Dancer Archive
Thread: Unattended gameplay using macros is a violation of the TOS. Why won't the CSRs do their job?
Page 1 of 1
Beery
Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:23 am
#1
Unattended gameplay while using macros is a violation of the TOS. Why can't we justinsist thatthe CSRs to do their job? Buffbots are already illegal - let's just get Sony to arrest them. This is how to do it:
1. Mr. Buffbot comes into your cantina and starts his unattended gameplay shenanigans.
2. You make sure Mr. Buffbot is playing the game unattended.
3. You contact a CSR.
4. You explain to the CSR that you've noticed a playerin contravention of rule 7 of the TOS. You ask him/her to boot said player.
5. CSR says 'oh dear' then frantically looks up rule 7 of the TOS.
6. CSR (who can't make heads nor tails ofTOS rule 7)asks you what the problem is.
7. You say: "in contravention of rule 7 of the TOS (lines 9 & 10) this player is using a macro which allows unattended game play.
7. CSR does his job andboots said player, gives him a warning, or cancels his account.
Esharra
Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:33 am
#2
Because, unfortunately, this has become the official SOE interpretation of the applicable passage in clause 7 of the EULA. There was never an explaination provided for this interpretation but it is how the policy is currently enforced and is the response others have gotten when speaking to the CSRs regarding this.
Beery
Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:42 am
#3
Well the rule is very clear. If they are going to interpret it as allowing AFK play, then I guess any rule in the TOS can be interpreted as not meaning what it actually says.
Rule 7 says "you may not use or distribute macros or other programs which would allow unattended game play". I'm not sure how even the most creative lawyer could interpret that to mean that using macros that allowed unattended play was A-okay.
Message Edited by Beery on 11-07-2004 10:48 AM
Esharra
Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:49 am
#4
Basically..SOE can interpret their rules in any way that they feel is appropriate.
Xyrdre
Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:56 am
#5
Yup. The "letter of the Law", if you will, in the EULA seems pretty cut and dry that no macros will be used for unattended gameplay, but at some point the SOE Supreme Court ruled that AFKing was just ducky with them. Even in Jeassa's statement that Esharra linked to, there's a kind of a two-faced spin on it. Paraphrased and summed up: "No, AFK doesn't violate the terms of service (is okay), but we're not saying that we encourage AFK play (is not okay)..."
I'm not bashing on Jeassa here. She came in to make a clarification of what the official policy decision had been, not to justify or defend it. But, yes... it seems that the official policy decision regarding that part of the EULA is contradictory to "common sense", and perhaps even the true spirit and intent of part 7 of the EULA.
Was the official interpretation made during a moment of weakness on SOE's part? Was it an attempt to try to play both sides of the fence simultaneously? If the ruling was made as such, why was the EULA language not amended? And in light of recent statements by both TH and Tyrant, if the devs have collectively recognized that unattended "play" is unhealthy for the game andshouldn't be a part of SWG, shouldn't the interpretation of this be reviewed, and policy changed? Who knows! 
No... there's more to all of this than readily meets the eye, methinks, for better or worse. I wish it were just that simple, that we could call upon the EULA to get rid of all that AFKing... and I recall that we brought this very point up once months and months ago, to no avail then either. I think we just have to hope that TH and Tyrant's statements wind up being made good on, and that something will eventually clear this mess up.
Lunah
Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:04 am
#6
The biggest problem is in the holocron, unless they removed in my 3 month wintersleep. In the holocron it's stated:
Is AFK Macroing allowed?
Yes it is
Or something like that. I can post exact wording, but first I'm going to watch some star wars while enjoying my junk food
Is AFK Macroing allowed?
Yes it is
Or something like that. I can post exact wording, but first I'm going to watch some star wars while enjoying my junk food
Knight776
Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:56 am
#7
Beery wrote:
Unattended gameplay while using macros is a violation of the TOS. Why can't we justinsist thatthe CSRs to do their job? Buffbots are already illegal - let's just get Sony to arrest them. This is how to do it:
1. Mr. Buffbot comes into your cantina and starts his unattended gameplay shenanigans.
2. You make sure Mr. Buffbot is playing the game unattended.
3. You contact a CSR.
4. You explain to the CSR that you've noticed a playerin contravention of rule 7 of the TOS. You ask him/her to boot said player.
5. CSR says 'oh dear' then frantically looks up rule 7 of the TOS.
6. CSR (who can't make heads nor tails ofTOS rule 7)asks you what the problem is.
7. You say: "in contravention of rule 7 of the TOS (lines 9 & 10) this player is using a macro which allows unattended game play.
7. CSR does his job andboots said player, gives him a warning, or cancels his account.
First, it would be extremely confusing for the CSR to look at bullet 7 of the TOS, as that relates to a Disclaimer of Liability for SOE and doesn't apply. (And after a brief read, it seems to only apply to EverQuest. Gotta love copy and paste. )
Secondly, the End User License Agreement section 7 does relate to unattended play. However, a CSR cannot enforce a violation of the EULA, it's only enforceable by the Legal Department. If you go to the Policies Index of the SWG Station site, the only sets there that can be enforced by the CSRs are Character Naming, Community Standards, and Reimbursement, which say precisely jack about unattended play.
What it all comes down to in the end is that SOE and LucasArts will enforce the rules of this game the way that they see fit, and no other influence is going to change that. Until the policy on unattended gameplay is written in, the CSRs have no recourse but to let it go on and wait for the same changes we are waiting for (and have been told are coming). And, as we have been advised by our Corr, attempting to interfere with someone that is playing unattended will probably result in the reported playerdisciplined and not the player that isn't even there.
And before it's asked, all I am able to say is that I have been there, done that, and that's the explanation that I got. And in order not to jeopardize my 5 year old account, that's all I'm really permitted to say. 
Panthu
Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:23 pm
#8
The CSRs can't do anything about it because they can't. Current policy allows all AFK macroing, including Bots. Including Bots with spam. Including all Bots period. There will not be a policy change. There will be a change to macros down the road.
Please don't give the CSRs a hard time about this. It's the policy that we don't like as live Ents, not the CSRs. No reason to give them a hard time about it, it won't help change anything and will get you in trouble.
It's come from the top and is set in stone, there will be no CS change to ban Bots. There will be a macro change that affects this later down the road. Till then, this is it. Please try to carry on and ignore it.
macksg
Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:01 pm
#9
Under this logic you would also have to ban/deal with all of the people at major starports AFK spamming about their vendors, people tumbling in med centers, etc.
FuschiaD
Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:50 pm
#10
macksg wrote:
Under this logic you would also have to ban/deal with all of the people at major starports AFK spamming about their vendors, people tumbling in med centers, etc.
You say that like it's a bad idea.
Beery
Sun Nov 07, 2004 6:40 pm
#11
<"First, it would be extremely confusing for the CSR to look at bullet 7 of the TOS, as that relates to a Disclaimer of Liability for SOE and doesn't apply. (And after a brief read, it seems to only apply to EverQuest. Gotta love copy and paste. )"
I have a copy right here. It came with my Star Wars Galaxies game (I don't own Everquest), it refers to SWG throughout, and at the top in big letters it says "Terms ofService for Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided". Maybe in later editions they changed it to EULA, but mine (bought in July '03) is a TOS.
I have a copy right here. It came with my Star Wars Galaxies game (I don't own Everquest), it refers to SWG throughout, and at the top in big letters it says "Terms ofService for Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided". Maybe in later editions they changed it to EULA, but mine (bought in July '03) is a TOS.
Page 1 of 1