his post? He doesn't argue weather its profitable or not...

ALL he says is that he didn't know it was illegal since it was legal earlier rounds and this backs up what rob, myself and other has said earlier...

Goatie2k1 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Obfuscator
If this had been a noob with 20 roids and 40k score, no one would have cared because no one would have noticed. Does that make it right?

If a friendless person gets put to death unfairly, no one may notice because no one pays attention to him, but that hardly means that it is fair to do so. I'm not saying that Rabba deserves special attention or treatment. What I am saying is that he is being treated unfairly, and even if 20 peope have been deleted for ship farming every week, which I HIGHLY doubt, that doesn't make it right to do it in this case. The creators dropped the ball in changing the rules without giving reasonable notice to the players. To say that they should be allowed to get away with deleting players for not following these rules is preposterous. It turns the players of the game on the mercy of the bloodthirsty trolls that inhabit AD, and think that clause 7 makes it RIGHT for PA-crew to delete any and all people they wish.

So when u agreed to Clause 7, what did u think it meant?

TrinTara · 4 Apr 2003, 23:46

This argument is going around in circles.

The change for this round was announced in Creators Hour

The change was specifically passed on to all players early in the round via MOTD message that referred to both ships and roid farming as being illegal.

The current MOTD continues as a reminder that "farming' is illegal without reference to types of farming (unnecessary since the earlier ones clearly conveyed that both were now considered farming)

The Creators have done more than enough to bring the change to the notice of the players.

The Creators need to think long and hard about the consequences to their future ability to deal with problems if they reverse this decison. No longer will they have the discretion to act in the best interests of the game, they will instead have to foresee every possible undesireable action AND have it clearly prohibited in the rules BEFORE they can deal with it.

Trin

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:48

Quote:

Originally posted by meddy
ok, rabba closed

more to come

every KID knows about that farming (whatever) is illegal...

cbk, are u afraid of beeing closed too ?

/me pokes the GREAT eye

let´s see how many top planets are "clean" hehe

but rabba is /was a shame for his ally (for doing that)

hehe I have been closed for a few hours but it was a very obvious mistake and I got reopened again...

And no I'm by far affraid cause I'm playing by the book and has always done it.

cbk

Obfuscator · 4 Apr 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by lokken
Note, UK contract law is quite different to what you will find in Europe. It's less interventionalist and only goes so far to protect consumers in order to protect business (and therefore) the economy.

The courts usually like to take the point of view of the 'reasonable person' which is why companies only have to take 'reasonable steps' to make consumers aware of things (e.g. by printing terms and conditions) and on the same hand the 'reasonable consumer' would be wary of the terms and regulations if there was anything of concern. Rabba is beyond this - he's an experienced player, which makes it worse, not that it would matter to the result with anyone else, because everything was made public - the portal is a site for all planetarion users, and that's enough. Creators hour is in itself the equivalent of an online press conference, ffs. There are cases where illiterate people have been unable to escape from contracts even though they can't read the terms. This is the option with me being quite generous.

The other option is that they can delete a player for any reason they deem appropriate and what the law would deem 'reasonable' because the user agreement says they can.

I think you'd agree with me Lokken, when I say that if PA-crew can only justify their action based on your second option (i.e. they CAN delete him according to clause 7) then PA-crew has essentially admitted that they didn't do a good enough job making the rules of the game clear to the players. Correct me if you don't agree with that.

This means that if they want to have any claim to legitimately closing Rabba's planet, EVERYTHING hinges on whether or not they have made a reasonable effort to make the rules clear to the players. So let's examine this more fully. Let's imagine I'm a new player to PA, and I joined the game 2 weeks ago (before Prince amended the EULA, but well after the CH in which this was discussed). I would say that if I read the EULA and the manual, the overview, and the pre-game registration emails they sent to me, I've done all that can be reasonably expected of me to make myself familiar with the rules. If I then decided to play Zikonian, I would have no reason to think that "ship farming" was illegal. Likely, I wouldn't even be familiar with the term. To suggest that I would also be expected to slog through the 10+ CH logs on the Portal, or sift through the heaps of garbage on the forums in order to find out this rule, is ludicrous. The fact that the Creators didn't make their rules clear, means there is a GREAT DEAL of leeway in how much players can be held accountable for.

I'm not suggesting that Rabba is a complete newbie who started two weeks ago. What I AM suggesting is that Rabba could easily have missed that CH, could easily not read the forums, and could easily have been told nothing of that particular rules change if he asked one of his friends what happened in CH.

We KNOW that we cannot take anything said in CH as gospel truth. Likewise, we KNOW that we cannot take anything said on the Forums too seriously. If we could, then we'd have had a free round 9, among other things. But what we CAN reasonably expect players to depend on, and can hold them accountable for, are items contained in the EULA, a legally binding document, or in the Manual (a game-defining document) or in any of the numerous other options available to the Creators to make important rules changes known.

CH reaches on average, 500 people. I'll be generous, and assume that each one of those attendees reliably reports everything said in CH to one other player. I'll also be generous and say that 500 COMPLETELY different players all read the thread on the forums, and even MORE generous in saying that still 500 more COMPLETELY separate players all read the log on the portal. That's STILL only reaching 50% of the players. When you consider that they could have put the rules changes in places where players can reasonably be expected to look....say the manual, the EULA, or the pre-game emails, not to mention the MotD, it doesn't really seem that they made a reasonable attempt to disseminate the information, now does it?

[Edit]Removed a speecho[/edit]

Sirad · 4 Apr 2003, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by cbk100
hehe I have been closed for a few hours but it was a very obvious mistake and I got reopened again...

And no I'm by far affraid cause I'm playing by the book and has always done it.

cbk

round 8 :eek: need I dig up arbiter logs?

Obfuscator · 4 Apr 2003, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by TrinTara
This argument is going around in circles.

The change for this round was announced in Creators Hour

The change was specifically passed on to all players early in the round via MOTD message that referred to both ships and roid farming as being illegal.

The current MOTD continues as a reminder that "farming' is illegal without reference to types of farming (unnecessary since the earlier ones clearly conveyed that both were now considered farming)

The Creators have done more than enough to bring the change to the notice of the players.

The Creators need to think long and hard about the consequences to their future ability to deal with problems if they reverse this decison. No longer will they have the discretion to act in the best interests of the game, they will instead have to foresee every possible undesireable action AND have it clearly prohibited in the rules BEFORE they can deal with it.

Trin

If you can quote the MotD that said EXPLICITELY that BOTH ship and roid farming were banned in r9, you have a point. So far, all that has been presented is the current MotD, which says merely that farming is illegal, saying nothing about ship farming.

I would argue that if the Creators DON'T reverse this decision, the players need to think long and hard about what sort of game they are playing: one where the creators can get away with arbitrarily removing planets, or one where there is some semblance of order and justice.

cbk100 · 4 Apr 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
agreed completely, but they are clearly arguing bad points on a subject i know reasonably well :-)

Besides they look really foolish ;-)

or maybe its you who look really foolish??

nomatter what I don't think you are the one to decide that, but even to say such a stutid thing makes you look very foolish for sure.

cbk

cbk100 · 5 Apr 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
It has been said that we live in a litigation culture, where if you hurl yourself off a pier into the sea and smack your head off a rock it's the city's fault for not informing you the rock was there, drawing a diagram for you and having scuba divers down there to move any awkward looking rocks out of the way. When you play this game you agree to all the rules, regardless of whether or not you actually read each and every single one of them and all it's subsections. Ignorance is not a valid excuse. Farming is not allowed and the creators are right to delete anyone who has broken the rules.

What rules?

and remember that to say it in CH doesn't count of reasons stated in a post above.

cbk

cbk100 · 5 Apr 2003, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Goatie2k1
Pleading Ignorance is clearleh admitting ure a n00b

or just that you aren't reading logs and aren't much active on IRC and as far as I know you don't have to do any of those things to play PA, but what you have to read is the agreements you say yes to play by. nuf said!!!

cbk

lokken · 5 Apr 2003, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Obfuscator
blah

Your second argument doesn't recognise that it doesn't matter how sloppily or how well they make the announcement. The Creators publicly said, in Creators Hour, the PA equivalent of a press conference, farming of any kind was illegal. They've said it publicly; that's 'reasonable steps'

You also don't recognise that newer players would never ship farm; they don't have the knowledge, personnel, contacts or ability to do it. This situation only really applies to the experienced player, because they are the only ones who can actually do it in a way that affects the outcome when prizes are given out. You'ld expect an experienced player to know the rules

And yes, I would use the second method purely because it's simpler, quicker and easier to get a result, therefore more efficient and cheaper.

cbk100 · 5 Apr 2003, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Goatie2k1
Whether they "ought" to have closed him or not, they DID, so why cry over spilt milk?

I'm sure if this had been a n00b planet with 20 roids and 40k score people wouldn't care less and it would never have reached AD. Just because this is the account of an alliance HC with a big score doesn't mean that he should be exempt from judgement. As HC of an alliance he should know the rules better than anyone, otherwise how would he be able to punish his alliance members for breaking the rules, and if he didnt punish them for breaking rules he clearly doesnt see it as something wrong and would no doubt do it himself.

He knew the rules, he got caught, he got closed. I'm sure there's at least 20 cases like this every week or so, I dont see why this one is so important.

Wouldn't you fight for your right? I would and any other with a little respect for themself would!!!

He might have known that Spinner had said that it was not allowed and he might not... nomatter what its imposible to prove it so you can't take it into consideration.

cbk

cbk100 · 5 Apr 2003, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by sirad
round 8 :eek: need I dig up arbiter logs?

Yes please. I would love to see some old logs with that interesting info. You know where to find me!!!

cbk

Sirad · 5 Apr 2003, 00:22

Quote:

Originally posted by cbk100
Yes please. I would love to see some old logs with that interesting info. You know where to find me!!!

cbk

which planets co-ords would you like ? the first one, or the one after you relocated?

K03N · 5 Apr 2003, 00:31

you make one crap lawyer.

ey, do i see new smiles? KOOOOL!:

:e_chick:

zaquex · 5 Apr 2003, 00:39

A fundamental flaw in the argumentation of this thread is that many fail to see the difference between laws and rules.

In either case its only in civilian cases u can argue you wherent informed.

If you try to argue with a judge you didnt know something was illegal he would tell you its your responsibility to know, you cant argue with the referee in a soccer game that you didnt know its not allowed to take up a pass with ur hands or kick down your opponent he still would punish you.

Another difference is, in the game, in my example the referee dont take the offender to court he delevers the penalty on the spot.

a game sports or leasure dont usually fall under either criminal or civilian court and therefore those arguments are not valid. If so i would procecute someone for stealing my roids, robbery is definatly not allowed outside the game.

Rabba did ofc not break any laws but he did cheat by breaking the rules of the game.

Obfuscator · 5 Apr 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Originally posted by lokken
Your second argument doesn't recognise that it doesn't matter how sloppily or how well they make the announcement. The Creators publicly said, in Creators Hour, the PA equivalent of a press conference, farming of any kind was illegal. They've said it publicly; that's 'reasonable steps'

You also don't recognise that newer players would never ship farm; they don't have the knowledge, personnel, contacts or ability to do it. This situation only really applies to the experienced player, because they are the only ones who can actually do it in a way that affects the outcome when prizes are given out. You'ld expect an experienced player to know the rules

And yes, I would use the second method purely because it's simpler, quicker and easier to get a result, therefore more efficient and cheaper.

I think it matters a great deal how well they make the announcement Lokken. Bear with me as I give you a comparable analogy.

Let's say you and Rumad are competitive chess players, and I am the host of a tournament. On a whim, I decide to make en passent an illegal move for my tournament, which you and Rumad have already committed yourself to attending, by paying my entrance fee. I "publicly" state that en passent will be an illegal move in a press conference attended by only one person, a journalist from a small, relatively unknown chess magazine. Therefor, only the players that are attending my tournament AND read this magazine are aware that I have changed the rules (we'll say, for the sake of argument, that this encompasses about 11% of the competitors). No where in the tournament itself, or prior to the tournament, do I notify ALL the players that the rules have been changed.

By your logic, I am RIGHT in disqualifying you if you try to make an en passent move against Rumad, simply because I have publicly stated that the rules will be changed. It's certainly legal for me to disqualify you. I have a clause 7 in my terms of play in my tournament, just as PA-crew does. Furthermore, it might even be legal strictly speaking, that is, due to my "public declaration of rules change." My question is whether or not disqualifying you is RIGHT. Should players be disqualified for breaking rules that were changed without reasonable notice.

I guess you and I simply disagree as to what "reasonable" means. I don't think a "public announcement" suffices. There actually has to be a legitimate effort to call something reasonable.

Sun_Tzu · 5 Apr 2003, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by RooKie
If you are reffering to Cochese, you are wrong m8

The first person to report Rabba was a WP-member, though he was ignored, then along comes cochese and starts a "media war" and stuff starts happening...

Perfection · 5 Apr 2003, 03:56

Right then. I did make a post in the other thread but it seems that has become forgotten, and due to the severe amount of drivel and misunderstanding of the law here i was so dismayed i have to correct you all. For your information, im a law student at what my tutor described as 'the best law school in the country', at the top of my class and i will get a first in my degree.

My other post can be found here

Quote:

Originally posted by Eol
Norwegian law also to a much greater degree than for instance US law considers common sense. Rabba is an experienced player. Rabba knew about this. Rabba also broke the rules, probably because he felt it was safe to exploit it. That Rabba thus evades punishment is quite, frankly, silly. Shame really.

The user agreement clearly states in point 7 that they can close your for ANYTHING as they see fit. It totally annuls every argument really. If Spinner one day got drunk decided to delete all planets with attacking fleets out, he could do that and still be in the right. It wouldn't be right, but he could do it in the legal sense.

I'm sorry, but there is really no reason why Rabba shouldn't be deleted here. The 'notice of change' doesn't even matter - it's quite quite clear that they can do anything for any reason at any time in point 7, and besides it's not a matter of changing the user agreement but rather changing the game rules. Or even enforcing the already determined game rules (though obscurely so).

The EULA states that only UK law will apply, further as Rumad did correctly state as the services come from Jolt, it is UK law that will be applied. Any other countries law is irrelevant full stop. There may be allowances for law coming from the EU but that is subject to stringent rules, and is extremley rare.

The fact the EULA was changed is relevant. Whether they like it or not, it is an implied (Read that word carefully please, doesnt matter whether they meant, a good lawyer would make the implied intentions stick if it supports his case) consequence of changing the EULA that the old EULA was not sufficient to cover deletion. Further, i believe that as the terms have been changed, you are entitled to refuse this change and demand a refund.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eol
NUMER SEVEN FS.
Catch all clause.
God, can't you read?

I mentioned this in the other post. This clause will be very easily negotiated by either statute or what is know as the 'contra proferentum' rule. This is established law dating back over a hundred years. Again, if you really want more detail i will provide you with the intricacies of this and the multitude of ways this clause is crap. Bottom line is this, you might as well not have bothered putting clause seven in the agreement. It IS utterly worthless and no action can be taken under it. For the life of me i cannot ever understand how people believe their countrys law would let companies walk all over them...

Quote:

Originally posted by Obfuscator
Actually, we DON'T know that he knew about this rules change, and that is one of the crucial parts of the argument. The creators only actually mentioned the change in 3 places: CH, the portal (in the form of the CH log), and on the forums.

Whether Rabba knew the rule relevant (illegality of ship farming) is actually irrelevant to the legal issue. The legal issue is whether or not the rule was incorporated into the contract. Whether rabba knew is regards the issue of fact, which a judge may or may not take into account (his discretion).

Quote:

Originally posted by Obfuscator
In essense, to assume that Rabba knew of this rules change without PA-crew even bothering to put it in the Manual, let alone the EULA, is to assume something quite stupid. Rules changes should be loud and clear, not hidden in a CH log that probably more than 50% of the players don't read.

I agree here. I dont think the creators did enough to bring this to everybodys attention. I really cant be bothered going into this, and the reasons for and against, they are well documented in this thread. However, I am of the same opinion that one question (showing no initiative on behalf of PAHQ) asked in a channel barely containing 20% of the player base can be 'reasonable steps.' Most of you seem to have no idea what this standard of proof entails, it is not 'joe average' at all. It is a man competent and intelligent in ALL areas pertailing to his character. However, it is entirely feasible that u disagree with me and think they did take reasonable steps, ultimately though it would be the judges opinion that counted.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
What Rabba has done is simply a breach of his contractual obligations. We all sign up, we all know the rules. We agree to them fully and unequivocably at the start of the round. Any form of mispractice or blatant cheating is simply a breach. The coverall see’s to that. It is like being ejected from a public house, the management reserve the right to not let you in in the uk and there is nothig you can do about it.

Rabba knew the rules. Rabba agreed to the rules. There are no grey area’s, he knows what is right and what is allowed. Anything else is a piss take.

Pls stop talking about the law CBK cause you are clearly clueless

Thats the point Rumad. Rabba has not breached his contractual obligations because the illegality of ship farming was not included in the contract. Clause 7 does not cover PAHQ, see above. The anology of the public house is wrong. You can be ejected, forcefully too, from a public house and it is at the sole discretion of the landlord whether your allowed back - similarly PA can ban anyone from playing (albeit not mid-round) and not allow them back. But that is of no application to the instant case, as we are dealing with a contract to provide a service (which incidentally is non-existant in ur pub example) which may or may not have included a clause which has been breached. Nowhere near alike.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
In the uk ignorance is not a valid argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
UK common law overides all laws of tort. And ignorance is no excuse under UK law.

Ammended quote from my other post, where Parracida gave the example of running a red light as being not defendable by ignorance:

That is because running a red light, in some countries, is what is known as a 'strict liability' offence; meaning that intention is irrelevant. Other types of offences which fall into this are non-payment of parking tickets and tax offences. The law does indeed provide the defence of 'ignorance' in the great majority of cases, and certainly in any crime which may carry a custodial sentence. It exists in a variety of ways depending on how you want to approach it, the reasonable man test, the dishonesty test, recklessness tests. I wouldnt expect you to know any of these, they are all however termed under 'Mens Rea' meaning guilty mind.

Bit confused what your trying to say in the second point. The common law (the past cases on similar subjects decided in the english or relevant courts) is THE LAW. It is not something which runs parallel to the law, or can be applied or disregarded willy-nilly. Further, Torts (French for 'civil wrong') contains case/common law, so i dont know why it would 'overide' a tort? I think your a bit confused as to the meanings of either phrase, or worded your sentence wrongly.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
In a court of law I can gurantee your agument would be thrown out. Simply put as long as an attempt has been attempted (creators hour/announcements/messgae of the day) then they have discharged there obligation of informing you fo what is right and what is wrong.

Law is also about reasonableness and it would expect the party to also make efforts to find this information out (creators hour/motd/announceents). Ignorance is not accepted in a UK law, regardless of how much you argue with me.

The best you could hope is that you can prove negligence, which due to the coverall and the fact that there are several documented cases in the past you will not be able to do.

Classic display of lay peoples misunderstanding of 'reasonable steps' Firstly, you have misinterpreted the burden reasonable steps places upon someone. Secondly, once said they do not discharge their obligations at all, in fact their obligations are ongoing as planetarion is continually growing in size. I dont think they did take reasonable steps, but like said above when i went through this, this is an opinion.

The only way a burden would be placed upon the player would be if the EULA contained a phrase like 'this document, and all other documents relating to this agreement, form the basis of the contract.' The EULA contained a similar phrase around r6, when there was a 'rules page' on the portal. Thus, there was a burden placed upon the player to look at that page. I think there is no mention of a similar clause in the rounds EULA but i have not read it in a while so i dont know.

However, Courts generally do not like the contractual placing of a burden on another. For example (and something you may find quite useful) my mother is a member of Britannica, that company that sends out their 'star-pick' DVDs every month and expct you to either pay for them or send them back. However, the law states that such mailings are entitled to be treated as gifts because you cannot place an obligation to return the DVD on a consumer who has not specifically requested said item.

On and the last part. We are dealing with contract law here, where you get negligence from is beyond me. Negligence could NEVER EVER be proven with regards to a £5 account.

Summary

I think Rabba should of been closed because of his actions. BUT, if it he was to be sad enough to take this to court (wouldnt get that far, but thats a whole different legal argument) he would 'win' in my opinion. The rule was not a part of the contract, and by deleting him with regards to a rule which was not incorporated PAHQ have breached their own duty under the contract.

oldtown · 5 Apr 2003, 04:21

I cant believe this argument is still going on. Whether written or not, no one is fooled by a "i didnt know' argument. Farming isnt allowed and anyone of rank in an alliance knows it.

Further it is a good point on how it is applied, but seems to me the creators just told you how it will be applied. They are closing the account. Granted maybe in some cases they chose not to close, but every case is ndependent, maybe how the accused cooperates or to what extent the farming occured is all considered and thus a conclusion reached.

This closing is a message to everyone out there "DONT FARM'

did his farming hurt anyone? I would say ask anyone he attacked and took roids from due to the advantage of the fleet he designed.

I understand all his mates and alliance defending him as no one wants to see a friend in trouble...maybe his closing will make anyone out there thinking about doing it reconsider.

He isnt banned from PA hopefully he learns from this and so does everyone else and not allow it to happen again within their alliances.

Round 10 becomes a clean slate for him...just look at past unnamed people who have been caught repeatedly round after round..life goes on and so does PA

P.S. and the it isnt in the rules argument is geting old..it has been pointed out repeatedly there is a catch all clause giving them the right to close for whatever reason they choose. Stop ignoring that clause and selectively reading what you want to hear.

§pa¢e¢ook¦e · 5 Apr 2003, 04:29

shipfarming = cheating .... and it was known.

Perfection · 5 Apr 2003, 04:36

Finished reading the last 2 pages...

Quote:

Originally posted by Rumad
In this instance Rabba is attempting to gain a unfair competitive advantage over his rivals. Thus seeking a immoral advantage.

If this was taken to court here are some basics to bear in mind. Pls rememebr I am not legally qualified and this is done on my "business" knowledge of the law.

Essentials for a contract:

1) there must be an offer and acceptance.
2) There must be an intention to create legal relations
3) There is a requirement for written formalities in some cases
4) There must be consideration
5) The parties must have capacity to contract (sane, legally allowed to be present in the country and understand the T & C’s).
6) There must be a genuineness of consent to the terms of the contract.
7) The Contact mustnot be contrary to public policy or law.

A void or voidable contract would have a missing element from the above or not to have fulfilled the criteria fully.

A unenforceable contract is valid in all respects except that it cannot be enforced in a court of law by one or both parties should the other refuse to carry out his obligations under it.

Terms of a contract are Expressed (written into the contract) or implied. Since not everything can be written into every contract a statement where you agree to not cheat or farming), Implied terms are derived from Custom (i.e. legal definition of ignorance and in game) and statute.

Now clearly Jolt and creators have closed and deleted Rabba. This is a Discharge by Breach.

Under tort this discharge would probably be exercised through illegality. In the case of law illegality is “the ground that the plaintiff was committing an illegal or immoral act when the tort occurred”. In this instance ship farming is immral to the community as a whole and hence the contract can be discharged with impunity.

Why so many are defneding what is so blatantly wrong astounds me. Are we take it that you all perform actions of a questionable nature?

Firstly, do not make this a question of morals, it isnt. Secondly, there is no need for a 'you support Rabba, therefore u are a cheat0r' argument.

Apart from the custom bit (Custom means the past dealings between two parties, if i were to buy a bus ticket everyday then i would be deemed to have knowledge of all the rules petaining to that agreement. But as the Pa rules have changed every round nearly in some way, even paying for the 5 rnds of pa would not constitute enough in a court to amount to notice via custom) what you said is completely correct. However, not one bit of it applies to the current problem, and youve failed to apply the law you know to the facts. Youve just given everyone an extremley rough overview to contract law.

Quote:

Originally posted by Goatie2k1
Whether they "ought" to have closed him or not, they DID, so why cry over spilt milk?

Some of the most important and revolutionary concepts, governments, systems, anything else have come from situations where the people thought they were facing a 'no-hope' situation. You wouldnt be living how you are if they had decided not to 'cry over spilt milk.'

Quote:

Originally posted by lokken
It wouldn't get heard because courts have better things to do than discuss over a $10 planet, plus if anyone really wanted to bring a court action for it, they'd have to be really really really bored.

Very true. Apart from the fact that £5 is neither here nor there, 95% of all civil cases dont get to court anyway. But, i like debating legal issues, so that doesnt detract from the validity of the argument

Perfection · 5 Apr 2003, 04:38

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtown
P.S. and the it isnt in the rules argument is geting old..it has been pointed out repeatedly there is a catch all clause giving them the right to close for whatever reason they choose. Stop ignoring that clause and selectively reading what you want to hear.

And im sick of pointing out that this catch all clause is utter crap.