mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Obtena.7952" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also no one has brought up a VERY important fact about the legality of what they did. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I thank you all for participating > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see everyone is ignoring this post b/c they know where it'll go huh? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The game is marketed to underage people. This means that you do not have to be 18 to purchase GW2 and install it onto your computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The company then installs spyware onto the underage & unable to give consent person stating they are legally able to b/c they got consent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get where I'm going now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The parent/guardian is legally responsible for the actions of their child. They permitted them to buy the game, install it, and agree to the ToS. Not being aware of what the child is doing does not absolve them of that responsibility, it makes them negligent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. Again start looking at your argument against other crimes against children. Having a child sign a ToS/EULA won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Read their privacy statement and then come back > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry ... what 'underage' children are you refering to? GW2 is rated TEEN, that's 13 YO. Are we going to add 'marketing' to your list of abused words now as well? How is Anet marketing GW2 to children under 13, getting them to buy, install and play the game ... all without their (negligent) parent's knowledge? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A 13 year old is an underage child. Do you honestly think a 13 year old is able to give consent?!!??!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. A 13 year old cannot give consent and so, unless their parent agreed to the ToS for them, they were never allowed to access the game servers. If the 13 year old agreed to the ToS, he committed an act of fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope he's legally allowed to buy the game. There is no fraud since the game is marketed to him. Again if Kool Aid decided to put grain alcohol into their beverages and continued to sell it to kids they'd be in real trouble even if they made the child sign a contract stating they are of age. I'm not saying Anet is giving alcohol to children or if it's nearly as severe...i'm simply saying you can't market to that age group and hope the consent sticks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's real simple. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The act of signing a contract is an affirmation that one is legally permitted to enter into the contract. By signing the contract the hypothetical 13 year old is claiming that he is not a minor a d so is engaging in a fraudelent act. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marketing is irrelevant to whether or not a minor is allowed to sign a contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For Anet to be in any legal jeopardy I think you would have to prove that Anet knew the account holder was a minor and that they accepted the agreement without permission/knowledge of a legal guardian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why would Anet ever actually accept that? > > > > > > > > By any reasonable thinking they wouldn't, so they'd never be in that situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not that they even have any way of knowing it was done without a guardian's permission. Realistically, they could never even find themselves in such a situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apple 2011 class action lawsuit > > > > > > > > > > > > I assume you mean [this](https://www.wired.com/2011/07/apple-locationgate-settlement/). There were a few class action cases against Apple in 2011. > > > > > > > > > > > > That was over a bug in a certain version of iOS 4 that kept location tracking active even if it was switched off. Since users had switched it off, Apple's right to track them was revoked. Continuing to track them anyway was the violation that got them fined. > > > > > > > > > > > > That doesn't really apply to GW2 because the ToS appears to, in some sort of vague/confusing terms, give them the right to monitor processes on our PCs. There's room to possibly argue that wording only applies to certain processes, or maybe that it's broad enough to be confusing (I think there might be a few states where that can be a thing), but I wouldn't bet money on anyone winning that fight. > > > > > > > > > > they were sued for in app purchases by minors > > > > > > > > > > refunds were issued and the entire platform was changed as minors are unable to distinguish whats good/bad in these situations or give consent > > > > > > > > > > also you can win that fight since this game was marketed to children and the installation of spyware w/out consent is illegal > > > > > > > > I think that's an apples to oranges comparison. That entire case was based around the fact that purchases could be made without needing to re-enter a password for a certain time after their parents had entered it. The FTC's legal issue with the situation was that there was nothing informing parents that, after an app was bought, in-app purchases could be made for the next 15 minutes without needing to re-enter a password. The parents *thought* they were under control of what was going on with the iPhone, but they were not. They had no reason to think they needed to be monitoring the child's use of the phone/app after purchasing, installing, and accepting any relevant agreements/terms. > > > > > > > > As far as agreeing to GW2's terms goes, it is the parent's responsibility to know what their child is doing. And for the child to enter into the agreement without their knowledge invalidates it, as well as absolves Anet of any responsibility. > > > > > > > > Apple had a system in place that allowed parents to require their permission (password) before their children could make purchases, but it had a design flaw that allowed it to be bypassed. That is grounds for a lawsuit. Unless you would like to create some system that prevents a child from creating a GW2 account and clicking "agree" without their parent's presence/consent, there is no comparison to that Apple case aside from the fact that it involved minors. Otherwise, the onus will continue to be entirely on the parents for this one. > > > > > > The 2016 Facebook class action in California. > > > > > > Once you start looking at these online agreements in regards to under age children the courts rule against them. Facebook and Apple lost.....you think Anet is gonna win a case like that? > > > > I don't see the point in tossing up random law suits because they involve something related to children or privacy. If it's not something directly comparable to the current debacle, it is pointless to discuss. It would also help to actually link the things you're trying to use as points. Especially when they involve huge lawsuit bullseyes like Apple and Facebook. People have been trying to sue the crap out of them for ages. > > > > The Facebook thing....at least the one I think you might be referring to...was about scanning and logging URLs sent in private messages and using the to target advertising. That's not even remotely related to anything here. > > > > And Apple didn't lose their lawsuit, the FTC dropped it. They did reach a settlement, which they said didn't require anything that they weren't already going to do.(giving refunds) > > https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/01/15/apple-settles-app-store-in-app-purchase-lawsuit-with-us-government > They lost that. They shelled out 32.5M in refunds and continue to refund to this day over this. > > Here's the recent FB fun in courts over the congressional hearings https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/23/17155754/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-scandal > > Here's the 2016 ruling https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/27/facebook-refund-children-app-purchases-lawsuit > > Like I said times are a changing That's the Apple case I was referring to earlier. They didn't lose a lawsuit. They settled, taking actions that they were going to do anyway on their own. The Cambridge Analytica thing is just....a massive trainwreck. Facebook was primarily careless and negligent. CA were being outright criminal and lying at every turn. It was nice seeing Zuckerberg getting grilled over his very confusing privacy policies. Hopefully that will see the trend of these policies being updated with more readable language continue. The other Facebook thing looks similar to Apple's case, but quite a bit more absurd. One of the parent got a refund because her child stole her credit card and used it. That's not Facebook's fault, that's failing teaching your child not to be a thief. The attorney for these parents actually argued that a 13 year old kid can't be expected to know using their parents' credit/debit card means they have to pay that money. I think I lost 20 points off my IQ just reading that nonsense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrstealth.6701 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Ardenwolfe.8590" said: > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > I don't see the point in tossing up random law suits because they involve something related to children or privacy. If it's not something directly comparable to the current debacle, it is pointless to discuss. > > At this point, those counter arguing are throwing everything and anything and hoping it will stick. Related or otherwise. One thing I've always noticed about threads like this. Whenever cheaters get caught, eventually the thread will start to discuss laws and law suits in protest of the company's actions against them. It's like the Godwin's law for gaming cheaters. And we're there. > > Posters should start calling this behavior the Asuran Argument in honor of Guild Wars 2 and this entire episode: Throw every theory possible to avoid blame and hope something sticks. > Asuran Argument...I like it. I've at least learned a few interesting things about these other lawsuits. Wasn't aware of some. But that Facebook in-app purchase one made my brain hurt. Parents should not be able to use a courtroom to avoid the responsibility of actually parenting their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scud.5067 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Well, browsing through the last ten or so pages and its clear that there are: - posters pushing a scare story - folks trying to talk sense Very entertaining! Though its become a little repetitive since the last few pages. On the plus side, its a great thread for collecting information on certain posters! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > Anet never proved a single person cheated And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. Oh, i see someone already explained it. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > I read that but it doesn't protect them installing spyware. The game is legally bought by children. No, it is legally bought by parents on behalf of their children. ESBR rating has no legal standing, it's just a rating. It's up to parents to decide whether they will consider it or not. If a parent lets their children buy and install games unsupervised, it's still _their_ responsibility, not the game developers'. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > Anyone 13 years of age can walk into a video game store and buy GW2. But only someone of age of consent is allowed to install it. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > @"Jinks.2057" said: > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game (because that's _all_ the so called "spyware" checks for), they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"DeceiverX.8361" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. > > > > > > 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple > > > 2. They marketed to children > > > 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release > > > 4. They installed spyware > > > 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids > > > 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. > > > > > > Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. > > > > > > **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. > > > > > > My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. > > > > > > I'd like to see official statements > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > 1.) Completely unrelated because the CAL was about paid microtransactions mislabeled in free-to-play games without mandating payment types in the apple store. The lawsuit here was about legality of various payment models and disclosure about them and not about any kind of contractual agreement with the end user to play the game or participate as well as the ease of access to provide payment without needing to re-enter credentials. The parents were informed of the children playing the game and agreed to the terms, and apple in hosting the game and its terms specified nowhere in those terms or product information that the game could hook to payment services for paid content without warning or prompting despite being marketed as free. > > > > 2.) It Does not matter if they marketed to children. You may as well try to sue LEGO for marketing choking hazards to children. The warning is there. As it is in the ToS. As is the agreement that is required to be read stating it has been read and approved by a parent or guardian. Imagine going to a toy store and needing to sign a waiver that you won't sue anyone if your kid chokes and dies on a part. That is literally what the ToS mandates be done. > > > > 3.) They restrict sales based on ESRB ratings, yes, only due to governments mandating distributors do so; the ESRB is a nonprofit organization with no real authority or governmental power. If a five y/o tried to buy GW2, they shouldn't sell them the game because it's rated T. Every console and console game online mandates the same ToS agreement mandating that an adult or legal guardian represent signature to the child when making an online profile as well, and those have plenty of online games that are rated T, too. The only thing the ESRB rates is game content itself, not any legal obligations mandated on the terms of the company and consumer. They also do not rate online interactions between players. Next you'll tell me that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should all be sued for marketing to children in their games and are subsequently in some kind of illegal bind because of DLC. That's a nonsense argument and you know it. > > > > 4.) Again, doesn't matter what they did if what they did is pertinent to running their game. This is literally stated in the terms. It literally says they can do anything as they see fit to uphold their product integrity. Lesson learned for you: Take any verbiage of a contract to an extreme and see if that is okay with you. If not, don't agree or request to cancel! > > > > 5.) Again, purchases have nothing to do with anything with a contract which is what I already said; the only thing that matter is the agreement to make an account. That's why I said if you were to make the claim of unawareness, ANet is legally obligated to refund the cost of the original purchase of the agreement to use their software at its value at purchase time, with all additional purchases exempt from this refund while simultaneously permanently suspending any and all accountability of the prior contract. The act of upholding a contract solely with an under-aged party is illegal, and thus, if claiming lack of awareness, would require the severance of said contract at full refund which would suspend the account (the token of the agreement) infinitely. The rest? Not at all. Like I said, the purchase is not illegal; the knowing and establishment and maintenance of a contract solely with an under-aged party is. But there's no way for ANet to know. > > > > 6.) There is no crime here. I don't understand why you think there is. So long as ANet honors the request for a refund of the value of the original product and severs the contract of someone claiming a lack of awareness (infinitely suspending the account because a new contract would need to be legally devised because the old one would have been made invalid due to a breach of terms), there is no crime. The child in this case is honored the benefit of the doubt for lack of better knowledge; he could technically game until he decides to quit on ANet's bill if he took it to court and proved he was in fact under-aged at the time of purchase, because otherwise ANet has plausible deniability. Granted, he'd have to pay for a lawyer and court fees which would vastly outweigh that $50-60 or so (assuming purchase not on-sale), but still possible. > > > > I can't tell if you're just dense or trolling, but to be totally honest, if you actually can't understand how contracts work, I'd suggest you to request to cancel yours with ANet and every single other thing you do online (forewarning, this will get every account you have on anything banned infinitely), because this is how the world works. > > 1. FB class action in 2016 deals with online agreements and what happens when kids lie about ages. > 2. Lego puts age range just for this purpose and legally has to say "choking hazard" > 3. ESRB is a voluntary procedure that Anet leads all their advertisement with. When a child goes to purchase the game at a local retailer is there any information that you need an adult to make an account at time of purchase or even during any advertisement? Nope > 4. Yes it matters as the TOS clearly states pertaining to the game. Also in the case of a minor that contract means nothing > 5. Nay the account may not always be terminated. In cases of micro transactions & FB the kids kept their purchases even after getting a full refund. > 6. It is illegal to install spyware onto a computer without expressed consent. They willing and knowingly marketed to children, they did not identify the TOS/EULA before purchase of the game, and plausible deniability doesn't hold in previous hearings that i've seen. Also the way go at these companies is class action lawsuits. This lightens the burden on the common folk while scaring the living crap outta corporations. > > Now I'm not saying Anet should be taken to court or even advocating a lawsuit. I want a public statement and apology. I also would like a transparent and complete understanding that they won't do this again. As a consumer I have that right and to take my money elsewhere. Actelly you do say that. for the first spyware and reading process log while playing is two diffrent things a spyware is put into gathet info on deeper level than what you think anet did. For second they have right to check for softwares wich threatens the game (cheats and hacks) if it was illegal then no one would ever be banned for using it for they wouldnt be able to prove it. If telling before whar they will do all cheaters would hide for 2weeks and then play then it was removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. Do you not read posts before you? Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. Do you understand that? Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. Again thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > Do you not read posts before you? > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > Do you understand that? > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > Again thank you Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"DeceiverX.8361" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. > > > > > > > > 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple > > > > 2. They marketed to children > > > > 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release > > > > 4. They installed spyware > > > > 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids > > > > 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. > > > > > > > > Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. > > > > > > > > **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. > > > > > > > > My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. > > > > > > > > I'd like to see official statements > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Completely unrelated because the CAL was about paid microtransactions mislabeled in free-to-play games without mandating payment types in the apple store. The lawsuit here was about legality of various payment models and disclosure about them and not about any kind of contractual agreement with the end user to play the game or participate as well as the ease of access to provide payment without needing to re-enter credentials. The parents were informed of the children playing the game and agreed to the terms, and apple in hosting the game and its terms specified nowhere in those terms or product information that the game could hook to payment services for paid content without warning or prompting despite being marketed as free. > > > > > > 2.) It Does not matter if they marketed to children. You may as well try to sue LEGO for marketing choking hazards to children. The warning is there. As it is in the ToS. As is the agreement that is required to be read stating it has been read and approved by a parent or guardian. Imagine going to a toy store and needing to sign a waiver that you won't sue anyone if your kid chokes and dies on a part. That is literally what the ToS mandates be done. > > > > > > 3.) They restrict sales based on ESRB ratings, yes, only due to governments mandating distributors do so; the ESRB is a nonprofit organization with no real authority or governmental power. If a five y/o tried to buy GW2, they shouldn't sell them the game because it's rated T. Every console and console game online mandates the same ToS agreement mandating that an adult or legal guardian represent signature to the child when making an online profile as well, and those have plenty of online games that are rated T, too. The only thing the ESRB rates is game content itself, not any legal obligations mandated on the terms of the company and consumer. They also do not rate online interactions between players. Next you'll tell me that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should all be sued for marketing to children in their games and are subsequently in some kind of illegal bind because of DLC. That's a nonsense argument and you know it. > > > > > > 4.) Again, doesn't matter what they did if what they did is pertinent to running their game. This is literally stated in the terms. It literally says they can do anything as they see fit to uphold their product integrity. Lesson learned for you: Take any verbiage of a contract to an extreme and see if that is okay with you. If not, don't agree or request to cancel! > > > > > > 5.) Again, purchases have nothing to do with anything with a contract which is what I already said; the only thing that matter is the agreement to make an account. That's why I said if you were to make the claim of unawareness, ANet is legally obligated to refund the cost of the original purchase of the agreement to use their software at its value at purchase time, with all additional purchases exempt from this refund while simultaneously permanently suspending any and all accountability of the prior contract. The act of upholding a contract solely with an under-aged party is illegal, and thus, if claiming lack of awareness, would require the severance of said contract at full refund which would suspend the account (the token of the agreement) infinitely. The rest? Not at all. Like I said, the purchase is not illegal; the knowing and establishment and maintenance of a contract solely with an under-aged party is. But there's no way for ANet to know. > > > > > > 6.) There is no crime here. I don't understand why you think there is. So long as ANet honors the request for a refund of the value of the original product and severs the contract of someone claiming a lack of awareness (infinitely suspending the account because a new contract would need to be legally devised because the old one would have been made invalid due to a breach of terms), there is no crime. The child in this case is honored the benefit of the doubt for lack of better knowledge; he could technically game until he decides to quit on ANet's bill if he took it to court and proved he was in fact under-aged at the time of purchase, because otherwise ANet has plausible deniability. Granted, he'd have to pay for a lawyer and court fees which would vastly outweigh that $50-60 or so (assuming purchase not on-sale), but still possible. > > > > > > I can't tell if you're just dense or trolling, but to be totally honest, if you actually can't understand how contracts work, I'd suggest you to request to cancel yours with ANet and every single other thing you do online (forewarning, this will get every account you have on anything banned infinitely), because this is how the world works. > > > > 1. FB class action in 2016 deals with online agreements and what happens when kids lie about ages. > > 2. Lego puts age range just for this purpose and legally has to say "choking hazard" > > 3. ESRB is a voluntary procedure that Anet leads all their advertisement with. When a child goes to purchase the game at a local retailer is there any information that you need an adult to make an account at time of purchase or even during any advertisement? Nope > > 4. Yes it matters as the TOS clearly states pertaining to the game. Also in the case of a minor that contract means nothing > > 5. Nay the account may not always be terminated. In cases of micro transactions & FB the kids kept their purchases even after getting a full refund. > > 6. It is illegal to install spyware onto a computer without expressed consent. They willing and knowingly marketed to children, they did not identify the TOS/EULA before purchase of the game, and plausible deniability doesn't hold in previous hearings that i've seen. Also the way go at these companies is class action lawsuits. This lightens the burden on the common folk while scaring the living crap outta corporations. > > > > Now I'm not saying Anet should be taken to court or even advocating a lawsuit. I want a public statement and apology. I also would like a transparent and complete understanding that they won't do this again. As a consumer I have that right and to take my money elsewhere. > > Actelly you do say that. for the first spyware and reading process log while playing is two diffrent things a spyware is put into gathet info on deeper level than what you think anet did. For second they have right to check for softwares wich threatens the game (cheats and hacks) if it was illegal then no one would ever be banned for using it for they wouldnt be able to prove it. If telling before whar they will do all cheaters would hide for 2weeks and then play then it was removed. > once anet moved outside the processes relating to the GW2 client they were in the wrong The fact they had a filter in place makes it better, but it was still in the wrong since those programs do NOT affect the game client. They've confirmed they banned based on what's on your computer not whats effecting the game client. If Anet only banned and scanned processes related to the GW2 client would a "scandal" or w/e you wanna label be happening? No Once you set that precedent your entire argument falls. Also I have never stated nor organized any recourse against Anet. I've simply spoke out about how this incident is bad. Thank you for the response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"DeceiverX.8361" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. > > > > > > > > > > 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple > > > > > 2. They marketed to children > > > > > 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release > > > > > 4. They installed spyware > > > > > 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids > > > > > 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. > > > > > > > > > > Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. > > > > > > > > > > **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. > > > > > > > > > > My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see official statements > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Completely unrelated because the CAL was about paid microtransactions mislabeled in free-to-play games without mandating payment types in the apple store. The lawsuit here was about legality of various payment models and disclosure about them and not about any kind of contractual agreement with the end user to play the game or participate as well as the ease of access to provide payment without needing to re-enter credentials. The parents were informed of the children playing the game and agreed to the terms, and apple in hosting the game and its terms specified nowhere in those terms or product information that the game could hook to payment services for paid content without warning or prompting despite being marketed as free. > > > > > > > > 2.) It Does not matter if they marketed to children. You may as well try to sue LEGO for marketing choking hazards to children. The warning is there. As it is in the ToS. As is the agreement that is required to be read stating it has been read and approved by a parent or guardian. Imagine going to a toy store and needing to sign a waiver that you won't sue anyone if your kid chokes and dies on a part. That is literally what the ToS mandates be done. > > > > > > > > 3.) They restrict sales based on ESRB ratings, yes, only due to governments mandating distributors do so; the ESRB is a nonprofit organization with no real authority or governmental power. If a five y/o tried to buy GW2, they shouldn't sell them the game because it's rated T. Every console and console game online mandates the same ToS agreement mandating that an adult or legal guardian represent signature to the child when making an online profile as well, and those have plenty of online games that are rated T, too. The only thing the ESRB rates is game content itself, not any legal obligations mandated on the terms of the company and consumer. They also do not rate online interactions between players. Next you'll tell me that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should all be sued for marketing to children in their games and are subsequently in some kind of illegal bind because of DLC. That's a nonsense argument and you know it. > > > > > > > > 4.) Again, doesn't matter what they did if what they did is pertinent to running their game. This is literally stated in the terms. It literally says they can do anything as they see fit to uphold their product integrity. Lesson learned for you: Take any verbiage of a contract to an extreme and see if that is okay with you. If not, don't agree or request to cancel! > > > > > > > > 5.) Again, purchases have nothing to do with anything with a contract which is what I already said; the only thing that matter is the agreement to make an account. That's why I said if you were to make the claim of unawareness, ANet is legally obligated to refund the cost of the original purchase of the agreement to use their software at its value at purchase time, with all additional purchases exempt from this refund while simultaneously permanently suspending any and all accountability of the prior contract. The act of upholding a contract solely with an under-aged party is illegal, and thus, if claiming lack of awareness, would require the severance of said contract at full refund which would suspend the account (the token of the agreement) infinitely. The rest? Not at all. Like I said, the purchase is not illegal; the knowing and establishment and maintenance of a contract solely with an under-aged party is. But there's no way for ANet to know. > > > > > > > > 6.) There is no crime here. I don't understand why you think there is. So long as ANet honors the request for a refund of the value of the original product and severs the contract of someone claiming a lack of awareness (infinitely suspending the account because a new contract would need to be legally devised because the old one would have been made invalid due to a breach of terms), there is no crime. The child in this case is honored the benefit of the doubt for lack of better knowledge; he could technically game until he decides to quit on ANet's bill if he took it to court and proved he was in fact under-aged at the time of purchase, because otherwise ANet has plausible deniability. Granted, he'd have to pay for a lawyer and court fees which would vastly outweigh that $50-60 or so (assuming purchase not on-sale), but still possible. > > > > > > > > I can't tell if you're just dense or trolling, but to be totally honest, if you actually can't understand how contracts work, I'd suggest you to request to cancel yours with ANet and every single other thing you do online (forewarning, this will get every account you have on anything banned infinitely), because this is how the world works. > > > > > > 1. FB class action in 2016 deals with online agreements and what happens when kids lie about ages. > > > 2. Lego puts age range just for this purpose and legally has to say "choking hazard" > > > 3. ESRB is a voluntary procedure that Anet leads all their advertisement with. When a child goes to purchase the game at a local retailer is there any information that you need an adult to make an account at time of purchase or even during any advertisement? Nope > > > 4. Yes it matters as the TOS clearly states pertaining to the game. Also in the case of a minor that contract means nothing > > > 5. Nay the account may not always be terminated. In cases of micro transactions & FB the kids kept their purchases even after getting a full refund. > > > 6. It is illegal to install spyware onto a computer without expressed consent. They willing and knowingly marketed to children, they did not identify the TOS/EULA before purchase of the game, and plausible deniability doesn't hold in previous hearings that i've seen. Also the way go at these companies is class action lawsuits. This lightens the burden on the common folk while scaring the living crap outta corporations. > > > > > > Now I'm not saying Anet should be taken to court or even advocating a lawsuit. I want a public statement and apology. I also would like a transparent and complete understanding that they won't do this again. As a consumer I have that right and to take my money elsewhere. > > > > Actelly you do say that. for the first spyware and reading process log while playing is two diffrent things a spyware is put into gathet info on deeper level than what you think anet did. For second they have right to check for softwares wich threatens the game (cheats and hacks) if it was illegal then no one would ever be banned for using it for they wouldnt be able to prove it. If telling before whar they will do all cheaters would hide for 2weeks and then play then it was removed. > > > > once anet moved outside the processes relating to the GW2 client they were in the wrong > > The fact they had a filter in place makes it better, but it was still in the wrong since those programs do NOT affect the game client. They've confirmed they banned based on what's on your computer not whats effecting the game client. If Anet only banned and scanned processes related to the GW2 client would a "scandal" or w/e you wanna label be happening? No > > Once you set that precedent your entire argument falls. > > Also I have never stated nor organized any recourse against Anet. I've simply spoke out about how this incident is bad. > > Thank you for the response > If they didnt go outside for your news cheating programs run s seperate from game other wise anet would seen it long before this happend. And you do in fact do that you try to convince others anets is bad and must be sued like 60% of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > Again thank you > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > thank you I dont think anet was right but i didnt even knew people cheated in gw 2 before this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"DeceiverX.8361" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > You are assuming a lot and not paying attention to the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The 2011 class action vs Apple > > > > > > 2. They marketed to children > > > > > > 3. The largest major US video game retailers restrict sales based on ESRB well before the games release > > > > > > 4. They installed spyware > > > > > > 5. They continued to take in game purchases from kids > > > > > > 6. Committing of a crime is not pardoned because a child signed a contract. > > > > > > > > > > > > Taking this as far and horribly severe as to drive my point home is seemly needed. By your argument, a "Candy Van" owner is not responsible or legally viable for happens to children if they sign an agreement that they consent to w/e happens inside & are of legal age. You have to move past and see the bigger picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > **Now in no way shape or form am I likening this incident to that. NO don't even pretend that is even close. I'm simply showing how you are setting precedence**. > > > > > > > > > > > > My point is simple installing spyware in Washington state is against the law without consent. Now I don't think we should press charges on Arenanet, but I'd like some communication and transparency that they won't be doing this. I feel we deserve that as a customer base. I also think the world as a whole needs to get a handle on the computer spying that these companies are doing every day. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see official statements > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Completely unrelated because the CAL was about paid microtransactions mislabeled in free-to-play games without mandating payment types in the apple store. The lawsuit here was about legality of various payment models and disclosure about them and not about any kind of contractual agreement with the end user to play the game or participate as well as the ease of access to provide payment without needing to re-enter credentials. The parents were informed of the children playing the game and agreed to the terms, and apple in hosting the game and its terms specified nowhere in those terms or product information that the game could hook to payment services for paid content without warning or prompting despite being marketed as free. > > > > > > > > > > 2.) It Does not matter if they marketed to children. You may as well try to sue LEGO for marketing choking hazards to children. The warning is there. As it is in the ToS. As is the agreement that is required to be read stating it has been read and approved by a parent or guardian. Imagine going to a toy store and needing to sign a waiver that you won't sue anyone if your kid chokes and dies on a part. That is literally what the ToS mandates be done. > > > > > > > > > > 3.) They restrict sales based on ESRB ratings, yes, only due to governments mandating distributors do so; the ESRB is a nonprofit organization with no real authority or governmental power. If a five y/o tried to buy GW2, they shouldn't sell them the game because it's rated T. Every console and console game online mandates the same ToS agreement mandating that an adult or legal guardian represent signature to the child when making an online profile as well, and those have plenty of online games that are rated T, too. The only thing the ESRB rates is game content itself, not any legal obligations mandated on the terms of the company and consumer. They also do not rate online interactions between players. Next you'll tell me that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo should all be sued for marketing to children in their games and are subsequently in some kind of illegal bind because of DLC. That's a nonsense argument and you know it. > > > > > > > > > > 4.) Again, doesn't matter what they did if what they did is pertinent to running their game. This is literally stated in the terms. It literally says they can do anything as they see fit to uphold their product integrity. Lesson learned for you: Take any verbiage of a contract to an extreme and see if that is okay with you. If not, don't agree or request to cancel! > > > > > > > > > > 5.) Again, purchases have nothing to do with anything with a contract which is what I already said; the only thing that matter is the agreement to make an account. That's why I said if you were to make the claim of unawareness, ANet is legally obligated to refund the cost of the original purchase of the agreement to use their software at its value at purchase time, with all additional purchases exempt from this refund while simultaneously permanently suspending any and all accountability of the prior contract. The act of upholding a contract solely with an under-aged party is illegal, and thus, if claiming lack of awareness, would require the severance of said contract at full refund which would suspend the account (the token of the agreement) infinitely. The rest? Not at all. Like I said, the purchase is not illegal; the knowing and establishment and maintenance of a contract solely with an under-aged party is. But there's no way for ANet to know. > > > > > > > > > > 6.) There is no crime here. I don't understand why you think there is. So long as ANet honors the request for a refund of the value of the original product and severs the contract of someone claiming a lack of awareness (infinitely suspending the account because a new contract would need to be legally devised because the old one would have been made invalid due to a breach of terms), there is no crime. The child in this case is honored the benefit of the doubt for lack of better knowledge; he could technically game until he decides to quit on ANet's bill if he took it to court and proved he was in fact under-aged at the time of purchase, because otherwise ANet has plausible deniability. Granted, he'd have to pay for a lawyer and court fees which would vastly outweigh that $50-60 or so (assuming purchase not on-sale), but still possible. > > > > > > > > > > I can't tell if you're just dense or trolling, but to be totally honest, if you actually can't understand how contracts work, I'd suggest you to request to cancel yours with ANet and every single other thing you do online (forewarning, this will get every account you have on anything banned infinitely), because this is how the world works. > > > > > > > > 1. FB class action in 2016 deals with online agreements and what happens when kids lie about ages. > > > > 2. Lego puts age range just for this purpose and legally has to say "choking hazard" > > > > 3. ESRB is a voluntary procedure that Anet leads all their advertisement with. When a child goes to purchase the game at a local retailer is there any information that you need an adult to make an account at time of purchase or even during any advertisement? Nope > > > > 4. Yes it matters as the TOS clearly states pertaining to the game. Also in the case of a minor that contract means nothing > > > > 5. Nay the account may not always be terminated. In cases of micro transactions & FB the kids kept their purchases even after getting a full refund. > > > > 6. It is illegal to install spyware onto a computer without expressed consent. They willing and knowingly marketed to children, they did not identify the TOS/EULA before purchase of the game, and plausible deniability doesn't hold in previous hearings that i've seen. Also the way go at these companies is class action lawsuits. This lightens the burden on the common folk while scaring the living crap outta corporations. > > > > > > > > Now I'm not saying Anet should be taken to court or even advocating a lawsuit. I want a public statement and apology. I also would like a transparent and complete understanding that they won't do this again. As a consumer I have that right and to take my money elsewhere. > > > > > > Actelly you do say that. for the first spyware and reading process log while playing is two diffrent things a spyware is put into gathet info on deeper level than what you think anet did. For second they have right to check for softwares wich threatens the game (cheats and hacks) if it was illegal then no one would ever be banned for using it for they wouldnt be able to prove it. If telling before whar they will do all cheaters would hide for 2weeks and then play then it was removed. > > > > > > > once anet moved outside the processes relating to the GW2 client they were in the wrong > > > > The fact they had a filter in place makes it better, but it was still in the wrong since those programs do NOT affect the game client. They've confirmed they banned based on what's on your computer not whats effecting the game client. If Anet only banned and scanned processes related to the GW2 client would a "scandal" or w/e you wanna label be happening? No > > > > Once you set that precedent your entire argument falls. > > > > Also I have never stated nor organized any recourse against Anet. I've simply spoke out about how this incident is bad. > > > > Thank you for the response > > > > If they didnt go outside for your news cheating programs run s seperate from game other wise anet would seen it long before this happend. And you do in fact do that you try to convince others anets is bad and must be sued like 60% of this thread Ok I'm a lil confused about the 1st part of your statement. I need you to clarify it please As for me convincing others to sue Anet I don't understand how I do that if 60% of a thread containing thousands of posts is wanting to sue according to you. I definitely have zero impact on their decision since I was absent for most of this thread. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > thank you Then sue them and stop using internet your info is recorded every time you use browser thats best way too have privacy no net no smartphones who can be tracked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > thank you You don't do social media? What do you think this is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > > > thank you > > I dont think anet was right but i didnt even knew people cheated in gw 2 before this thread You just proved my point in spades. I gotta run to take care of a few things. Shoot me a PM if you want easier responses b/c this thread is hectic I'm more than happy to continue this conversation. Again thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > > > > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > > > > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > > > > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > > > > > thank you > > > > I dont think anet was right but i didnt even knew people cheated in gw 2 before this thread > > You just proved my point in spades. > > I gotta run to take care of a few things. Shoot me a PM if you want easier responses b/c this thread is hectic I'm more than happy to continue this conversation. > > > Again thank you But i think cheating is worse for its draining fun away. But i dont have anything to hide either you dont have to like it to understand why they did it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > > > thank you > > You don't do social media? What do you think this is? A video game message forum You can say it's social media, but I'm actually talking about facebook, snapchat, twitter, etc etc. So if we started posting RL pictures of our pets I'd be gone from here in an instant LOL It's my cryptonite LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > > > > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > > > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > > > > > > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > > > > > > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > > > > > > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > > > > > > > thank you > > > > > > I dont think anet was right but i didnt even knew people cheated in gw 2 before this thread > > > > You just proved my point in spades. > > > > I gotta run to take care of a few things. Shoot me a PM if you want easier responses b/c this thread is hectic I'm more than happy to continue this conversation. > > > > > > Again thank you > > But i think cheating is worse for its draining fun away. But i dont have anything to hide either you dont have to like it to understand why they did it You never knew it existed and it never impacted your play over all the years/months you played. Look i have to run for realz so PM me so I can keep easier track of it when I get back on Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laila Lightness.8742 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > > > > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > > > > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > > > > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > > > > > thank you > > > > You don't do social media? What do you think this is? > > A video game message forum > > You can say it's social media, but I'm actually talking about facebook, snapchat, twitter, etc etc. > > So if we started posting RL pictures of our pets I'd be gone from here in an instant LOL > > It's my cryptonite LOL Social media is basicly every forum. The one you think is the bigger part but basicly every forum,chat room is social media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > @"DarcShriek.5829" said: > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > @"Laila Lightness.8742" said: > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're basing your "proven" and "truth" claims on an announcement by the community moderator and information given to people whose accounts were suspended. That does not constitute proof that ANet didn't check further into individual cases, and just opted not to tell anyone the other steps they took. If I were communicating with people I knew had hacked the game, there's no way I would tell them anything I didn't have to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's been confirmed that even having a process open would ping the spyware. > > > > > > > It has not been confirmed however that the spyware was the only check being made. The difference in treatment between people using different types of programs suggests otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Anet never proved a single person cheated > > > > > > > And you, contrary to what you claim, haven't proven even a single innocent person was banned. > > > > > > > Even though you keep bringing that up as a fact. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, using a GW2 specific cheat program in parralel with GW2 is clearly a ground for suspension and not a result of a mistake, so you have already a number of confirmed cheaters here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > No the program was read as to what it did by someone who does it for a living. It was also confirmed once they saw it read the processes not related to the GW2 client. > > > > > > > Yeah, that person already admitted that he was wrong on that second part and that filtering _has_ been done. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And of course neither that person nor you know (because analyzing the program can't tell you that) _what_ anet have done with this data. As i said, the mere fact that in case of UNC 90 minutes was enough while other programs required longer concurrency suggests that it _wasn't_ just an automated process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, please, show me a single case of an innocent persob getting banned for this. You claim it's a fact this happened, so surely you know at least one such case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > What is the ESRB rating of GW2? > > > > > > > > Did you verify you are of the age of consent before agreeing to the ToS/EULA? > > > > > > > I'd suggest you don't bring up things you have probably heard from someone in internetz that you have no knowledge about. Read a bit on the subject and you'll understand why what you said is funny. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > > > > > It would probably only end up accounts being terminated because the person that agreed to the ToS was not legally able to to so. The ToS itself lays out the requirements for valid entry into the terms of the agreement. If anyone were to suffer any legal consequences, it would almost certainly be the parent/guardian of the minor. > > > > > > > Oh, i see someone already explained it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > No they aren't allowed to install any spyware on a computer without expressed consent. > > > > > > > You consent to it by installing the game and registering the account. And if you are not of age of consent, it's not your computer but your parents' and _they_ are responsible for the software that gets installed there. Thus, _they_ need to give consent before GW2 gets installed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Yes but they went by the ESRB rating which was marketed to the underage child. > > > > > > > So? Their parents still agreed to the EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > > Having a child sign a contract won't absolve the criminal who targeted the child. > > > > > > > Indeed. But in this case it's not the child that signs the contract. It's their legal guardian. > > > > > > > (and the computer targeted also doesn't belong to said child but to someone else. The child is merely using it) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If parents feel uncomfortable with the fact that Anet might know if their kids are using specific cheat programs while playing the game, they should not allow their kids to install GW2 in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you not read posts before you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Your whole premises is that the parent signs the TOS/EULA. > > > > > > > > > > > > Start thinking of it as there's no way to stop or confirm a child from installing or signing the TOS/EULA. The fact they brand and market to children, don't require a parent to purchase, or have the TOS/EULA read upon purchase removes any infallibility the TOS/EULA provides by saying you are of age when signing it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also ask yourself this: Can a child rack up thousands of dollars buying gems from Anet unbeknownst to their parents? Are there actual safe guards or pin numbers that you input to stop the process? > > > > > > > > > > > > Then add the fact they install spyware on the computer. > > > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it not as a anti-cheat issue. It's beyond that. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've had a LOT of fun with this game. I felt Anet was a very refreshing developer in terms of not invading privacy or private property upon reading the agreements. To find out they partook in this activity is very disheartening. I haven't opened the program since for fear of more transgressions of my property since they seem to refuse to address this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't have any ill feelings towards anyone who've been in a mutual entertaining discourse in this thread. I just hope at the end everyone realizes that these issues are about to be REALLY addressed by government it seems. The backlash on the MMO market needs to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again thank you > > > > > > > > > > Then do something about stop come here do something if you feel this way > > > > > And for privacy the second you use your net your privacy is gone very few things online dont check you. And for child thing its not anets responsebility too watch the children its the parents job last i checked too raise and make sure other wise games online can aswell be illegal > > > > > > > > Ok I see you are of the "everyone else does it so it must be ok crowd" > > > > > > > > I dont do social media, I take steps to keep my privacy online, and am very careful online. My computer is my computer in my household that none of my family uses. Yes wife included. > > > > > > > > I chose Anet due to the trust factor and their good reputation > > > > > > > > thank you > > > > > > You don't do social media? What do you think this is? > > > > A video game message forum > > > > You can say it's social media, but I'm actually talking about facebook, snapchat, twitter, etc etc. > > > > So if we started posting RL pictures of our pets I'd be gone from here in an instant LOL > > > > It's my cryptonite LOL > > Social media is basicly every forum. The one you think is the bigger part but basicly every forum,chat room is social media Social Media as a website was invented in 1997 by Six Degrees. I've been posting on gaming forums for longer than that. Reason I don't view them the same Again PMS plz if you want a timely response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Voltekka.2375" said: > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > @"Voltekka.2375" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Fun fact: people who weren't cheating got wrongfully banned > > > > > > Fun fact: you don't actually know that. You only know there were people that were _claiming_ to be wrongfully banned, and that's definitely not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun Fact: Anet confirmed it > > > > > > > > > > So how about you volunteer for that ban? > > > > > > > > > > In fact **ANYONE** who is advocating that they are ok with Arenanet invading private property and wrongfully banning people need to volunteer for a 6 month ban. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun fact: it is Anet's game, they make the rules on cheating. Hell, they could even ban people whose username starts with a V. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But just imagine if Anet or any other game dev actually did that. While they are almost surely within their rights (even if it's the most broad interpretation of them) to do it, I can't see them having many defenders, if any at all. Even if they could clearly see for themselves that the players had V at the beginning of their username, an absolute proof of "guilt", most people would not be defending the idea that they deserved to be banned. > > > > > > One of the big differences between that scenario and what is going on now, is the perception of the accusations made. When someone is labeled as a cheater, more people are willing to accept it as the truth without any evidence. And to make things worse, going by Anet's own statement, some of these banned players aren't even accused of actually cheating. > > > > > > It's just so easy to rail against someone that the authorities have accused/labeled, without considering anything else. > > > > One of those people who were labeled as cheaters, labeled a company as "privacy violator". > > Funny how people are willing to accept that, as well, as the truth, with insufficient evidence. And, to make things worse, going by that same person's later statement, it wasnt a privacy violation after all, yet people still keep saying "i lost my trust in Anet, they monitor everything i do". Remains me of a saying in my country, "Keep saying stuff constantly. Something is bound to stick" > > Its accepted as the truth because it's been proven. > > Anet never proved a single person cheated Accepted truth cos someone says they didn't cheat.. kyeah must be legit. ANET have absolutely no reason to publicly prove they caught cheats cheating.. you on the other hand can of course attempt to prove your innocence if you feel you have a strong case.. otherwise it's a put up or cya in 6 months kind of situation really. Only ANET and the cheats know the truth, just as it should be.. but yeah I just wish ANET would do what they have done previously and come out and counter some of these "I'm innocent claims" with some cold hard rekking posts then close those players forum privileges until their bans are served out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstealer.5978 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > @"mrstealth.6701" said: > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > > > > > > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > > > > > > Fun fact: people who weren't cheating got wrongfully banned > > > > > > Fun fact: you don't actually know that. You only know there were people that were _claiming_ to be wrongfully banned, and that's definitely not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun Fact: Anet confirmed it > > > > Where? > > > > > > > > > > It's not hard proof for any specific case, but Anet's statement on the ban wave shows their intent to ban people that were not necessarily cheating in GW2. Guilt was assumed based on the presence of a program that could, among its other more common/benign uses, be used to cheat in GW2. > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/476255/#Comment_476255 > > That's in no way a confirmation that any people _were_ in fact wrongfully banned. As i have already explained a few times. > > So, my point still stands. Jinks doesn't actually know if anyone that wasn't cheating was wrongfully banned, and contrary to his claims Anet didn't confirm anything like that. > > Yes, and I said as much myself. It's not hard proof. But the statement Anet made (which the wording of implies that they did not intend to confirm cheating) and subsequent refusal to clarify it, does not really make them look good. I would guess a company generally wants to clear up such accusations made against them instead of letting them fester. > > Kotaku had one of the more accurate and fair [articles](https://kotaku.com/guild-wars-2-developers-criticized-for-technique-used-t-1825324789) I've seen in games media about this mess. They pointed out that Anet wasn't clear if they had checked for actual cheating in GW2, and requested them to clarify their statement. Anet declined to say anything. > > Again, it doesn't prove anything for sure, but it can cast doubt on their intentions and actions. Casts doubt on their intentions and actions.. hmm kinda sounds familiar don't ya think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galaa.8475 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 Dang! yall still on this? what's done is done. time to move on and get along lil doggy. this horse is dead. the ship has sailed. the sun has set. GET OVER IT ALL READY KIDDO'S! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinks.2057 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Galaa.8475" said: > Dang! yall still on this? what's done is done. time to move on and get along lil doggy. this horse is dead. the ship has sailed. the sun has set. GET OVER IT ALL READY KIDDO'S! Anet hasn't addressed the issue of installing spyware on our computers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardenwolfe.8590 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 > @"Jinks.2057" said: > > @"Galaa.8475" said: > > Dang! yall still on this? what's done is done. time to move on and get along lil doggy. this horse is dead. the ship has sailed. the sun has set. GET OVER IT ALL READY KIDDO'S! > > Anet hasn't addressed the issue of installing spyware on our computers. In the meantime, would you like to return to the original topic of why certain players were suspended from the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts