Manned Bot Usage

[Omni]

This is just a hypothetical. I dont use nor plan to use bots in any way shape or form. I dont craft nor do I fish for that matter. With another series of bans and gil removal by STFU, this has me thinking...

Is manned bot usage ok?

Of the very little crafting and fishing I've played around with, I got tired of loading materials in the crafting window or battling with fish for several hours. I've long realized that this form of income wasnt for me which is why I dont do either now.

However, do you think its wrong to use a bot to take care of these tasks for you BUT you are always there at your keyboard? It wouldnt provide you with any advantage over any other crafter/fisherman. You wouldnt do any of these tasks any quicker since theres a delay on how soon you can craft again. You wouldnt fish any more effectively either.

I know that in reality, the use of bots will always fail because the hearts of men are the easiest to corrupt (or something like that) but, just for a second, lets assume you'd be attentive to your character for the duration of the time you are using your automated crafting assistant. Is it wrong?

Discuss.

[Taskmage]

Even a manned bot, assuming they still work, has a gross advantage over a normal fisherman in that they don't have to play the game of wearing down the fish's stamina. They just instantly pull the fish in. Definately bad.

Crafting bots I still object to in principle, but in terms of impact on the game I don't really care, assuming it doesn't bypass the timer on how soon you can craft again. Personally I never had a hard time reading a book while crafting or just entertaining myself with LS chat while I did it. Loading the crystal is trivial. The hard part is finding the profit synths, collecting the materials, and posting them at prices that sell for a reasonable compromise of speed and profit.

AH bots then, obviously, I have great enmity for. Someone who sits by the AH reposting their sushi all day deserves to get a little reward for that, but setting a script and walking away for the rest of the day and keeping a stranglehold on the market like that is abhorrent.

[Wise Donkey]

Wrong, no. Agaist the ToS, yes.

[Mhurron]

Wrong, no. Agaist the ToS, yes.
Being against the ToS makes it wrong.

[Wise Donkey]

Being against the ToS makes it wrong.

I think the OP was asking about wrong in a moral sense, not a "Does SE like it?" sense. I don't classify the FFXI ToS as a moral guide.

[LyonheartLakshmi]

In the past, SE's solution for detecting bots has been to solicit a response from the user. If the user didn't respond to whatever popped up, SE could conclude that the user was AFK and using a bot to handle fishing/crafting/etc.

It seems that bots have adapted to this, and create audible (or some other attention grabbing) alerts to let bot users know that they need to respond. This means that SE's old strategy for investigating bot usage is not complete. SE needs to research other ways of being able to verify bot usage. Given the wording of today's announcement on bans, it could be that SE has already implemented a new strategy to do just that.

Whether or not using manned bots is ok / ethical / fair / etc may become a secondary issue. If SE can detect that you are using a bot, manned or not, you are likely facing a temp ban or outright suspension. SE can't count on the honor system when it comes to finding out whether or not a bot is being "manned" or not.

[Mhurron]

I think the OP was asking about wrong in a moral sense, not a "Does SE like it?" sense. I don't classify the FFXI ToS as a moral guide.
There is no special morality involved, and I was talking about your idea that there was.

Being against the ToS and that you have to agree to that ToS to play, violating the ToS is morally wrong.

[Omni]

Yea, I was mainly asking about in a moral sense. Obviously, anything with a bot is automatically out.

[Kirsteena]

I, as a fisher, see the main thing about bots a level 1 fisher can pull up a level 90+ fish.

Why should someone be able to do that, when I, who have put HOURS into levelling fishing (2 weeks between skill ups sometimes happens) struggle to pull in that same fish because I don't have enough skill?

No, fish bots are never acceptable. If crafting isn't for you, find some other way to make money - don't affect those who choose to do it by giving yourself an unfair advantage.

[Omniblast]

However, do you think its wrong to use a bot to take care of these tasks for you BUT you are always there at your keyboard? It wouldnt provide you with any advantage over any other crafter/fisherman. You wouldnt do any of these tasks any quicker since theres a delay on how soon you can craft again. You wouldnt fish any more effectively either.


There use to be a program you can use to make yourself have no delay in crafting. Basically as soon as the crystal animation was done, you could use another crystal and load all the materials into it, and continue crafting.

That same program allowed you to access your delivery box anywhere in the city. You could stand at the AH and open your del box if you wanted to.

Oh and regarding bots, remember that long time ago when a lot of people were in rabao and botted to catch rusty caps and then use a light crystal to desynth the cap to a padded cap? I remember when there were hundreds of people there, but where are they now? Did they finally get banned? Or can SE's system not go that far back? I wonder...

[Wise Donkey]

There is no special morality involved, and I was talking about your idea that there was.

Being against the ToS and that you have to agree to that ToS to play, violating the ToS is morally wrong.

Agreed, but I got the impression that the OP was asking in a broader sense than just FFXI.

[Liquidedust]

There is no special morality involved, and I was talking about your idea that there was.

Being against the ToS and that you have to agree to that ToS to play, violating the ToS is morally wrong.

To play the devil's advocate, the only way to change an unlawful law is to work against it. By your definition it is morally wrong to break that law even if the law itself is unlawful since it is written down as law.

And on the topic yeah I am against bots, even in this case "attended play" botting.

[Necropolis]

I would have to say that I am against bots, but I would prefer a way of setting up synths. Say I have a stack of crystals and the materials to use all twelve crystals, I would like to be able to just select "Synth 12 of these" option or something to that effect.

You would still have to sort your inventory every now and then, reload supplies, sell your synths and all that on manuel. I would just like to select 12 crystals and how many ever needed ingredients to synth for like 2 to 5 minutes till I run through all the crystals.

I suppose my idea is more like a bot, but to a slightly less degree. But I think that SE could give us something to do that wouldn't require our complete attention on the game at all times.

[Taskmage]

To play the devil's advocate, the only way to change an unlawful law is to work against it. By your definition it is morally wrong to break that law even if the law itself is unlawful since it is written down as law.It's less of an issue of "law" so much as every time you log on to play, you agree to abide by the terms of the ToS. By clicking that "Accept" button and then proceeding to break the ToS, you're either lying ot breaking a promise, either of which is immoral regardless of the magnitude of consequences or your position regarding the rightness of the rules you agreed to.

[Omni]

I would have to say that I am against bots, but I would prefer a way of setting up synths. Say I have a stack of crystals and the materials to use all twelve crystals, I would like to be able to just select "Synth 12 of these" option or something to that effect.
You would still have to sort your inventory every now and then, reload supplies, sell your synths and all that on manuel. I would just like to select 12 crystals and how many ever needed ingredients to synth for like 2 to 5 minutes till I run through all the crystals.
I suppose my idea is more like a bot, but to a slightly less degree. But I think that SE could give us something to do that wouldn't require our complete attention on the game at all times.

Yea, this is sort of what I was thinking of in conjunction with how crafting is in WoW. It'll craft up to XX amount given you have: 1) the necessary materials 2) enough materials 3) enough space in inventory.

I, as a fisher, see the main thing about bots a level 1 fisher can pull up a level 90+ fish.

Why should someone be able to do that, when I, who have put HOURS into levelling fishing (2 weeks between skill ups sometimes happens) struggle to pull in that same fish because I don't have enough skill?

No, fish bots are never acceptable. If crafting isn't for you, find some other way to make money - don't affect those who choose to do it by giving yourself an unfair advantage.

My ignorance to how fishing works apparently has been manifested here. I thought it would take the bot the same amount of time to pull up the fish as well.

I'm sure you meant the last half of your post to be in general terms, but I just wanted to clarify that this is merely a hypothetical that I thought of with this latest round of mass bannings.

I've never liked crafting or fishing, I find that doing bcnm/ksnm/isnm/enm a better way at making money for the time I have to play. Perhaps my OP wasnt clear or that maybe this type of situation is just incapable of leaving out certain undeniable aspects of the game: ToS, fairness, etc etc. Or perhaps, it's a bit naive of me to think that a player would actually use a bot just to only make it more convenient for himself as Necropolis said, rather than to gain an unfair advantage.

[Liquidedust]

It's less of an issue of "law" so much as every time you log on to play, you agree to abide by the terms of the ToS. By clicking that "Accept" button and then proceeding to break the ToS, you're either lying ot breaking a promise, either of which is immoral regardless of the magnitude of consequences or your position regarding the rightness of the rules you agreed to.

I actually weren't referring to the game itself by that comment, it was meant more in a general sense Taskmage since we were talking morals.

However the ToS is really so horribly written that by the ToS definition I am not allowed to use it on Vista. This since Vista have to emulate a WinXP enviroment in order for FFXI to start with (which is by the way the ToS is written not allowed since this is virtually a third-party application).

So yes I break the ToS every time I log in just due to the nature of Vista and how the ToS is currently written, is this morally wrong?

[Neomage]

/script run .fish

In all serriousness, I don't mind manned botting that much - but there is a fine line between boting and hacking. Anyone who uses a fishing script to catch fish, but reel it in manually, I'm ok with. Anyone who used a crafting bot to load their crystals I'm ok with. But when someone starts nuking fish(insta-reel in, thats the proper term btw) or using a No Wait program to ignore crafting delay, thats hacking.

[Omni]

However the ToS is really so horribly written that by the ToS definition I am not allowed to use it on Vista. This since Vista have to emulate a WinXP enviroment in order for FFXI to start with (which is by the way the ToS is written not allowed since this is virtually a third-party application).
So yes I break the ToS every time I log in just due to the nature of Vista and how the ToS is currently written, is this morally wrong?

Ok, I'm going to fess up. I break ToS too. I use Vista on my box at home that has FFXI. :(

This sort of reminds me of the segregation laws in US history. Is segregation morally correct because it's law? Obviously not. Not really apples to apples here but the basis is similar.

[Liquidedust]

Ok, I'm going to fess up. I break ToS too. I use Vista on my box at home that has FFXI. :(

This sort of reminds me of the segregation laws in US history. Is segregation morally correct because it's law? Obviously not. Not really apples to apples here but the basis is similar.

This is kinda the point I were trying to originally make, we know something is completely wrong but according to the law and rules that are set it is correct and allowed (and even encouraged).

Do we just blindly follow the law and rules that are supposed to regulate our behaviour since it is the definition of right, or do we actively work against it as well as break to the rules to create a change in the law and rules the regulate us?

Or rather; is law and rules really correct just because they say they are?

Either way past midnight here and really not in any conition to have a discussion about such an interesting topic before I have had some sleep :).

So catch you tomorrow at breakfast. ;)

[Neomage]

This is kinda the point I were trying to originally make, we know something is completely wrong but according to the law and rules that are set it is correct and allowed (and even encouraged).

Do we just blindly follow the law and rules that are supposed to regulate our behaviour since it is the definition of right, or do we actively work against it as well as break to the rules to create a change in the law and rules the regulate us?

Or rather; is law and rules really correct just because they say they are?

Either way past midnight here and really not in any conition to have a discussion about such an interesting topic before I have had some sleep :).

So catch you tomorrow at breakfast. ;)

No way in hell is something right because it has a position on authority. Just look at McCarthy. Was he right simply because he was a sennator?

[Omniblast]

BTW, I know there is a whole entire install process with installing FFXI on vista, but... does anyone know of a ETA when SE is going to implement a "easier" vista install or fix? I mean, what do those poor people do that have old discs with used for installation? Are they SOL or will SE provide a "Installer" program to allow them to install it on a Vista build machine?

Part of the reason why I have not jumped the Vista bandwagon was that I did not want my applications broken when I made the jump.

However the Office 2007 does look good and promising, I may get that to stay above the crowd.

Omni, know of any good software vendors that sell vista & office? PM me.

[Taskmage]

I actually weren't referring to the game itself by that comment, it was meant more in a general sense Taskmage since we were talking morals.
However the ToS is really so horribly written that by the ToS definition I am not allowed to use it on Vista. This since Vista have to emulate a WinXP enviroment in order for FFXI to start with (which is by the way the ToS is written not allowed since this is virtually a third-party application).
So yes I break the ToS every time I log in just due to the nature of Vista and how the ToS is currently written, is this morally wrong?Yes, again because when you click on the Accept button you're affirming a pledge to abide by the rules that SE set forth, regardless of how silly or poorly written those rules may be. The wrongness has nothing to do with breaking the rule that SE made, it's in breaking your own promise to abide by the silly rule.

[Necropolis]

I find this discussion quiet fascinating, but keep in mind it's a game and rules of morality are skewed. In most aspects of life where morality is concerned, murder is wrong, but we never have a second thought about killing another person in a game because it isn't real. So many people just associate that game =/= real, so morals do not apply.

As for the ToS, I believe that the vast majority of players have never read them. How many people actually read the "laws" of software before hitting the "Accept" button. Perhaps skim over some key topics covered, but I would say in most cases that people do not read them. I typically think of them as a way of the company covering thier hides when they ban/reject license et cetera. Thier way of saying "We have your legal digital signature that says when you play this game we can come and burn down your house"

I find it unfair that after I pay X amount of money for something, install it, get it running, a box pops up and tells me I don't own it, and that they can do what ever they like with it regardless of my opinion. Where is my option to submit to them my own ToS and tell them what I will or will not do. Yes, I can always decline the agreement, but then I'm just out X dollars for software I don't want to agree too.

More applicable to FFXI would be something like a botter or a windower. I've read the ToS stance on third-party software, but where did SE read where I said that I paid a lot of money for a computer that can do more than one thing at a time. That I would like to listen to my music while playing, or use an Instant Messenger, or browse a web site for a moment with out shutting the game down? I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that "ToS"s in general are very one-sided and leave no room for customer feed back.

But in game I like balance as well. Off-line games I get bored with quickly if I cheat because it takes the challenge away from the game. I would be the same if I "cheated" in FFXI. I suppose argument stems from what everyone considers cheating. Some are obvious, some are on that fine line, like a bot to craft. It would be dependent on who would exploit something of this nature, and who would use it so that they can grab a drink while crafting.

Have I broken FFXI's or other softwares ToS? I'm sure I have unknowingly. Some rules are silly, and I do not apply the same code of ethics to a game that I apply to real life situations. I do not however cheapen mine (or others) enjoyment by cheating.

[Omni]

Yes, again because when you click on the Accept button you're affirming a pledge to abide by the rules that SE set forth, regardless of how silly or poorly written those rules may be. The wrongness has nothing to do with breaking the rule that SE made, it's in breaking your own promise to abide by the silly rule.


Then where is the Accept button with say, the issue of segregation in the 50s?

What conscious decision did blacks have in abiding to those laws? Was being born/moving to that area of the U.S. their Accept button? Or was it being a U.S. citizen or resident of that state their Accept button?

Not clicking on the Accept button means not playing the game you payed for or not being able to live and learn in your state. Both are not possible in sense.

I understand that ffxi is not on the same plane of importance and significance as segregation was but I'm trying to draw a parallel between the two.

[Taskmage]

Then where is the Accept button with say, the issue of segregation in the 50s?There wasn't one, so I think that's a pointless comparison to make.Not clicking on the Accept button means not playing the game you payed for or moving north out of the south. Both are not possible in sense.I don't see the point you're trying to make here. If you buy a Pez dispenser, and then the guy you bought it from says he won't give you any candy to put into it unless you kill a man. Does it justify killing a man for you to be able to use the candy dispenser you paid for?

Likewise, you paid a certain amount for the client software for this game. In order to play it you have to promise to abide by its rules. The fact that refusing to make the promise keeps you from enjoying something you feel entitled to doesn't negate the wrongness of making a promise you have no intention of keeping. So if you're willing to accept having done an insignificantly small wrong in exchange for the privilege of playing the game, by all means go ahead. I do all the time. But don't think that makes breaking promises "right." We call that a slippery slope.

[Necropolis]

Then where is the Accept button with say, the issue of segregation in the 50s?

What conscious decision did blacks have in abiding to those laws? Was being born/moving to that area of the U.S. their Accept button? Or was it being a U.S. citizen or resident of that state their Accept button?

Not clicking on the Accept button means not playing the game you payed for or moving north out of the south. Both are not possible in sense.

Still fascinating me. It has been said that history repeats itself, I guess I never reliezed that it meant it also repeats itself our own created alternate realities. Have we moved the Galkas to a reservation yet, told the mithra in windurst that they can't attend Tarutaru schools, and slain the elvaans by the millions to create a better gene pool?

I agree that hitting the accept button that I have agreed to the ToS (whether I've read it or not), but I don't think that things we deem as "silly" will be changed unless people act against it. If we are mimicing our own reality we know that pleas to SE for a change will not always render results. It will take martyers to get banned and the accounts of innocents to render change in our digital paradise.

Another legal issue with ToS is that of international law and legal age. While a parent had to initial accept and use thier credit card, a minor may be logging in everytime after that. They are not of legal age to enter contracts. Of course the parents would be held responsible, but hard to force the ToS on a child hell bent on breaking it. And to what company am I agreeing to when I hit "Accept"? SE of Japan or an US version of the company? Am I unknowingly breaking laws of my own country by accepting a legal agreement with a foreign affiliate? More things to ponder I suppose.

Sorry if I seem scatter-brained in the post, keep getting interuppted while at work >.>;;
Probably breaking a rule at work now about internet usage. Damn me to hell.

[Omniblast]

This article was posted back in 2000 of May, but I found it online regarding dealing with minors as contractors.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_22/b3683155.htm


Q: Can a minor enter into a legally binding contract?
A: A minor [a person under age l8 in most states] cannot enter into a contract that is legally binding on the minor and a third party as an adult can. They're not old enough to make a contract.

Therefore, if someone -- a corporation, a customer -- contracts with a minor, the contract is voidable by the minor or the minor's guardian before the minor becomes an adult and, in most cases, for a period of two years and sometimes longer [after that]. Voidable means the minor or his guardian can elect, for any reason, not to honor the contract.... There is nothing that a third party [someone contracting with a minor] can do to stop that.

Another one

Q: How risky is this for someone contracting with a minor? Can they get their money back?
A: If at the time the minor or guardian seeks to void the contract, the consideration has been converted or consumed, the minor doesn't have an obligation to return the money, stock, or other consideration received. The third party is entirely at risk.

Unless it is food or something that is necessary for the survival of the minor, assuming most of their users are minors, the contracts can be voided by the minor at any time.

[Akashimo]

This article was posted back in 2000 of May, but I found it online regarding dealing with minors as contractors.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_22/b3683155.htm
Unless it is food or something that is necessary for the survival of the minor, assuming most of their users are minors, the contracts can be voided by the minor at any time.
So by definition, that makes the ToS to all under 18 players null invoid there by inappliciable to affect them to anything?

[Neomage]

So by definition, that makes the ToS to all under 18 players null invoid there by inappliciable to affect them to anything?

Isn't these something in the ToS about it binding the minor's guardian or something?

Anyway, if it's not, and the minor is void from the ToS, it dosn't change the fats that your character is SE's property and they can do whatever they want with it, including wiping it from all existance.

[Clever Ninja]

Even if that law were to be applied here it doesn't matter. You don't OWN your character, you simply pay SE for the right to have access to it every month. They can do whatever they wisih if they feel it violates their TOS. If you wish to void your contract, SE can wish to void your character because its store on THEIR servers that THEY pay the bandwidth and maintenance for.

So you can argue semantics all you want about this and that, but as it stands SE has the final word on anything, and if they ban for bots, then your not allowed to bot. End of story. While you CAN argue for changes to take place, like maybe have crafting be automated in a sense similar to WoW, or that something needs changing and improving, it'll take awhile to get heard. Especially since SE has no real 'official' forums like how MMO's have official forums on their websites.

[Necropolis]

Even if that law were to be applied here it doesn't matter. You don't OWN your character, you simply pay SE for the right to have access to it every month. They can do whatever they wisih if they feel it violates their TOS. If you wish to void your contract, SE can wish to void your character because its store on THEIR servers that THEY pay the bandwidth and maintenance for.



That what what I was more or less trying to say in previous post, was that even though I pay for something, it is not mine. I'm paying to access it, which I feel is not entirely fair. I feel as though if I pay for something it should me mine, and thus become part of my property.

It is stored on thier servers, and they do technically pay for the bandwidth, but they do so with my money and all the other paying customers. I'm sure that SE is still making a profit from the game, why else would they continue to support it?

I'm all for banning those that bot and violate other aspects of the ToS, but I'm also strongly for a better way to define ownership of electronic data. I do not like that the things I spend the most money on, are not even truely my property. This of course is off topic, and a post here I'm sure will change nothing about how companies, SE included, define such things.

I think we would get more response if more people actually broke thier agreements with companies that just reject users for violating a ToS. Businesses do this because they know that people will sit there and take it. But a business is not a business if they arn't making a profit, or at least not in business very long. If SE's choice was to be stubburn and ban everyone for any infringment on the ToS, no matter how small, they would lose a lot of support. Which is thier dilema with banning users of a Windower. If SE banned all windower users they could not stay in the black. If a crafting bot was a widely used as a Windower, then I expect we would see the same reaction from SE.

But that being said, I wouldn't and don't intend on using a bot or windower for that matter. Just fed up with companies that feel like they own something that I put my time and effort into. I bought the software, I pay the subscription, so to me it is mine and mine alone. I pay them to store my digital data and access it when I please. I just think there is a clearer and more efficient way of conducting digital business.

[Murphie]

You're paying for a service, not for a physical object. You pay for services all the time without looking for something that you "own", so why now?

You didn't buy the software. You bought the rights to use a copy of the software. There is a difference. You don't own FFXI. You (at best) own a few CDs or DVDs with data on it that will allow you to access a service provided by SE. You have no rights beyond that.

[Taskmage]

If paying = ownership I have a few apartments, some parking spaces, and a whole ton of movies and video games I need to take back, not to mention a bunch of women who I guess are now my indentured servants. ... No wait, forget that last part.

[Necropolis]

You're paying for a service, not for a physical object. You pay for services all the time without looking for something that you "own", so why now?

You didn't buy the software. You bought the rights to use a copy of the software. There is a difference. You don't own FFXI. You (at best) own a few CDs or DVDs with data on it that will allow you to access a service provided by SE. You have no rights beyond that.

That is what I'm argueing. That I think that services and ownership of digital property need to be revamped. Wont happen here or else where, but doesn't make it any more less valid.

I seldom pay for services. I like owning tangiable things. I own, not rent. I buy, not lease. I just feel that paying for a digital item should be the same. I should own said digital item, not rent or lease it. SE can say what they like, but I own my character and will do with it as I please. Tell me I'm wrong I don't care. It is mine, I control it. And I will be the one to one day delete it.

But this is off-topic at best. Botting is against ToS, but so is windower, so if we are argueing that any "immoral" act against SE's sacred ToS should be banned, why don't they ban Windower users. Simply they could not survive the results of it. If thier were more botters, then SE would react the same way. People control businesses weather they know it or not. Business just know how to market things to make it seem like people are nothing more but mindless sheep that must do what a company says. I disagree, and I digress. I won't agrue what I think the corprate world should be anymore, and let the mindless sheep think that they are slaves to a ToS.

[Theyaden]

In answer to questions regarding SE allowing manned botting lets examine some of the possible consequenses. I'll asume for the sake of arguement the bot adds nothing beyond perfect timing and that you remain in sight of the computer at all times.

Invite bot: Send an invite to anyone who shouts [Teleport Altep] exc while your sitting at the keyboard.
Result: The manned botter will get more fares because his invites will be quicker.
Unfair advantage to the 3rd party tool user deserving of a ban

Craftbot: once the synth delay is completed automatically loads another crystal and materials and starts new synth.
Result: Will be able to run through a skillup a little faster than a non botted player due to getting the timming right each time for starting the next synth
Unfair advantage making botted skillup easier for the manned botter. May these all rot in Mordin Gual without their synthing materials.

Fishbot: Perfect timing of the next cast automated real in at the best possible time
Result fewer broken lines and fish getting away. Slightly faster fish rate due to not accidently delaying longer than neccisary.
Feed to nearest Banshee

Voke/claim bot: Auto attacks, vokes exc preprogramed to claim a certain mob or nm as soon as it appears.
Result: your character attacks before you notice your prey has poped increasing your responce time. The ammount this helps depends on your normal situational awareness. (May said character be set on fire by the nearest GM)

[Kirsteena]

Sorry for the second part of my entry earlier, I know it was hypothetical, but I do get annoyed by fishbots, so tend to go off on one!

[Liquidedust]

Yes, again because when you click on the Accept button you're affirming a pledge to abide by the rules that SE set forth, regardless of how silly or poorly written those rules may be. The wrongness has nothing to do with breaking the rule that SE made, it's in breaking your own promise to abide by the silly rule.

Well technically the ToS isn't even binding in Sweden, since by swedish law an agreement or contract has to be physically or digitially signed with a by the swedish state approved signature in order to be binding in Sweden.

Reason this paragraph were introduced into contract law were due to people scamming other over telephone, regular mail as well as e-mail.

And contracts and agreement are by de facto law signed in Sweden if it is done on your computer physically present in Sweden, so the agreement ofthe ToS is actually automatically void the way it is presented in Sweden.

Also Swedish law finds agreements and contracts signed in Sweden without abiding to the above to automatically become void.

Also by swedish law even if I play on a server in Japan or in US, anything I do in-game as long as I physically sit in front of my computer in Sweden the actions I preform, illegal or legal, are to be governed by Swedish law even if an agreement says otherwise since the action were performed in Sweden.

And on a similar topic this has also created a lot of headaches for the IFPI and MPAA in US. Due to Swedish laws on personal integrety as well as agreement and contract law these two organizations are not allowed work against pirating software as well as copyright infringement in Sweden.

The equalent to these organizations in Sweden due to using the same methods as they use in US to find and locate "pirates" actually leads to them being sued and convicted in court here in Sweden since they try to apply US copyright and agreement law in Sweden which is illegal by itself.

This has also lead to the above organizations listing Sweden on their pirate watch list of countries that doesn't follow their ruleset. Sweden just happens to be a country where we value our own laws and ruleset higher then foreign countries organizations.

They did try about a year ago to shut down a big torrent tracker which were physically in Sweden. This actually lead to the state being sued by the swedish people since it infringed on people's personal integrity (actually over 1000 summons were sent in to the bereau that handles cases against the state here).

Either way if a rule has to be broken in order for me to log in to the game when I am actually no doing anything de facto wrong I don't see me as wrong I see the rule as wrong and in need of replacing.

And there is no way to get the rule to change unless it is worked against and broken so the people who wrote the rule becomes aware of the absurdity and wrongfulness of the rule.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

I'm all for banning those that bot and violate other aspects of the ToS, but I'm also strongly for a better way to define ownership of electronic data. I do not like that the things I spend the most money on, are not even truely my property. This of course is off topic, and a post here I'm sure will change nothing about how companies, SE included, define such things

(etc.)

In 1988, Batman fans were allowed to decide the fate of Jason Todd, the second Robin. The the character had always had mixed reactions amoung fans and the writers of the comic were interested in finding out whether the readers cared if character lived or died.

And so a storyline began, having Batman and Robin trotting to globe in search of Jason Todd's mother. He had been thought to be orphaned, but some things came up leading them to think otherwise. This search led them to find a woman in the Middle East and ultimately as a confrontation with The Joker.

In issue #427 Robin was lured into a trap intended for Batman and beaten savagely by the Joker with a crowbar. He was tied up in a warehouse with his supposed mother and the Joker had left a timebomb with them. Robin and the woman manage to free themselves, but when they reached the door, it was too late and the door was locked. They were caught in the explosion.

At the end of issue #427, readers were asked to do a call-in vote on September 18th, 1987 between 8am to 8pm EST. This way before the internet and an unprecedented moment in comic book history. Never before had readers been allowed to have such a direct influence on the outcome of a story. It was common for talent shows to have call-in votes, but not comic books.

It was actually a close vote, 5,271 said he should live and 5,343 voted Todd should die

So Jason Todd was killed.

The vote created a small controversy in the media, the readers themselves had killed an a fictional icon and a beloved one at that. Newsweek even said "The real murderers are the Batman readers."

The choice of those readers has affected how Batman's character was written for the last 19 years, Batman returned to his original role as a loner for quite some time, darker and haunted by the events of this storyline. Lots of stuff has happened since 1988 in Batman's world, but the result of that vote still influences how the stories are written today and the character of Batman himself.

So, do the readers own Batman or does DC comics own Batman? Truth is, regardless of the choice made by the readers, the resulting stories are that of the writers and artists of Batman. When the readers buy the comic book, they only pay for a copy of the experience. They do not own Batman, they were just given a chance to influence his world.

Your subscription to FFXI is not ownership, either. Think of your subscription as a ticket into an amusement part. When you pay to enter, you consent to the conduct they expect on their private property or in this case, their servers. You pay to partake in the experience, to roleplay as the jobs of Final Fantasy and be a part of that world and its story.

But that world belongs to SE, its story belongs to them. And when you log in, you consent to their rules. Your character is SE's property. The concept art for the characters was done by Tetsuya Nomura, the designs of monsters, armor and lots of things were handled by other artists. The story was written by others, the music, the gameplay. Everything.

You're just paying to experience it. The only thing you really take away from this experience is the memory of the story and the friendships you make, those are yours and yours alone.

You may feel you own your characters because you have paid to play the game, but when my subscription for Batman runs out, I no longer have the privilege to recieve the continuation of his adventures. Just the way it is. You don't own your character and I don't own Batman.

[Taskmage]

Liquidedust, laws have no bearing on determining what is moral or not, as you alluded to in your first post in this thread. Regardless whether you feel the basis of the agreement is invalid or whether your local government will hold you to it, you entered into it on your word and honor, and it is breaking your word that is wrong. Unless you are going to tell me that it is morally correct to break promises or that personal gratification justifies wrongdoing then anything else you say is moot.

Furthermore, just because nobody gives a damn that it's wrong (including me!) doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

As for this whole reenacting the civil rights movement scenario, that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. First of all, who's rights are we fighting for anyway? Botters? This thread started with an outpouring of negative sentiment towards botters, but now someone's put it in the light of contesting an unjust law and we're all rallying against the ToS? What sheep! Do you really think that by continuing to play FFXI on your Vista machine or by using a bot to cheat honest fishermen out of a living that you're sticking it to the "man" somehow? SE isn't even going to notice you unless you do something they percieve as destructive to their game, and if they do they are going to ban or suspend you without a second thought. All that happens is they lose any subscription fees you might have paid in the future, which incidentally is what would've happened anyway if you hadn't made the false promise that you were going to abide by the rules and kept playing. If they lose so many subscribers that way that the game becomes unprofitable, they're not going to apologize and give your account back and say, "Sorry I guess you can cheat now as long as you keep giving me money," they're going to shut down the servers and move on to another game. They make those. A lot of them.

I've clearly become too frustrated with this conversation to continue civilly. I'm bowing out.

[Omniblast]

Well technically the ToS isn't even binding in Sweden, since by swedish law an agreement or contract has to be physically or digitially signed with a by the swedish state approved signature in order to be binding in Sweden.


Um... SE doesn't give a shit what country your in, if you do anything they don't like they can ban you and not give a rat's ass who you are. It's their game, they can do whatever they want with it. Including not letting you play.

Sorry it's just a fact.

[Liquidedust]

Liquidedust, laws have no bearing on determining what is moral or not, as you alluded to in your first post in this thread. Regardless whether you feel the basis of the agreement is invalid or whether your local government will hold you to it, you entered into it on your word and honor, and it is breaking your word that is wrong. Unless you are going to tell me that it is morally correct to break promises or that personal gratification justifies wrongdoing then anything else you say is moot.

Furthermore, just because nobody gives a damn that it's wrong (including me!) doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

As for this whole reenacting the civil rights movement scenario, that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. First of all, who's rights are we fighting for anyway? Botters? This thread started with an outpouring of negative sentiment towards botters, but now someone's put it in the light of contesting an unjust law and we're all rallying against the ToS? What sheep! Do you really think that by continuing to play FFXI on your Vista machine or by using a bot to cheat honest fishermen out of a living that you're sticking it to the "man" somehow? SE isn't even going to notice you unless you do something they percieve as destructive to their game, and if they do they are going to ban or suspend you without a second thought. All that happens is they lose any subscription fees you might have paid in the future, which incidentally is what would've happened anyway if you hadn't made the false promise that you were going to abide by the rules and kept playing. If they lose so many subscribers that way that the game becomes unprofitable, they're not going to apologize and give your account back and say, "Sorry I guess you can cheat now as long as you keep giving me money," they're going to shut down the servers and move on to another game. They make those. A lot of them.

I've clearly become too frustrated with this conversation to continue civilly. I'm bowing out.

---- subtopic ----

Actually depending on how laws function and govern your behaviour it has everything to do with morals to be honest. Since the fundementals of law govern if something is correct or incorrect for a particular individual, and in extension morals. (Now I also argue against laws which I find morally wrong but bare with me).

So we have a ruleset that I have to abide to when logging in to the game, but this ruleset is de facto not legal in Sweden (the way it is presented).

So by default the agreement doesn't exist to start with in Sweden due to how it is presented. So I never break the argeement to start with, since it doesn't exist when I play the game (e.g. swedish laws tells me when I am in Sweden this agreement is voided by default).

But this is by going by the letter of the law, which kinda is against the point (or is it, since people advocate by the letter of the ToS ;))

---- end subtopic ----

And no I don't see me using FFXI on Vista morally wrong even though it is against the rules set by S-E, since I find the rulesset in this scenario to be unlawful since I pay for the service to use FFXI but the rules tell me I am not allowed to use it due to how my OS functions (this because of the syntax in their Terms of Service).

And really this is just a game, while I in no way support cheating, hacking or botting since I believe it destroys the enjoyment for all that play the game, I however don't find it morally wrong in any way to actually access a service I pay for, even though it in this case is by technicality is wrong.

The issue at hand is not right or wrong, since breaking a rule is wrong. The issue is if it is morally wrong to break a rule which I in this case find it isn't (playing FFXI on Vista).

[Liquidedust]

Um... SE doesn't give a shit what country your in, if you do anything they don't like they can ban you and not give a rat's ass who you are. It's their game, they can do whatever they want with it. Including not letting you play.

Sorry it's just a fact.

Of course this I do not oppose in any form or way.

But I were discussing the morals of breaking a rule and how people's as well as countries view on an agreement will govern if it morally defensable to break a rule. (And in some cases even if the stated rules to begin are considered immoral by a specific individual and/or state).

And I thought we were debating not just stating black & white :)

[Manatra]

The ToS isn't legally binding in any way shape or form and probably wouldn't be held up in a court if it were actually tested (note, IANAL).

Whether it is legally binding or not doesn't matter anyway. It gives SE the grounds and excuse they need to ban people as they deem fit. That's basically all its there for.

Anyway, for all of you people talking about morals, ethics, and laws, might I suggest you go read up on some Plato, Artistotle, etc.? http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/philclassics.html

[Clever Ninja]

The ToS isn't legally binding in any way shape or form and probably wouldn't be held up in a court if it were actually tested (note, IANAL).

Whether it is legally binding or not doesn't matter anyway. It gives SE the grounds and excuse they need to ban people as they deem fit. That's basically all its there for.

It doesn't need to be legally binding since they are the true owners of the character. ToS is more of a 'this is what we're letting you know what we don't want you doing with our stuff' guidelines for players.

[Omni]

I think when this thread began turning to more real life situations it wasnt to give sympathy to botters. i think the notion of botting was already established before this thread that it is wrong. The civil rights thing was more regarding the ToS and Windows Vista topic that was brought up.

Am I wrong for using vista and playing ffxi on it? Should I or could I be banned for it? Is it poor foresight on the writers of the ToS to say that no other OS is allowed? I think the intentions of some ideas were mixed up. I was in no way trying to justify botting as OK by drawing parallels to civil rights.

As far as ownership goes, it's a very sticky situation. I work for a web hosting company. We own all the hardware, network infrastructure, co-location space etc etc. If a client develops their website or web application on our equipment, who does it belong to? It's their creative property right? but it's our hardware. If they dont pay, we cut off access to their db, web root, etc but that does not mean we own their website. they pay us to use our hardware and bandwidth and switches and firewalls. not paying means we cut those services off but does not mean we own what they have created.

ok i lost my train of thought, i dont know where i was running with this.

[Theyaden]

---- subtopic ----

So we have a ruleset that I have to abide to when logging in to the game, but this ruleset is de facto not legal in Sweden (the way it is presented).

So by default the agreement doesn't exist to start with in Sweden due to how it is presented. So I never break the argeement to start with, since it doesn't exist when I play the game (e.g. swedish laws tells me when I am in Sweden this agreement is voided by default).

But this is by going by the letter of the law, which kinda is against the point (or is it, since people advocate by the letter of the ToS ;))

Actually what one has to consider is that if the contract is truely null and void part of the contract is the ability to play the character. If you sucessfully void the agreement it has the same effect a ban. SE doesn't apply fines for breaking contract they simply end their services. If they had a $20.00 disconnect fee Swedens laws would prevent that from being applied but them exiting from the contract that is already seen as nulified swedish law has no input.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Well technically the ToS isn't even binding in Sweden, since by swedish law an agreement or contract has to be physically or digitially signed with a by the swedish state approved signature in order to be binding in Sweden.

Wow, missed this part.

You entered credit/debit card information to pay to play. Stuff like that consists of the name on the card, your physical address, country, email, phone number. Each time you log in, selecting "Accept" is your signature and consent to play by SE's rules.

If SE were to ban you and you chose to take legal action against them, your very own legal system in Sweden would look at the facts of your agreement with SE, not their own laws. Why? Because the internet is not a nation, its an unregulated global network. The only rules there are the rules you consent to on websites, forums, video games or your service provider. And the owners of those outlets are within their rights to restrict you from what they wish, as their servers do reside on private property.

You may be in Sweden, but you're still a guest in their house.

Your nation's laws have no application here. And no prosecutor would take your case because it would be a losing one.

[Liquidedust]

Wow, missed this part.

You entered credit/debit card information to pay to play. Stuff like that consists of the name on the card, your physical address, country, email, phone number. Each time you log in, selecting "Accept" is your signature and consent to play by SE's rules.

If SE were to ban you and you chose to take legal action against them, your very own legal system in Sweden would look at the facts of your agreement with SE, not their own laws. Why? Because the internet is not a nation, its an unregulated global network. The only rules there are the rules you consent to on websites, forums, video games or your service provider. And the owners of those outlets are within their rights to restrict you from what they wish, as their servers do reside on private property.

You may be in Sweden, but you're still a guest in their house.

Your nation's laws have no application here. And no prosecutor would take your case because it would be a losing one.


Actually it is the very opposite OMG, by offering a service in a region and country in order to run that service you cannot write a rule that voids law since you doesn't want to honor that nations law.

You have to realize there is no such thing as voiding law even if companies want it to appear as if it is that way. And no agreeing to something that is illegal doesn't make it legal by proxy just because a ruleset says so.

It really is an issue of offering a service but you decide to offer it only by breaking law, your rules are later to be voided null since they are defined as unlawful doesn't make them correct.

The other option is just to not offer a service in a country in which you cannot adhere to their laws (which a lot of companies choose due to legal issues). However S-E has chosen to make this game available in Sweden, and since I play in Sweden Swedish laws are actually what apply to the software as well as the service (since the client in this case are run in Sweden).

If it weren't like this electronic and online services would be impossible to actually apply to law, since it make internet and online worlds an area where law doesn't apply at all and everyone can create their own ruleset.

It might be diffrent in US and other areas, but in Sweden it is considered illegal to create rules to enter your own home if those rules doesn't adhere to law to continue your analogy.

And yes online gaming has been taking up in court here in Sweden, and so far Swedish courts have always ruled in favour of the player due to how our laws work. But gaming companies just ignore this since they don't reside in Sweden, and their "rules" says it has to be brought up in court in a court of their choosing. In Sweden you cannot set a rule for where cases are brought up since that is considered by court here, and choose yourself by rule is considered illegal here.