If a person spends money on this game but is unable to access the content purchased due to a ban should Blizzard give that person back their money?
I think as gamers we let companies create rules that are sometimes hard to understand and after we spend money on their game they (the company) feels entitled to keep all the money we have spent and disable our access to the game we paid for.
Disclaimer: I have never been silenced, suspended or banned from any Blizzard game.
How can you even get banned in this game? Iâd imagine you would have to say something really horrible or just throw games by feeding. Why do you care if someone like that loses his money?
If you read terms of use you would know any money you spend in this game cant be refunded.
As to your first question, there is a thread about someone getting banned:
As to your second question, I think as gamers we should think about how companies are banning paying customers. Right now as gamers we have no rights. A company like Blizzard can change the rules any second they want. Iâve been playing Hots since almost day 1. I love the game and it would suck if the rules change to a point where something I say in a match might get me banned.
If you buy a house or a piece of land, are you allowed to do whatever you want with it?
Not surprisingly, no. You still need permits to perform certain actions on your home and you canât just go doing whatever you want on your land either. I know of many places that have guidelines on what colors you are allowed to paint your house.
You can buy a dog or a cat but if you abuse it in any way or someone can prove that you are unqualified to take care of it you will have the animal taken away from you with no compensation.
Just because you spend money on a product or service does not make you exempt from any rules.
Termination
any time for any reason, or for no reason, with or without notice to you* 
. For purposes of explanation and not limitation, most Account suspensions (Notice they donât say all ) and terminations are the result of violations of this Agreement. In case of minor violations of these rules, Blizzard may provide you with a prior warning and/or suspend your use of the Account due to your non-compliance prior to terminating the Agreement or modifying or deleting an Account.So basically, your account can get terminated for any reason and any money you put in this game is forfeit if that happens.
Correct. And by playing these games, you accept these terms.
If Blizzard were a physical location (a gym, a dance club, a restaurant), this would be called house rules. You comply, or you go - and you know these rules beforehand.
This is a perfect summary.
Of course we need rules. The problem is that in todayâs cancel culture with SJWâs starting to add draconian measures to every internet platform it is becoming harder and harder to play online games without offending someone and thus getting your account banned.
At what point do we as gamers stand up to this and demand that such an subjective term like hate speech not be means of banning someone? If you look in the post I mention most of these measures are done by bots. There is very little if any action a user can take to dispute a suspension or ban.
You do your part, I do mine. And you can already start. Itâs called âvote with your walletâ.
Donât play the games of companies whose rules you donât agree with - and definitely donât throw money at them. This is the only way. Then take your money and give it to indie developers who do a good job to encourage them to do more.
Its the same in real life when you buy stuff in stores. Store workers dont have to give you your money back just because you dont like it unless they have some kind of costumer service that allow them to do it. When the money is in the box they stay there whatever you might say to him.
Thereâs nothing stopping you from requesting a chargeback with your bank if you feel like you were cheated. Of course, that gets into the more legal side of things and you could face consequences from that.
I look at it as this: if you go to a concert you paid for, and you do something that gets you kicked out, you donât deserve to be refunded for that ticket. They put work into giving you an experience to enjoy, but itâs not their fault you decided to break rules that you agreed to before entering. Why should they be punished for something you did.
If you do not agree with the rules set forth by the product or service, then donât use it.
This of course means you donât benefit from whatever it is they are offering, but oh well.
Otherwise, you have to ahere to any rules they set for it, and you are informed of these rules beforehand.
This kind of tangent doesnât help your argument.
In some countries Blizzâs and many other companies online terms of agreement break basic sovereign laws. You canât provide a TOS that is against consumer laws of said country. Iâm not commenting on Blizz, but many companies try to (often succeed) in doing this.
It is not lawful for Facebook (in some countries) to keep and control the data of someone who has died, for example. They can get around this in some countries (like mine) where they have been given special exempt status from said laws.
Itâs really an awful thing, my partner is dead, Iâm executor, but Facebook can override me because my country has given them the exemption.
Absolutely no, if you get banned you basically broke the agreement pact or how it is called, that you accepted during installation or buying those products.
In general, I agree with most of you guys though I just donât like the rules set forth that say that Blizzard can terminate your account for any reason at any time.
This opens up the door for a rogue moderator to ban your account. Rather than use an analogy lets give a real world example:
After yelling âliberate Hong Kong, revolution of our age!â during an interview at [ Hearthstoneâs ]( Asia-Pacific Grandmasters tournament, Chung Ng Wai ([ was banned from competing in Hearthstone esports for a year, and Blizzard rescinded $10,000 in prize money. Despite the punishment, Blitzchung [stands by his actions]): âWhat I have lost in Hearthstone is four years of time. But if Hong Kong loses, it would be the matter of a lifetime.â
I suppose maybe the answer is to have E-gamers and other gamers form a union type of organization that can more easily affect the revenue of these big games.
âWe as gamersâ lmao. You stand alone. If you want a platform to spew your âhate speechâ i hear reddit is doing well.
Just stop. You asked whether being a paying customer should confer the right to contest a ban. I think not, but the only answer that matters is, âIt doesnât matter, themâs the rules.â
Itâs no secret that the entire ordeal was shady for Blizzard. However, youâre ignoring that the player did violate rules. They didnât enforce the âwe can ban at anytime we wantâ policy they have. Make no mistake, this is not supporting Blizzard on that action either way, but itâs not a good comparison to bring up.
The policy was made to protect their company against them doing false bans. True or not, they have no repercussions in doing them, which is why every gaming company has this policy.
Technically you are wrong, Blizzard can and does change the terms of service for many of itâs games. So you could agree to a games TOS at installation but how often do you re-read the TOS post launch? What if something changes that you donât agree with? Honestly I think there is a greater issue of huge terms of service that companies force people to sign knowing that most people donât read them.
Thereâs 3 functional concerns with your topic:
Real world parallels of this sort of action exist; it is not exclusive to video games. People that tried to use gameshow spotlights or interviews or other outlets to express a controversial message have had similar consequences despite not being a âvideo gameâ platform
Gamers have ârightsâ, and businesses also have "rightsâ. The problem is that people choose to revel in ignorance and only care when something happens that they didnât like, regardless of whatever violation happened.
Ignorance isnât protection. While some aspects of âlegaleseâ can convolute the language (making it harder to understand) the fullest extent of âterms of useâ arenât completely legally binding and people can have avenues for frivolous punishments or terms. The basic gist is that companies have interests beyond what the plebeian user will ever consider and in a lot of cases, they donât actually âenforceâ a hefty chunk of stuff they should because theyâre not secretly out to ban people as a way to milk them for money.
eg. a number of Terms may site its a violation to use 3rd party programs, but they may not enforce that on all occasions. However, in some cases, some companies are intentionally lax and then a large sweep of hitting exploiters simple because they thought it was now âokayâ because no one had be punished that they knew. Of those, they just assume stuff is okay instead of say, checking with a community moderator to verify concerns.
If someone raises a rally stink at a McDonaldâs regardless of how much they may have paid/eaten/whatever, they may be banned, and not be given a refund. If you go over to friends house and start prociliting from a megaphone (and keep doing it) they may have you removed from the premise, garner a restraining order (from court) and have otherwise made your relationship super awkward regardless of however much you may have invested in time, emotional connections or whatever currency you could equate to that personal history.
The general rule of thumb is that people donât like getting âin troubleâ and regardless of cause, severity, conditions, agreement, or whatever, theyâll try to weasel their way out of it.
Assumptions and ignorance are terrible vices that can easily be offset by people putting in a little bit more effort to double-check that sort of stuff. However, things tend to be too rife with distractions, demands for gratification, and otherwise neglecting that their own ârightsâ end when another party also has rights as well.
âRightsâ tend to be a misconception were people just take more ignorance and assumptions and lambat anything that doesnât agree with them because theyâd rather blame anything else than put in a bit more effort on their own part to be informed.