Dear Blizzard,
Today, upon logging into WotLK, I was greeted with a social contract dialogue box on my character screen.
I find it unethical of you to sell me a sub for 1 year, and within a few short months, hold my characters hostage with some “accept or leave” dialogue box adding new terms and conditions.
While I could hardly care less about the these particular conditions, as being polite to others is only natural (though I find it it ridiculous that I have to sign something to behave because you got caught behaving badly and are now desperate to virtue signal), I do object to the principle of the thing. If you can hold my sub hostage to agreeing to these silly terms at your discretion, you can hold hold my sub hostage to any terms at any time. While your TOS and EULA probably may allow for that sort of shady business practice, it is not expected or welcome from your customers. The proper time for this kind of stuff, is BEFORE someone hands you their money, not after.
Like the previous person I replied to about this…
Fixed it.
You know how you used to have to click the “accept” button for updates to the terms of service?
Yeah it’s that as a tldr version and suggestions mixed in.
What they said.
Yes, you do need to accept it to play.
While terms can be changed at any time - there is no change here at all. This is more a reminder of what you’ve ALREADY agreed to in shorthand version.
I was admitted to the hospital last week.
Had to sign a social contract promising to treat staff and other patients with respect.
Anyone who hasn’t seen the need, isn’t paying attention to the public discourse that makes such reminders necessary.
If there is no change, then there is no reason to make me pour over legal speak again.
If it’s a reminder, make it an “OK” dialogue box, and tell me it’s restating what I already agreed to, not an “Accept” button which makes me potentially legally liable to new things depending on what’s in there.
Whataboutism at it’s finest. The same way you are holding all employees responsible for the actions of a few employees, Blizzard reminds all players because of the actions of a few players.
You clicked “Agree” to the EULA. It’s no different. The Social Contract contains the same information in a more succinct manner. You are not agreeing to anything new. If it contained new terms the EULA would also have to be updated and agreed to.
A couple points here. One, no one elected you to speak for Blizzard’s customers. You only speak for yourself. Two, if you feel Blizzard does “shady business practices” why did you give them your money?
They did. You agreed to those terms when you installed Blizzard’s software.
I’ve been playing since Vanilla. I had the Social Contract appear recently too. I read it. I saw that it was just the same rules outlined in the EULA. It’s not some conspiracy.
I’m not a lawyer, but I play one online sometimes. If you’d like, feel free to quote any ‘legal speak’ in the social contract that is confusing you, and I’d be more than happy to translate it for you, pro bono.
An interesting hill to die on. 
You’ve already agreed to terms that can change at any time for any and no reason. As such, yes, they can provide new terms that you can take or leave. Quite ethical, and a choice if you continue to play or not. You don’t own your account or the pixels, so there is also no hostage situation.
So, it’s too hard for you to be a nice person? Alright.
I have to Agree This is uncalled for. When trying to stick up for yourself against people that are being toxic towards you or others. Why punish the ones that are trying to do the right thing by standing up to those players that are acting that way? It goes into harassment and or discrimination towards the ones that stick up for others and their selves.
The old adage remains true: “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
The instigators in these situations are usually doing this for the sole reason of eliciting a reportable reaction, and all too often people get caught up and fall for the bait.
Asking people to be nice to each other and follow the rules they already agreed to is “uncalled for”?
You’re welcome to stand up to others, but what you are not allowed to do is use inappropriate or disparaging language when doing so.
Most times, it’s better to either report the other player (if they’re breaking rules) or put them on ignore and you’re done with them.
And if two people are going back and forth with toxic and inappropriate language, why is one person “doing the right thing”?
The “right thing” is to report them and put them on Ignore. That’s it. Any other communication with them is not solving any problem.
These two statements are mutually exclusive, at least in the world of sociable, respectful human beings. If statement A is true, then statement B cannot be true. If statement B is true, then statement A cannot be true.
If you’re polite to others then just sign the thing. If you have an internal conflict over signing the thing, then…? If statement A above were true, your desire to be polite and respectful to others would trump any reservations you have about clicking ‘yes’ to the social contract.
If, however, you’re going to hold fast on the ideal of “I don’t want to sign more things because of (reasons),” then I cannot possibly see how your statement A above is true. Then you actually value some internal objection to agreements more than you value the feelings of those around you.
Not good.
Complete conjecture:
Those that have a knee-jerk reaction to signing the social contract have that reaction because their natural behavior is contrary to the rules contained within the social contract, and that scares some (fight-or-flight).
So they get upset, and not being able to accept that they naturally behave contrary to the contract, they come up with “I don’t sign contracts,” and “No more legal garbage,” or “You guys behaved like such-and-such so I am not signing this thing…”
Because to come forth and say, “I don’t want to sign this because I usually behave contrary to this contract,” is extremely embarrassing and socially unacceptable.
I say again, the above is complete conjecture based on observation.
Do we really need to keep arguing this botom line this social contract is once again what was in the EULA just more in our face if they failed to read the EULA thats on them.
Yes, Darth, we can continue discussion until it gets out of hand and a blue shuts it down.
I am not sure these, “guys, we are done,” posts are necessary. You may be done, but with all due respect, you don’t speak for me, and I don’t speak for you. If you want to be done, you yourself can be done. But please don’t try to steer our discussion, especially if you’re not otherwise taking part at all (you don’t have another post in this thread.)
CS is not a place for Discussion, if you want that take it to General. CS is where questions are answered re: policy.