Discussion: on the Ethics of Pizza-bot Simoleans etc
by Alphaville Herald on 22/03/04 at 6:10 pm
This is a topic for me and Coco to argue about stuff without derailing every other topic in the blog. Here are some of the points at issue.
1) Is there a difference between being violating the TOS and violating the rules?
2) If yes, is running your own Pizza Bot against The Rules?
3) Either way, is buying simoleans made by a Pizza Bot wrong?
4) What about accepting simoleans from someone else who bought them from someone who used a Pizza Bot?
5) More generally, are there any rules at all beyond those that individual groups of players may chose to adopt for themselves?
Cocoanut
Mar 22nd, 2004
For ONCE we happen to be thinking alike, Uri!
I’ll carry one with this later, when I get to my regular computer.
coco
Fans II
Mar 22nd, 2004
1.) TOS is for everyone to abide by in all the online games and the punishment must be more severe. Rules are just made for a specfic something like TSO. You dont think Pizza Bot will run on Earth and Beyond will it? Thats why Pizza Bot is not allowed ONLY on TSO. .
2.) I think people who cheat to get more simoleans is pretty sad. I got all my money by working and I got over 1 Million without cheating. All people have to do is work. Your not always going to have someone walk up to you in Real Life and hand you money.
3.) Accepting simoleans from someone who made it with the Pizza bot is fine. If its a gift I am more than happy. This is what I wish people would do more when they cheat…Help poor sims out and not be selfish.
5.) Again Pizza Bot is against the rules because of how it cheats (Excatly like MazeBot) now Maxis will disable all the money objects. Whoever though of this crap and runing all this fun can go and hide in a corner and suck they’re thumb. Maze was my favorite money making objects and when some dumb idiots come and abuse it we get it taken away. NOT COOL. I warn you all…DO NOT BUY THIS JUNK! Its a waste of money for fake money and it also ruins the fun for everyone who plays FAIRLY.
TBT
Mar 22nd, 2004
Okay and this IS coming from a cheater, a botter or what ever you’d like to call me. I AM the worst name you could ever think up…
“Accepting simoleans from someone who made it with the Pizza bot is fine. If its a gift I am more than happy. This is what I wish people would do more when they cheat…Help poor sims out and not be selfish.”
So then if a theif in real life steals something and then decides to give it out for free that should supercede the law and be acceptable because the theif is doing good and being generous for mankind?
So basically you are against anyone bottting who sells simoleans, but if they gave them to you for free it is then toitally acceptable..
Heh what kind of thinking is that?
Docosa
Mar 22nd, 2004
Running your own Pizza Bot is against the Terms of Service and User Agreement. Matter of fact, they say in it plain English.
[You will violate the Terms of Service if you (or others using your Account) do any of the following:
...
Use or distribute “auto” software programs, “macro” software programs or other “cheat utility” software program or applications.] (Terms of Service. Section 3. ONLINE CONDUCT)
[You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Game's software, including any proprietary communications protocol used by the Game. You acknowledge that you do not have the right to create, publish, distribute, create derivative works from or use any graphics, audiovisual display, software programs, utilities, applications, emulators or tools derived from or created for the Game, unless specifically authorized in writing by EA.] (User Agreement. Official Service)
I don’t know what “The Rules” would refer to outside of those two documents. Anything else is simply a matter of opinion.
Buying simoleans is not against the ToS or the UA. Please point out the specific paragraph that states this if I am wrong. However, simoleans generated by a using a “bot” or “macro” program are as ill-gotten as using the program itself. Without the program, the simoleans would not have been in the game, therefore are an extension of the exploit. So if you find yourself banned or suspended because you are carrying ill-gotten simoleans, you have only yourself to blame. If you buy or accept illegal merchandise in the real world, the authorities have the right to take them away at your own expense. Furthermore, they have the right to penalize you if you show negligence. In other words, if you have an idea that they are probably ill-gotten or you really don’t care, then you are not much better than the one who did the deed. And even if you can find anything here that doesn’t apply to virtual goods, then the provider can always fall back onto the clause that they can deny service to anyone for any reason.
Now whether or not buying simoleans is ‘wrong’ depends on your definition of right and wrong; therefore, that is another matter of opinion.
And in regard to groups of players adopting their own rules, go right ahead. The catch is that no group has the right to enforce rules that apply outside their group. The service is provided by EA and Maxis, not by a particular group of players. Your user agreement and terms of service are with those two companies, not other players.
Ian
Mar 22nd, 2004
oh bitch bitch bitch…you don’t like it..you can suck your thumb in a corner…You just don’t understand..its a way of income….this is how we play our game…Scamming is against TOS>..and look at Eve’s whole network…hey i think its great and funny….now getting to my point…Fan II, you used to work for the AV Gov/Mr. President…You do know that, Mr. President supports/ackknowledges scamming…I have been on the AVG Capitol property many of times and see him engaging in a FRIENDLY conversation with them… However like I said, SCAMMING is against TOS…so technically you were apart of something that supported a TOS violation. How about ‘dem apples, that will give you something to think about…
Mr-President
Mar 23rd, 2004
“..Mr. President supports/ackknowledges scamming…I have been on the AVG Capitol property many of times and see him engaging in a FRIENDLY conversation with them..”
EVERYONE is welcomed to our property Ian, even scammers. Reason: If they’re at our property, they’re not out scamming.
NOTE: AVG does NOT support scamming.
RB
Mar 23rd, 2004
Pizza bot? PIZZA BOT? Why is everything about the damm pizza bot all of a sudden? lol.
Can we just have it about simoleans that are “ill-gotten” ? period. =D WHO CARES HOW THEY ARE MADE. LOL.
Anyway:
1) Yes.
2) No. nothing is illegal until you get caught. lol. And smart people don’t get caught.
3) No. It’s job and wealth creation for others who put in the long hard yards. it’s all good =D
4) How would you know unless they told you?
5) Yes. there are a great deal of un-written rules. Common acceptance. However some go too far and try to press excessively harsh rules onto others.
Here’s a question for everybody: (make it number 6 =) )
What is the differance between using bots to sell simoleans and just manipulating the system without outside interferance or helpers, legit to create the same or more amounts? (does not include the un-acceptable practice of scams)
How does one method be struck down by all and another given the OK?? Both require alot of hard work and long hours. Both achieve the same outcome. Both produce the same simoleans. They don’t change in anyway cause of how they were made. I can see only minor differances between the two.
- RB
toy
Mar 23rd, 2004
hmmmmm….. toy doubts if its a TOS violation if EA will do anything about it. Let’s face it TSO is dying a slow death and none of this really matters anymore. It’s sad to see but we all must accept it. ~wanders back to SL happily~
toy
Cocoanut
Mar 23rd, 2004
Well, I see this has all gotten well ahead of me already, complete with RB’s contention that a tree falling in the forest makes no noise.
However, now is also not a good time for me to address these issues (except to say Toy is probably right), since I’m getting ready to meet another Sim irl.
coco
Cocoanut
Mar 23rd, 2004
er, if no one is there to hear it, I mean.
coco
urizenus
Mar 23rd, 2004
I have to say that I don’t understand this link between violation of the TOS and the simoleans being tainted. Suppose I am not using the Pizza Bot, but the Nude Skin Software Patch from Kingware Software. That’s a 3rd party program too. Are the simoleans I make while sporting the patch also tainted? Ill-gotten? Would selling them be wrong? The TOS doesn’t say “don’t use 3rd party programs that are money bots”, it says no 3rd party programs, and I suspect they don’t want people using software that could crash their servers. Why people invent all this crap about ill-gotten simoleans is just utterly beyond me. There are at least three flaws in the reasoning.
1) it assumes that the TOS is a religious document that tells us what the Rules of TSO are.
2) It requires that we must and can divine the intent of whoever or whatever committee of lawyers drafted the TOS.
3) It assumes that the TOS was drafted as a set of rules that are optimal for gameplay when it is much more likely that they were drafted to minimize legal and technical headaches for EA. To whit: it assumes that the prohibition against 3rd party programs was written into the TOS so that future Pizza-Botters would not subvert the kind of game relished by Coco and the SARPians, when in fact it is much more likely that it was written in to deal with people that write crappy programs that crash the system and that thereby create technical and legal headaches for EA.
Banshee
Mar 23rd, 2004
Let the critics of bots also refrain, and by that I mean *completely* abstain, from payouts of any sort at any house. Then they can criticize bots. If they do not abstain from payouts, then they are just criticizing the ultimate hand that feeds them, in my view.
But I agree with the comment made that the game is dying a slow death. Wait until TS2 comes out, that’s all I can say.
B
Mr-President
Mar 23rd, 2004
TS2 can’t be compared to TSO othan than in graphcis and the gaming engine.
Fans II
Mar 23rd, 2004
Listen, Ian, No one ever EVER speaks like that about AVG Around me. Guess what?! I WAS AS POSTION OF THE CIA DIRECTOR TO TAKE DOWN SCAMMERS, Hmmm why would Mr-P support scammers and also want me to destroy them? Use the facts, dummy!
Mr-President
Mar 23rd, 2004
Ouch Fans,
I never wanted to ‘destory’ scammers. I only wanted to stop their flow of victims.
TBT
Mar 23rd, 2004
Uri,
What Docosa mentions about “ill-gotten simoleans” is like saying it’s illegal to counterfiet money by use of certain machinery, but guess what? So is the use of that counterfiet money! What Docosa is saying is that Maxis can say hey you got this money by cheating or exploiting and they have the right to punish and they HAVE! Many sims have lost accounts with 100s of milliins or even billions of simoleans because tso checked accounts and said theres no way to gain that under normal circumstances case closed..
“Why people invent all this crap about ill-gotten simoleans is just utterly beyond me.”
He isn’t inventing anything but merely making a statement that if illegal means were not used tro create the simoleans then they would not have existed and if users decide well it’s not good to create em using a bot but i’ll use the ones other people make well that makes them just as bad as the ones creating the money..
ian
Mar 23rd, 2004
Now i Know why your account was hacked Fans
Cocoanut
Mar 23rd, 2004
Is there a difference between being violating the TOS and violating the rules?
No. There are no rules to this game (or virtually any online game or any other online entity) except the TOS.
Here’s why:
1. General Usage.
The phrase “Terms of Service” is in practice a term used to encompass any and/or all rules for participation in an online mileau. A short Google session will return many, many examples of online sites where the term “Terms of Service” is said to include the rules or be synonymous with rules. A few examples:
a. “This page defines the terms of service for using Plaidworks.com and the services supplied by this site. We request that all users of our site abide by the rules we have defined for their use.”
b. “MyWireService: Terms of Service Agreement (A.K.A. ‘The Rules’)”
c. “YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, THE ACCEPTABLE USE GUIDELINES FOR THE NETZERO SERVICES, AND THE NETZERO PRIVACY STATEMENT WHICH ARE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY AS THE RULES”
d. “USA * Japan Club: By using our forums you are indicating that you have read, understand,
and agree to abide by our rules/terms of service.”
e. “Furry Paws :: Rules (Terms of Service in a nutshell)”
f. “Genealogy.com: Terms of Service: Such guidelines, rules, and terms and conditions are hereby incorporated by reference
into the Agreement. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS OF SERVICE CAREFULLY BEFORE …”
g. “Please familiarize yourself with them. By posting on our message boards, you indicate
that you accept our rules as part of 7online.com’s terms of service.”
h. “When using such services, you, as well as ThirdAge, shall be bound by these Terms of Service and any posted guidelines or rules applicable to such services, which may be posted from time to time. All such guidelines or rules are hereby incorporated by reference into these Terms of Service.”
2. Definition.
[1]rule: a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
3. Common agreement.
Consider a poker championship tournament. In addition to the mechanics or the literal “rules of the game” (what beats what, for instance; or how many cards to deal), there are also rules of game play. These might include no pulling of aces from shirt sleeves; no using an accomplice to see your opponents’ hands; and no going to the bathroom in the middle of a round to consult your book of statistically probable outcomes.
Those in charge of the poker tournament have no doubt that pulling aces out of ones sleeve is against the rules of game play (as opposed to the mechanical rules of playing poker), and such a player would be ejected from the game.
Moreover, all players in the game have agreed these rules and signed a paper agreeing to these rules, and it is by common consensus and agreement that any player breaking them to gain unfair advantage is considered to be “cheating.”
Similarly, in TSO, the rules of game mechanics or literal rules of the game are already set in stone (as regards how many cards are dealt and what pays off more). However, the rules of game play (not pulling aces out of your sleeve and so on) are covered in the Terms of Service.
By general consensus, these are considered the rules of the game, and players who break these rules are considered to be cheating. As in the poker tournament, other players who have agreed to abide by the Terms of Service/Rules may reasonably be unhappy with those who have not and who have gained unfair advantage over other players as a result.
Now, you, Uri, argue that the Terms of Service constitutes only a contract, and that the rules detailed in the terms of service do not actually constitute the rules of the game, since it is merely a contract between player and company. You contend that the game in fact has no rules at all.
But although the Terms of Service IS a contract, it also is intended to function as the rules for game play, and is taken as such by the vast majority of players in the game (I might well say everyone but you). In fact, there are no other rules or other source of rules for game play than the TOS and any addendum to it.
Therefore, in TSO, violating the TOS is the exact equivalent of violating the rules of the game.
coco
Fans
Mar 23rd, 2004
LOL Mr-P,
Well you wanted me to stop scammers. So I used the best terms possible when ‘disposing’ them lol.
Docosa
Mar 23rd, 2004
First, “ill-gotten” was the best word I could come up with to label them. You can’t call them illegal without bringing up all sorts of other issues. I made that mistake in a previous discussion on the same subject. If you have a better word to describe items gained that you shouldn’t have, but not necessarily ‘illegal’, and that you may or may not know you shouldn’t have them, please let me know and I will adopt it in future comments.
Or if you would like me to refer to them as “items gained that you shouldn’t have, but not necessarily ‘illegal’, and that you may or may not know you shouldn’t have them” each time I talk about “items gained that you shouldn’t have, but not necessarily ‘illegal’, and that you may or may not know you shouldn’t have them”, then again please let me know.
“Suppose I am not using the Pizza Bot, but the Nude Skin Software Patch from Kingware Software. That’s a 3rd party program too.”
Read closer, I said generated by the “macro” or “bot” program. Does your Nude Skin Software Patch generate simoleans? Wait.. I don’t think I actually want to know
“1) it assumes that the TOS is a religious document that tells us what the Rules of TSO are. ”
I don’t see any other documents that Maxis/EA can enforce, do you? I’d really like to know where your mythical “The Rules” come from.
On your point two Uri, I think the ToS was pretty straight forward. What didn’t you understand from the clauses I quoted?
And point number three. I admit it does take some interpretation to infer that the simoleans generated by an exploit or macro, or bot, or whatever other action is that is against the ToS and UA are somehow linked to the exploit, macro, etc. However, past experience has shown that Maxis/EA does make this connection as TBT has already explained. This is regardless of whether or not it promotes optimal gameplay. It was your own assumption that rules promote a certain gameplay, not mine.
urizenus
Mar 24th, 2004
Coco, I don’t get what all those quotes are supposed to show. A company can call the TOS “the rules”, but that is a way of explaining to people that if they don’t abide by the TOS they will be in breach of contract (they will have broken the rules). If EA puts chess online they might ask players/users to agree to all sorts of clauses to their TOS for Chess Online, but those don’t therefore become the new rules of chess. Those are the elements of a contractual relationship that the user agrees to abide by. Call them rules if you want, but they are not rules of the game of chess. EA is in no position whatsoever to dictate the rules of the game itself — whether that game is chess, mafia roleplay, or running skill houses.
Docosa says: “I don’t see any other documents that Maxis/EA can enforce, do you? I’d really like to know where your mythical “The Rules” come from.”
Well that’s just the point, no? There are no rules except those that users agree to in their in-game roleplay. As for the TOS, it is a MUTUALLY binding contract, which states the obligations (rules if you prefer) on EA just as it does on the user. But these are not game rules, these are rules governing a contractual relation between two parties. It is not EA’s job to enforce this contract — that would be the province of civil courts. You seem to want to make EA the judge, jury and executioner (enforcer) here, when in fact it is just an equal party to the contract. It is no more the enforcer than I am. A neutral third party (i.e. a court) enforces the contract.
Why is this difficult to grasp?
Cocoanut
Mar 24th, 2004
You know Uri, I have explained this to you as clearly as possible, and yet you still pretend not to get it.
You say: “If EA puts chess online they might ask players/users to agree to all sorts of clauses to their TOS for Chess Online, but those don’t therefore become the new rules of chess.”
I maintain: Not only would it be against the rules to take two turns in a row instead of one on Chess Online, it would be be against the rules as far as every player (except you) would be concerned. Everyone (except you) would agree that those are the rules for game play.
Or let me put it this way: It is a common-sense, accepted rule, not a NEW rule – that you do not play any game by substituting your own game/game board/chess piece for part of it.
It is a common-sense, accepted rule – nothing new or mind-boggling – that you don’t play Mousetrap with other players but before you get to the trap you substitute your own handy-dandy little fast slide. ESPECIALLY not if the rules on the back of the box say not to do that.
You say: “EA is in no position whatsoever to dictate the rules of the game itself — whether that game is chess, mafia roleplay, or running skill houses.”
Of COURSE EA is in a position to dictate the rules of the game itself – whether it is chess, TSO, mafia roleplay, how skill houses are to be run, or chutes and ladders, because it is THEIR GAME. THEY set the rules. That they do not set more numerous and detailed rules for running skill houses in no way negates the fact that they ARE in a position to dictate that we cannot use bots to skill.
Now, I’m done with this first point – about whether or not the TOS constitutes rules.
You will clearly never agree with that concept no matter what logical reasoning is laid out for you to ponder (if you even bother to ponder it), but I’m sure any other readers who are still with us and not bored senseless by this point will be in agreement with me – that is, if they still maintain any reasoning powers whatever.
I’ll address the rest of your questions later.
coco
TBT
Mar 24th, 2004
Uri,
You just postd to Coco
“It is not EA’s job to enforce this contract — that would be the province of civil courts. You seem to want to make EA the judge, jury and executioner (enforcer) here, when in fact it is just an equal party to the contract. It is no more the enforcer than I am. A neutral third party (i.e. a court) enforces the contract.”
But they DO you HAVE experienced it first hand and should know this, so have I experienced it.. EA terminated your accounts therefore becoming being the judge and jury and executioner over what they felt you had done wrong in their game.. They felt you didn’t abide by “their rules” whether you call the TOS rules is your or anyone elses interpritation of those words.. TSO IS their game and they CAN and DO dictate how that game is to be played all they like.. Just because of the type of open ended game it is doesn’t mean “there are no rules” because that how players interprit it to be…
You’re right saying they can adapt their own rules to a game like chess because chess is not their game therefore they can not dictate how everyone else should play it, but TSO is their game so therefore they can imply any rules they see fit and have every right to enforce them how thewy see fit to do so..
I think all this “rules”, “TOS” arguing is getting beside itself because anyone can figure out that “TOS”, “USER AGREEMENT” = “rules” just like a “car” and “automobile” are basically the same but are just different words for the same thing..
Docosa
Mar 24th, 2004
Fine, let’s not call them rules of the game. But they are still both contracts that apply to the game, and what you can and can’t do in the game (which sounds pretty darn close to the definition of the word rules).
The part difficult to grasp is that you believe the courts would police a contract that applies to an online game. Courts don’t police anything, they make judgements based on interpretation of the governing laws, allowing law enforcement to carry out legal action.
The terms of service and user agreement already state what happens when you breach them (ie – termination or suspension of service). If you want to dispute the fact that you violated the terms of service, then you go to court, arbitrator, or other legal entity.
When playing The Sims Online, you agreed within the terms of service to allow Maxis/EA to enforce the contract. In fact, they even use the word “enforce” and “enforcement” all throughout it if you care to read.
You are not going to have some police officer, or an officer of the court, knock on your door and tell you that you’ve been using a 3rd party program and that your account is terminated. That’s the part that is difficult to grasp in your reasoning.
urizenus
Mar 24th, 2004
Coco, I don’t feel bound by what the makers of mousetrap put on the box as being “The Rules”. I and the people I am playing with may or may not chose to use those rules or we may invent our own. You should do the same. Just because someone puts tokens and a die in a box with a pice of paper called “The Rules” that doesn’t mean you and your friends are bound by that piece of paper. Free your mind, Coco!
Meanwhile, TBT, who should know better, says this: “EA terminated your accounts therefore becoming being the judge and jury and executioner over what they felt you had done wrong in their game.. They felt you didn’t abide by “their rules” whether you call the TOS rules is your or anyone elses interpritation of those words.. TSO IS their game and they CAN and DO dictate how that game is to be played all they like.. Just because of the type of open ended game it is doesn’t mean “there are no rules” because that how players interprit it to be…”
There is an open question as to whether EA was not the party that broke the rules and is in breach of contract. If there was something actually at stake in their action (something more than a lost cheetah and some skill points) it might be worth pursuing the matter in court. But the bottom line is this: there was this contract. EA says I was in violation. I say they were. EA’s position is not ipso facto the word of God, and the ultimate determination of who in fact broke the contract (the rules) would be determined by a civil court. Enforcement would be ordered by the court and carried out by relevant law enforcement agencies.
Cocoanut
Mar 24th, 2004
“2) If yes, is running your own Pizza Bot against The Rules?”
There is little reason to pose this question, since it would logically follow from question (1) that yes, if violating the TOS is violating the rules, and one of the rules of the TOS is that you may not run a pizza or other bot, then running your own pizza bot would be against the rules.
In fact, it is against the rules, against the TOS, and against what players may reasonably expect from other players.
Adding the words “your own” doesn’t change this. Of course any bot you are using is “your own.” Maxis doesn’t supply them to interested parties.
Your entire line of reasoning, Uri, that there are no rules to the game aside from those players invent (which are in fact not rules at all, in the sense that we must all adhere to them, unlike those made by the people running the game), contains no reason.
coco
urizenus
Mar 24th, 2004
>Your entire line of reasoning, Uri, that there are no rules to the game aside from those players invent (which are in fact not rules at all, in the sense that we must all adhere to them, unlike those made by the people running the game), contains no reason.
Cocoanut
Mar 24th, 2004
Read the paragraph of mine you quote, Uri.
coco
TBT
Mar 24th, 2004
Sorrry I thought i was censored because oddly my posts and docosas werent showing, only uris posts stating tococ about rules..
Now “I should know”?
C’Mon Uri I’m jest a high scoll grad-i-ate and yer a college professor and i find this all TOO Ironic that I can understand maxis clearly and I’M an admitted cheater, but you with infinite wisdom can not see this what so ever!
C’Mon you’re among friends here admit to us swhat yu REALLY did that got you booted, heck I KNOW exactly what I did that got me tossed out on my hind quarters and I DON’T question it one bit. I KNOW I was wrong, am I upset? NOT in the least, LMAO
I WILL do it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN
You like to questio everyone here on why they determine c ertain rules and things to be their own, but yet you’re doing the exact same thing saying that it’s not their choice to deliver punishments for actions of broken contracts etc..
This is just funny..
humdog
Mar 24th, 2004
it seems to me that you are running around in circles, coco.
you quote rules from all over the place, you quote them selectively and by quoting them in this way you are avoiding the main question.
the simplest way to put it is that there is a difference between chutes and ladders and tso and monopoly and whatever other game you threw in your box. the difference between tso and these games is that tso is a massive multi-player environment. that means lots of variables. lots of variables means that you can’t run the game from a list like maybe you could run hopscotch or tv game shows.
will wright, the creator of tso, in various interviews makes statements that suggest that he sort of expects players to want to explore the program, play with it, push the envelope. he talks like he seems to accept that players want to control their own experience of games; that
controlling experience makes the experience more satisfying to the player. that’s what he says. now tell me who died and made you his successor?
what i’m thinking is that i don’t understand why, if the game designer is willing to accept that TSO is a huge undertaking with lots of variables, if the game designer is willing to accept that the individual player DOES look for ways to play with the interface, the bugs, etc,
why, if that is all true, you should have decided
that somewhere there is a rulebook and its up to you and your people to decide which rules are
good rules and that you have been appointed to instruct everybody else in how to enforce these rules.
do you understand that you give the appearance of prostituting yourself ideologically to that army of apparently whimsical corporate moderators, editors, and content police watching over tso with the apparent intention of foreclosing on the stated expectations of the actual game designer. do you think about that.
why do you want to take a position that is this rigid? what happiness do you derive from it? god knows you are making people nuts with your logic.
urizenus
Mar 24th, 2004
I know exactly what I did that got me tossed? Well let’s see, I had been suspended for 72 hours for a link to alphavilleherald.com on my property descript. Maxis XXX-ed that out when they suspended me. You can even look at it at the Alphaville Herald HQ, it hasn’t been changed. Still says the alphaville herald is online at XXXXX. Then 11 hours into the suspension they terminated the account. So you tell me TBT, what did I do while I was suspended to violate the TOS? People who run critical web sites have run into this before with EA. Just ask JC Soprano. He’ll be happy to tell you all about it.
So there was no violation of the TOS that I am aware of, and the way I see it they broke the contract and not me, but then, that would ultimately be for a court of law to decide wouldn’t it.
Other than that, I’m not sure I understand what your point is TBT. Somehow you have this odd position that EA is the author of certain moral laws which you are then happy to violate. Well, I’m sure that a makes you feel like one hip rebel d00d, but from where I sit you are just a guy making an honest living. Sorry.
Cocoanut
Mar 24th, 2004
Lots of talk from people who wish to reject the Terms of Service.
coco
urizenus
Mar 24th, 2004
No one is rejecting the TOS, we are saying you should treat if for what it is. A contract between two parties.
Honestly Coco, there are days when I’m expecting you to propose the following: We build a temple to EA. We carefully enscribe the TOS in blood on parchment and then place it in an ark and place that ark in the holiest part of the Temple of EA (we shall call that part Stratics). Then, once a year, on the holiest day of the year — the anniversary of the great wipe — the High Priestess (i.e. Coco) will open the ark and view the TOS and entone the sacred secret name for the great God EA. And that secret name shall be: E-23.
Cocoanut
Mar 24th, 2004
Even if you view it as only a contract between two parties, Uri – the player and the company – the fact remains that the player agrees to that contract, and in doing so agrees not to employ bots.
The fact remains that if you run bots, you are breaking the contract. You are – in short – cheating.
(By the way, you are the one who keeps harping about “contracts” – not “we” – I could be wrong, but I don’t recall anyone else on this site insisting on that distinction.)
You sure do call me a lot of names. Have you ever thought what all I could call you if I felt like it? And resorting to sarcasm – that has to be one of the lowest forms of discourse.
Again, if you read Stratics, you would know that I am by no means a fan of EA. What I am a fan of is honesty and fair play.
coco
urizenus
Mar 24th, 2004
sarcasm is the lowest form of discourse? OMG! Call the civility patrol! They are using sarcasm on the Alphaville Herald!
Meanwhile, right, yes, a player who bothers to read the TOS is in fact agreeing not to use bots — or at least not to use unattended macros, I’m not sure which it is. Guess what? I use neither. So what does this have to do with my life?
Docosa
Mar 24th, 2004
“No one is rejecting the TOS, we are saying you should treat if for what it is. A contract between two parties.”
Let there be light!
All your questions of right, wrong, user-made rules, etcera become entirely irrelevant when you say this. All those things are matters of opinion and perspective. None of which are relevant in terms of a contract. Only what’s written and agreed upon does.
Scrambled1
Mar 24th, 2004
Well anyhow, your going to have to catch the users before you can do something about it
The pizza bots do no more or no less then what a human can do with his four accounts, or let alone what he can do with 3 other friends.. No matter what you will NEVER prevent bots… NEVER!
As a matter of fact, you going to have to start more discusions… for pizza is the first phase
You will see what happens… Its going to be almost impossible to track down and ban a botter… We have gotten smart, and the programmer has also gotten smarter with our knowledge… We dont leave bots unattended.. So it isnt “unattend macroing” if we are there watching 
About 99.9% of the time, the botter will not leave near his or her computers, we stay put…
So try as you wish, but noone can or will ever stop ANY bot, If they bring the maze back, be prepared for the maze bots to come back, all it takes is a few pieces of code here and there to get around all that fuss that they will be puttin in, but we wont stop.. Noone will stop using a bot!
And if there were no bots, and all the simolean sellers were out of stock.. About 80% of the people on this site would be protesting this because they cant get their simoleans anymore… anything that someone does to prevent botters will just come right back in another form and bite them in their arse…
calso
Mar 25th, 2004
From the TERMS OF SERVICE:
“Three documents make up EA.com’s Terms of Service (“TOS”): the Rules of Play, the Privacy Policy, and the Membership Agreement.”
So this is the TOS
1) Rules of Play
2) Privacy Policy
3) Memership Agreement
Looks to me like there are some actual rules; the first subheading is titled:
“EA.com TOS: Rules of Play”
As you read down a ways you find this:
“You will violate the Terms of Service if you (or others using your Account) do any of the following:”
This paragraph is followed by a bulleted list.
Since the “Rules of Play” is one of three documents making up the TOS, then doesn’t it follow that violating the Terms of Service is in fact violating actual rules made by EA.com (God rest its soul)?
Looks like there are rules to me, and it appears that they were meant for anyone who chooses to play the game. When push comes to shove, I don’t believe that we have the option of choosing whether or or not we agree to play by EA’s rules.
Our agreement is implied when we continue to pay for and play the game.
I agree with making your own rules for your own style of play during your own gaming experience (along with other like minded players).
But it appears that EA’s rules supercede any individual or group rules.
Cocoa said, “Even if you view it as only a contract between two parties, Uri – the player and the company – the fact remains that the player agrees to that contract, and in doing so agrees not to employ bots.”
Uri responded, “Meanwhile, right, yes, a player who bothers to read the TOS is in fact agreeing not to use bots — or at least not to use unattended macros, I’m not sure which it is.”
Exactly. We agree with a TOS made up of the three documents mentioned previously, one of which is “Rules of Play.” (Whether we really agree to agree is another story.)
Wasn’t this basically the question to begin with? Aren’t ethics a natural result of rules?
Humdog said: “will wright, the creator of tso, in various interviews makes statements that suggest that he sort of expects players to want to explore the program, play with it, push the envelope. he talks like he seems to accept that players want to control their own experience of games; that controlling experience makes the experience more satisfying to the player. that’s what he says. now tell me who died and made you his successor?”
My question to you humdog is this – who died and made you Will Wright’s interpreter? I’m sure even the man himself had some idea for a few rules governing the overall community in order to keep any mayhem to a minimum.
Uri said: “I and the people I am playing with may or may not chose to use those rules or we may invent our own. You should do the same. Just because someone puts tokens and a die in a box with a pice of paper called “The Rules” that doesn’t mean you and your friends are bound by that piece of paper.”
I totally agree here about our own rules in our own games and I think most would, including cocoa. We all customize our personal games to some extent as long as everyone is agreeable. But you’re sidestepping the real issue with that statement. The real issue is the fact that TSO is not being played by a few individuals like a game of Monopoly; this is a corporate game for the public and it’s being played by a world community.
Someone has to have the final say and I think this is where the TOS comes into play. It seems like such a simple concept to me.
My mind is free and I don’t find myself diligently following a rigid set of rules, nor am I walking on eggshells trying to have a good time. I’m just playing my game. (I’m bored as hell with it, but that’s beside the point, and a whole ‘nother story.) I hope that doesn’t make me a religious zealot worshipping at the alters of the gaming gods.
Oh, and PS…
Uri implies the possibility that cocoa may be a corporate mole; does that mean no free thinking, intelligent individual could possibly speak as she does unless they were a mole? While I know it’s common practice to install a bogus someone in the way Uri mentioned, implying this of cocoa looks like grasping at straws in yet another attempt to discredit her.
TBT
Mar 25th, 2004
Well Uri you do not seem to know where you went wrong, but here is what you said…
“I know exactly what I did that got me tossed? Well let’s see, I had been suspended for 72 hours for a link to alphavilleherald.com on my property descript. Maxis XXX-ed that out when they suspended me. You can even look at it at the Alphaville Herald HQ, it hasn’t been changed. Still says the alphaville herald is online at XXXXX. Then 11 hours into the suspension they terminated the account. So you tell me TBT, what did I do while I was suspended to violate the TOS?”
Advertising in game is against the TOS..
“Do not post messages for any purpose other than personal communication. Do not transmit advertising, promotional materials, spam (or any duplicative and unsolicited messages), chain letters, pyramid schemes, or make any commercial use of the Game or the EA.com Service.
Commercial Activity and Unsolicited E-mail.
You may not advertise any goods or services on EA Online. Chain letters and pyramid schemes are not allowed. You may not use any area of EA Online to collect information, including login names, about EA Online Members, and use of such information to send unsolicited e-mail or for any other purpose is strictly prohibited. You may not exploit EA Online, or any games or services offered on EA Online for any commercial purpose. Any violation of these provisions can subject your EA Online Account(s) to immediate termination (or result in revocation of Guest status, if you are a guest) and further legal action.
Termination Of Account.
Either you or EA has the right to terminate or cancel your Account(s) or a particular subscription at any time. You understand and agree that the cancellation of your Account or a particular subscription is your sole right and remedy with respect to any dispute with EA Online. This includes, but is not limited to, any dispute related to, or arising out of: (1) any term of this Terms of Service or EA’s enforcement or application of this Agreement; (2) the Content available through EA Online or any change in Content provided through EA Online; (3) your ability to access and/or use EA Online; or (4) the amount or type of fees, surcharges, applicable taxes, billing methods, or any change to the fees, applicable taxes, surcharges or billing methods.”
So right in those paragraphs it says it is their right to suspend, ban, terminate accounts.. Doesn’t matter if it was done mid a suspension or what ever, it’s therir right..
You have a contract with your cable company, but if you did something that broke that contract then it is their right to disconnect your service.. wwhy do you think that by breaking a rule or “contract” as you say that they have no right to terminate your account? They clearly do.
Many others have been suspended/banned for such actions. I think ian may have had that happen long ago too. I had an email address in my bio and was told to remove it immediately or be terminated..
urizenus
Mar 25th, 2004
TBT, good job bringing this part up:
“Either you or EA has the right to terminate or cancel your Account(s) or a particular subscription at any time. You understand and agree that the cancellation of your Account or a particular subscription is your sole right and remedy with respect to any dispute with EA Online.”
If that sticks, then of course they can kick you out because they don’t like the fact that you have the letter ‘Q’ in your name or that there are 17 trees on your property. Of course then one wonders why people keep getting the “not enough evidence” line from EA whenever they report a scammer like Evangeline, and why EA refuses to move against such scammers even after dozens of complaints have been filed and given that the scamming is typically utterly blatant.
Well, here is one possible answer: EA’s “we can kick you out for anything” line and EA’s “your sole remedy is leaving here” line, may not hold up in a civil court. There are lots of issues here ranging from whether they are enforcing that part of the contract selectively (i.e. applying the punishment clause to bloggers but not scammers) to whether this is a contract of adhesion — i.e. a take it or leave it contract over which one party has no bargaining power — and hence some clauses of it may not be “part of the contract” between company and customer and thus are unenforceable.
http://www.ssrn.com/update/lsn/cyberspace/lessons/contr03.html
Again the matter would have to be resolved in a court of law.
humdog
Mar 25th, 2004
ok calso this is what you do next time: you read what i wrote out loud, slowly and carefully so that you can understand what the words mean, alright?
will wright said this to gamespot about TSO:
‘”The idea that every possible personality in the real world could be in this game means that a lot of the same things that happen in reality will be happening in the game–the good and the bad,” he [wright]says…’
the man himself in other interviews can be directly quoted as accepting player autonomy as a normal and necessary part of a satisfying game experience.
do you REALLY want to start a discussion based on will wright quotes expressing his philosophies of, and expectations for, game design and in-game player behavior, calso? because we can play that game if you want. humdog likes to play.
the “rules fetish” position held by worshipful players like you, coco, and other members of the TSO League for Player Oppression and Whimsical Expulsion does not work because it seeks to remove player choice and autonomy from the game. wright, the game designer, expects that all kinds of people will do all kinds of things. wright has been quoted saying that he expects that players will test the system and play the bugs.
go home.
thank you.
-humdog
Cocoanut
Mar 25th, 2004
I seriously doubt that Will Wright approves of people cheating with bots.
coco
Docosa
Mar 25th, 2004
[the "rules fetish" position held by worshipful players like you, coco, and other members of the TSO League for Player Oppression and Whimsical Expulsion does not work because it seeks to remove player choice and autonomy from the game.] (humdog)
I prefer to call it the “Group of People who Live in the Real World”. Fancy things like choice, autonomy, and fairness are all ideologies created by people who want to model the world into something it is not. That’s not to say they are bad things to strive for, but they are not all that useful when dealing with contracts and corporations, such as the ones that provide the games you play.
Contracts are all throughout society. Some work well, some are just plain stupid (Such as the ToS and UA). And before anyone says this is a contradiction to what I’ve been saying before, just try to find one word from me that said I liked the way it was written. All I’ve said is what was written, and what everyone who plays TSO is bound by.
And Uri, who said you couldn’t dispute the contract details in a court of law? I’d like to give them a slap upside the head. Cause I mean, beside the fact that you’d get your arse handed to you by a row of EA lawyers and paying a boat load of cash on your own legal representation, what’s stopping you from taking them to court over your own terminated account?
urizenus
Mar 25th, 2004
“And Uri, who said you couldn’t dispute the contract details in a court of law? I’d like to give them a slap upside the head. Cause I mean, beside the fact that you’d get your arse handed to you by a row of EA lawyers and paying a boat load of cash on your own legal representation, what’s stopping you from taking them to court over your own terminated account?”
That sums it up pretty well. Do I want to spend $100K US that I don’t have to get back a cheetah and some simoleans? I also don’t have the time right now. But who says I won’t challenge in the fullness of time? My only question is, if my account is restored, will it be the *same* cheetah? (of course one could wonder about that every time you log on.)
Banshee
Mar 26th, 2004
On a related note, haha, I just had a post deleted over at Stratics, welcome to the club lol.
In a thread where the payouts issue was being discussed, I wrote the following:
“I doubt you are going to see an elimination of payouts anytime soon because for at least some of the more casual players they are the only way to make a significant amount of money without dumping an unreasonable amount of time into TSO at 200 per gnome. As long as that is the case, there will be payouts, simolean dealers and clever programmers dreaming up new exploits to keep the market flow running. Sorry to say, but I think that is the realistic view of the TSO economy at this stage.”
And of course that was bounced because it referred to out of game simolean sellers. How the fuck can you have a conversation about the payout issue without discussing the source of it and the underlying factors that drive it? Sheesh, welcome to the Soviet Union, lol. I love it: let’s just pretend that the problem doesn’t exists and maybe it will go away. LMAO.
B
ian
Mar 26th, 2004
Coco shut up you board bitch…go report this to your buddies at sims stratics, i am tired of your wrong ass shit
Docosa
Mar 26th, 2004
[This is a topic for me and Coco to argue about stuff without derailing every other topic in the blog.] (Urizenus)
[Coco shut up you board bitch...] (ian)
If I were Coco, I’d be very conflicted at the moment. I’m mean, would you accept the words of someone who’s added nothing but pop-shot comments, or the one who posted the topic. Hrmmmm…
*thinks*
*ponders*
*contemplates*
I’m sure Coco will come up with something
humdog
Mar 26th, 2004
“i seriously doubt that will wright approves of people cheating with bots…” -coco.
i think that’s an incorrect statement. i think if you read the will wright quotes and take them at face value, what you see is somebody who appears to be willing to take pizza bots(at minimum) in stride.
iaan
Mar 26th, 2004
Docosa, you auctually amke a comment that I read because it isnt 10 paragraphs long saying the same thing over and over *sigh*..you say “coming from a person who doesn’t add a comment”…I would say something but i wouldn’t feel like it is contributing because someone already said it … but only if you knew where i was coming from…
Docosa
Mar 27th, 2004
Obviously you didn’t even read what I did write. I said you added nothing but pop-shot comments. Don’t quote something I didn’t say. Funny how I had to repeat that. Seems it’s the only way to get a point across around here
Maybe I should spell it out though, instead of being so evasive. You told a person to shut up who was pretty much invited to have a discussion. Makes you look like a total ass.
Now I won’t say this one instance makes you ass in general, just that the statement was uncalled for.