Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie. - Page 4

GoldenEagle · 12-04-2005, 01:57 PM

I was surprised by the banning. I wish Skydog would ban every person who comes on here and asks for a free game. They do not add anything to the community. I can think of one user who has come over on here and has asked for a free license two or three times. I do not think he has even been boxed.

JonInMiddleGA · 12-04-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexroid

*shudders*

Not even HA's vivid imagination + Yngwie Malmsteen's most intense moment could capture the fullness of it.

vex · 12-04-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He doesn't even make the top 1000 online.

You should see my to-do list for when I get the keys to the place.

*shudders*

Joe · 12-04-2005, 02:04 PM

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why dodging the issues Ben?

If trading games is instantly bannable then why is there a trading games thread you stickied???

If anything that violates a EULA is a bannable offense then why is there stuff in the reference thread that violates EULAs? Why is there any discussion of any mods to any games allowed?

You are a hypocrite and a bully. You won't ban anyone that makes a mod (which clearly violates every EULA) that has a high post count. You won't ban anyone in that trading games thread that has tried to trade a game. And you sure as hell won't close that thread because that would be an admission of you being wrong in stickying it in the 1st place.

Get called on the facts, change the focus. That's your MO Ben.

You're either really, really stupid, really, really, dumb, or a little of both. Therefore, I'll spell it out for you, although I don't know how much more clear I can be than this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You're walking on thin ice here, my friend. You have no idea how many things that happen on this forum that bother me every time I see them.

Yes, I have made decisions on this forum that have truly disturbed me. I've not edited threads that should have been edited. I've not banned people who should have been banned. I've allowed people to come back who should not have been allowed to come back. I've not taken a hard enough line on things that have bothered me, because I've tried not to avoid imposing my own values (which I'm fully aware are different from the vast majority of people with whom I come in contact) on everyone here.

And by the way, at the time I stickied that thread, I am mortified to say that I had never read one of the EULAs of a game I owned. If I had, I know it would not have been stickied, and probably not even allowed. I can't undo what is done, though, and I very rarely lock or delete threads, and there's really no reason to do so with that one, because as with all of these little flare-ups, in a couple of days, this one will be gone and done with, and we'll simply move forward from there.

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

I was surprised by the banning. I wish Skydog would ban every person who comes on here and asks for a free game. They do not add anything to the community. I can think of one user who has come over on here and has asked for a free license two or three times. I do not think he has even been boxed.

OK, I'm shocked at this one. I've said repeatedly that those are usually the only people who GET permanently banned, unless they are repeat "problem children" who are clearly beyond rehabilitation. Any time I've been aware of someone clearly asking for a free license, they've been punished swiftly and severely. What am I missing here?

TargetPractice6 · 12-04-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

OK, I'm shocked at this one. I've said repeatedly that those are usually the only people who GET permanently banned, unless they are repeat "problem children" who are clearly beyond rehabilitation. Any time I've been aware of someone clearly asking for a free license, they've been punished swiftly and severely. What am I missing here?

I have to agree with you here. I don't think I've ever seen somebody look to pirate a game here without getting a perma-ban.

vex · 12-04-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

in a couple of days, this one will be gone and done with, and we'll simply move forward from there.

Bravo. Wonderful stance.

cthomer5000 · 12-04-2005, 02:10 PM

i'm sensing locking and/or bannination sometime soon.

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You're either really, really stupid, really, really, dumb, or a little of both. Therefore, I'll spell it out for you, although I don't know how much more clear I can be than this: Yes, I have made decisions on this forum that have truly disturbed me. I've not edited threads that should have been edited. I've not banned people who should have been banned. I've allowed people to come back who should not have been allowed to come back. I've not taken a hard enough line on things that have bothered me, because I've tried not to avoid imposing my own values (which I'm fully aware are different from the vast majority of people with whom I come in contact) on everyone here.

And by the way, at the time I stickied that thread, I am mortified to say that I had never read one of the EULAs of a game I owned. If I had, I know it would not have been stickied, and probably not even allowed. I can't undo what is done, though, and I very rarely lock or delete threads, and there's really no reason to do so with that one, because as with all of these little flare-ups, in a couple of days, this one will be gone and done with, and we'll simply move forward from there.

I'm neither, you're really thickheaded (and not in an A&W Root Beer kind of way).

To your 1st paragraph: Yet you will decide to impose those values at your random whim. Real consistent Ben. You can't impose those values on everyone because this would be a ghost town. Instead, you choose to be a hypocrite and nail the people you think you can get away with. There's a difference between following your moral code to the letter and doing what's right for the community. Most of the time you do the latter, yet when you do the former (like here) you act 12 years old and dig your heels using the "Becuase I said" bullshit excuse as a copout. Heaven forbid anyone call you on it or we'll feel your wrath like you have warned us over and over in this thread

To your 2nd paragraph: So you admit you're a hypocrite and will continue to be one. You won't lock the thread because that's an admission of being wrong. You won't ban anyone in there because they have more than 20 posts. You can't undo what has been done but you sure as hell can make up new rules at random, not tell anyone, and ban new posters to hell and back when you feel like it.

You feel justified in banning that guy? Ban all game traders and anyone who has made a mod/talked about making a mod. Be a man Ben. You want to impose your morals over one guy, do it to everyone.

Bullies don't like to be stood up to, do they?

Cap Ologist · 12-04-2005, 02:18 PM

I'd like to preorder the Antmeister71 cd based on this.

cthomer5000 · 12-04-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

I'd like to preorder the Antmeister71 cd based on this.

The title makes me think it would work with "When The Doves Cry" by Prince.

GoldenEagle · 12-04-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

OK, I'm shocked at this one. I've said repeatedly that those are usually the only people who GET permanently banned, unless they are repeat "problem children" who are clearly beyond rehabilitation. Any time I've been aware of someone clearly asking for a free license, they've been punished swiftly and severely. What am I missing here?

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...ad.php?t=24214

The user has since come on and asked about trades and licenses, etc. If it was not for this post I would not think anything about it. He is has been pretty clever about what he has been doing. But I think you can put two and two together.

I agree with you 100% about throwing the book at people who come and ask for this kind of stuff.

Galaxy · 12-04-2005, 02:25 PM

We need a Survivor FOFC.

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

You won't lock the thread because that's an admission of being wrong. You won't ban anyone in there because they have more than 20 posts. You can't undo what has been done but you sure as hell can make up new rules at random, not tell anyone, and ban new posters to hell and back when you feel like it.

Huh???? Where are you getting all of this??? I told you exactly why I won't lock the thread, didn't I?

cthomer5000 · 12-04-2005, 02:28 PM

Tiki Barber... he's really just like Curtis Martin, always been very good, but perhaps never the very best back in the league. Just ripped off a great run.

edit: oops, wrong thread!

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Huh???? Where are you getting all of this??? I told you exactly why I won't lock the thread, didn't I?

Because you want it all to blow over in a day, yes I heard you.

If you are so damn right in your beliefs and feel the need to impose them over one person on the forum, impose them on everyone. Be a man Ben, not a coward.

It's easier to use your power over high school kids who won't question you isn't it?

It's easier to drop the hammer on an unknown poster isn't it?

When you did you start reading EULAs, yesterday? That trading game thread has been going on for a long while.

vex · 12-04-2005, 02:34 PM

So, since you didn't start enforcing this until you read a EULA, if I just don't read one(which I haven't), I guess that makes me exempt.

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

...And by the way, at the time I stickied that thread, I am mortified to say that I had never read one of the EULAs of a game I owned...

I think this is why it bothers so many people that the person was banned though. That person was more likely not to read EULA's themselves and you banned them for it, but you made the same mistake yourself.

Another thing that has bother me about this whole thing is that neither of the EULA say nothing about a straight up trade. I own both and I have viewed the license agreements, and here are both of them. What is your interpretation of both of these and where is the area you think he broke a rule. Maybe I not seeing something, but I can't seem to find one. You posted a CIV III and Civ IV agreement, but you didn't actually post the ones to these games:

Here is TPF

Here is FOF 2004
LICENSE AGREEMENT

This is a legal agreement between you and Solecismic Software. You should read this entire document before entering into this agreement.

BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Since we provide a free demonstration version of this product, and we actively encourage its use before purchase, we do not provide refunds once you've licensed this product.

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND YOU ARE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SOFTWARE, PROMPTLY RETURN THE SOFTWARE FOR A FULL REFUND.

This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software.

You may make one backup copy of the software solely for backup purposes. You may not loan, rent or lease the software. You may not share your personal license to install and use this software.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, you may not attempt to bypass the copy protection system included with this software. Solecismic Software reserves all of its rights protected by the DMCA and expressly grants you the rights defined in this document.

Front Office Football 2004, which includes the software and accompanying materials, is the intellectual property of Solecismic Software, and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Solecismic Software retains all rights not expressly granted.

Solecismic Software makes no claim whatsoever of any product endorsement from any football league, or any individual participating in any football league. License to use this software is granted only on the condition that you recognize that no such claim of endorsement has been made and that Solecismic Software is in compliance with the federal Lanham Act in making this disclosure. All events and transactions represented by the software are purely fictional, and are governed by chance.

LIMITED WARRANTY

Solecismic Software warrants that the media on which the software is distributed is free from defects in materials and workmanship for a period of 90 days from the time of receipt. Your exclusive remedies shall be either a replacement copy of The Fourth Edition, or a full refund of the amount you paid for the software.

IN NO EVENT WILL SOLECISMIC SOFTWARE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, ECONOMIC OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, USER DOCUMENTATION OR RELATED TECHNICAL SUPPORT. THIS INCLUDES DAMAGES OR COSTS RELATING TO THE LOSS OF PROFITS, BUSINESS, GOODWILL, DATA OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

IN NO EVENT WILL SOLECISMIC SOFTWARE'S LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE SOFTWARE.

This agreement is governed by the laws of the state of New Hampshire.

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 02:44 PM

"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software."

uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!

dervack · 12-04-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

Yep, especially when it says this part:
"You may make one backup copy of the software solely for backup purposes."

Backing up, and installing on a two machines aren't the same thing, FYI.

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software."

uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!

Yep, especially when it says this part:
"You may make one backup copy of the software solely for backup purposes."

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software."

uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!

You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use.

dervack · 12-04-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use.

Well, that's not what the EULA says. Isn't that what this thread is about? How exact everyone has to follow their EULA's?

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

You get two licenses with FOF. Each one permits one installation for personal use.

True...forgot about that one. But seriously, where in the license do you see the problem. I have tried to see your side of it and after reading over the agreement, I don't see it.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Because you want it all to blow over in a day, yes I heard you.

If you are so damn right in your beliefs and feel the need to impose them over one person on the forum, impose them on everyone. Be a man Ben, not a coward.

It's easier to use your power over high school kids who won't question you isn't it?

It's easier to drop the hammer on an unknown poster isn't it?

That's so immature and messed up that even in all the incoherent babbling in this thread, if anything you said made sense you lost any credibility.

You obviously have a major bias towards Skydog.

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervack

Well, that's not what the EULA says. Isn't that what this thread is about? How exact everyone has to follow their EULA's?

If you own two licenses, you follow each EULA, don't you?

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

True...forgot about that one. But seriously, where in the license do you see the problem. I have tried to see your side of it and after reading over the agreement, I don't see it.

I thought right here:

Quote:

You may not loan, rent or lease the software. You may not share your personal license to install and use this software.

Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?

dervack · 12-04-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If you own two licenses, you follow each EULA, don't you?

Hey the EULA says nothing about two licenses. I'm just going by what that said. Again, isn't that what this is about? Exact wording of EULA's?

dervack · 12-04-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?

No sharing would be buying it, keeping it, and letting me installing it also. If someone is trading it, and both licenses, what's left to share?

vex · 12-04-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?

No, sharing it is two people using it at the same time. If it is traded for something else, then only one person has the license.

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervack

Backing up, and installing on a two machines aren't the same thing, FYI.

And you are correct as well...my mistake.

dervack · 12-04-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

And you are correct as well...my mistake.

Don't worry about it. I'm not really here to bust your balls.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexroid

No, sharing it is two people using it at the same time. If it is traded for something else, then only one person has the license.

There's no way to prove that the person would trade BOTH license for TPF.

Ben E Lou · 12-04-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervack

Hey the EULA says nothing about two licenses. I'm just going by what that said. Again, isn't that what this is about? Exact wording of EULA's?

Ok. Let me spell it out for you.

I download the game and purchase it. I get two licenses. Each one has an EULA.

I use the first license. That EULA allows me to install it on my desktop.

I use the second license. That EULA allows me to install it on my laptop.

I have followed each EULA to the letter of the law in such a case. There are two licenses, and therefore two EULAs.

vex · 12-04-2005, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deattribution

There's no way to prove that the person would trade BOTH license for TPF.

Ask for both of them?

There's no way to prove he wouldn't trade both of them.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexroid

Ask for both of them?

And what if two people agree - hey you can just keep that one, I don't have no use for it anyway..

How is Skydog suppose to regulate that?

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Dola

Or, the person gives one, then a few months later when the person wants to license the other one, they find out that they can't.

Cause the license # is the same, always, isn't it?

vex · 12-04-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deattribution

And what if two people agree - hey you can just keep that one, I don't have no use for it anyway..

How is Skydog suppose to regulate that?

Then THAT would be against the EULA.

And who asked Skydog to regulate anything in the first place?

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I thought right here: Isn't selling/trading it sharing it?

Ahhhhh....that's where you see it. I thought sharing is when you have more than one copy of the original software and you give one of them out.

Think about it this way. If you had a basket of apples and shared it, you would have an apple and share the rest with the others. But the key is that you have one of the apples. If you didn't have one of the apples, you aren't sharing it. Sharing implies that you at least retain 1.

In this case, trading and/or selling doesn't even apply to this agreement since the original owner no longer retains the license on their computer.

cthomer5000 · 12-04-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deattribution

How is Skydog suppose to regulate that?

Does SkyDog also verify that each person has shipped a physical game to each other when making a trade? I think you're really reaching here.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexroid

Then THAT would be against the EULA.

And who asked Skydog to regulate anything in the first place?

Umm? Because he moderates the board, and that'd be 'illegal' activity that would initiate from the board.

vex · 12-04-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Dola

Or, the person gives one, then a few months later when the person wants to license the other one, they find out that they can't.

Cause the license # is the same, always, isn't it?

That would be akin to selling someone a cd that had two discs and the person only sending one. This is against the rules, and this has nothing to do with the discussion as I'm sure everyone agrees this is illegal.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

Does SkyDog also verify that each person has shipped a physical game to each other when making a trade? I think you're really reaching here.

That's a bit different, youre not talking about violating a EULA there, there's nothing in a EULA about not following through on a transaction thus stealing the game from the person.

With license, it's easy for two people to 'share' a game with multiple license.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexroid

That would be akin to selling someone a cd that had two discs and the person only sending one. This is against the rules, and this has nothing to do with the discussion as I'm sure everyone agrees this is illegal.

No, it wouldn't, because you'd need both disc to install or play, while with two license both people can play the game at the same time, freely.

vex · 12-04-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deattribution

Umm? Because he moderates the board, and that'd be 'illegal' activity that would initiate from the board.

You really need to get in touch with Ebay, help them out some.

Barkeep49 · 12-04-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deattribution

That's a bit different, youre not talking about violating a EULA there, there's nothing in a EULA about not following through on a transaction thus stealing the game from the person.

With license, it's easy for two people to 'share' a game with multiple license.

Ok think about it this way. If I were to give my Secret Santa person a CD and copy it before I gave it to them that would be against the law. If I were to just give them a CD I already own, and not have any copies or MP3s remain once I give it away, then I'm giving them a crappy gift, but I'm not violating the law.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vexroid

You really need to get in touch with Ebay, help them out some.

Your point being?

Ebay has a team of investigators for such activity, I doubt FOFC does...

Calis · 12-04-2005, 03:12 PM

I'm slightly confused by this whole mess and how the game trading thread fits into it, from everything I've seen..and I've seen the Civ4 EULA mentioned quite a bit for adding those lines, but most games do not mention being unable to sell it. although I honestly haven't checked around a lot. So I don't really see a problem with the game trading thread at all.

It's definitely not sharing if you sell someone a product also.

This thread is very painful to read.

Deattribution · 12-04-2005, 03:15 PM

The biggest point I was trying to drive home, without getting caught up into the pissing matches these threads always turn into --- is that the logistics of allowing trading of digitally licensed games is sketchy - sure the guy definitely deserved a warning if it was his first attempt.. but I don't have a problem if someone says 'hey, I want to avoid doing that because it's too easy to rip someone off or do it illegally'.

12-04-2005, 01:57 PM	#151
GoldenEagle Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Little Rock, AR	I was surprised by the banning. I wish Skydog would ban every person who comes on here and asks for a free game. They do not add anything to the community. I can think of one user who has come over on here and has asked for a free license two or three times. I do not think he has even been boxed. __________________ Xbox 360 Gamer Tag: GoldenEagle014

12-04-2005, 02:04 PM	#154
Joe Pro Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Minneapolis

12-04-2005, 02:10 PM	#159
cthomer5000 Strategy Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Carolina	i'm sensing locking and/or bannination sometime soon.

12-04-2005, 02:18 PM	#161
Cap Ologist College Prospect Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Flower Mound, TX	I'd like to preorder the Antmeister71 cd based on this.

12-04-2005, 02:25 PM	#164
Galaxy Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2005	We need a Survivor FOFC.

12-04-2005, 02:34 PM	#168
vex Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Tulsa	So, since you didn't start enforcing this until you read a EULA, if I just don't read one(which I haven't), I guess that makes me exempt.

12-04-2005, 02:44 PM	#170
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	"This agreement permits you to use one copy of Front Office Football 2004, including its electronic documentation, on a single computer. You may not use the software on a network or other transfer device without each user having an original copy of the software." uh oh, I guess everyone that has FOF 2004 installed on their PC and laptop are fucked. Mass bannings for all!

12-04-2005, 03:06 PM	#188
Deattribution College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2003	Dola Or, the person gives one, then a few months later when the person wants to license the other one, they find out that they can't. Cause the license # is the same, always, isn't it?

12-04-2005, 03:12 PM	#199
Calis College Starter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Kansas	I'm slightly confused by this whole mess and how the game trading thread fits into it, from everything I've seen..and I've seen the Civ4 EULA mentioned quite a bit for adding those lines, but most games do not mention being unable to sell it. although I honestly haven't checked around a lot. So I don't really see a problem with the game trading thread at all. It's definitely not sharing if you sell someone a product also. This thread is very painful to read.

12-04-2005, 03:15 PM	#200
Deattribution College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2003	The biggest point I was trying to drive home, without getting caught up into the pissing matches these threads always turn into --- is that the logistics of allowing trading of digitally licensed games is sketchy - sure the guy definitely deserved a warning if it was his first attempt.. but I don't have a problem if someone says 'hey, I want to avoid doing that because it's too easy to rip someone off or do it illegally'.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)