Yale Law Prof Ponders Uri’s Plight
by Alphaville Herald on 29/05/04 at 12:14 pm
This draft law review article — entitled “VIRTUAL LIBERTY: FREEDOM TO DESIGN AND FREEDOM TO PLAY IN VIRTUAL WORLDS” is a must read. Written by Jack Balkin, who is the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment and Director, The Information Society Project at Yale Law School. The article covers a lot of interesting issues regarding the freedom of game designers to design their games outside of state control, but it also takes up the inevitable issue of conflict between the game owner and the player. In the following excerpt, Balkin uses the termination of Urizenus as a foil for consider the issue of whether games should be thought of on the model of company towns or shopping malls, where certain free speech rights have been argued to trump the rights of the owning corporation. Article lso considerst the possibility of whether our TOS might not amount to a contract of adhesion. You go Jack!
V. FREEDOM OF DESIGN VERSUS FREEDOM TO PLAY
My last point concerns the relationship between the rights of the platform owner and the players. As I mentioned, earlier, although the freedom to design and the freedom to play can be synergistic, they can also conflict. Where they conflict, American free speech law is currently least helpful. As presently interpreted, first amendment law does not protect the interests of the game players against the actions of the platform owner or game designer because the platform owner is not a state actor. If anything, American free speech law will tend to reinforce the contractual and property rights of platform owners to control the structure of the game through the ToS or ELUA. In addition, the platform owner can use its intellectual property rights to control what players do in the game space. The EULA may also state that all of the objects an programs uploaded into the game become the property of the platform owner. The platform owner can use its first amendment rights to design, along with its contract and intellectual property rights, to discipline what players do in the game space; finally it can also kick out players for violating the ToS or EULA.
Consider, as a recent example, the conflict between Peter Ludlow and Electronic Arts, owners of The Sims Online (TSO). Ludlow began a weblog called the Alphaville Herald, in which he reported on the events that occurred in Alphaville, a virtual city in the game space of TSO. According to Ludlow, these events included, among other things, thieves, scams, and an underage prostitution ring. Ludlow alleged that the virtual characters or avatars controlled by a group of underage players would offer to engage in sexual talk with other avatars in return for some of the game currency, called simoleans. Simoleans can be exchanged for U.S. dollars. As a result, Ludlow alleged, not only were minors engaged in indecent conversation with adults, but the adults were paying them money for it.
Ludlow repeatedly attacked the platform owners of TSO, Electronic Arts, for allowing this and other misconduct to occur. In response, he says, Electronic Arts terminated his account, erasing his personal, his virtual property (including a virtual house), and his two virtual cats. Electronic Arts argued that Ludlow had violated the games ToS: He had included a link on his personal profile to his Alphaville Herald site, and that site, in turn, included a link to sites that explain how to cheat at the game. Ludlow argued that this was a pretextual enforcement of a technical violation of the ToS not regularly applied against other players.
If Electronic Arts were a state, and Alphaville a real city, Ludlow would have a colorable argument that his free speech rights had been violated, especially if he could show that the real reason for the termination was a desire to silence him. But Electronic Arts is not a state actor, and Alphaville is a virtual community. Ludlow’s right to play conflicts with Electronic Arts’ right to run its game. Moreover, Electronic Arts might regard Ludlow as someone who is spreading false reports about The Sims Online that are bad for its business: There is some question whether the sort of virtual child prostitution he describes actually occurs, or whether it was the concoction of an unreliable 17 year old player who was Ludlow’s source for the story.47 Electronic Arts would argue that it has the contractual right to refuse service to anyone who unreasonably disturbs the play of the game.
How can the right to play be protected from arbitrary decisions by the platform owner while still respecting the platform owner’s right to design? One model of regulation would treat the platform owner like a company town.33 In Marsh v. Alabama,34 the Supreme Court held that a town wholly owned by a company could not use its property rights to prevent people from distributing leaflets on its streets. Because the company had assumed all of the major functions of a municipality, it had to obey first amendment values.35 Put in somewhat different terms, the streets of the company town formed a space in which people communicated that the company town fully controlled and for which it was ultimately responsible. The streets were important nodal points for communication and the exchange of ideas. As Justice Black explained, “[w]hether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free.”36 And as Justice Frankfurter pointed out, the central issue was not ownership of property but the “community aspects”37 of the company town– the fact that the town operated as a community in which people exchanged ideas and opinions. When a business monopolizes control over the central modes of communication within a community, it must act as a fiduciary for the public interest, and it must allow its property to be used for the free exchange of ideas. To be sure, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to extend the reasoning of Marsh v. Alabama to shopping malls, on the grounds that unlike company towns, they did not take over the municipal functions of a city.38 Thus, one could argue that shopping malls lack the community aspects that Justice Frankfurter identified. Nevertheless, several state supreme courts have held that large regional shopping malls are public spaces where people have free speech rights.39
Virtual worlds are like company towns in that the game owner forms the community, controls all of the space inside the community and thus, controls all avenues of communication within the community. The free flow of ideas and the formation of community cannot occur within a virtual world unless the designer permits it. Alphaville was a virtual city controlled by The Sims Online through its design of code and its Terms of Service agreement. Although Electronic Arts does not take over “the full spectrum of municipal functions”40 in real space, it does exercise all of those functions in the virtual world. If any private entity could be regarded as a company town, it would be a virtual world. That is especially so because the whole point of the virtual world is to create community (or communities) and action in the virtual world occurs through the exchange of ideas.
Nevertheless, one might object that it is possible for people to speak to each other outside the virtual world. The Alphaville Herald, for example, is available to anyone on the World Wide Web. And nothing prevents the people behind the avatars from sending e-mails to each other. But if we treat The Sims Online as a virtual community, this objection is less compelling: It is important that communication among the participants occur within the space of the community and between the avatars. In Marsh itself, it did not matter that people could listen to radio broadcasts, or send mail in and out of the company town. That was simply not the same thing as speaking and organizing within the town itself. Keeping leafletters out of the company town prevented the free exchange of ideas. The same is true of Alphaville: Although Ludlow can still report on what goes on in Alphaville, kicking him out makes it difficult for him to do so because he is no longer a member of the community.
Another objection to the company town analogy is that in Marsh people had to live in the company town in order to make a living. It was unfair to require them to give up their jobs in order to enjoy full free speech rights. By contrast, no one has to live in Alphaville, and if Ludlow doesn’t like how Electronic Arts runs its world, he can go elsewhere to a virtual world that thinks more highly of virtual-world journalism. After all, one might insist, it’s just a game. However, this objection fails to take seriously the notion of virtual worlds as communities. Some players already invest enormous amounts of time in these worlds, they make friends there and form attachments. As virtual worlds become more ubiquitous, and are employed for more and more functions, ranging from ommerce to entertainment to education, it will not seem at all strange for people to spend considerable time in these worlds and to regard membership in a virtual community as part of their (multiple) social identities. Exit from virtual worlds is always possible, but demanding exit as the price of free expression becomes less justified as people’s social connections in these worlds become increasingly significant.
Another objection, I think, is far more powerful. Not all virtual worlds are alike, and they should not all be treated alike. For example, virtual worlds that are used for purposes of military simulations, or for psychotherapy, should not be regarded as company towns. They are created for specific sorts of uses, and treating them as open spaces for communication would defeat the purposes for which they are dedicated. But this argument, if accepted, actually strengthens the case for treating at least some virtual worlds as company towns. Military and therapeutic simulations are not designed to form communities, or create channels for general public communication, and therefore they should be treated differently. That does not mean, however, that those virtual worlds which hold themselves open as general spaces for public communication and interaction should not be treated as company towns, any more than Chickasaw, Alabama, could defend itself on the grounds that some business entities do not form communities that take over all municipal functions.
I have just offered a number of reasons for taking seriously claims that platform owners must respect free speech rights within virtual worlds. Although courts may ultimately not extend first amendment privileges to players in virtual worlds, legislatures might well take these claims seriously and extend free speech rights through statute, in order to recognize the speech rights of both players andplatform owners.41 Two analogies come to mind. The first are private universities, which although nominally private actors, understand themselves to be spaces for the free exchange of ideas. The second analogy is telecommunications law. In American telecommunications law, owners of communications networks like cable companies are both conduits for the speech of cable programmers and also treated as speakers in their own right. Much of telecommunications law involves balancing the speech interests of owners of communications networks and independent speakers. To this end, federal cable regulations sometimes require that cable owners respect the free speech interests of independent programmers, for example, by providing public access channels.
45http://www.alphavilleherald.com/ (Last visited February 29th, 2004).
46Amy Harmon, A Real Life Debate on Free Expression in a Cyberspace
City, New York Times, January 15th, 2004, available at
February 27th, 2004).
47Harmon, supra.
33See Paul Schiff Berman, Cyberspace and the State Action Doctrine: The
Cultural Value of Applying Constitutional Norms to “Private Regulation,” 71 U.
Colo. L. Rev. 1302-05 (2000)(arguing for application of constitutional norms in
debates over regulation of cyberspace); Lastowka and Hunter, at 60-61.
34326 U.S. 501 (1946). See also Amalgamated Food Employees Union
Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308 (1968)(extending reasoning
of Marsh v. Alabama to protest by local union against shopping mall).
35Id. at 506.
36Id. at 507.
37Id. at 510 (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
38See Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1975)(officially overruling Logan
Valley Plaza); Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)(distinguishing Logan
Valley Plaza on grounds that protest was not related to mall owner’s business).
39See., e.g., New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v.
J.M.B. Realty Corp., 650 A.2d 757 (N.J. 1994); Robins v. PruneYard Shopping
Ctr., 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979), aff’d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)
40 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. at 568-69.
41 I take this to be the point of Paul Berman’s argument for incorporating constitutional values into adjudications about private rights in cyberspace. See
Berman, at 1302-1305. I would add that it may be even more important for legislatures and administrative agencies to take these constitutional values into
account.
42 This interest might be stronger than the interest of a shopping mall owner who does not wish to be associated with the speech of protesters on his or her property. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins 447 U.S. 74, 87-88
(1980)(rejecting claim that forcing mall owner to allow access by protesters
constituted compelled speech) and administrative agencies might choose to balance the free speech interests ofplatform owners with those of players.
43Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515-16 (1939)(opinion of Roberts, J.).
44See Arkansas Educational Television Commission, Petitioner v. Forbes,
523 U.S. 666, 667-680 (1998)(distinguishing different types of public fora); Perry Educ. Ass’n. v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983)(same)
45 See James Grimmelman, The State of Play: On the Second Life Tax
Revolt, http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1 222 (Last visited February 29, 2004).
46 See Raph Koster, Declaration of the Rights of Avatars, available at
February 27th, 2004).
47See Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory
of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. __, __
(forthcoming 2004).
Cocoanut
May 29th, 2004
“Electronic Arts argued that Ludlow had violated the games ToS: He had included a link on his personal profile to his Alphaville Herald site, and that site, in turn, included a link to sites that explain how to cheat at the game. Ludlow argued that this was a pretextual enforcement of a technical violation of the ToS not regularly applied against other players.
“There is some question whether the sort of virtual child prostitution he describes actually occurs, or whether it was the concoction of an unreliable 17 year old player who was Ludlow’s source for the story”
I’m pleased to see actual fact reported here. (Although the author doesn’t mention – or maybe know – that Uri still plays under another character/s, thus breaking the TOS yet again and on a continual basis.)
I like the arguments presented here also, such as the “company town” analogy, as I am in favor of free speech within the game (and elsewhere, needless to say). This piece does a good job of pinpointing why it goes so much against the grain to be muzzled within the game. (Or on its message boards, for that matter.)
coco
Ian
May 29th, 2004
Yes coco, and no offense Uri, but you may think that you expolsion was from the game, because they hate you. Partially yes, but you did break the ToS…You linked to an outside page, bashing TSO. I am sure that them hating you, did go into the final decision of terminating you, but you can’t go around to American Eagle and say, come buy at Abercrombie and Fitch.
Urizenus
May 29th, 2004
Looks like the source is the NYT story by Amy Harmon, hence it contains some confusions to the effect that I ever said anything about teenage prostitution rings or that Van was the “source” for the “story.” It was just an interview with Van — no conclusions were drawn.
As to whether I am still in the game, well, I think that Prof. Balkin might say that is “immaterial” to the question at hand.
I agree about the company town analogy though.
Urizenus
May 29th, 2004
Ian, what part of “this was a pretextual enforcement of a technical violation of the ToS not regularly applied against other players” don’t you understand? lol
Ian
May 29th, 2004
Uri, what part about “you are a whiney little bald bitch”, that you do not understand.
Uri, look man, it isn’t like I wanted you to be banned, but you pissed off the people. Like I was trying to imply, they MIGHT have let you go, if it wasn’t a website about “how horrible TSO is”. And you know, you are trying to make it seem, everyone should “feel your pain” and “cry that you were banned”. Look, you deserved it fair and sqaure. Back then, Maxis, was admiment about the ToS, now they will let things “Go”.. Like I have said, you can’t go to somewhere and claim how horrible they are, and get away with it. And instead of bitching about it, maybe you should find out the culprit
Ian
May 29th, 2004
And what part of “Ludlow repeatedly attacked the platform owners of TSO, Electronic Arts, for allowing this and other misconduct to occur” do you not understand?
Eva Marie
May 29th, 2004
Uri: I think you should check out a new all adult beta game … It is interesting to me that TSO breeded such hate and anger with no real outlet for it … while this game has the outlet and I dont seem to find the same level of hate. Might find it of interest?? If u do decide to come check it out .. it is not very user friendly to start out.. let me know … i would be glad to help you out. http://www.sociolotron.com
Eva Marie
Punker
May 29th, 2004
Sociolotron is the stupidest game I have ever played or seen. It is for sexual degenerates who like bad graphics.
Ian
May 29th, 2004
Punker, I couldn’t agree more. And this is coming from an extremely horny 16 year old. I played it and thought it was even worse (yes I said worse) than The Sims Online. I don’t feel like hearing “I want to put it slowly into your vagina, and then out, and then in deeper, oh so deep”.. from probably some 40 year old perverted nerd, who can’t get “none” in RL.
RB
May 29th, 2004
The TOS (im sure EA management like a good tos
) is nothing. it’s a joke. It’s not a contract, it’s merely an implied agreement. The fact they haphazardly enforce it and it contains pure lies laid out as rules, Proves this.
- RB
ajdown@jp
May 30th, 2004
I can’t believe that someone who appears to have a highly respected academic position is even thinking of this twaddle!
“First Amendment” stuff, ie the freedom of speech, is ONLY applicable in America. Go to any other country in the world and there is no such thing as ‘first amendment rights’, so you have to abide by that country’s laws, including freedom (or lack) of speech.
TSO is like another country. It has its own rules and laws, in this case, the terms of service. It does not guarantee ‘first amendment freedom of speech’, it is a private entity, and as such can put whichever rules it wishes into the situation. If you don’t like it, don’t sign up. If you ignore that, but continue, then you suffer the consequences.
Sheesh…. I wonder how much this guy gets paid to ‘study’ these things? I’ve given you a much better, and honest answer, for free.
aj
humdog
May 30th, 2004
i am very happy to see this article.
Ian
May 30th, 2004
Wow this guy has a bit too much time on his hands, to write about some crybaby fictional character, who thinks everyone should hear his story, because he think he was singled out. Uri the fact of the matter is, you are just one of those people who just don’t get it. You may have been singled out, but that is because you were “mocking” the aspects of how EA handles situations.
humdog
May 30th, 2004
i like that the writer of the article compares EA to the owner of a company town. that works for me.
if alphaville is a company town owned by EA, then uri is the winslow boy of alphaville.
what i mean by that is that uri, like the winslow boy (an early 20th century i guess you’d say legal scandal in england) was denied due process.
the winslow boy was accused of theft and forgery, and was thrown out of the royal naval college for doing so. the headmaster did not ask questions. the headmaster just threw mr winslow out of school. the proceedings that led to winslow’s expulsion were secret, and the boy was permitted no representation and no advocate.
the boy’s father sued. at first no attorney would take the case because they argued that a person cannot sue the king. the boy’s father persisted and at last found a guy who was willing to ask for a “petition of right” (right to sue the king).
winslow received the petition of right, and shortly after the trial began, the navy reversed its decision, finding the boy innocent.
uri is the winslow boy of av:
(1) uri was thrown out of AV as the result of a decision where he had no representation/advocate & he was harmed as the result of those secret proceedings.
(2) uri has no opportunity or channel through which he may ask for the wrong done against him to be righted
let right be done.
-humdog
humdog
May 30th, 2004
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire.
I shall not cease from Mental Fight
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In AV’s green & pleasant Land.
-wm blake
CherryBomb
May 30th, 2004
Seconds aj’s comment.
In a way, virtual communities are more free than any real world society. People live in countries with awful laws because the emotional and financial costs of leaving are so high. The cost of moving to a different virtual world (one with a looser EULA, maybe) are much lower. It’s more like a shopping mall; if you don’t like their rules, you can shop somewhere else. Selective enforcement of user agreements sounds to me more like a customer service problem than an issue of free speech.
Ian
May 30th, 2004
I was just thinking, the hypocrisy in this is so disgusting. Uri, and his bitch humdog, don’t you always complain about the ToS are so silly and that you basically agree to give away all your rights. Well it looks like you were right, you big sillies!
Urizenus
May 30th, 2004
CherryBomb says: “the emotional and financial costs of leaving are so high. The cost of moving to a different virtual world (one with a looser EULA, maybe) are much lower. It’s more like a shopping mall; if you don’t like their rules, you can shop somewhere else.”
Balkin addresses the first issue by saying that there can be cases where the cost of leaving a virtual world can be as higher or higher than changing countries (or, as the case may be, moving out of a company town). He also discusses the specific case of state courts protecting free speech in malls. Are you guys even reading this stuff?
Ian, you soiled your pants again. Go change, please.
Cocoanut
May 30th, 2004
Humdog, Uri was thrown out of TSO as a result of breaking the game rules, rules of which he was ignorant, with the same lack of “due process” that happens to everyone else who gets reported and caught and thrown out of the game for breaking the rules.
And he has broken them again to return under another avatar, this time knowingly. Now this isn’t exactly a state secret, is it? If EA were really out to get Uri they could just go to Alphaville, find him, and throw him out again, and again it would be because he is breaking the rules.
coco
Urizenus
May 30th, 2004
You know, Coco, you have this facade of Ms Honest, but as far as what you say about me, you are the most agressively dishonest person I have ever met in my life.
Time and time again I have told you that at the time the Urizenus accout was terminated there were no links to any outside sites. Got that? No links period.
No links to TSOE
No links to AVH
No links to RSO
No links to Stratics
No links to Google
No links to ANYTHING
What is it about this that you don’t understand?
Cocoanut
May 30th, 2004
I understand that, Uri. I understand that you say that you had removed the links during the 72-hour suspension period and expected that that would take care of it, but that you were suddenly terminated after you removed these links but before the 72-hour period was up. I take your word for that. And I understand how that doesn’t seem quite fair.
But I also understand that EA doesn’t need to answer to you about their decision to terminate, or about the exact point in time they made that decision. It could be, for instance, that a lot more reports were filed against you during that suspension period – just as an example. The spokespeople from EA have also stated that there were more marks against your account than just the links.
However you cut it, you broke the rules and you were terminated. Just like happens all the time to bunches of other people. Whether or not a suspension occured between the rule-breaking and the termination is immaterial to that fact, and immaterial to the policies regarding termination as stated in TOS.
And however you cut it, you are still breaking game rules. Now I personally don’t see anything wrong with you being in the game under another account, but I know that EA could terminate you again for that reason alone if they wanted to. So it’s hard for me to view you as a wronged or persecuted individual.
When I originally heard about your case, I took up your cause. Until the links were pointed out to me. At that time, I went to your site and, lo and behold, yes, somehow they were still there. I could no longer champion your cause.
And might I say again, as I’ve mentioned before, you are the worst name-calling person for a grown man I have ever met.
coco
Ian
May 30th, 2004
You are a sad bald man
Urizenus
May 30th, 2004
>I also understand that EA doesn’t need to answer to you about their decision to terminate, or about the exact point in time they made that decision.It could be, for instance, that a lot more reports were filed against you during that suspension period – just as an example.The spokespeople from EA have also stated that there were more marks against your account than just the links.
Cocoanut
May 30th, 2004
We would have better conversations if you skipped the personal attacks and assumptions about my feelings.
Where we differ most is in the concept that you were terminated on a flimsy pretextual basis.
That aside, there is a difference, I think, between surrendering free speech rights and surrendering the right to advertise, within the game, sites which essentially advertise illegal cheats to the game itself.
coco
humdog
May 30th, 2004
ian, you sexist little shadow, you call me uri’s bitch again and i am going to get extremely unhappy with you. it is not my fault that you have a gift for self-contradiction.
coco, in a recent post i asked you questions regarding your reading (interpretation, what you think the meaning is) of TSO rules. i believe that my exact question was:
“coco, please tell me what you think the tos means. please tell me what you think the tos says. please tell me how you get from the tos to the rules for tso that you will not tell us about. right now it looks like they are secret, private rules. is that what you mean to suggest. please explain.”
you have not answered my question but you are willing to energetically attack uri on the basis of an idea that you steadfastly refuse to define or clarify.
i then went on to explain how your reading of TOS = RULES OF TSO seemed weird to me. i said:
“right now, your interpretation of the rules to me looks like you just accept the tos and say “these are the rules”. there is much material in the tos that is about limiting maxis/ea legal exposure. so when you say “the rules are the tos” well it seems weird to me. for example, are you giving me the right to capture and store any information you may reveal to me in the course of play? i am just wondering. i think if you wanted me to capture and store your information that would be weird. do you think that would be weird? just wondering.”
and you have not replied. why won’t you explain/define/talk to me about your special reading of the TOS=TSO rules?
and if you cannot explain them, or define them, or even tell what they are, on what basis are you
attacking uri’s position? do you have a personal relationship with TSO corporate counsel? do you have special received wisdom from
tigger? could you share the source of your special knowledge? because right now it just looks like you make stuff up according to the day of the week and the color hair ribbons you’re wearing.
please tell us, coco. please.
Cocoanut
May 30th, 2004
Humdog, the Tos is there for anyone and everyone to read it. I don’t need to tell you explain it to you, or define it to you. Just look it up.
coco
humdog
May 30th, 2004
coco you are wrong.
you DO have to define your terms. you cannot
throw the whole TOS in people’s faces and say
“this is the rules”. you can’t do that because there is a lot of material in that document. you have to say what you mean because you are privileging certain parts of the document and you have so far refused to
(1) state what sections of the TOS you are privileging and
(2) explain the reason why you
feel the entire document or any section of the document should be privileged
(3) explain why YOUR reading of the TOS should
be privileged over another person’s reading of the TOS
you have things to answer for, coco.
Cocoanut
May 30th, 2004
I have no idea what you are talking about, humdog.
coco
humdog
May 31st, 2004
coco you say you have no idea what i am talking about.
i have asked you three times to define (explain,
tell us what you mean when you say) your version of the TSO rules. once you ignored me, then
you dismissed me, now you plead ignorance.
could it be that you don’t understand the tos well enough to explain it to other people?
see, i would buy that.
Cocoanut
May 31st, 2004
I wish you would stop badgering me, humdog.
I don’t have a “version” of the TOS.
The TOS is there. You can read it. If you’d like to argue the meaning of any specific portion therein, feel free to do that.
Otherwise, hush up.
coco
Ian
May 31st, 2004
catfight meow…. humdog, i didnt mean to come off sexist, if you were a man, you could be Uri’s bitch too…someone who is a bitch to someone…just means they say whatever the superior says, and does whatever the superior does. However, you guys don’t get it. uri bashed ea, he got what he deserved. cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it. you big big baby
humdog
May 31st, 2004
coco: your uri-bashing has been entirely based on one statement which runs something like “uri broke the rules”. when asked about what the “rules” are, you refer people to the TOS. you refer people to the TOS without stating what section of the TOS you are identifying as “the rules” and you do not tell anyone what you mean when you say “tos is the rules”.
my point, which i believe is both simple and direct, is that the TOS is a large document that speaks to many points. my point is that you cannot say “TOS is the rules” unless you are willing to specifically indicate WHICH part of the TOS you are referring to, and exactly how and why, these areas should be interpreted.
if you are not willing to explain yourself, i think you should go home. now.
everything you have said about uri and the rules and getting kicked is bullshit. it is bullshit because you have amply demonstrated beyond shadow of doubt that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. you have amply shown me that you have the mental powers of a baby pink rat. if you DID know what you were talking about, you would have defended your point of view instead of launching into yet another baby-brained rant about “uri broke the rules”.
so. i will put my questions again:
(1)what section of the TOS are you talking about when you say “TOS is the rules”
(2) what reasons do you have for deciding that the section you name ought to be considered as holy writ
(3)on what basis is your reading of the TOS more important, more knowledgeable, more real than anybody else’s reading of the TOS.
this is the fourth time i am asking this question coco. i am not impressed with your abilities to discuss this idea.
uri was ejected from the game as the result of a unilateral decision. he was harmed by this, and since tso properties and pets can be valuated in US dollars, he suffered a real world financial loss.
uri has no recourse. he was harmed and there is no way to restore him to his previous situation.
they do this also in latin america, iraq, and bosnia. am i making myself clear yet, coco? can you spell totalitarian?
LET RIGHT BE DONE.
humdog
May 31st, 2004
ian, you hypocritical little asswipe, i will let this pass, because it is clear to me that you are either a 12 year old gelding or a moron.
i can’t imagine that you would seriously write those terms in my direction while engaging in the absurdly self-cancelling behavior that is described in the newest avh article. how often do you bend over, ian?
“uri’s bitch humdog”. if it was not so insulting, i believe i would laugh.
do not ever address me in such terms again.
Urizenus
May 31st, 2004
Yeah Ian, you have it back asswards as usual. I’m actually Hummie’s bitch. But that’s a story for Pat the Rat…
Ian
Jun 1st, 2004
Hum, sorry if i made it look like a sexist thing, but it is not. but if i offended you in any way, i am so ever, deeply sorry and owe you for gratitude for lifetimes to come. if you want to know how many times i bend over, perhaps you should question yourself, how ofter you bend over for Uri, and Pay, at the same time!
Banshee
Jun 1st, 2004
This is a very interesting article, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the legal system in the coming years.
I think that viscerally you won’t get much traction from courts or legislatures when dealing with gamey-type online services, but the issue will be more square when you have online services that may be less gamey and more like virtual life. TSO was still trying to be fairly gamey (and failing it it). SL, which I don’t personally care for, nevertheless is less “gamey” and appears more like a virtual reality experience. And the latter becomes a much harder case, it seems to me, under things like the First Amendment, for many of the reasons that are mentioned in this article. If SL or other VR platforms keep developing in a way that create a virtual universe where people live a significant portion of their lives (maybe akin to Stephenson’s vision of the Metaverse in the novel “Snow Crash”), then I think that the free speech issues will become almost unavoidable, regardless of whether these are technically “privately owned” areas.
humdog
Jun 1st, 2004
always glad to see your posts in the comments, banshee.
thanks for another thoughtful comment.
oknal
Jun 2nd, 2004
It seems Coco is just one of those sheep that want to bend to whatever rules are given to them … one of those not-self-thinking individuals – definitely not Korean.
As for you humdog, please don’t bash other countries calling them totalitarian. Remember where you live – US is just as totaliatiran (both internaly and especially externaly) as any other latin american country and especially more so than Bosnia. Actually, it makes much more civil rights violations these days than an average latin american country. but ok, let’s say you were just trying to be depictive …
Ian
Jun 3rd, 2004
oknal don’t ever waste your time talking to her, all you will get in response of how stupid you are or something
humdog
Jun 4th, 2004
oknai:
i mention latin american countries because i have first hand experience with that: some of
my people were jailed, some disappeared. but
please understand that in no way am i excluding
the US from the party. the united states is one
of the last nations on earth to practice capital punishment. the united states has military bases all over the world just for the hell of it,
so to speak. the united states is a major, and
at this point, solitary, imperial power running
around doing thug-ish things to the rest of the world at the moment. i know that.
more important, i think, is the idea that the
actions performed on uri by EA were totalitarian:
they were secret. uri had no opportunity for response or appeal. throwing uri out of the game and destroying his property was a unilateral, and aggressive, act.
coco and ian are merely supporting the righteousness EA’s aggressive and malicious
act.
LET RIGHT BE DONE
Ian
Jun 4th, 2004
Humdog your ignorant, now go back where you came from (under Uri’s blankets). you’re probably one of his “students” that he fools around with
Urizenus
Jun 4th, 2004
Ian, I’ve never met humdog in r/l, and I don’t sleep with students, which is one reason why I still have a job.
Funny thing is, even remarks like those aren’t enough to get Coco to distance herself from you.
Ian
Jun 4th, 2004
I am not trying for her to, we chat all the time. Unlike you, I can have a friend status with women, without sleeping with them
Urizenus
Jun 4th, 2004
Ian, you seem to have sex on the brain. I’m glad to hear that you chat with Coco all the time. You two are obviously very close, and it suggests that she must trust you a lot. Hope you won’t break any confidences. ::cough::
RB
Jun 5th, 2004
Well Ian is only 16. What else does a boy his age think of? LOL.
- RB
humdog
Jun 5th, 2004
hey, ian, what’s up, if anything?
you got a problem with strong women? you got
a problem with women, period?
its just interesting that your ummm big
gun against a woman who disagrees with you
is the good ole boy’s “obviously the
little lady is agreeing with a Man.”
women got the vote about 100 years ago, ian.
the last guy i met who thought that men
determine what women think has been dead
about 20 years.
you must be a dead guy, ian. your brain must be
full of spider webs. the burial shroud must
be falling away from your body in little shreds.
you must have maggots crawling in your eye sockets.
how the hell did you make it through elementary school, anyway?
you and coco have yet to come up with a real
argument. everything you guys say comes down
to a statement that uri violated coco’s version
of the TOS, and coco won’t explain how she arrived at her version of the TOS, probably because she can’t.
and, until coco becomes the general counsel of EA, that argument is horseshit.
go home, ian.
LET RIGHT BE DONE
Ian
Jun 5th, 2004
humdog, i dont think you get it. like i have said before, you are purposely being ignorant to what cocoa says; Tell her who else to go to, rather than the people who banned Uri. Please do. And it isn’t her interpertation…it’s what TIgger says, yes because she works for the people who made the rules. so until you tell us who else to go to, your arguement is horseshit.
please rb, “only” 16, your images in your arguments are terrible, and you are stealing them because you dont have an account. this boy who is “only” 16, can make images godly if you think “Animation Factory” is grea.t
Uri…my remarks arent trying to be sexist, but it is just odd that some random chick is speaking for you, rather than you your self. You can just sit back while she answers for you. male or female, where the hell is your collar and chain hum?
Urizenus
Jun 5th, 2004
>it’s what TIgger says, yes because she works for the people who made the rules
this is incorrect. The TOS is not a set of rules handed down on Mount Arrarat to Tigger. It is a contract between EA and the users. If there is a dispute about the interpretation of the contract or about whether certain clauses of the contract are binding, you cannot respove the interpretation or dispute by running to Tigger. Tigger/EA is merely one party to the dispute and is merely giving us the interpretation of the contract that EA would like to have, not one that an independent court would sanction.
Ian
Jun 5th, 2004
Uri I understand your point. However, the Terms of Service, is NOT up to interpratation. The rules are there and we have to follow them. Tell me what do you not understand about the rule about “Not Linking to any websites that sell 3rd Party programs”…because if you do not, I will gladly explain it to you.
Urizenus
Jun 5th, 2004
Well, I didn’t link to a website that sells 3rd party programs. I linked to the Alphaville Herald. And you keep forgetting that I wasn’t linked to ANYTHING at the time of the termination.
Again, the TOS is OF COURSE open to interpretation, just as every contract is. That’s why we have contract law and civil courts. It’s just a contract folks. Tigger is there to give the EA interpretation, but that doesn’t make it the correct interpretation. It is simply the interpretation to one party in a contractual dispute.