Look, it is best to let sleeping SkyDogs lie. - Page 6

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcchief19

By the same definitions you are using in other EULAs, FOF's EULA doesn't actually say that. It says you are entitle to install the "software" on one computer. Having two licenses doesn't imply that you can install the "software" on two computers. According to the letter of the word of the EULA, one copy of the software = one computer. My impression is that two licenses are issued as a convenience for the consumer and software developer. Taking advantage of that convenience doesn't mean its right.

Correctomundo!

gstelmack · 12-04-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

16 members and 5 guests viewing this thread. It's 5 pages long. You guys are clearly not letting sleeping SkyDogs lie.

What part of the title do you people not understand?

Well, when you scold children, it is important to let them know what exactly they did wrong. And in this case, the community was accused of engaging in illegal activity, but that activity has not been shown to be illegal. It has been proven that some game EULAs state that you are not allowed to sell or trade your copy once you've installed it and used it. However, no such language has been found in the EULAs of the games in question. So the community is left wondering exactly what was done wrong.

On the positive, it has been pointed out some recent games are explicitly attempting to disallow this, so we've all learned something, but on the other hand you have the community wondering why someone was banned for doing something that most of us have done, continue to do, and appears to have been all legal and above-board.

So we've all been scolded, but we're not exactly sure why this suddenly erupted with no warning and with no apparent backing. As confused children, we're trying to figure out what exactly we did that raised dad's ire, and why he didn't just post a nice "folks, I've allowed this in the past, but since paying attention to some recent EULAs and noticing that language has changed, I'm going to forbid any game trading from here on out to avoid any potential legal entanglements for the board".

I've been sitting here since I first read this post trying to figure out exactly what got our moderator's hackles up, and I still can't. This is coming from someone who is usually quick to jump to SkyDog's defense when others think he's overreacted. Between this and the whole deal with the new moderately insulting titles ("has started shaving" for our female members? "cocky and funny" was created as a direct insult, wasn't it?), I don't think it's been a good week for the board.

gstelmack · 12-04-2005, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Did they look anything like... this?

If I only had pictures from some of our halloween parties...

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Well, when you scold children, it is important to let them know what exactly they did wrong. And in this case, the community was accused of engaging in illegal activity, but that activity has not been shown to be illegal. It has been proven that some game EULAs state that you are not allowed to sell or trade your copy once you've installed it and used it. However, no such language has been found in the EULAs of the games in question. So the community is left wondering exactly what was done wrong.

On the positive, it has been pointed out some recent games are explicitly attempting to disallow this, so we've all learned something, but on the other hand you have the community wondering why someone was banned for doing something that most of us have done, continue to do, and appears to have been all legal and above-board.

So we've all been scolded, but we're not exactly sure why this suddenly erupted with no warning and with no apparent backing. As confused children, we're trying to figure out what exactly we did that raised dad's ire, and why he didn't just post a nice "folks, I've allowed this in the past, but since paying attention to some recent EULAs and noticing that language has changed, I'm going to forbid any game trading from here on out to avoid any potential legal entanglements for the board".

I've been sitting here since I first read this post trying to figure out exactly what got our moderator's hackles up, and I still can't. This is coming from someone who is usually quick to jump to SkyDog's defense when others think he's overreacted. Between this and the whole deal with the new moderately insulting titles ("has started shaving" for our female members? "cocky and funny" was created as a direct insult, wasn't it?), I don't think it's been a good week for the board.

You're on thin ice bucko. One more word, you and your EULA violating utilities are OUTTA HERE!!!

Of course I jest and agree with what you posted above.

panerd · 12-04-2005, 05:59 PM

Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years. I don't think Skydog would have banned a more active member. Would you rather he allow messages like "ENJOY 6 INCHS and 2 FET OF GIRTH WITH PENISENLARGERR." which probably aren't illegal, but definitely don't belong on the board?

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years. I don't think Skydog would have banned a more active member. Would you rather he allow messages like "ENJOY 6 INCHS and 2 FET OF GIRTH WITH PENISENLARGERR." which probably aren't illegal, but definitely don't belong on the board?

because clearly, that is the only possible alternative to this bannination

Galaxy · 12-04-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Did they look anything like... this?

I hope she doesn't loose her tongue.

JonInMiddleGA · 12-04-2005, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years.

Careful, you're going to be accused of using common sense in this thread.

dervack · 12-04-2005, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chubby

Correctomundo!

hey where were you when i made that point 2 pages ago.

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervack

hey where were you when i made that point 2 pages ago.

taking a nap. i was tired from trying to wrap my brain around such logic as "i'm going to ban this guy but not close a stickied game trading thread".

dawgfan · 12-04-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years. I don't think Skydog would have banned a more active member. Would you rather he allow messages like "ENJOY 6 INCHS and 2 FET OF GIRTH WITH PENISENLARGERR." which probably aren't illegal, but definitely don't belong on the board?

What incredibly elitist thinking. There have been posters in the past that have been around a long time without adding much and then decided to start participating in the discussions. History is a good predictor of future behavior, but it's far from 100% accurate.

Even if what he had done was against the EULA's of the games in question (still not proven), was banning necessary? A warning and locking of the thread wouldn't have gotten the point across?

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years. I don't think Skydog would have banned a more active member. Would you rather he allow messages like "ENJOY 6 INCHS and 2 FET OF GIRTH WITH PENISENLARGERR." which probably aren't illegal, but definitely don't belong on the board?

I guess this is where we disagree. Some longtime lurkers become contributors. Check out my Antmeister profile. I have 10 posts in 3 years. Then I forgot my password when I logged off and made this new one. I still didn't really post that often until the last year. And there still is no good reason why he was banned so what does post count have to do with anything?

Antmeister · 12-04-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What incredibly elitist thinking. There have been posters in the past that have been around a long time without adding much and then decided to start participating in the discussions. History is a good predictor of future behavior, but it's far from 100% accurate.

Even if what he had done was against the EULA's of the games in question (still not proven), was banning necessary? A warning and locking of the thread wouldn't have gotten the point across?

Stop reading my thoughts!

Raiders Army · 12-04-2005, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years. I don't think Skydog would have banned a more active member. Would you rather he allow messages like "ENJOY 6 INCHS and 2 FET OF GIRTH WITH PENISENLARGERR." which probably aren't illegal, but definitely don't belong on the board?

I know some other posters wouldn't mind getting a penis enlarger.

Uhhhhhh....definitely not me. Yeah...not me.

st.cronin · 12-04-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think I have ever been accused on being elitist before. An elitist would ignore somebody with like 200-300 posts because they have 12,000. This guy had 2 posts, one of which was looking to trade for a game. (I don't know the guys name, but I would love to see what his other post was) Sorry, this is a stupid, non-issue.

I would take that seriously if you had more posts.

panerd · 12-04-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

What incredibly elitist thinking. There have been posters in the past that have been around a long time without adding much and then decided to start participating in the discussions. History is a good predictor of future behavior, but it's far from 100% accurate.

Even if what he had done was against the EULA's of the games in question (still not proven), was banning necessary? A warning and locking of the thread wouldn't have gotten the point across?

I don't think I have ever been accused on being elitist before. An elitist would ignore somebody with like 200-300 posts because they have 12,000. This guy had 2 posts, one of which was looking to trade for a game. (I don't know the guys name, but I would love to see what his other post was) Sorry, this is a stupid, non-issue.

Joe · 12-04-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't think I have ever been accused on being elitist before. An elitist would ignore somebody with like 200-300 posts because they have 12,000. This guy had 2 posts, one of which was looking to trade for a game. (I don't know the guys name, but I would love to see what his other post was) Sorry, this is a stupid, non-issue.

He had more than 2 posts, I think it was 7 or 8. Anyway, his other posts were discussing TCY stuff.

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 06:27 PM

clearly we have not "let sleeping Skydog's lie", well... we have let him lie but not very well...

I'm anxiously awaiting our promised "our else" punishment.

dawgfan · 12-04-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panerd

Sorry, this is a stupid, non-issue.

The level of objection to SkyDog's stance here is clear evidence that it's most definitely an issue, and the number of posts by the person banned doesn't change the fact that SkyDog over-reacted.

Antmeister is a perfect example of why judging someone by their post count is stupid - he's one of the most enjoyable posters here, and yet he's only recently become an active poster after a long period of time with very few posts.

JonInMiddleGA · 12-04-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Antmeister is a perfect example ...

And that's one out of ???

The odds of a valued member coming from the ranks of 2+ year lurkers aren't exactly the kind that make you rush to the betting window.

Easy Mac · 12-04-2005, 06:34 PM

who the hell is antmeister?

Draft Dodger · 12-04-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Antmeister is a perfect example of why judging someone by their post count is stupid - he's one of the most enjoyable posters here, and yet he's only recently become an active poster after a long period of time with very few posts.

plus, 95% of his posts are in the freeware thread.

Galaxy · 12-04-2005, 06:41 PM

I keep thinking Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac when I see the title of this thread.

Joe · 12-04-2005, 06:42 PM

this is the guy that got banninated:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...searchid=93350

Barkeep49 · 12-04-2005, 06:42 PM

Jon I don't know if I'm a "valued" member but I had about 30 posts, almost all comments in Quiksand dynasties, in nearly three years here.

Coder · 12-04-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that's one out of ???

The odds of a valued member coming from the ranks of 2+ year lurkers aren't exactly the kind that make you rush to the betting window.

But why is he any less entitled to keep lurking? If I'm not incorrect, once you're banned you can't even read the board. My posts/day average is extremely low, yet I come here several times a day. I love this board. I love the discussions. I love the people. But because I don't "contribute", I shouldn't deserve to be judged on the same level as someone who writes more often?

The guy made a mistake. One mistake.. and a mistake that according to just about everyone here wouldn't have resulted in a banning for most regulars. But since he's only posted a few times he deserves a harsher punishment?

That just doesn't compute.

Chubby · 12-04-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George W Bush

this is the guy that got banninated:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...searchid=93350

sorry, no matches were found

dawgfan · 12-04-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that's one out of ???

The odds of a valued member coming from the ranks of 2+ year lurkers aren't exactly the kind that make you rush to the betting window.

Guilty until proven innocent, right?

Rizon · 12-04-2005, 06:47 PM

This thread is like herpes.

Tekneek · 12-04-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The odds of a valued member coming from the ranks of 2+ year lurkers aren't exactly the kind that make you rush to the betting window.

Let's just go ahead and ban them all. Let's call it a preemptive strike designed to maintain the safety and integrity of the board.

st.cronin · 12-04-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervack

Yeah anyone who's been here less than a year posting with less than 300 posts... wait...

Also, just close the place to new registration because the new people will never have anything useful either.

You don't have enough posts to have a valid opinion on the subject.

dervack · 12-04-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Let's just go ahead and ban them all. Let's call it a preemptive strike designed to maintain the safety and integrity of the board.

Yeah anyone who's been here less than a year posting with less than 300 posts... wait...

Also, just close the place to new registration because the new people will never have anything useful either.

Joe · 12-04-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizon

This thread is like herpes.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Tekneek · 12-04-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dervack

Yeah anyone who's been here less than a year posting with less than 300 posts... wait...

Also, just close the place to new registration because the new people will never have anything useful either.

Now you're on the right track. Once you keep new people from getting in, you can more easily find the rat bastards that are hiding amongst the regulars and trying to subvert the system.

Airhog · 12-04-2005, 07:28 PM

I think there are 3 kinds of people that pirate. You have the people that do spend money on games. They pirate stuff, and purchase the stuff they really like. I think this group is a minority. The second kind, is people that pirate stuff, but rarely ever buy anything. The only stuff they buy, is games that have to have a cd-key to play online, or software that is not pirated. I would think that the majority of pirates probably fall into this group. The third group of people is those that do not buy anything. They claim that if there was not pirated stuff, they wouldnt buy anything anyways, so the company is not losing sales from them. I think the number of people that would not buy anything if they could not pirate has to be relatively small.

The second part of this issue is how many sales are truly lost. Lets say game X is pirates 150,000 times. Obviously you cannot say that 6.75million was lost, because you have no way of knowing how many people that pirated the game would have bought it.

I think that if there was no piracy, and there was no ablility to rent games, you might see a modest increase in revenues. But I don't think the jump would be a significant as some might believe.

JonInMiddleGA · 12-04-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Let's just go ahead and ban them all. Let's call it a preemptive strike designed to maintain the safety and integrity of the board.

Hmm ... you expecting a big gasp of horror from me over that notion?

Schmidty · 12-04-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airhog

I think there are 3 kinds of people that pirate.

Actually, I can think of four: Those with eye-patches, those with hooks, those with peg legs, and those with parrots on their shoulders.

MizzouRah · 12-04-2005, 08:12 PM

Didn't really want to post in this thread again but, I've read his other 3 posts and I would agree that a ban was unnecessary in this case.

cthomer5000 · 12-04-2005, 08:16 PM

It's so unjust that Luther Campbell should write a song about it.

MizzouRah · 12-04-2005, 08:23 PM

Luther Vandross would have been better.

DaddyTorgo · 12-04-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coder

But why is he any less entitled to keep lurking? If I'm not incorrect, once you're banned you can't even read the board. My posts/day average is extremely low, yet I come here several times a day. I love this board. I love the discussions. I love the people. But because I don't "contribute", I shouldn't deserve to be judged on the same level as someone who writes more often?

The guy made a mistake. One mistake.. and a mistake that according to just about everyone here wouldn't have resulted in a banning for most regulars. But since he's only posted a few times he deserves a harsher punishment?

That just doesn't compute.

i've stayed out of this until now, but i think i pretty much agree with Coder on this. And also, what about the potential financial impact on Jim/Arlie of this bannination? I know if I asked a question like that and was subsequently banned, even though intellectually I would know that Jim/Arlie had nothing to do with the banning, it'd be a cold day in hell before I ever supported those developers again.

does that make sense? did it come out right?

kcchief19 · 12-04-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

It's so unjust that Luther Campbell should write a song about it.

Doing the right thing, and not the wrong
So listen up, y`all, to what we say
We won`t be banned in the FOFC!

MizzouRah · 12-04-2005, 09:13 PM

Nice game by dem Chiefs today.

Neuqua · 12-04-2005, 09:17 PM

So.... 6 pages.... Any progress made one way or the other?

sterlingice · 12-04-2005, 09:19 PM

Is there ever any progress in a thread like this where people just enjoy airing their laundry in public?

SI

GreenMonster · 12-04-2005, 10:07 PM

If I were to sell my computer would I first have to remove all licensed games because they belong to me and me solely, or could I leave them licensed to that particular computer. I mean is Windows not transferable when selling a computer to another party, or do they have to provide a new copy of Windows for the computer..

vex · 12-04-2005, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i've stayed out of this until now, but i think i pretty much agree with Coder on this. And also, what about the potential financial impact on Jim/Arlie of this bannination? I know if I asked a question like that and was subsequently banned, even though intellectually I would know that Jim/Arlie had nothing to do with the banning, it'd be a cold day in hell before I ever supported those developers again.

does that make sense? did it come out right?

I've wondered this as well.

Anthony · 12-04-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

i'm intrigued now. what would you do if you had the keys?

vex · 12-04-2005, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm intrigued now. what would you do if you had the keys?

Well, use your imagination, at least we'l get close

Anthony · 12-04-2005, 10:49 PM

i think he would ban anyone who openly admitted to illegally downloading MP3s. that's a start.

12-04-2005, 06:42 PM	#275
Barkeep49 Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not too far away	Jon I don't know if I'm a "valued" member but I had about 30 posts, almost all comments in Quiksand dynasties, in nearly three years here. Last edited by Barkeep49 : 12-04-2005 at 06:43 PM.

12-04-2005, 07:28 PM	#285
Airhog Captain Obvious Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Norman, Oklahoma	I think there are 3 kinds of people that pirate. You have the people that do spend money on games. They pirate stuff, and purchase the stuff they really like. I think this group is a minority. The second kind, is people that pirate stuff, but rarely ever buy anything. The only stuff they buy, is games that have to have a cd-key to play online, or software that is not pirated. I would think that the majority of pirates probably fall into this group. The third group of people is those that do not buy anything. They claim that if there was not pirated stuff, they wouldnt buy anything anyways, so the company is not losing sales from them. I think the number of people that would not buy anything if they could not pirate has to be relatively small. The second part of this issue is how many sales are truly lost. Lets say game X is pirates 150,000 times. Obviously you cannot say that 6.75million was lost, because you have no way of knowing how many people that pirated the game would have bought it. I think that if there was no piracy, and there was no ablility to rent games, you might see a modest increase in revenues. But I don't think the jump would be a significant as some might believe. __________________ Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again!

12-04-2005, 09:17 PM	#294
Neuqua Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Chicago, Ill	So.... 6 pages.... Any progress made one way or the other? __________________ Our Deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?' Actually, who are you not to be?

12-04-2005, 09:19 PM	#295
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	Is there ever any progress in a thread like this where people just enjoy airing their laundry in public? SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

12-04-2005, 05:59 PM	#255
panerd Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: St. Louis	Like the guy that Skydog banned was really going to be a contributing member of the board. He had something like 2 posts in 3 years. I don't think Skydog would have banned a more active member. Would you rather he allow messages like "ENJOY 6 INCHS and 2 FET OF GIRTH WITH PENISENLARGERR." which probably aren't illegal, but definitely don't belong on the board?

12-04-2005, 06:27 PM	#268
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	clearly we have not "let sleeping Skydog's lie", well... we have let him lie but not very well... I'm anxiously awaiting our promised "our else" punishment.

12-04-2005, 06:34 PM	#271
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	who the hell is antmeister?

12-04-2005, 06:41 PM	#273
Galaxy Coordinator Join Date: Apr 2005	I keep thinking Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac when I see the title of this thread.

12-04-2005, 06:42 PM	#274
Joe Pro Starter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Minneapolis	this is the guy that got banninated: http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...searchid=93350

12-04-2005, 08:12 PM	#288
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Troy, Mo	Didn't really want to post in this thread again but, I've read his other 3 posts and I would agree that a ban was unnecessary in this case.

12-04-2005, 08:23 PM	#290
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Troy, Mo	Luther Vandross would have been better.

12-04-2005, 09:13 PM	#293
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Troy, Mo	Nice game by dem Chiefs today.

12-04-2005, 10:07 PM	#296
GreenMonster High School Varsity Join Date: Mar 2005	If I were to sell my computer would I first have to remove all licensed games because they belong to me and me solely, or could I leave them licensed to that particular computer. I mean is Windows not transferable when selling a computer to another party, or do they have to provide a new copy of Windows for the computer..

12-04-2005, 10:49 PM	#300
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	i think he would ban anyone who openly admitted to illegally downloading MP3s. that's a start.

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