EULA and forums

[Jinxed]

Basicly, as it stands now, anyone violating rules on ludeon (or ludeon controlled) forums is a subject for termination.

Is that considered a humorous approach to EULA?

[16:39] <Jinxed> Well, first of all, I do not see how forums are connected to use of product. Like at all. Second of all, forum rules are vague and giving endless possibilities to eliminate undersirables.
[16:41] <Jinxed> Responded to someone talking your native language because they have difficulty writing in english? Subject for termination. Enforced rules because mods are asleep or lazy? Subject for termination. Did not use the search function? Subject for termination.
[16:41] <Jinxed> Dont tell me that they are not going to abuse that. Abuse potentional is there and I dont like it.

[Ectoplasm]

I did actually read the new EULA, the writer should be commended for the KISS, no bullshit approach. The rules round these parts are hardly draconian, and if someone breaks them then their right to access should be removed in my opinion, why shouldn't it?

We're talking about simple things here after all, racism, piracy, issues around creed and so on, simple stuff that is the norm almost everywhere these days. Breaking the rules in the real world has consequences too. And the EULA (at least to me) Is just pointing out that should someone prove to be enough of dick, then the consequences are known.

[Jinxed]

Moderator considers this thread not constructive enough - guess what, I am a subject for termination.
Now remind me, how exactly use of the game connected to the use of the forums?

[Ectoplasm]

Moderator considers this thread not constructive enough - guess what, I am a subject for termination.
Now remind me, how exactly use of the game connected to the use of the forums?

Strawmanning 101 right here.

[Jinxed]

Sure, and what exactly stops developer from terminating me right here on spot?
A sense of decency?

Why not go further and suggest them to include IRC behavior in EULA, as well as negative comments about game on non-Ludeon forums as well as steam reviews if game finally makes it there.

[Ectoplasm]

The moderators round these parts are pretty lenient, they do a good job in my eyes. remember when Tynan took the break? A vocal minority winging about it.. Some of what was said in those threads was very aggressive, frankly rude in my eyes. Even the personal attacks towards Tynan were left. So we have a history of leniency, yet you're now implying that you'll get banned for posting off topic, or a dev will just wander in and.... HMMM I'll ban.. *picks random person*

P....LEASE.

You really are strawmanning here, there is no other way to describe it. And if someone is stupid enough to cross a line, and make for example racist remarks, then just like on any site on the web, there are consequences. Bottom line: Their site, their rules, and the rules as I see them are standard affair, and I guess needed for a legal point of view.

As for the IRC thing, if that IRC channel is an official channel, run by Ludeon, then yes,  ban them if the EULA is broken. Why should disruptive people get what they wish? Can't you see how bad it would be for Ludeon to even be perceived as being racist or homophobic? I've never seen anything like that myself here, am sure the mods have though, such attitudes should be squashed immediately and those who spout such crap should be banned as and when the mods see fit.

[NoImageAvailable]

Moderator considers this thread not constructive enough - guess what, I am a subject for termination.
Now remind me, how exactly use of the game connected to the use of the forums?

Strawmanning 101 right here.

I think he has a valid point. So why don't you go ahead and actually explain why you think a contract stipulating a monetary transfer in exchange for access to a software should in any way, shape or form be dependent on access to a forum that is not directly related to the usage of the software?

[Ectoplasm]

I think he has a valid point. So why don't you go ahead and actually explain why you think a contract stipulating a monetary transfer in exchange for access to a software should in any way, shape or form be dependent on access to a forum that is not directly related to the usage of the software?

I don't have to explain it, it's not my rule. The strawmanning was in reference to "Moderator considers this thread not constructive enough - guess what, I am a subject for termination." I thought that was obvious.

[NoImageAvailable]

I think he has a valid point. So why don't you go ahead and actually explain why you think a contract stipulating a monetary transfer in exchange for access to a software should in any way, shape or form be dependent on access to a forum that is not directly related to the usage of the software?

I don't have to explain it, it's not my rule. The strawmanning was in reference to "Moderator considers this thread not constructive enough - guess what, I am a subject for termination." I thought that was obvious.

You do have to explain it, because his argument was that the rule is nonsense. And just for reference, a strawman argument means person 1 argues proposition x, then person 2 argues a superficially similar proposition y (the strawman) and refutes it. The assertion that a moderator can terminate your agreement based on how he deems your posts is the logical conclusion of the EULA rule and does in no way represent a strawman argument, not even close. Frankly, by leaping in with your aggressive rhetoric you only make yourself look fanboyish and don't contribute to the discussion. If you want to refute his argument then do so by actually addressing and refuting his argument.

Personally, I see no justification for tying access to a software I purchased to an unrelated forum account and since you've been avoiding the question I suspect you don't see one either.

[sadpickle]

Personally, I see no justification for tying access to a software I purchased to an unrelated forum account and since you've been avoiding the question I suspect you don't see one either.

It's not unrelated though. The fact there is a sub-forum that has nothing to do with Rimworld does not divorce the forums themselves from Ludeon Studios and the game. If LS wish the tie behavior on their forum to your account for the game, and the user does not agree with this, the obvious solution is to not use the forums.

The EULA is fairly straightforward, but without a lawyer's review it's hard to say it's bulletproof.

[Ectoplasm]

NoImageAvailable, Strawmanning is exaggerating a position to make something easier to attack. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

I'm sorry for stating that I feel the mods do a good job (I guess these days you're only allowed to criticise). How dare someone give a compliment!

I also feel I've done a good job at contributing to the discussion (have you?). Giving examples of what's happened in the past, and pointing out how the OP view is firstly exaggerated, and secondly doesn't lie in line with history. It's not me bandying round grandiose words about "aggressive rhetoric" (where?) or "don't contribute to the discussion". For me there is much irony in your post.

[MarcTheMerc]

The moderators are selected because of how they act on the forums. I.e. fair but if you submitt a post to the wrong thread.
worse case it gets reported and it gets move to the right thread.

[stefanstr]

I haven't read the EULA but if it really says that by misbehaving on the forum you may lose access to the software, I find it weird to say the least. Especially that the rule wasn't there when most of us bought RimWorld.

It's basically "and by the way, there is this new rule, if you are banned from the forum, I will take away the game you paid me for." If they refunded the game, fine, but otherwise it's just plain strange.

I think I will refrain from posting on the forums just in case. I care about RimWorld more than I care about talking about it.

[Tynan]

It's just for really extreme situations. No more than perhaps once or twice in the history of these forums, so far.

For example, we had a kid who would attack and abuse people randomly here. We warned him, banned him. He made a new account. We banned his email and his IP address. He got new IP addresses. He just kept doing it, and we were close to having no way to stop him. This went on for like a week. Ultimately we managed to track down and message his parents. But next time there might not be parents to message.

So yeah, if someone uses our game as a vector to abuse people and deliberately, persistently attack our community, we're going to take it away from them. It's a tool to keep these forums free of bullshit for you guys, in those extreme circumstances where someone just wants to cause hurt and doesn't get bored of it.

If you're not mounting a sustained campaign of deliberate abuse it doesn't apply to you.

[Jinxed]

It does apply to anyone who violates forum rules no matter how minor, EULA states nothing of the sort about repetetive violations as you described above.

I still do not see any logical reason to tie up forums with EULA to game, but at least narrow down that moment in EULA to example mentioned above.
Current version of agreement grants you too much abuse potentional and I do not feel safe accepting those terms - what, for example, stops you from using that very moment in EULA for terminating me for this very topic?
To make it easier for you, I confess that I did not use the search function before creating this thread - therefore violated rule #9 as described in forum rules.