Jump to content

Game Master / Community Helper Application


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bionic_Flea said:

This is why I can't be a GM or Dev . . . oh, not because of things I've typed in game, but because I would have spent the last few days reading the chat logs of the objectors in this thread just to see what they were so worried about. 

 

Is it only me?  It's probably only me.

 

I guess I'd consider myself one of them objectors.  Outing myself a bit, you'd find all kinds of instances of charitable things I've done from me co-leading itrials and giving up my spots because we've overbooked to just giving away over a billion influence to random people throughout. 

 

What good I've added to the community far outweighs any saucy stuff I'm sure I've uttered in tells or team/global chat.  Even knowing that I see judging someone by online text and not by what you can see that they actually do is a nearsighted outlook judgmental people feel they have some right to.  

 

Having someone walk beside you scribing everything you say to later be used against you and not just at the pearly gates seems pretty devious to me.  Just ask yourself is this something Dr. Aeon would do?  If it sounds so then you just may actually be a villain.    

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been an interesting read, if not exactly productive. Suppose an alternative to the chat log review:

Applicants provide X number of references from the Homecoming playerbase, at least one of them must be a player who doesn’t like you or who has directly fought with you. Anyone’s friends can tell you they’re awesome. If someone’s enemies, present or past, would sign off on that person being a community manager sort of role, then you’ve got yourself a serious candidate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading chat logs is the only way to discover if an applicant is using City of Heroes to groom children.

 

GMs are placed in positions of authority in this game. All players are anonymous. (And thus not age-verified.) Homecoming runs an official discord channel where players are encouraged to talk to the GMs. Discord, unlike CoH, allows for the sharing of adult content in private messages. Connect the dots.

 

Yes, it's a parent's responsibility to monitor their child when they game. But it's also Homecoming's responsibility to do due diligence on people they recruit. If the Homecoming Staff don't check logs, when they are in possession of the data and are legally able to review it, then they are being willfully ignorant. This would make them liable.

 

When an unofficial server is liable for something like this, it goes bye bye.

 

I imagine this, and other serious concerns like it, are the reason the chat logs are reviewed. I'd be surprised if the chat logs are reviewed for things such as calling the devs assholes in SGchat for nerfing your fave power, or ERPing a risque scene in team chat, or making problematic/off-colour jokes with your friends via tells, etc. That stuff's pretty commonplace in online MMORPG communities.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Top 10 Melee Players in CoH | The Fightclub Discord 
What is Fightclub?  Fightclub is PVP between two melee players fighting to the death in melee range with no moving/retreating allowed. It's like pylon testing...but the pylon hits back! Perfect for players who enjoy min/maxing DPS chains. Click the discord link above for more info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You bring up a compelling point, @America's Angel.  Until recently, I hadn't actually heard the word "groom" being used in quite that specific context, so I had a bit of a blind spot to the depths of the liability there (and you saying it here finally helped something "click" in my head about something that happened a month ago).  Although I don't think anyone is arguing against the GMs having their official interactions under peer review, and if discord doesn't allow for that, then that's just yet another reason not to have discord used in any kind of official capacity.

I think it's fair to suggest that prospective GMs and Community Helpers should be able to optionally volunteer their past chat logs, but a player-review board does sound like a more ethical approach to determining suitability.  Granted, that creates the potential problem of such an individual having their GM/CR/CH status made public (which, technically, wasn't that the case anyway for CRs and CHs?).  

Frankly, I'm much more comfortable with that kind of trade off.  A prospective applicant being offered the choice of private, but unrestricted review of past activities, or the applicant being subject to a public and collective review.  At the very least it helps address the immense imbalance in power which the current policy creates.

 

 

 

And, at the risk of crossing a line in regard to the code of conduct, I do want to say something to all those people who seem to think that "but the law already X,Y,Zs" has any kind of weight in a question about ethics and morality . . . 

 

But, I can't.

 

So, instead . . . 

HEY!  You know what's GREAT about City of Heroes?

The interesting bit of exploration that the theme of "Justice, Not Law" gets in some of the writing in game content.

While it's certainly not universally well-written or consistent, it at least has the capacity to compel some thoughtfulness in regard to times when existing laws are not actually just.

In fact, there was a lovely new thread posted which addressed one of the more problematic representations of the subject matter in an older arc.  https://forums.homecomingservers.com/topic/29506-on-the-run-arc-goes-off-the-rails/

But I like to think that holymittens' work on the subject hits a lot more saliently.  If you haven't played those two arcs yet, you totally should!

It's worth thinking about.

Hmm.

HMM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

 I think it's fair to suggest that prospective GMs and Community Helpers should be able to optionally volunteer their past chat logs, but a player-review board does sound like a more ethical approach to determining suitability.  Granted, that creates the potential problem of such an individual having their GM/CR/CH status made public (which, technically, wasn't that the case anyway for CRs and CHs?).  

Frankly, I'm much more comfortable with that kind of trade off.  A prospective applicant being offered the choice of private, but unrestricted review of past activities, or the applicant being subject to a public and collective review.  At the very least it helps address the immense imbalance in power which the current policy.

Again, it's not "their" chat logs. Players don't own anything in this game or on the Homecoming platforms. They have no ownership of anything that is created. And there is no expectation or conditions of privacy outside what's outlined in the Privacy Policy, 'Section 7. YOUR RIGHTS' which everyone agrees to when they play the game. 

 

You may advocate for a different reality on the privacy front for whatever reasons, and you are certainly welcome to, especially if it makes this community grow - but this is what the current user agreement outlines. These are the current rules we play by in this community. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the contrary, @Glacier Peak, the specific language used in the Privacy Policy doesn't expressly state who owns that data, and instead implicitly provides ownership to the user who is the source of it, and even adds onus upon Homecoming to act within legal structures to obey the user's requests pertaining to that data under (probably intentionally) nebulous conditions.  Sure, the physical hardware that the data is stored on belongs to Homecoming LLC, but I don't see a specific provision granting their company ownership of that data.  And even if they tried to write one in, I don't imagine many of us would be interested in trying to fight a court battle over it, on either side.

I'm not a legal expert and I'll certainly defer to educated professionals on the subject, but I've been party to the lengthy process of formulating legal documents in a professional setting.  My reading of many of Homecoming's agreement documents have been that they're trying to be fairly low-impact, and I appreciate that about them.  I certainly don't want to prompt them to have to become more strict or start overreaching like so many other virtual service providers do.

 

And even then, legal ownership isn't the same thing as personal ownership.  Fucking hell!  Look at the sorry state of intellectual property laws.

I emphasize, again, that what is being called for here is better ethical conduct.  The laws that exist in the numerous jurisdictions that Homecoming operates in certainly play a part in their policy-making here, but the Homecoming Team still has the power and authority to make certain choices in how they conduct their affairs.

Whether you believe a user doesn't have any legal authority over their data (which, the Privacy Policy DOES afford them, by the way), it doesn't change that the matter at heart here is what the Team chooses to do, and how they choose to do it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  

1 hour ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

You bring up a compelling point, @America's Angel.  Until recently, I hadn't actually heard the word "groom" being used in quite that specific context, so I had a bit of a blind spot to the depths of the liability there (and you saying it here finally helped something "click" in my head about something that happened a month ago).  Although I don't think anyone is arguing against the GMs having their official interactions under peer review, and if discord doesn't allow for that, then that's just yet another reason not to have discord used in any kind of official capacity.

 

The concern isn't Discord. Take Discord out of the equation and everything in my last post still applies. The goal of a predator is to persuade their target to move from a familiar environment (City of Heroes) to an unfamiliar, more open, one (direct messaging apps, email, skype, IRL meetups, etc.) 

 

It's VERY easy to do this from the position of authority afforded to GMs, especially when a predator's first interaction with the target is them asking for help. (Via the in-game petition system.) As the predator answers the petition, the target responds by being obedient and following the predators instructions to resolve the problem. This dynamic allows the predator to use their position as a GM to start building what's known in sales as a "yes ladder":

 

"The “Yes” ladder is a persuasion method aimed at getting your prospect to say yes to a specific question or situation (making a sale, setting up a meeting, etc.). The process starts by getting them to say yes to a series of questions that start out trivial (where they are practically guaranteed to say yes) and become less so as you ask each question. Each subsequent “yes” they respond with makes them more likely to comply with the next, bigger ask."
 

Source; https://www.phoneburner.com/blog/how-to-prime-prospects-to-say-yes/

 

So what follows the first encounter is a series of escalations, with no clear line where the boundary has been crossed. It happens so gradually that the target is doesn't put up much resistance, because there isn't much to resist. What this means is that when the predator finally DOES cross the line, it doesn't feel abnormal to the target. Of course, once the line has been crossed (an exchange of naked pictures, lets say), the predator can then use the target's childish guilt at participating to blackmail them into silence/actively participating in further in their own abuse.

 

This is why chat logs of applicants need to be reviewed. Not only to ensure that the Homecoming Team aren't willfully ignoring evidence they are in possession of, but also to avoid placing predators into positions of power over children.

Edited by America's Angel

Top 10 Melee Players in CoH | The Fightclub Discord 
What is Fightclub?  Fightclub is PVP between two melee players fighting to the death in melee range with no moving/retreating allowed. It's like pylon testing...but the pylon hits back! Perfect for players who enjoy min/maxing DPS chains. Click the discord link above for more info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As before, very compelling, @America's Angel.  Thank you for bringing that perspective in to this.

The specifics of liability in that context are something which I admit to not having the full legal training to confirm or refute.  It still smacks of being problematic on a few levels, but I will cop to having enough professional experience that I know law-makers do have a tendency to place a bizarre amount of weight on these matters when someone pulls the "won't someone think of the children" card.  It wouldn't shock me to learn that there actually was a legal precedent in some jurisdictions to try and punish a game service for predators exploiting that service.  And I do understand that the Homecoming Team is essentially in the (non-profit) business of limiting any potential liability to the operation here.
So . . . sure.  I can definitely see your point of view on this.  It's quite valid, all things considered.
 
Still sucks if there isn't a better way to handle this.  

I do wonder if a viable alternative would be for a potential volunteer to provide evidence of a government-issue ID and vulnerable sector police check to Homecoming LLC.  Again, it has its own host of problems, but it's still more ethical than log dives and would provide a suitable avenue to defer liability if anything did happen.
 
But I still contend that discord is more of a can of worms than it's worth while being used in an official capacity here.  Their T.o.U. don't play nice with what Homecoming's trying to achieve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

To the contrary, @Glacier Peak, the specific language used in the Privacy Policy doesn't expressly state who owns that data, and instead implicitly provides ownership to the user who is the source of it, and even adds onus upon Homecoming....

I didn't say in my post that the Privacy Policy states anything about ownership. What are you saying is contrary?

 

Again, you and others may want it to change for any number of reasons - but it is what it is right now. Thoses are the standards by which everyone is judged based solely on the fact that they AGREE TO THOSE CONDITIONS EVERY TIME THEY LOG IN. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Glacier Peak . . . the Privacy Policy doesn't match the Recruitment Form in terms of the scope of log review and impact of professional conduct.   That's The Problem being talked about here.

If all you're trying to say is "the privacy policy allows the Homecoming Team to review logs/personal data for the purposes of [business]," then yeah.  That's what it says.  

It seems to me that you are comically missing the point of this entire discourse if that's all that you've been trying to say, though.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read through this thread a few times and I'm still utterly mystified as to where the controversy is. They want to use in game communications to vet applicants for a position of some responsibility within the game. Makes sense to me. If I applied for a job at a bar that I frequented as a customer, and I had previously been rude and offensive while drinking there it should come as little surprise if that counted against me.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GraspingVileTerror said:

@Glacier Peak . . . the Privacy Policy doesn't match the Recruitment Form in terms of the scope of log review and impact of professional conduct.   That's The Problem being talked about here.

If all you're trying to say is "the privacy policy allows the Homecoming Team to review logs/personal data for the purposes of [business]," then yeah.  That's what it says.  

It seems to me that you are comically missing the point of this entire discourse if that's all that you've been trying to say, though.

For folks who are arguing for or against a change in the Privacy Policy, it certainly seems important for them to actually read it before they start making demands 🤣

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

This is why I can't be a GM or Dev . . . oh, not because of things I've typed in game, but because I would have spent the last few days reading the chat logs of the objectors in this thread just to see what they were so worried about. 

 

Is it only me?  It's probably only me.

I'd agree with you that there are definitely folks in this thread who Doth Protest Too Much, and others who seem to be under the mistaken impression that their First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights apply, ridiculously, to a mod vetting process for a dubiously-legitimate private City of Heroes server.  However, there's an existing context that informs, at least, my unease with the practice of comprehensive chat log reviews to 'character vet' incoming mods, and that's that - despite @America's Angel's assertions that the practice is being undertaken purely for accountability reasons vis-a-vis potential crimes and liability, no member of the Homecoming Team has verified that assertion.

 

Homecoming is not a tabula rasa, contextless space, with no history before it magically materialized from the ether in June 2019.  On the contrary, the history of the City of Heroes private server(s) before that point was one of conspiracy, hierarchal opacity, and an elite cool kids' club who monopolized the game.  This is not to state that I or, you, are somehow entitled to City of Heroes, nor that I don't appreciate the Homecoming Team's excellent work, but rather that the ideal treatment for a decade's worth of systemic mistrust, at least for me, is radical transparency, not a mysteriously-defined rubric of 'fitting in.'

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TwoDee said:

no member of the Homecoming Team has verified that assertion.

 

 

Going to point you to these responses from the Homecoming volunteers over the past three pages...

On 5/29/2021 at 7:39 PM, GM Impervium said:

It's the same thing as a background check, just, in-game. We have to make sure you're not some "pineapple on pizza"-loving heathen!

 

On 5/30/2021 at 7:43 AM, GM Impervium said:

@RMS33 If we "operated like a typical corporation", I wouldn't have made that remark 😃

But if you want to be all serious about it, fine. I'm not 100% sure what the leads are looking for when they review chat logs, but the let ME in of all people, and I'm a hot mess who embarrasses themselves on the daily! So unless you're literally breaking our rules by engaging in hate speech, RMT, underage ERP, have an account full of copyright violations, or you're just a pedantic asshat in chat, you should be fine. It's less about being a good fit, and more about making sure we're not putting a rule-breaker in charge of enforcing said rules. We don't want literal corrupt cops on our team. That's fair, isn't it?

But we ARE corporately structured in other ways. We sign NDAs, we're compartmentalized, we have to log our actions and report things to higher ups... Homecoming is a very tightly run ship, it's not just a bunch of slackers doing whatever they want. And this is for the players' benefit. We can't have GMs abusing their power or authority, after all! You can appreciate that, can't you? We have rules in place so that we DON'T BECOME the tyrants that you're so concerned about. And speaking of tyrants...

Yes, @Tyrannical, (see what I did there? =D) we actually do have a probationary period for new GMs while they learn the ropes 😃

But yeah, sorry for causing offense and distress. I just thought I'd lighten the mood a little, but clearly, that didn't work, so I hope my more extended explanation is satisfactory 😃

 

On 6/1/2021 at 3:43 PM, Jimmy said:

@Rejected @GraspingVileTerror @Tyrannical @Glacier Peak

 

Just catching up here.

 

The log checks are for the protection of both ourselves and for the project as a whole. To be candid, we need to know that you aren't going to be an asshole to people and abuse your position in any way. This has happened before, and we would like to avoid it happening again.

 

Checking logs, while not perfect, is one of the few ways we're able to gain some knowledge about an applicant, and we're absolutely going to use it to help avoid potential problems. An immense amount of trust is placed in everyone who joins the team, as the consequences of a staff member going rogue are potentially catastrophic. Remember we're on the path to legitimacy here - for example, what do you think would happen if a GM decided to expose details of a personal dispute between players? Not only would it look bad, but there's data protection issues to consider as well.

 

By joining the team you are asking all of us - The admin team, the other volunteers, and the playerbase as a whole - to trust you. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to ask you to trust us as well.

 

For reference: the Contributor Agreement (which all volunteers sign) does not prevent individuals from disclosing the fact that they've signed the agreement.

 

On 6/1/2021 at 3:43 PM, Jimmy said:

@Rejected @GraspingVileTerror @Tyrannical @Glacier Peak

 

Just catching up here.

 

The log checks are for the protection of both ourselves and for the project as a whole. To be candid, we need to know that you aren't going to be an asshole to people and abuse your position in any way. This has happened before, and we would like to avoid it happening again.

 

Checking logs, while not perfect, is one of the few ways we're able to gain some knowledge about an applicant, and we're absolutely going to use it to help avoid potential problems. An immense amount of trust is placed in everyone who joins the team, as the consequences of a staff member going rogue are potentially catastrophic. Remember we're on the path to legitimacy here - for example, what do you think would happen if a GM decided to expose details of a personal dispute between players? Not only would it look bad, but there's data protection issues to consider as well.

 

By joining the team you are asking all of us - The admin team, the other volunteers, and the playerbase as a whole - to trust you. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to ask you to trust us as well.

 

For reference: the Contributor Agreement (which all volunteers sign) does not prevent individuals from disclosing the fact that they've signed the agreement.

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's mystifying to me is how on board some people seem to be with being recorded 24/7 with their guard down like they've never said anything naughty and being judged by that, not to mention all of the self identifying factors that could be gleaned in such an unguarded state which employers are not allowed ever to pry into during the review process beyond the qualifications relevant to the job description.    

 

Even though I could care less about this since I have no desire to be a GM I doth protest too much because this will always be a shit way for a review process.  It shows more to the inadequacy of the reviewer's ability to use the usual methods available to them.  If an employer feels so inept in their ability to judge the quality of an individual that they need to pry into unguarded, misleading dialogue that person has had since they have the ability to review such I would not find that an employer worth any of my time and would likely report them for discriminatory practices.  

Edited by Mezmera
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Translation: "Nothing's perfect."

 

Yeah, no kidding. However, the best predictor (notice how I did NOT say infallible) of future actions is past behavior.

 

Also, the phone call example is a bad one. Those laws don't apply to written chat logs on the internet. And those chat logs are the best way that the Homecoming devs have to find out a person's true character.


I don't think it's at all the best way. The best way would be to actually team with them and see how they act over time. But, I concede time is not always available. 

But I encourage you to not throw the word "character" around like that. To suggest ANY of us have character while playing an illegal copy of a game, that's pretty silly. We are stealing, in a manner of speaking. I don't like to write it out, or say it out loud, but it is stealing and we are all wrong. At least until an agreement of some kind is reached. None of us has any in-game character. 

Outside of the game, you may be honest, pay your bills to the best of your ability and treat the people around you quite well. But, you're still stealing from the company we love to hate, NCSoft. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

Going to point you to these responses from the Homecoming volunteers over the past three pages...

 

Hey, cheers for the link!  Some of those responses don't fill me with confidence - there's still a lot of weasel words that are up to subjective interpretation - but I do appreciate the clarity provided by GM Impervium's response especially, which I missed.

 

I do wish that 'good fit' was not the terminology that the Team lead with.  It gives the absolute wrong impression of what should be seen as a fairly draconian, if arguably justifiable, measure, and when not paired with any additional conventional 'background check,' it leaves me uneasy as to whether the juice is worth the voyeuristic squeeze.  My platonic ideal is that the review would limited in scope, and be explicitly targeted at actioning on only Code of Conduct violations, with clearly-delineated systems in place to ensure that it doesn't become the very personal overreach that it's - per Jimmy's response - nominally supposed to prevent.  Impervium's response verges closest to that ideal, which is why I appreciate it more than the other answers, though there being "other answers" is in-itself a problem.

 

To speak more explicitly, and ignoring the blisteringly obvious undertone in this thread of of "look, Homecoming fam, I just don't want you reading Teamchat about my character's junk*" I have been in unflattering disputes with other roleplayers before, where personal boundaries were violated on one or both sides and discourse ended in flames.  Were I to apply to this position, I don't especially relish the thought of the moderator team clinically dissecting a lowlights reel of my most impassioned, angry [Tell]s about how so-and-so is an exploiter and a tool - though I can assure you I did not speak in such eloquent terms in media res - or, even more horrifyingly, feeling that they have some mandate to form opinions on conflicts that I chose to handle personally at the time, without involving them.  Although obviously I feel that I was the party in the right in all such instances, and was unjustly aggrieved, my petty wars over roleplay etiquette were never intended to become my resume, and they were made in the confidence that they wouldn't be my resume, for the same reason that I don't forward my Discord DMs to my employer.

*for the record, my character's junk is incredible, thanks for asking

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwoDee said:

Hey, cheers for the link!  Some of those responses don't fill me with confidence - there's still a lot of weasel words that are up to subjective interpretation - but I do appreciate the clarity provided by GM Impervium's response especially, which I missed.

 

I do wish that 'good fit' was not the terminology that the Team lead with.  It gives the absolute wrong impression of what should be seen as a fairly draconian, if arguably justifiable, measure, and when not paired with any additional conventional 'background check,' it leaves me uneasy as to whether the juice is worth the voyeuristic squeeze.  My platonic ideal is that the review would limited in scope, and be explicitly targeted at actioning on only Code of Conduct violations, with clearly-delineated systems in place to ensure that it doesn't become the very personal overreach that it's - per Jimmy's response - nominally supposed to prevent.  Impervium's response verges closest to that ideal, which is why I appreciate it more than the other answers, though there being "other answers" is in-itself a problem.

 

To speak more explicitly, and ignoring the blisteringly obvious undertone in this thread of of "look, Homecoming fam, I just don't want you reading Teamchat about my character's junk*" I have been in unflattering disputes with other roleplayers before, where personal boundaries were violated on one or both sides and discourse ended in flames.  Were I to apply to this position, I don't especially relish the thought of the moderator team clinically dissecting a lowlights reel of my most impassioned, angry [Tell]s about how so-and-so is an exploiter and a tool - though I can assure you I did not speak in such eloquent terms in media res - or, even more horrifyingly, feeling that they have some mandate to form opinions on conflicts that I chose to handle personally at the time, without involving them.  Although obviously I feel that I was the party in the right in all such instances, and was unjustly aggrieved, my petty wars over roleplay etiquette were never intended to become my resume, and they were made in the confidence that they wouldn't be my resume, for the same reason that I don't forward my Discord DMs to my employer.

*for the record, my character's junk is incredible, thanks for asking

Yeah no problem! And I agree with you advocating for clearer terms - but I am also cognizant of the reality of what is currently in place. As for misadventures in game, as long as it doesn't violate the CoC/User Agreement/Privacy Policy, it can fly. 

 

The way I see it, the Homecoming volunteers operating this venture have been very open to feedback and incorporating it to make this community better. Perhaps this discussion has already been ongoing behind the scenes and we aren't privy to it. If not, I have confidence in the team that these concerns are being addressed in the best way they can with the staff and resourcing they have available.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ukase said:

But, you're still stealing from the company we love to hate, NCSoft.

No I am not!

 

I purchased City of Heroes and paid hundreds of dollars over the years for it. I own it and US courts have already ruled that I have a right to play the game that I've purchased. Because I am not stealing anything.

 

The development team could, in theory, get into some civil (not criminal) trouble because of unauthorized use of IP. But understand that they cannot get into any sort of criminal trouble either because they also are not stealing.

 

My advice is to stick to what you know, because you certainly do not know US law. And don't bother making a moral argument, because you don't have the market cornered on morality either. In short you're just wrong.

  • Thumbs Up 1

If you'd rather be Lame-O the Wonder Clown instead of Homelander then you're playing the wrong game.

 

Thank you doesn't even come close to the gratitude I have for the Homecoming developers for resurrecting Paragon City.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

No I am not!

 

I purchased City of Heroes and paid hundreds of dollars over the years for it. I own it and US courts have already ruled that I have a right to play the game that I've purchased. Because I am not stealing anything.

 

The development team could, in theory, get into some civil (not criminal) trouble because of unauthorized use of IP. But understand that they cannot get into any sort of criminal trouble either because they also are not stealing.

 

My advice is to stick to what you know, because you certainly do not know US law. And don't bother making a moral argument, because you don't have the market cornered on morality either. In short you're just wrong.

You know, I wanted to speak to what defines the concept of ownership, at least in the United States, and past judicial rulings on games' physical discs versus downloaded content (see DLC), and then I read your response and thought that was good enough for me 😁

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

No I am not!

 

I purchased City of Heroes and paid hundreds of dollars over the years for it. I own it and US courts have already ruled that I have a right to play the game that I've purchased. Because I am not stealing anything.

 

The development team could, in theory, get into some civil (not criminal) trouble because of unauthorized use of IP. But understand that they cannot get into any sort of criminal trouble either because they also are not stealing.

 

My advice is to stick to what you know, because you certainly do not know US law. And don't bother making a moral argument, because you don't have the market cornered on morality either. In short you're just wrong.

 

It's gray.  Morally you'd be in the Rogue/Vigilante tier.  I feel just as you do about abruptly losing access to everything I had invested into it on a whim when the game seemed able to support itself.  Neverminding the vast complex structuring of copyright laws, I'd think after 7 years of a company letting something mothball then it should be fair game to those who supported it.

 

But it is still gray and any future employer if they found out you like to play on a pirated server would give them pause.  Which turns back to the whole topic of conversation, privacy.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

You know, I wanted to speak to what defines the concept of ownership, at least in the United States, and past judicial rulings on games' physical discs versus downloaded content (see DLC), and then I read your response and thought that was good enough for me 😁

You know, the thing I love about the internet is that anyone can comment on anything. But the thing that I hate about the internet is that anyone will comment on anything.

 

People who don't know how to change a tire will try to offer me car care advice. People who've never seen the inside of a hospital will offer me medical advice. And people who've never even seen a law book will try to offer legal advice. I've never understood that about people. What is it that makes people so arrogant now days that they feel that they have any knowledge about a subject or industry they've never studied or worked at?

If you'd rather be Lame-O the Wonder Clown instead of Homelander then you're playing the wrong game.

 

Thank you doesn't even come close to the gratitude I have for the Homecoming developers for resurrecting Paragon City.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

People who don't know how to change a tire will try to offer me car care advice. People who've never seen the inside of a hospital will offer me medical advice. And people who've never even seen a law book will try to offer legal advice. I've never understood that about people. What is it that makes people so arrogant now days that they feel that they have any knowledge about a subject or industry they've never studied or worked at?

 

I've changed my tires and oil many atimes, when in a pinch I'll have the car serviced but I try to minimize that contact since sometimes it feels like more problems are created after.  Re: Hospitals see first response.  As far as law I'll do you one better I've studied Probate Law, I'm being purposely vague about the complexity of copyright law as its not what I'm most familiar with but with some brushing up sure I can follow.  What I do know for certain is the game is not rigged for the little guy, you can always have your day in court but you better bring your A-game.  

Edited by Mezmera
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...