So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Did he regularly repserent and talk about Nike on his stream? DId Nike give him an award acknowledging his representation of Nike products like Jagex did in rgards to him streaming Runescape?
Jagex felt they have the right to take away a social media reps ability to rep a product, company, and community they no longer ethically represent. They did not "take his money" any ways. Even if you sub you are not in ownership of the game. MMOs are a live service remember?
The dude was dropped because he was a bad image for the company. It's within their rights to do that, and as I noted before (and even requoted to you);
"The game company, like most, does not care what you do on your own time. While it's terms of service are clear on behavior, they also won't punish you for every transgression.
But when you're a media figure that regularly represents their game through the streaming of it, and someone they prior acknowledged to that end, then there is a issue there that Jagex has to address."
There's nothing wrong with a company saying "We don't wan't you here you don't represent our values". There's nothing wrong with consumers having a reaction to the brand's values.
At the end of the day, corporations have to make a decision on how much money they're willing to invest or lose on behalf of their values. The only power consumers have (as it pertains to B2C business) is their collective dollar value.
When you're an employee or paid spokesperson for a brand, these days especially, you have to sign and initial a 15-20 page booklet and agree that in public you are a representative of that brand. If you plan on doing anything on a public platform for all to see, you better be ready to answer for your stance to the folks who cut the check, whether right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with being defiant but the consumer segment will ultimately determine the financial recourse and your fate. It should when you make yourself a public figure.
What's funny about this thread specifically is the certain individuals who are sticking their chest out about the "JUST DO IT" suicide guy, yet probably take issue with the JUST DO IT™ kneel-to-protest-systemic-murder football guy.
No consistency, no integrity, no values. Just a bunch of f#$%ing rhetoric and dancing around their own logic to conform while accusing others of being conformists.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
Well, that gets to one of my earlier questions. Why would Jagex be in a position at all?
If I'm a famous guy who is known for bragging about my Ford Truck but then it is found out that I like to eat veal - can Ford come and take my truck away after I paid for it? This kid had his account taken away even though he didn't break the rules of the game and in response to a Twitter MOB no doubt.
It is okay if you're comfortable with that - I'm not condemning you for it.
For me the distinction between a spokesperson for a product and the product itself has always been very clear. If you were to treat me like garbage on MMORPG I wouldn't blame MMORPG. I'm also concerned that mob justice - or the idea that a kid must be punished even if the path to the punishment doesn't make sense - alarming to say the least.
Apparently, people don't think losing a game account based on social media behavior is a problem. That is okay if you don't find that alarming; it happens to terrify me a little bit.
Does Jagex wants to be held morally responsible for the actions of it's entire playerbase? Is that a feasible goal to try and prevent wrongdoing in and out of the platform?
This is an entirely different question and very interesting in and of itself.
Let's say something terrible happened and the girl did kill herself. Could the family sue Jagex for the death? To some extent Jagex seems to be claiming responsibility for the content of the stream.
Does Subway severing ties with Jared mean they were claiming responsibility over what he did to any children?
No. They are simply protecting their brand.
He was an employee of Subway. He was also found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
Yes, and this streamer was known for streaming content, notably Runescape. You don;t need a direct relation to a company to represent them as a live streamer, and you don't need to be paid directly by them.
It's actually been quite a bane for them, because with anyone being able to stream, anyone can represent their product in any manner they wish. The more popular a streamer is, the more damage they can do as a result without the company having any recourse outside of legal action, or banning them from their titles.
And guess what position that guy stuck Jagex in?
I'm pretty sure Jared violated some terms of employment. I don't think this streamer violated Jagex's TOS/EULA.
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
So I own "game X" and you've got hundreds of dollars wrapped up in the game. I look through Facebook and find that you told a tasteless joke about the Detroit Lions.
I happen to like the Detroit Lions so I close your account.
The first thing that would come to your mind is: "Hey, they have the right to refuse service".
Well, that gets to one of my earlier questions. Why would Jagex be in a position at all?
If I'm a famous guy who is known for bragging about my Ford Truck but then it is found out that I like to eat veal - can Ford come and take my truck away after I paid for it? This kid had his account taken away even though he didn't break the rules of the game and in response to a Twitter MOB no doubt.
It is okay if you're comfortable with that - I'm not condemning you for it.
For me the distinction between a spokesperson for a product and the product itself has always been very clear. If you were to treat me like garbage on MMORPG I wouldn't blame MMORPG. I'm also concerned that mob justice - or the idea that a kid must be punished even if the path to the punishment doesn't make sense - alarming to say the least.
Apparently, people don't think losing a game account based on social media behavior is a problem. That is okay if you don't find that alarming; it happens to terrify me a little bit.
1) Runescape is a live service, not a product you own. They also retain the right to refuse service as a result.
2) Jagex was in that position because of Twitch. They don't control who goes on that platform nor what they choose to stream, they can only react to it.
3) Prior to this incident he hadn't been stand-out in such a negative way for Jagex to ever need to respond, and instead his regular streaming of Runescape was at that point beneficial marketing. So they acknowledged it with an award to that extent.
That results in the position they were in. How is this hard to comprehend?
Condemn me for whatever imagined paralogical scenario you want. I'm only talking about reality.
Does Jagex wants to be held morally responsible for the actions of it's entire playerbase? Is that a feasible goal to try and prevent wrongdoing in and out of the platform?
This is an entirely different question and very interesting in and of itself.
Let's say something terrible happened and the girl did kill herself. Could the family sue Jagex for the death? To some extent Jagex seems to be claiming responsibility for the content of the stream.
Does Subway severing ties with Jared mean they were claiming responsibility over what he did to any children?
No. They are simply protecting their brand.
He was an employee of Subway. He was also found guilty of a crime in a court of law.
Yes, and this streamer was known for streaming content, notably Runescape. You don;t need a direct relation to a company to represent them as a live streamer, and you don't need to be paid directly by them.
It's actually been quite a bane for them, because with anyone being able to stream, anyone can represent their product in any manner they wish. The more popular a streamer is, the more damage they can do as a result without the company having any recourse outside of legal action, or banning them from their titles.
And guess what position that guy stuck Jagex in?
I'm pretty sure Jared violated some terms of employment. I don't think this streamer violated Jagex's TOS/EULA.
Again, Runescape is a live service, not a product you own. If you go against what they believe in, or damage their brand, they are well within legal rights to ban you.
There's nothing wrong with a company saying "We don't wan't you here you don't represent our values". There's nothing wrong with consumers having a reaction to the brand's values.
At the end of the day, corporations have to make a decision on how much money they're willing to invest or lose on behalf of their values. The only power consumers have (as it pertains to B2C business) is their collective dollar value.
When you're an employee or paid spokesperson for a brand, these days especially, you have to sign and initial a 15-20 page booklet and agree that in public you are a representative of that brand. If you plan on doing anything on a public platform for all to see, you better be ready to answer for your stance to the folks who cut the check, whether right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with being defiant but the consumer segment will ultimately determine the financial recourse and your fate. It should when you make yourself a public figure.
What's funny about this thread specifically is the certain individuals who are sticking their chest out about the "JUST DO IT" suicide guy, yet probably take issue with the JUST DO IT™ kneel-to-protest-systemic-murder football guy.
No consistency, no integrity, no values. Just a bunch of f#$%ing rhetoric and dancing around their own logic to conform while accusing others of being conformists.
To be fair I did reference this 342 posts ago but I used the more analogous example of a fan kneeling not an employee.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Enough people have explained this to you already, how are you not getting it?
He didn't do anything to violate the terms of service in game. He didn't use their product to break any rules. He didn't misrepresent their product.
Maybe the people who made his computer should confiscate it because of what he said? Can the electric company shut off his electricity? Do I have to bake him a cake if he wants to marry his boyfriend?
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
So I own "game X" and you've got hundreds of dollars wrapped up in the game. I look through Facebook and find that you told a tasteless joke about the Detroit Lions.
I happen to like the Detroit Lions so I close your account.
The first thing that would come to your mind is: "Hey, they have the right to refuse service".
As @Sharne noted within their EULA, they do technically have that right for transgressions they have laid out, and you have the right to dispute it if you feel it's unjustified.
"We reserve the right without notice or refund to record, suspend, remove or delete User Content or to disclose to the relevant authorities any User Content if: (a) it is the subject of a complaint; (b) if we consider that it breaches our terms and conditions (including our content standards policy) or the rules of a Jagex Product; (c) if we consider that such steps are necessary to protect us or others; (d) a criminal act or civil wrong has been committed; or (e) we are required to do so by law or an appropriate authority."
Your nonsense about besmirching a team would not hold, but telling someone to kill themselves on a live stream would cleanly fall under (d).
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
So I own "game X" and you've got hundreds of dollars wrapped up in the game. I look through Facebook and find that you told a tasteless joke about the Detroit Lions.
I happen to like the Detroit Lions so I close your account.
The first thing that would come to your mind is: "Hey, they have the right to refuse service".
You can argue about it till the cows come home, it's just the simple facts.
Anything more would have to be taken up with a judge.
Enough people have explained this to you already, how are you not getting it?
He didn't do anything to violate the terms of service in game. He didn't use their product to break any rules. He didn't misrepresent their product.
Maybe the people who made his computer should confiscate it because of what he said? Can the electric company shut off his electricity? Do I have to bake him a cake if he wants to marry his boyfriend?
re-read the part @Sharn quoted, it's not even just the EULA he's beholden to there but also their Content Standards Policy.
And in regards to your other post, by bringing up irrelevant statements you do create the notion of things. Like you bringing up social justice out of the blue. It's the same as saying "I'm not saying I think you're the antichrist, I just think the antichrist is a bad fellow."
I could also say "Grinding babies into smoothies is disturbed, but if you're into that then I'll leave that between you and the police."*
*"not saying you actually eat babies"
You are creating a tangential thought process which serves to do nothing but create assumptions and connections to cause doubt. It does nothing to further the core of the argument(s) itself, and only serves as a roundabout way to try and attack another's credibility without addressing the actual subject.
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
So I own "game X" and you've got hundreds of dollars wrapped up in the game. I look through Facebook and find that you told a tasteless joke about the Detroit Lions.
I happen to like the Detroit Lions so I close your account.
The first thing that would come to your mind is: "Hey, they have the right to refuse service".
As @Sharne noted within their EULA, they do technically have that right for transgressions they have laid out, and you have the right to dispute it if you feel it's unjustified.
"We reserve the right without notice or refund to record, suspend, remove or delete User Content or to disclose to the relevant authorities any User Content if: (a) it is the subject of a complaint; (b) if we consider that it breaches our terms and conditions (including our content standards policy) or the rules of a Jagex Product; (c) if we consider that such steps are necessary to protect us or others; (d) a criminal act or civil wrong has been committed; or (e) we are required to do so by law or an appropriate authority."
Your nonsense about besmirching a team would not hold, but telling someone to kill themselves on a live stream would cleanly fall under (d).
I have consistently maintained the right of Jagex to suspend the kid's account.
Enough people have explained this to you already, how are you not getting it?
He didn't do anything to violate the terms of service in game. He didn't use their product to break any rules. He didn't misrepresent their product.
Maybe the people who made his computer should confiscate it because of what he said? Can the electric company shut off his electricity? Do I have to bake him a cake if he wants to marry his boyfriend?
re-read the part @Sharn quoted, it's not even just the EULA he's beholden to there but also their Content Standards Policy.
And in regards to your other post, by bringing up irrelevant statements you do create the notion of things. Like you bringing up social justice out of the blue. It's the same as saying "I'm not saying I think you're the antichrist, I just think the antichrist is a bad fellow."
I could also say "Grinding babies into smoothies is disturbed, but if you're into that then I'll leave that between you and the police."*
*"not saying you actually eat babies"
You are creating a tangential thought process which serves to do nothing but create assumptions and connections to cause doubt. It does nothing to further the core of the argument(s) itself, and only serves as a roundabout way to try and attack another's credibility without addressing the actual subject.
So I'm accusing you of something by taking the time to clarify that I'm not accusing you of something?
Okay, I know how this ends. Thanks for the thoughts and discussion.
I understand both sides of the issue, but all I have to say is, despite my concerns when it comes to censorship, I'm glad people like this are accountable for their actions.
When people like this are allowed to get away with something as vile as this, we all lose.
We live in a Facebook and Twitter generation. If you are going to use your freedom of speech, use it for something worth fighting for, not for bringing someone down.
As we all know, there are legal ramifications when you tell someone to kill themselves. He's lucky he's not facing jail time.
"I have found a desire within myself that no experience in this world can satisfy; the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." ~ C. S. Lewis
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
Jadex has the right to refuse service and the person in question has the right to take Jadex to court.
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
This is true enough to be the answer, but I get why people want more.
And the more is that he has a business relationship with them because his account with them was essential to his business. As @Limnic implied, that doesn't mean he signed a separate contract with Jagex; their original agreement with him sufficed enough for them to sever services.
First, they define exactly the content he was creating:
""User Content" means all information of any kind (including text, images, video, information and messages) uploaded or sent by users on or in connection with Jagex Products. Jagex Products may include social elements which permit players to come into contact with and chat to other players. Messages exchanged between players, whether in private in-game messaging or public forums, are included within this definition of User Content.""
Then, they describe their right to sever ties and close the account specifically to protect themselves, or if you violate their standards policy:
"We reserve the right without notice or refund to record, suspend, remove or delete User Content or to disclose to the relevant authorities any User Content if: (a) it is the subject of a complaint; (b) if we consider that it breaches our terms and conditions (including our content standards policy) or the rules of a Jagex Product; (c) if we consider that such steps are necessary to protect us or others; (d) a criminal act or civil wrong has been committed; or (e) we are required to do so by law or an appropriate authority."
EDIT2- Forgot the stopping account portion: "12. JAGEX STOPPING YOUR ACCOUNT
If, acting reasonably, we consider that:
our terms and conditions or any Jagex Product rules - have or may have been breached;
We may at any time: (i) Stop (as defined above) any or all accounts for Jagex Products; (ii) restrict access to any content-uploading or other feature of our service; and/or (iii) restrict access to or delete virtual currency or anything acquired by means of virtual currency. These actions may result in loss of real money paid in prohibited transactions, such as account trading. If we take any of the above action, you may have a right of appeal."
Quite literally, in terms of should this have happened, the above paragraphs should be all the answers one needs.
EDIT- others have pointed these terms out as well.
Enough people have explained this to you already, how are you not getting it?
He didn't do anything to violate the terms of service in game. He didn't use their product to break any rules. He didn't misrepresent their product.
Maybe the people who made his computer should confiscate it because of what he said? Can the electric company shut off his electricity? Do I have to bake him a cake if he wants to marry his boyfriend?
It doesn't matter, because of the terms multiple people have quoted for you now (including me, exhaustively, in spite of having to fight my phone browser to do so).
The streamer agreed to those terms. No one forced him to agree. He could've said no and just not used Jagex's product. But he cannot force Jagex to vacate part of their agreement merely for the sake of whatabouttism and slippery slope arguments.
The devil is in the details and you don't seem to see that.
According to the press release he didn't have a business relationship with Jagex. He didn't commit a violation of the TOS/EULA.
This was something he said while streaming the game. It didn't happen in game.
Yes you are correct.
But since he was streaming their product they didn't want their product or company to be associated with his actions.
And again, since they give money to suicide prevention organizations they decided to make a strong statement.
So if a person was caught on TV wearing that Coke shirt but started rattling off racist rhetoric the Coca Cola company would, in the very least, release a statement saying that this person didn't represent them and blah blah blah.
They can't cut him off from coke so that is what they would do in the very least. At most? I don't know, maybe they would try to sue him. Who knows.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
So if the kid was wearing a Nike T-Shirt during his stream could Nike take it away?
It seems that Jagex feels they have the right to take away his account even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA and the violation didn't occur in game. They took his money even though he didn't violate the TOS/EULA, right?
That feels like specious reasoning. really? Of course they aren't going to take it away. They will make a statement against the guy and might try to force him not to make any grandstanding while using their product. Guess on that but I can see a large corporation doing that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The devil is in the details and you don't seem to see that.
According to the press release he didn't have a business relationship with Jagex. He didn't commit a violation of the TOS/EULA.
This was something he said while streaming the game. It didn't happen in game.
Yes you are correct.
But since he was streaming their product they didn't want their product or company to be associated with his actions.
And again, since they give money to suicide prevention organizations they decided to make a strong statement.
So if a person was caught on TV wearing that Coke shirt but started rattling off racist rhetoric the Coca Cola company would, in the very least, release a statement saying that this person didn't represent them and blah blah blah.
They can't cut him off from coke so that is what they would do in the very least. At most? I don't know, maybe they would try to sue him. Who knows.
Wargfoot is just wrong.
He clearly violated terms clearly laid out by Jagex governing all their products and User Content related to them: https://www.jagex.com/en-GB/terms
He clearly violated terms clearly laid out by Jagex governing all their products and User Content related to them: https://www.jagex.com/en-GB/terms
He wasn't using their product at the time. The TOS/EULA refers to the use of their product and content generated within their product.
Now you may decide that to you that distinction isn't important - obviously it isn't important to Jagex - but I'm not aware of a TOS/EULA applying to actions of a person outside of the product's use.
It is a weird thing to me that a person would be kicked out of a game for out of game actions. Again, ya'll might like that approach to justice - for me it gives great pause.
Comments
Jagex felt they have the right to take away a social media reps ability to rep a product, company, and community they no longer ethically represent. They did not "take his money" any ways. Even if you sub you are not in ownership of the game. MMOs are a live service remember?
The dude was dropped because he was a bad image for the company. It's within their rights to do that, and as I noted before (and even requoted to you);
"The game company, like most, does not care what you do on your own time. While it's terms of service are clear on behavior, they also won't punish you for every transgression.
But when you're a media figure that regularly represents their game through the streaming of it, and someone they prior acknowledged to that end, then there is a issue there that Jagex has to address."
At the end of the day, corporations have to make a decision on how much money they're willing to invest or lose on behalf of their values. The only power consumers have (as it pertains to B2C business) is their collective dollar value.
When you're an employee or paid spokesperson for a brand, these days especially, you have to sign and initial a 15-20 page booklet and agree that in public you are a representative of that brand. If you plan on doing anything on a public platform for all to see, you better be ready to answer for your stance to the folks who cut the check, whether right or wrong. There's nothing wrong with being defiant but the consumer segment will ultimately determine the financial recourse and your fate. It should when you make yourself a public figure.
What's funny about this thread specifically is the certain individuals who are sticking their chest out about the "JUST DO IT" suicide guy, yet probably take issue with the JUST DO IT™ kneel-to-protest-systemic-murder football guy.
No consistency, no integrity, no values. Just a bunch of f#$%ing rhetoric and dancing around their own logic to conform while accusing others of being conformists.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Search "do businesses have a right to refuse service"
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Why would Jagex be in a position at all?
If I'm a famous guy who is known for bragging about my Ford Truck but then it is found out that I like to eat veal - can Ford come and take my truck away after I paid for it? This kid had his account taken away even though he didn't break the rules of the game and in response to a Twitter MOB no doubt.
It is okay if you're comfortable with that - I'm not condemning you for it.
For me the distinction between a spokesperson for a product and the product itself has always been very clear. If you were to treat me like garbage on MMORPG I wouldn't blame MMORPG. I'm also concerned that mob justice - or the idea that a kid must be punished even if the path to the punishment doesn't make sense - alarming to say the least.
Apparently, people don't think losing a game account based on social media behavior is a problem. That is okay if you don't find that alarming; it happens to terrify me a little bit.
I don't think this streamer violated Jagex's TOS/EULA.
I look through Facebook and find that you told a tasteless joke about the Detroit Lions.
I happen to like the Detroit Lions so I close your account.
The first thing that would come to your mind is: "Hey, they have the right to refuse service".
2) Jagex was in that position because of Twitch. They don't control who goes on that platform nor what they choose to stream, they can only react to it.
3) Prior to this incident he hadn't been stand-out in such a negative way for Jagex to ever need to respond, and instead his regular streaming of Runescape was at that point beneficial marketing. So they acknowledged it with an award to that extent.
That results in the position they were in. How is this hard to comprehend?
Condemn me for whatever imagined paralogical scenario you want. I'm only talking about reality.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
He didn't use their product to break any rules.
He didn't misrepresent their product.
Maybe the people who made his computer should confiscate it because of what he said?
Can the electric company shut off his electricity?
Do I have to bake him a cake if he wants to marry his boyfriend?
I find the social justice thing odd and ironic - even amusing at times. (1)
NOTES
------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm not implying you're involved in any of that.
"We reserve the right without notice or refund to record, suspend, remove or delete User Content or to disclose to the relevant authorities any User Content if: (a) it is the subject of a complaint; (b) if we consider that it breaches our terms and conditions (including our content standards policy) or the rules of a Jagex Product; (c) if we consider that such steps are necessary to protect us or others; (d) a criminal act or civil wrong has been committed; or (e) we are required to do so by law or an appropriate authority."
Your nonsense about besmirching a team would not hold, but telling someone to kill themselves on a live stream would cleanly fall under (d).
Anything more would have to be taken up with a judge.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
And in regards to your other post, by bringing up irrelevant statements you do create the notion of things. Like you bringing up social justice out of the blue. It's the same as saying "I'm not saying I think you're the antichrist, I just think the antichrist is a bad fellow."
I could also say "Grinding babies into smoothies is disturbed, but if you're into that then I'll leave that between you and the police."*
*"not saying you actually eat babies"
You are creating a tangential thought process which serves to do nothing but create assumptions and connections to cause doubt. It does nothing to further the core of the argument(s) itself, and only serves as a roundabout way to try and attack another's credibility without addressing the actual subject.
Okay, I know how this ends.
Thanks for the thoughts and discussion.
Take care.
And the more is that he has a business relationship with them because his account with them was essential to his business. As @Limnic implied, that doesn't mean he signed a separate contract with Jagex; their original agreement with him sufficed enough for them to sever services.
First, they define exactly the content he was creating:
""User Content" means all information of any kind (including text, images, video, information and messages) uploaded or sent by users on or in connection with Jagex Products. Jagex Products may include social elements which permit players to come into contact with and chat to other players. Messages exchanged between players, whether in private in-game messaging or public forums, are included within this definition of User Content.""
Then, they describe their right to sever ties and close the account specifically to protect themselves, or if you violate their standards policy:
"We reserve the right without notice or refund to record, suspend, remove or delete User Content or to disclose to the relevant authorities any User Content if: (a) it is the subject of a complaint; (b) if we consider that it breaches our terms and conditions (including our content standards policy) or the rules of a Jagex Product; (c) if we consider that such steps are necessary to protect us or others; (d) a criminal act or civil wrong has been committed; or (e) we are required to do so by law or an appropriate authority."
https://www.jagex.com/en-GB/terms
EDIT2- Forgot the stopping account portion:
"12. JAGEX STOPPING YOUR ACCOUNT
If, acting reasonably, we consider that:
- our terms and conditions or any Jagex Product rules - have or may have been breached;
We may at any time: (i) Stop (as defined above) any or all accounts for Jagex Products; (ii) restrict access to any content-uploading or other feature of our service; and/or (iii) restrict access to or delete virtual currency or anything acquired by means of virtual currency. These actions may result in loss of real money paid in prohibited transactions, such as account trading. If we take any of the above action, you may have a right of appeal."Quite literally, in terms of should this have happened, the above paragraphs should be all the answers one needs.
EDIT- others have pointed these terms out as well.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The streamer agreed to those terms. No one forced him to agree. He could've said no and just not used Jagex's product. But he cannot force Jagex to vacate part of their agreement merely for the sake of whatabouttism and slippery slope arguments.
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
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
He clearly violated terms clearly laid out by Jagex governing all their products and User Content related to them: https://www.jagex.com/en-GB/terms
The TOS/EULA refers to the use of their product and content generated within their product.
Now you may decide that to you that distinction isn't important - obviously it isn't important to Jagex - but I'm not aware of a TOS/EULA applying to actions of a person outside of the product's use.
It is a weird thing to me that a person would be kicked out of a game for out of game actions.
Again, ya'll might like that approach to justice - for me it gives great pause.