Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
I see a lot of ''these guys had the right to ban him because..." Because what he OWNS the game? He was streaming it in the back ground? They dont want a 'guy like this in their community'. So it would be OK for them to hack into his Steam account and ban him from every game he owns by that rationale.
He doesn't "own" the game. It's an MMO and live service. He pays to have access to the game so long as he abide by the terms and standards the company sets forth. Jagex is within their rights, as are most MMO and online games by their terms of service, to terminate a user from having access to their service should they deem that person unfit.
You made a false equivalency. Something that seems to keep happening among the doom-sayers.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product and violating your TOS.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
Then there is also the reality that this sort of thing is a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology. We've already started down this path with the likes of Patreon. It has authoritarian undertones that are pretty scary.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
There is no analogy.
If a customer is ill mannered, there is no impetus for the company to support that customer. They generally have a right to refuse service.
You are trying to distance things in a way that is simply not accurate. Jagex has prior interactions with this user, and apparently he'd even gotten an award from them, and now they get to see him behaving like this on a live stream where they now have to make an assessment of that person's character in relation to the impact it has on their title, because that kind of behavior can be bad for the game's community if and when it does bleed into it.
If you do want to make this into some stupid analogy, then it's more like this.
A grocery store sees someone swinging a gun around across the street and threatening to shoot somebody, and then refuses to let them into the store because they don't want that person hurting the rest of their customers.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Indeed, what you said just here and what Limnic just said is accurate and spot on, the others arguing against are failing in their logic.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
And to that same token, there are those who appreciate such people not negatively affecting their community, and might be more apt to play the game when they believe such people aren't allowed to abuse others there in a similar manner.
Your argument isn't a single track there. Not everyone is his fan and not everyone likes or agree with his behavior, so there are people that see this positively and become potential customers as a result. This then becomes a matter of what kinda user-base or consumer group are you trying to foster.
much as I loathe the use of the word, some people prefer less "toxic" communities in their games.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
But if you take the opposite approach and just let it happen, you can lose a potential larger audience by going back on ideals that your company supports.
Jagex as a company raises money for a suicide prevention, when someone is advocating suicide while using their product (even if it isn't ON the product, but still representing said product actively during the advocation by streaming it) wouldn't it look worse on them by letting it slide? I sure think so.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
And to that same token, there are those who appreciate such people not negatively affecting their community, and might be more apt to play the game when they believe such people aren't allowed to abuse others there in a similar manner.
Your argument isn't a single track there. Not everyone is his fan and not everyone likes or agree with his behavior, so there are people that see this positively and become potential customers as a result. This then becomes a matter of what kinda user-base or consumer group are you trying to foster.
much as I loathe the use of the word, some people prefer less "toxic" communities in their games.
And, if you look at the results of recent business campaigns, such as Nike's Kaepernick campaign, we see that these messages aren't backfiring on businesses.
Nike's sales increased 31% after the Kaepernick ad campaign launched.. So in the end, the folks claiming it's worse to launch these campaigns or send these messages seem to be on the minority side of things in terms of business consumer bases... And I honestly think, deep down, that's the biggest issue some have with these companies doing this. It's not that catering to a certain base is wrong... It's that the base doesn't include them.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
If potential customers see dealing with a dick as dickheaded, that's their prerogative.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
And to that same token, there are those who appreciate such people not negatively affecting their community, and might be more apt to play the game when they believe such people aren't allowed to abuse others there in a similar manner.
Your argument isn't a single track there. Not everyone is his fan and not everyone likes or agree with his behavior, so there are people that see this positively and become potential customers as a result. This then becomes a matter of what kinda user-base or consumer group are you trying to foster.
much as I loathe the use of the word, some people prefer less "toxic" communities in their games.
And, if you look at the results of recent business campaigns, such as Nike's Kaepernick campaign, we see that these messages aren't backfiring on businesses.
Nike's sales increased 31% after the Kaepernick ad campaign launched.. So in the end, the folks claiming it's worse to launch these campaigns or send these messages seem to be on the minority side of things in terms of business consumer bases... And I honestly think, deep down, that's the biggest issue some have with these companies doing this. It's not that catering to a certain base is wrong... It's that the base doesn't include them.
It's probably a case by case basis. Some companies would be better going one way, some the other.
All depends on who their clients are.
Also, I didn't realize Jagex was involved in suicide prevention so it sort of makes sense as to their decision.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
But if you take the opposite approach and just let it happen, you can lose a potential larger audience by going back on ideals that your company supports.
Jagex as a company raises money for a suicide prevention, when someone is advocating suicide while using their product (even if it isn't ON the product, but still representing said product actively during the advocation by streaming it) wouldn't it look worse on them by letting it slide? I sure think so.
Just let what happen exactly? we have already ascertained that nothing actually took place, so what if he tricked his viewers into thinking he had done something. Instead all that is happening is a whole lot of virtue signalling by unrelated parties, if you think that is not going to have a negative effect, prepare to be surprised.
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
It's kinda accepted that as streamers they have to present themselves in better light because a lot of kids who are easy to influence watch them. When they see him doing that they will do the same. It was a justified ban from Runescape and I don't think I even have to talk about Twitch which doesn't allow people to get punched themselves(streamer got punched and he got banned for that lol) on stream let alone they being aggressive in any way :P
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
But if you take the opposite approach and just let it happen, you can lose a potential larger audience by going back on ideals that your company supports.
Jagex as a company raises money for a suicide prevention, when someone is advocating suicide while using their product (even if it isn't ON the product, but still representing said product actively during the advocation by streaming it) wouldn't it look worse on them by letting it slide? I sure think so.
Just let what happen exactly? we have already ascertained that nothing actually took place, so what if he tricked his viewers into thinking he had done something. Instead all that is happening is a whole lot of virtue signalling by unrelated parties, if you think that is not going to have a negative effect, prepare to be surprised.
We ascertained that he at the least, staged on a live stream something that's generally considered to be in poor taste. If you tricked your viewers into believing something, then why are you thinking they should not take it as what it was represented as?
Which way would you like to have this? Them responding to his apparent behavior, or them responding to his equally reprehensible "real" behavior?
He was dishonest and used the image of abusiveness for personal gain, which is reprehensible, because for those that don't follow up, they only see someone lobbying for suicide. For those that do follow up, they see someone who was exploiting the notion of suicide for profit.
Also, would anyone like to point out the irony of calling out "virtue signaling" when one has actively been ranting about the dangers of some vague dystopian future? This would largely be a non-event if not for the people up in arms about a company protecting it's product, image, standards, etc.
I'm told to kill myself everyday when playing counter-strike and banging on heads all day. Should all those players be banned?
I feel the world is getting way waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too soft. No one can handle anything anymore, it's all finger pointing and hide in a corner in a safe space before it goes away. My grand papies would be pissed if they were still on this Earth to see what this world has became.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
I'm told to kill myself everyday when playing counter-strike and banging on heads all day. Should all those players be banned?
I feel the world is getting way waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too soft. No one can handle anything anymore, it's all finger pointing and hide in a corner in a safe space before it goes away. My grand papies would be pissed if they were still on this Earth to see what this world has became.
Depends, are they on a live stream and saying it to you because they know you have a history of suicidal thoughts?
You're complaining about something else right now. While it's not great that people act like twits on the net, random taunts and complaints are very different from staging a performance of one against a specific person.
Your grand papies would also be pissed if you chose to go to town square and start chanting about how a specific person should die. Some people have this notion of something called "respect".
I'm told to kill myself everyday when playing counter-strike and banging on heads all day. Should all those players be banned?
I feel the world is getting way waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too soft. No one can handle anything anymore, it's all finger pointing and hide in a corner in a safe space before it goes away. My grand papies would be pissed if they were still on this Earth to see what this world has became.
Depends, are they on a live stream and saying it to you because they know you have a history of suicidal thoughts?
You're complaining about something else right now. While it's not great that people act like twits on the net, random taunts and complaints are very different from staging a performance of one against a specific person.
Your grand papies would also be pissed if you chose to go to town square and start chanting about how a specific person should die. Some people have this notion of something called "respect".
Half the users have a twitch.tv address so ya probably, history of suicidal thoughts or not. They don't know me, I could be... I could be not. There's not much difference there except he was in the know, cause it was staged.
My grand pappies would use a thing called fists and violence to create a thing called respect. If you don't think there wasn't people screaming terrible crap out in public back in the day, you'd be very very wrong. Lot of battles about politics specially when JFK came in the mix. It might even be much worse than it is now.
All this still had nothing to do with Runescape. Is he an asshole? Absolutely. Should a company step in on something that didn't happen in their game, absolutely not. I just don't feel the ends justify the means. We don't need white knight behavior with corporations. If he's on partner they have every right to distance themselves from him, but banning on a public and open game isn't doing that, it's white knighting and gatekeeping.
It's the same thing for the whole summit1g thing going on in sea of thieves. He likes to be a dick in game, he should be allowed to be a dick it is a pirate game after all. If you as a player don't like it you mute or you leave etc and go on about your day. But a community trying to drive him out for "toxic behavior". That's a bit much.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Did he talk to that girl through the phone or he messaged her through the game? If it's the former, why the phone company did not terminate his subscription. If it's the former, why is the game's TOS relevant?
He's streaming in the runescape directory with runescape running in the background while he is doing this, thus the user content and content standards policy are applicable. What the phone company does is completely irrelevant to what happened to his game account or his actions, they have their own standards. This is completely on Jagex's user content rules, which because he's in that directory he has to uphold or they can terminate his account.
You are reverting back to my Netflix argument. Either he was acting in the game, which would make the ban justifiable, or he wasn't.
Let me put it this way, if there was no stream, would Runescape would be justified in their ban?
He was creating Runescape content as that is what he was advertised as doing. If you can't understand that then I don't know how to help you understand why Jagex did not want to be associated with him. And Twitch has rules about self harm which is what he was promoting by telling someone to kill themselves.
If he was not streaming then how would any know if he was on the phone with someone or not? That matters not since it was done while creating content in association with a product of Jagex.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
And to that same token, there are those who appreciate such people not negatively affecting their community, and might be more apt to play the game when they believe such people aren't allowed to abuse others there in a similar manner.
Your argument isn't a single track there. Not everyone is his fan and not everyone likes or agree with his behavior, so there are people that see this positively and become potential customers as a result. This then becomes a matter of what kinda user-base or consumer group are you trying to foster.
much as I loathe the use of the word, some people prefer less "toxic" communities in their games.
And, if you look at the results of recent business campaigns, such as Nike's Kaepernick campaign, we see that these messages aren't backfiring on businesses.
Nike's sales increased 31% after the Kaepernick ad campaign launched.. So in the end, the folks claiming it's worse to launch these campaigns or send these messages seem to be on the minority side of things in terms of business consumer bases... And I honestly think, deep down, that's the biggest issue some have with these companies doing this. It's not that catering to a certain base is wrong... It's that the base doesn't include them.
It's probably a case by case basis. Some companies would be better going one way, some the other.
All depends on who their clients are.
Also, I didn't realize Jagex was involved in suicide prevention so it sort of makes sense as to their decision.
That's my point. It's not always some arrogantly ignorant CEO making a boneheaded move. Sometimes, it's the company knowing what their core values are, knowing their consumer base mirrors those, and protecting them accordingly. As with Nike, as with here.
And generally, it's not a hard decision to make when you have someone literally trying to make light of suicide to a suicidal person. Banning them for that is not Orwellian, it's common sense defense of the company's core values and the demographic that mirrors it.
Which brings me back to the original point: many (not all) of those with an issue don't truly have an issue with someone being banned or certain behavior receiving reprimands... They have an issue with the company's values not mirroring their own. Period.
Over the years I've stopped doing business with a handful of my customers because I figured they were more of a pain in the ass then they were worth.
Am I within my rights?
According to some here, you're apparently contributing to an Orwellian nightmare.
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product as a medium to harrass people with.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
It makes sense for Twitch to ban this user. It doesn't make any sense for Runescape to ban him. That's a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology we've already started down with the likes of Patreon.
It's more akin to a grocery store owner seeing you being a dick in front of his other potential customers and telling you to go take a hike and not to return.
Which also tends to influence your potential customers to not be customers, which is quite likely given that fans of the streamer are likely to react negatively to the banning. But they were only potential customers, so that doesn't matter does it.
And to that same token, there are those who appreciate such people not negatively affecting their community, and might be more apt to play the game when they believe such people aren't allowed to abuse others there in a similar manner.
Your argument isn't a single track there. Not everyone is his fan and not everyone likes or agree with his behavior, so there are people that see this positively and become potential customers as a result. This then becomes a matter of what kinda user-base or consumer group are you trying to foster.
much as I loathe the use of the word, some people prefer less "toxic" communities in their games.
And, if you look at the results of recent business campaigns, such as Nike's Kaepernick campaign, we see that these messages aren't backfiring on businesses.
Nike's sales increased 31% after the Kaepernick ad campaign launched.. So in the end, the folks claiming it's worse to launch these campaigns or send these messages seem to be on the minority side of things in terms of business consumer bases... And I honestly think, deep down, that's the biggest issue some have with these companies doing this. It's not that catering to a certain base is wrong... It's that the base doesn't include them.
It's probably a case by case basis. Some companies would be better going one way, some the other.
All depends on who their clients are.
Also, I didn't realize Jagex was involved in suicide prevention so it sort of makes sense as to their decision.
That's my point. It's not always some arrogantly ignorant CEO making a boneheaded move. Sometimes, it's the company knowing what their core values are, knowing their consumer base mirrors those, and protecting them accordingly. As with Nike, as with here.
And generally, it's not a hard decision to make when you have someone literally trying to make light of suicide to a suicidal person. Banning them for that is not Orwellian, it's common sense defense of the company's core values and the demographic that mirrors it.
Which brings me back to the original point: many (not all) of those with an issue don't truly have an issue with someone being banned or certain behavior receiving reprimands... They have an issue with the company's values not mirroring their own. Period.
Good point. Also worth noting that Jagex are a UK company and as such, as I commented above, their "view" on "freedom of speech" issues will - and again sweeping generalisation due to centuries of war European views are more "nuanced".
Kudos Jagex. Other companies should take note and follow suit.
Jagex is really good with stuff like this i know from personal experience. Im a 25 year old male. When i was in middle school i tried to hack my friends account with the account recovery section and told them i was gonna kill my self if i didnt get the account and etc and to my suprise when i was young and immature i found cops at my door later that night. My grandmother was quite suprised with the passion they have for their customers safety. I also give props to Jagex things like this are serious. You dont tell people to go kill themselves joking or not joking.
I see a lot of ''these guys had the right to ban him because..." Because what he OWNS the game? He was streaming it in the back ground? They dont want a 'guy like this in their community'. So it would be OK for them to hack into his Steam account and ban him from every game he owns by that rationale.
He doesn't "own" the game. It's an MMO and live service. He pays to have access to the game so long as he abide by the terms and standards the company sets forth. Jagex is within their rights, as are most MMO and online games by their terms of service, to terminate a user from having access to their service should they deem that person unfit.
You made a false equivalency. Something that seems to keep happening among the doom-sayers.
which goes back to the topic from a couple weeks ago. I dont know runescape never played it never will. I dont think I have even watched a stream of it. If its F2P then sure I guess you dont 'own' it. But anything you pay money for you should I guess. Some think not they think youre just paying for access. Semantics I guess, the great tool of the side with little to no actual argument.
In the end they and any company can do what they want but to be so transparent sets a bad example.
If it comes out the person wasnt really contemplating suicide and/or was 'setting the guy up' (for whatever reason) and he fell for it... then what? If the company that banned him claims they didnt do it because of something and then its shown he didnt do that something and they reinstate him what conclusions can be drawn?
Everyone addicted to outrage and the 30 second clip. No one actually does any research or uses any intelligence they have to look at the whole picture and everything that led up to and followed the thing that is getting taken out of context and being used to spin in whatever direction the spinner wants it to go.
If it comes out the person wasnt really contemplating suicide and/or was 'setting the guy up' (for whatever reason) and he fell for it... then what? If the company that banned him claims they didnt do it because of something and then its shown he didnt do that something and they reinstate him what conclusions can be drawn?
Everyone addicted to outrage and the 30 second clip. No one actually does any research or uses any intelligence they have to look at the whole picture and everything that led up to and followed the thing that is getting taken out of context and being used to spin in whatever direction the spinner wants it to go.
And so what?
If the person wasn't going to commit suicide, but he believed that person was contemplating it and then suggested they kill themselves then that is a person that most likely Jagex doesn't want representing them. Especially since it's been discussed that they actually back anti suicide programs.
This seems pretty cut and dried in that context. Even if this was a hoax and he set the whole thing up it still shows that he is not the type of person that Jagex would want streaming their game.
You assume that people aren't thinking but are you just "reaching?"
All we need to know is whether he did or did not suggest that someone commit suicide.
Now it's true, context is everything. It might be in poor taste but if they were joking around and he off the cuff said "oh, go kill yourself" then obviously it's just a joke.
I can't find the actual video to make sure how that went down.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
It is a bit challenging to provide feedback before an event actually happens....
I've yet to get an actual justification to that opinion some seem to hold, just an equally empty PM.
I'm failing to see how a company maintaining their product, something they are directly responsible for, is in an way outside the scope of what should be done in the first place. If a customer is a bad seed, you just don't need that affecting one's business.
You made a false equivalency. Something that seems to keep happening among the doom-sayers.
The analogy given is a false premise. It's one thing to refuse service to someone because they're a pain in the ass or they're using your product and violating your TOS.
That's not what this is. This is a company utilizing a secondary source, disagreeing with that person's actions, and then refusing service.
A more adequate analogy would be a grocery store owner seeing you call someone fat on your facebook page and then refusing to sell you food.
Then there is also the reality that this sort of thing is a slippery slope used to enforce political ideology. We've already started down this path with the likes of Patreon. It has authoritarian undertones that are pretty scary.
If a customer is ill mannered, there is no impetus for the company to support that customer. They generally have a right to refuse service.
You are trying to distance things in a way that is simply not accurate. Jagex has prior interactions with this user, and apparently he'd even gotten an award from them, and now they get to see him behaving like this on a live stream where they now have to make an assessment of that person's character in relation to the impact it has on their title, because that kind of behavior can be bad for the game's community if and when it does bleed into it.
If you do want to make this into some stupid analogy, then it's more like this.
A grocery store sees someone swinging a gun around across the street and threatening to shoot somebody, and then refuses to let them into the store because they don't want that person hurting the rest of their customers.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Your argument isn't a single track there. Not everyone is his fan and not everyone likes or agree with his behavior, so there are people that see this positively and become potential customers as a result. This then becomes a matter of what kinda user-base or consumer group are you trying to foster.
much as I loathe the use of the word, some people prefer less "toxic" communities in their games.
Jagex as a company raises money for a suicide prevention, when someone is advocating suicide while using their product (even if it isn't ON the product, but still representing said product actively during the advocation by streaming it) wouldn't it look worse on them by letting it slide? I sure think so.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/5390884/nike-sales-go-up-kaepernick-ad
Nike's sales increased 31% after the Kaepernick ad campaign launched.. So in the end, the folks claiming it's worse to launch these campaigns or send these messages seem to be on the minority side of things in terms of business consumer bases... And I honestly think, deep down, that's the biggest issue some have with these companies doing this. It's not that catering to a certain base is wrong... It's that the base doesn't include them.
It's a free country (sarcasm)
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Instead all that is happening is a whole lot of virtue signalling by unrelated parties, if you think that is not going to have a negative effect, prepare to be surprised.
It's kinda accepted that as streamers they have to present themselves in better light because a lot of kids who are easy to influence watch them. When they see him doing that they will do the same. It was a justified ban from Runescape and I don't think I even have to talk about Twitch which doesn't allow people to get punched themselves(streamer got punched and he got banned for that lol) on stream let alone they being aggressive in any way :P
Which way would you like to have this? Them responding to his apparent behavior, or them responding to his equally reprehensible "real" behavior?
He was dishonest and used the image of abusiveness for personal gain, which is reprehensible, because for those that don't follow up, they only see someone lobbying for suicide. For those that do follow up, they see someone who was exploiting the notion of suicide for profit.
Also, would anyone like to point out the irony of calling out "virtue signaling" when one has actively been ranting about the dangers of some vague dystopian future? This would largely be a non-event if not for the people up in arms about a company protecting it's product, image, standards, etc.
I feel the world is getting way waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too soft. No one can handle anything anymore, it's all finger pointing and hide in a corner in a safe space before it goes away. My grand papies would be pissed if they were still on this Earth to see what this world has became.
You're complaining about something else right now. While it's not great that people act like twits on the net, random taunts and complaints are very different from staging a performance of one against a specific person.
Your grand papies would also be pissed if you chose to go to town square and start chanting about how a specific person should die. Some people have this notion of something called "respect".
My grand pappies would use a thing called fists and violence to create a thing called respect. If you don't think there wasn't people screaming terrible crap out in public back in the day, you'd be very very wrong. Lot of battles about politics specially when JFK came in the mix. It might even be much worse than it is now.
All this still had nothing to do with Runescape. Is he an asshole? Absolutely. Should a company step in on something that didn't happen in their game, absolutely not. I just don't feel the ends justify the means. We don't need white knight behavior with corporations. If he's on partner they have every right to distance themselves from him, but banning on a public and open game isn't doing that, it's white knighting and gatekeeping.
It's the same thing for the whole summit1g thing going on in sea of thieves. He likes to be a dick in game, he should be allowed to be a dick it is a pirate game after all. If you as a player don't like it you mute or you leave etc and go on about your day. But a community trying to drive him out for "toxic behavior". That's a bit much.
He was creating Runescape content as that is what he was advertised as doing. If you can't understand that then I don't know how to help you understand why Jagex did not want to be associated with him. And Twitch has rules about self harm which is what he was promoting by telling someone to kill themselves.
If he was not streaming then how would any know if he was on the phone with someone or not? That matters not since it was done while creating content in association with a product of Jagex.
And generally, it's not a hard decision to make when you have someone literally trying to make light of suicide to a suicidal person. Banning them for that is not Orwellian, it's common sense defense of the company's core values and the demographic that mirrors it.
Which brings me back to the original point: many (not all) of those with an issue don't truly have an issue with someone being banned or certain behavior receiving reprimands... They have an issue with the company's values not mirroring their own. Period.
Jagex is really good with stuff like this i know from personal experience. Im a 25 year old male. When i was in middle school i tried to hack my friends account with the account recovery section and told them i was gonna kill my self if i didnt get the account and etc and to my suprise when i was young and immature i found cops at my door later that night. My grandmother was quite suprised with the passion they have for their customers safety. I also give props to Jagex things like this are serious. You dont tell people to go kill themselves joking or not joking.
In the end they and any company can do what they want but to be so transparent sets a bad example.
If it comes out the person wasnt really contemplating suicide and/or was 'setting the guy up' (for whatever reason) and he fell for it... then what? If the company that banned him claims they didnt do it because of something and then its shown he didnt do that something and they reinstate him what conclusions can be drawn?
Everyone addicted to outrage and the 30 second clip. No one actually does any research or uses any intelligence they have to look at the whole picture and everything that led up to and followed the thing that is getting taken out of context and being used to spin in whatever direction the spinner wants it to go.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo