I dont post much, but that was hilarious what a retort OMG im dying from laughter.
1 Like
I contest the fact that the mechanic of the seasonal theme was a bug. Even if it could be subsumed under the according definition, there is enough room for an argument there to establish âreasonable doubtâ (which iâm aware is not a principle of civil courts).
No they can not and no i/you/he did not. In fact if Eggmans account was suspended he could very well sue in civil court and iâd predict heâd win.
And of course D3 is not a court of law, but legal matters concerning D3 are as much opened up to the legal process as every other matter too.
Thatâs exactly what i meant and why i felt the urge to post my initial statement: itâs a complex matter which is difficult to grasp and itâs hard to differentiate all the correlating legal and substantive questions. None of you repliers fully understood it (some not at all) and i donât blame you. Also it doesnât matter. But i do hope that Blizzard getâs it right. I doubt that up to this point they consulted in depth with their legal department, but they certainly will and iâm looking forward to the outcome.
Sue for what?
Even if they had a winning case theyâd spend more money in legal fees and get nothing in return. There was no monetary loss involved. Or, if there was, itâs more likely from sponsors and/or supporters of their Channel, because Blizzard Entertainment does not pay people to play their games. In which case, theyâd be better off trying to sue Twitch.
Perhaps you should contact Eggman and see if theyâll let you represent them.
2 Likes
For suspending the suspension!?
I did not think THAT part was so hard to getâŚ
Someone would actually pay $1,500 to $5,000 just to try and get their gaming account suspension removed? (Not to mention the time involved in filing the case and taking it to court).
1 Like
for a $60 game? (20 chars)
Pretty sure that the âpreponderance of evidenceâ would suggest that it was cheating, even if you couldnât establish it to âbeyond reasonable doubtâ. Itâs clearly a bug. When you do GRs, youâre not supposed to be able to take buffs into them from outside of them.
It doesnât matter if it was a bug or not. If it was a bug, then it is âincludedâ in what they consider a cheat, but that does not mean that everything that they consider cheating comes from bugs. In other words, they are guarding against someone saying âbut it was a bug, so I get to do itâ. They can find you in violation for a lot of things and if one of them happens to be a bug, then the fact that it was a âbugâ doesnât exclude it from being in the class of things that violate the agreement.
I feel that what was exploited here is a bug, perhaps you donât - but our opinions donât matter because that is not the be-all and end-all of what is a cheat. So go ahead and contest that premise all you want because it doesnât prevent them from declaring what was done here a violation.
The defining phrase is âmethods not expressly authorized by Blizzardâ. Never did they say you could do what that player was doing. They donât need to classify it as a bug, they donât need to even describe how it violates their sense of fairness. He must prove that they specifically said he could do A, then B, then C and play the game. He wonât be able to do that here. And if he canât, then it can be classified as a violation.
Itâs a theoretical argument underscoring the point that heâs in the right here. We are talking legalities not economics. Your talking point is no valid argument regarding the actual topic.
You are wrong.
Yes it does.
But yours does?
They put it in the game.
Itâs actually the other way around. There are rarely any cases of burden of proof reversal in any laws where the accused has to prove anything.
Let me tell you a story. A while back there was exploit that allowed players to acquire all passive skills through Hellfire Amulets. It was an obvious exploit, people abusing it got banned.
But by your logic because âBlizzard put it the gameâ, it should should have stayed in game and no one shouldâve been banned. People used an unintended feature to gain unfair advantage but itâs OK since Blizzard put it in the game. You have a weird logic, buddy.
This case is no different. People used other players and other means to gain buffs from the outside and bring them in a solo GR to gain unfair advantage. Oversights are no excuse to abuse cheats and to get away from doing so.
4 Likes
The cheaters got busted exploiting the game and are now sniveling and whining lol! All the creative justification and forum rants wont change this. YA GOT BUSTED! You thought you could get one over on the Diablo Devs and it backfired (insert maniacal LOLS). Lick your wounds, get up and start another character or account and quit being a spoiled sport. You got caught! Deal with it!
1 Like
This lack of ability to differentiate is astonishing.
You did not get a word i said.
Just let me correct your own statement so maybe youâll understand what iâm actually talking about.
Even the âunfair disadavantage to other usersâ would be hard to argue in a court of law, since obviously the mechanics we are talking about were opened up to the use of every player in the game.
Look ppl, all iâm saying is this:
Donât punish ppl for developers shortcomings.
Delete all outcomes of âexploitsâ all you want, but do not penalize players for outsmarting the game without altering the substance and mechanics of the game in any way, shape or form.
Do you guys know about the Credit Warp Glitch in Super Mario World?
Take a look here.
Is this an external alteration of the games substance? No itâs not.
Is it still unintended by the developer? Hell yes, it is!
But ppl figuring out how to use and âexploitâ it are not punished and penalized, they are rewared World Record Holder Titles.
Why? Bcs itâs a highly skilled way to play the game, requiring knowledge and ingenuity.
To me with the way of differentiating circumstances i was tought in law school, iâd say those gamers just have an indepth understanding of the game and i would not call that cheating at all.
And as a gamer iâd even say that Diablo would be a much more exciting game if every season had an âexploitâ like that, tricky to figure out, challenging to execute and with a highly rewarding outcome.
Busted? Eggman put up a video titled âEggsploitâ! =D
He also hinted Blizzard to the fact that the Angelic Support of the 500 kill streak seasonal buff was one-shoting RGs on the PTR.
Maybe you might want the watch the opening scene of the movie âSneakersâ from 1992. May as well enjoy the whole movie too since itâs great.
This will be my last response on the topic since i said what i wanted to weigh in and i feel like every other reaction would be a repetition.
Thx for the somewhat educated discussion! ; )
1 Like
No.
The clause includes bugs, but is not restricted to bugs. Exploiting a bug is one way to cheat, but not the only way. Your assessment that this is not a bug does not mean that this still isnât a cheat per that clause. Therefore it is not a relevant point to defend his actions.
No, and I didnât say my assessment does. I said neither of our assessments as to whether or not this is a bug matters because cheating comes in many forms that are not related to bugs.
No.
If you are thinking of a lawsuit to get the suspension reversed, then Blizzard is the defendant/accused and does not need to prove anything. You and your potential client need to prove that Blizzard did not live up to the claims in the license. The cheating clause defines these types of violations as âmethods not expressly authorizedâ and so in order to prove that Blizzard violated the agreement, then you as the accuser/plaintiff need to prove that Blizzard expressly authorized the style of game play that your client was using and streaming.
1 Like
You obviously have no background in jurisprudence.
Eggman can show the video proving he was just playing the game, stating he was only using the mechanics of the seasonal buff as is.
After that burden of proof would be resting upon Blizzard.
This will actually be my last response.
Already feeling guilty for my lack of consequence.
: )
I know many fine lawyers that would only make a statement like that if it was a âslam-dunkâ, where there was no room for reasonable doubt. I even checked another scenario where even a moderator was incorrect and they would have lost, yet I saw no point in slamming it home because it is only a forum and only a game. I am not a lawyer but I have life-friends that are senior partners and I am in their age bracket.
Under different circumstances, a EULA or T.O.S, the agreement is everything. It is contestable for sure, but only in circumstances where it breaches human rights, privacy rights and other critical areas designed for the protection of all people.
If the person concerned claiming persecution had put it in writing BEFORE the enactment, thereby notifying the owners of their intent for demonstration of a BUG, and not openly flaunted it on public streaming; it might hold water.
Here is one of MANY regarding contract law related to terms of service. If you are training in a law firm, your firmâs partners and senior partners can give you the legal precedents and cases that would be directly pertinent. Predictions are best to avoid. if you are a paralegal you should have easy access to this information.
https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/governing-law-terms-conditions/
EDIT:
Ask any lawyer that is going to do any type of litigation in a court. In order to achieve the maximum effect, they never post their intent on a forum or a public site. They just do it and then let the media do the dirty work.
2 Likes
I donât understand why groupies are buffed in the first place.
As a soloist, I feel discriminated against. I thought blizz was âinclusiveâ and whateverthehell.
1 Like
Iâm not asserting that I have a lot of legal background here, but I know that agreement was written by, or approved by, a whole team of lawyers either employed by or on retainer to a multi-billion dollar gaming corporation which has a vested interested in controlling the impact of cheaters on its various licensed games. I have far more faith in the crafting of that agreement than in the claims of someone on the web who describes themselves as âa student of the lawâ .
I didnât write the agreement, but Iâm trying to help you see where you are missing something about the agreement they created.
One thing that may be happening here is that many people in this thread are mischaracterizing what the player was doing. I keep seeing people saying that it was known that you can carry stacks into the GR after earning them outside the rift, but that wasnât what the player was doing. Blizzard has asked us not to describe the exploit so I wonât explain further, but if you think that is what is being discussed here, then I think maybe you should do further reading on what happened.
Also, consider that their fix is specifically isolated to âyou only get a stack if you are present in the world where the kill happensâ. Nothing about that description of the fix would affect what people are saying the player did. But it will affect what he actually was doing.
2 Likes
Thanks for the link. Very informative. Pretty much says all we need to know. 
No problem. If you ever feel inclined to read the Microsoft O/S EULA, it makes the Blizzard one look very simple by comparison. Have a headache pill handy if you ever decide to do that. 
Why did you ban Eggman but didnât clear asian leaderboards?
6 Likes