So here’s the issue. I generally try to read contracts. It’s not as simple as “clicking accept”. The reason is they are legally binding, and you can bet that if there is ever a problem, then the other side will hold every single word over you.
A lot of you seem to object to what I’m saying because you believe that I want to behave like an removed. No - I’m generally one of the nicer people you’ll find in the game, and I’d like it if more were nice too.
The issue though is words mean things. When the terms say “identifiable groups”, for example, what EXACTLY does that mean? If I joke that anyone wearing the same silly helmet in game as me should identify as a carrot, and someone calls me a broccoli, then where do each of us stand in the terms of use? Will Blizzard be sensible in these scenarios? I hope so, but hitting “accept” on contracts (because that’s what that was) brings potential consequences, and it’s wise to think about all the consequences rather than just skimming and hoping. You can also bet that in the future they’ll try to automate all this stuff like they do with reporting - so will you be able to talk some sense into a ChatGPT type AI moderator?
The devil is in some of the details, thus reading contracts, is time-consuming and unwelcome when I want to just kill some dragons in a video game - especially when they end up saying the same thing I already agreed to in the past and, thus, just stressing me out and wasting my time (since meanwhile I’m also 1 month into a 12 month sub, wondering what will happen to the other 11 months in the event I happen to find something unacceptable).
Telling people to not be removed again is fair warning and all, but should be something so glaringly obvious that no one actually needs to say it, and I find banning offenders works even better than making everyone re-accept terms of a contract that may or may not have changed that the problem cases obviously don’t read or care about.
Also, all of you running to the defense of Blizzard, let’s run a simple thought exercise. Let’s say this accept window pops up every time you log in and the TOS/EULA changes every few weeks. They’d be perfectly in their rights to do so. If they put in there, like paypal recently tried (I believe it was them anyways), a clause that they can fine you monetarily $1000 for any infraction, what then? And imagine that a few weeks prior/later, they also slipped in that they determine(d) that using the word “mob” for hostile npcs was a slur against Italians worthy of such a fine and they’d go 2 years back in their chat logs looking for infractions (or even partner with discord and spy on voice chats). I’m sure a few of you with 50+k posts would still rush to Blizzard’s defense like always, but I suspect there would be hell to pay on the forums when people started getting their credit card bills, because with such frequent updates no one would catch it before then. Where would you stand? At some point, there is potential for the contract to stray too far away from “pay money → play video game” for people to start to object. Decide where your line is in advance of getting to it. Let’s not inch towards directions we don’t want to go in, down any of those slippery slopes. When I click to play WoW I want to play WoW, not scour legal documents for potential pitfalls and deviations in contracts I already agreed to.
Personally, I recognize the usefulness/necessity of TOSes and EULAs - I just like when they’re fair and upfront with their terms before money changes hands, and after that don’t change unless there is some major new glaring omission that needs to be urgently addressed (grandfathering people into older versions is always an option in such a case). The ideal time for these “accept/exit” windows are before payment, or immediately after with the option to refund if such terms are disagreeable.
