In 2023 we doesnt have free speech ? Especially on PM-s ? Ive got muted (without any sign or notification, god knows how long…) for arguing with someone ? AND most probably the person who noted me for bad langauge or something just crying because he couldnt reply to me also probably on the same “level” i wrote to him/her. Such snowflake does that? and such act from Blizzard, punishment without any information… Blizzard 2023. Well Done. Proper way would have been : You’ve got banned from chat for hate speech for 2 months. That is what called a proper way of verdicting.
Do not misunderstand i dont care whether im banned or not because i understand i could haven been banned for my actions. The problem is you dont know whats the proper way of baning someone.
You do care, since you are here, whining about being banned.
Banning for chat messages seems shady anyway.
You can only chat with friends - this is such a wonderful feature in Hearthstone. Why would you ever be chat muted when joking around with friends.
How are these bans justified anyway? Does that mean that Blizzard is reading private messages? There is no other way - else Blizzard could never prove that the ban was not unjustified.
One could really argue that Blizzard is no triple-A studio anymore for a reason.
You have free speech. You were not jailed for saying whatever you said. Nor killed.
But free speech does not mean free of consequences. And if your free speech violated the terms and conditions you agreed to when signing up for a Blizzard account (you know, that lengthy document that you of course perused with care before agreeing to it, seeing it is a legally binding contract), then those consequences can limit your ability to engage in future speech on this platform. As a privately owned platform, the owner of the platform is allowed to make and enforce such rules. That is THEIR free speech, that congress shall not make laws to restrict.
Wrong, any countrie’s laws beat every terms of use in case of conflict, always. Every source that says something different is either ignorant or blatantly lying.
The entire situation becomes more complicated if the “culprit” spent any money on the game. Then, assuming there is no explicit reason given with crytal clear and undenyable proof, Blizzard could technically be accused of fraud - since they do not provide the service which was paid or advertised.
No, They are not… one player adds the opponent to insult, he insulted back and the other one reported first… he got banned… Thats all… You have learned the players are not friendly in this game in 75%… never accept friend requests rightaway… wait a few days and then you will see if he was serious or just mad because got defeated…
THIS IS IMPORTANT and what people forget
Please name me one country where the law says that private parties cannot make and enforce rules of what they allow on their own platforms.
Just one.
I’ll wait.
Free speech laws mean the government cannot censor you or jail you for what you say.
Corporate entities and individual people are free to do any and all of that to you if you break their own terms of service.
Besides, most of them are really lax on these rulings, so if you get banned, it usually is for a very good reason. Which likely have been put in their EULA that nobody reads.
It actually does. Without them being able to read them, they have no proof that the flame actually happened.
While waiting, you might research what a “straw man” is and how this relates to your post.
Calling my argument a straw man doesn’t make it one.
You made a claim about “any country”. I asked you to name me just one example, which is a very low level of “proof”. You clearly cannot provide even that single country (which does not surprise me). Yet feel you need to try to discredit me instead of just admitting that you were wrong (I won’t publicly comment on whether or not that part surprises me).
Please explicitly cite the line, where I said “Private parties cannot make and enforce rules of what they allow on their platforms.”
You can’t, hence your argument is a straw man.
Even so, my actual claim still holds true: If any of those rules are in conflict of any law of a country, in which the private party operates, the rule is nullified. This aimed to refute the comment:
Free speech laws mean the government cannot censor you or jail you for what you say.
Corporate entities and individual people are free to do any and all of that to you if you break their own terms of service.
You can prove me wrong by opening a public platform or forum in the United States and make it an official rule that “anything discussed there must clearly aim to destroy the USA and their people”. Do you want to make a bet on how long you can keep that up and running?
Next your statement in general has several issues. On the one hand it does not even support your thesis and on the other hand it does not even stand its ground:
The simplest example I can give you is “North Korea” or alternatively any other country ruled by a totalitarian regime. Hence my claim would be that you degrade what you called “argument” down to “personal statement” or “unproven claim”, since you would insult people who bring up real arguments.
The open one line answer, where you felt “discredited” (even the thought of you being “discredited” by this is ridiculous) was your chance to turn back before making a fool out of yourself with your misplaced arrogance, but (and apparently we share this single trait) I am not surprised.
This would go down just fine assuming it stays as just that. Discussion. Not furtherance of any act that would go towards fulfilling such an act as stated in the official rule. There several known examples of discussion boards going through various fake scenarios that go into intimate detail about the disassembly of the government and national infrastructure that never had government lockdowns applied because they were not demonstrably causing harm to the country or it’s people.
For example: Donald Trump could have had far better legal grounds for the January 6th thing if, you know, the Capitol was not stormed by his goons as they said they’d do. It was not the words that landed him in trouble, it was the actions caused by his words.
Debatable if your theory would prove to be correct. Anyway, my point still remains: Replace “discussion” by “planning” or think of anything else. Private companies can’t just do whatever they want and reference to “Terms of Use, to which the user agreed”. This won’t stand 5 minutes in any legal dispute.
Only if a crime has been committed and links to this hypothetical forum exist related to said crime.
You did not use those exact words.
But you did say “Wrong, any countrie’s (sic) laws beat every terms of use in case of conflict, always.”. And in the context where you wrote that, it was clear that you implied that national free speech laws disallow companies from setting and enforcing rules of what can and cannot be discussed on their platform.
The one using a straw man in this discussion is not me.
“if” being the operative word.
But since these rules are not in conflict with any law in any country where Blizzard operates, the rule is not nullified.
I do not need to prove you wrong. You made a claim about “any country”, without providing evidence. I merely asked for evidence for your claim, and then not even for “any country”, but for just one single example.
There is no harm in admitting that you were wrong, and that, indeed, there are no national laws anywhere that forbid Blizzard to ban people from their servers who break their rules.
Or you can decide to plant your feet firmly in the ground and keep trying to defend your statement that Blizzard is not allowed to ban people who violate the Terms of Service from their platforms.
Correct. They cannot allow things that are forbidden by the law. But that is a very different discussion from forbidding things that the law allows.
Using the USA as an example, there are many established exceptions to the freedom of speech conveyed by the first amendment. Underage nudity is a very obvious example. Distributing that is forbidden, and hence no company can allow their platforms to be used for that. So obviously, these forums cannot be used for that purpose, and any attempt to do so will result in a ban.
Discussing politics is allowed. But Blizzard still has the right to say “but not on our game-related discussion forums, we don’t want those off topic discussions there”. That does not infringe on your right to discuss politics, since you can still do so … just not on Blizzard’s private property.
Back to the original topic, the only cases where Blizzard could be in legal trouble after banning a user are:
- If the user has not violated any terms of service and Blizzard staff have egregiously abuse their powers; or
- If the user lives in a country that has a law to the extent that inhabitants of that country should be allowed to speak their mind on each and every platform, without limitations.
I claim that no country has any laws as mentioned in case 2 above. In other words, banning someone for violating the TOS is perfectly legal, everywhere around the world.
You did not use those exact words.
But you did say “Wrong, any countrie’s (sic) laws beat every terms of use in case of conflict, always.”. And in the context where you wrote that, it was clear that you implied that national free speech laws disallow companies from setting and enforcing rules of what can and cannot be discussed on their platform.
The one using a straw man in this discussion is not me.
Sadly you are wrong again. This is clearly neither what I meant nor can It be deduced only from what I wrote.
The one using a straw man in this discussion is not me.
Partially correct, if one would argue that you are not using a single straw man, but manage to chain straw-mans together, creating a straw-man-ception of things you seem to find in my posts, interpreting weird deductions that seem to be “clear” from the context.
“if” being the operative word.
Correct, and “banning someone without a clear reason” (since OP was wondering that no reason was provided) clearly indicates that this is a violation of the law, especially if OP spent money on the game. Then Blizzard is not providing the promised service, which could be interpreted as “fraud”. Now I am curious how you would explain to me, how “fraud” is legal in any country. I make it also easy for you: Name one single country, where fraud is legal.
I do not need to prove you wrong.
Debatable, given on what you said and how you position yourself in this argument, it would be really necessary to come up with some concrete arguments, if you want to be taken seriously.
There is no harm in admitting that you were wrong
Exactly, maybe we all take a step back, reread this and maybe some will rethink what they said.