You decided it was inconvenient for you so you chose not to reply, but; you might want to see this part and consider it again:
It does not say
Blizzard’s public commentary on the topic is Blizzard authorizing it.
Unless you think there should be a table containing every mod, add-on, device that is dependent on any software including firmware, or software that they expressly permit your interpretation of their EULA is either woefully misguided or you are being deliberately obtuse.
Your keyboard and mouse use firmware…which is by definition code…so in that scenario every single make and model of either one that uses a different set of firmware (the same holds true with motherboards, GPUs, SSDs, HDDs, ad infinitum…) should have to be individually listed in the EULA as expressly authorized.
Are we at idiotic levels of extending your argument to its quite logical limits yet?
Yes. They should have put that in the EULA. But they didn’t.
The whole point of an EULA is to be clear and unambiguous. By the language and the way it’s written, the Blizzard attorney clearly went out of his way to create an overly broad definition of “cheating”.
This is not rectified by blue posts claiming it’s okay. If they want it to be okay, then why don’t they put it in the legal document that their users have to agree to?
I agree. This has been my only complaint, and the point of comparing it to how every other software functions.
Though I do know the explicit blessing of multi-boxing thing was added later, because as you said, the rest of the EULA wording sounds like it outlaws multi-boxing.
If you can say that, then you could say it outlaws any external software that interacts with the game in any way at all, period. Which is why the EULA more specifically addresses it than just one broad stroke for all software.
Feel free to quote what you’re saying contradicts itself again, specifically outlining why you think it contradicts itself.
Blizzard added in sections to explicitly allow multi-boxing, but those sections conflict with some of the original sections.
They also have forum moderators giving additional guidance using wording that is contrary to common usage. Per the Supreme Court (and most other judiciaries), wording that is contrary to the common usage will not hold up.
I’m not going to reiterate all of my arguments. You can scroll up and read them.
Actually, there would always be another attorney that would argue what the correct definition is during any kind of proceeding. So, no, Blizzard’s interpretation is not legally all that matters.
Since there’s no ongoing proceeding, I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that in relation to Blizzard’s products, Blizzard’s word on terms of use is the law of the [digital] land.
So, yeah. It is all that legally matters. It’s broad enough to cover what it needs to but doesn’t simply toss blanket rules everywhere.
I’m waiting for this one as well and I really do hope he goes with…
…since taken strictly enough that means the keyboard, mouse, monitor, and computer he is playing on as well as the OS and other things like drivers - not being expressly listed by Blizzard as approved - all use software or code in order to operate and all of them facilitate gameplay and should by his interpretation be outlawed.
If you read that narrowly enough, Blizzard should have to expressly authorize your brand and model of computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and router since they all facilitate gameplay and all are driven by code of one form or another. Hell, the OSs would have to be expressly written in as well, version by version.
He’s being absurd, and I’m pretty sure you know that.
No, it really isn’t. The rest of the EULA doesn’t “sound” like it outlaws multiboxing. It either definitively does or definitively does not. There is no “maybe” to this.
If you could broadly interpret the EULA as outlawing multiboxing, then you could interpret it as outlawing much, MUCH more than that.
You ignore things that disprove your argument and keep bringing up your own self imposed rules and meanings. Completley disregarding anything from Blizzard that dosen’t fit your wording.
The EULA was written 2 years ago. (Last revised June 1, 2018). People have linked and posted multiple Dev (blue) responses to the issue. But you keep falling back to legal wording as if that is the end all be all.
You don’t want to learn, discuss, or debate. You want to whine, cry and throw a temper tantrum.
Go tell you mommy about your issues… maybe she will still placate your ego. Call you special, and then roll her eyes while you wipe the tears away.
seriously we could take a hammer and a chisel to try and pound the truth into peoples heads but they still wouldn’t believe it when Blizzard themselves has said multiboxing is ALLOWED
Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations, the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit.[1] The Court’s unanimous opinion held that the Tariff Act of 1883 used the ordinary meaning of the words “fruit” and “vegetable,” instead of the technical botanical meaning.
If Blizzard’s interpretation uses words in a way that outside of the common usage of those words, then their interpretation is meaningless.
They are!