• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

World of Stalkercraft

I was looking for this story, I couldn't find it and I'm in a hurry, but I remember hearing about gangs in Korea that would hunt down people who played against them in cyberspace and rough them up. Apparently quite a few Koreans regularly play in internet cafes.

I doubt this would happen regularly here, but there's an example of why anonymity might be advantageous. Physical violence is an extreme version of the real life crossover, but other forms of harassment are quite expected.

There was a story out a little bit ago about a gang in Brazil kidnapping a Gamer and foring him to give up his logon with death threats, and then selling items from the account.

http://www.destructoid.com/top-game...rced-to-transfer-gunbound-account-35679.phtml
 
And what is that worth to them?

Quite a lot, on the whole. I'm willing to bet they understand economies of scale. Even if they somehow didn't to start with, I'm sure they figured it out by now.

It's the same as selling you one sandwich isn't really all that much for the bakery, and they could probably do just as fine without _your_ repeat business in particular. But they also understand what selling a sandwich to 1000 or 10,000 people a day means.

Basically it means that if they have to go to any extremes or lose other customers to keep you, no, you're not worth it. But they also are a lot less inclined to swing the ban bat than a lot of people seem to assume. All things being equal, they'd rather keep getting those $15 a month. Not because you in particular are worth it, but because that's the kind of thing that adds up to 11 million customers in the first place.

The places which had attitudes boiling down to basically "**** you, we're Sony, we can do whatever we want. We can ban you for just receiving a tip from the wrong stranger, and what are you gonna do about it?", well, that already tells you one of the reasons why they _don't_ have 11 million players. Because ticking off players adds up, and PR disasters can lose you more players than the thousand or so you just beamed into space for even thinking they can make a fuss about your bad decisions. (Both actual things Sony did.)
 
It's the same as selling you one sandwich isn't really all that much for the bakery, and they could probably do just as fine without _your_ repeat business in particular. But they also understand what selling a sandwich to 1000 or 10,000 people a day means.

This was my point. Individually, a single customer in a high-volume situation is practically worthless. Sure, such a business doesn't want to make a habit of losing customers, but they also generally don't go very far out of their way to keep from losing a few here or there. It's just not worth it to them, especially when those who are lost are so easily replaced.
 
This was my point. Individually, a single customer in a high-volume situation is practically worthless. Sure, such a business doesn't want to make a habit of losing customers, but they also generally don't go very far out of their way to keep from losing a few here or there. It's just not worth it to them, especially when those who are lost are so easily replaced.

They often fail to take into account the multiplicative effect of a bad experience... one viral video on youtube or endlessly passed around email/facebook status, and suddenly that one lost customer becomes tens of thousands.

I've heard it referred to as a "customer service terrorist" with the intent being absolutely never to create them if possible. Which means making sure you look good and fair, even if your customer is being unpleasant or unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
This was my point. Individually, a single customer in a high-volume situation is practically worthless. Sure, such a business doesn't want to make a habit of losing customers, but they also generally don't go very far out of their way to keep from losing a few here or there. It's just not worth it to them, especially when those who are lost are so easily replaced.

Yes, but that's kinda the thing about high volume situations. As the saying goes, if you're one in a million, there are 6000 just like you. Or in Blizzard's case about a dozen as active subscribers alone.

But more realistically, most people aren't _that_ special and most behaviours aren't _that_ unusual. If you swing the ban bat at something which is more like 1% of the population, you've just lost over 100,000 subscribers, which is a million and a half a year, and generally more than other games have total.

And that alone is reason enough to think twice.

And that's not counting the splash damage, so to speak. People have friends and accounts on boards, and even the tale of one single guy who got banned for something that looks like arbitrary dickery on the publisher's part can generate a massive backlash. Sony for example lost more players and potential players and general gamer goodwill in the incident I mention than they banned or than just the protesters they beamed into space.

Remember that one reason these games are doing so well is that a lot of people imagine them to be some kind of marriage for life when they start. Even if they are aware they'll eventually leave, ideally that will happen after they beat the last boss, did every quest, and generally on _their_ terms. They also tend to see virtual property as real property, and the massive number of hours dumped into really pimping out that character or the monthly fees as _investment_.

The mere idea that all that depends on some arbitrary dick which might nuke your investment just for kicks, is going to cause a _massive_ pucker factor. It's like being told that your money is at a bank which habitually takes a few random accounts and makes them disappear. Oh, and you can't move your money out of that bank either.

So, really, starting ticking off players unless you can show it as a totally acceptable and objective thing (e.g., caught spamming gold sales) still is a very bad idea. That one player worth $90 a year can snowball into something worth 9 or 90 millions a year.
 
The problem is, you're discussing how much a customer is worth in terms of dollar value and losing business, and failing to remember that the context is "how much is a customer who is in violation of their terms of service agreement worth" not just "how much is any customer worth".

If a customer is in violation of their terms of service agreement and blizzard discovers that violation, what happens if they don't enforce their terms of service? What if it's 15 customers? Or 100? Or 1000? Not enforcing their contract leads to a legal precedence for all their customers to violate the agreement without repercussion. That's a pretty bad place for a company to be in -- with their contracts basically null and void. So... Is a single person's $90/year (of estimated profit?) worth risking their contracts with all 11 million of their customers becoming pointless?
 
Right. Someone whose only grievous crime was that they gave a false name to protect their own privacy. You genuinely think that Blizzard actually wants to lose money over such an issue as who entered a false name?

How do you propose to do that anyway? Should they pay to have that person checked? Is it worth the privacy backlash when it makes news as "Blizzard is stalking players"?

And if they don't, see that thing about expectations and goodwill too: I doubt that they want to get the reputation of that place where they might nuke your account just because some support guy didn't believe your name really is John Smith, or because your kid was smart enough to give someone a false RL name when asked in chat and it didn't match the billing information. They don't even need too many false positives there to build up a backlash.

ETA: And again see that thing about percentages. People being paranoid about their privacy isn't anywhere near a majority, but it's not one in a million either, especially among nerds. Especially after it turns out that anything a corporation knows about you, it might accidentally make public (see, the recent ESRB email screwup), or intentionally make public (see, AOL and the users' complete collection of search strings), or a disgruntled employee might sell to spammers (see, that AOL admin, or the idiot rent-a-coder who posted a zip of a child database when asking for help with formatting the addresses.) I very much doubt that any publisher really cares about real names more than about getting their money, and would cheerfully lose a few millions in income just to... make people even more paranoid.

I'm sorry, but if you think that that's one rule _any_ publisher ever enforced just because they put it in the TOS, I want a pair of those rose tinted glasses too ;)
 
Last edited:
Right. Someone whose only grievous crime was that they gave a false name to protect their own privacy. You genuinely think that Blizzard actually wants to lose money over such an issue as who entered a false name?

How do you propose to do that anyway? Should they pay to have that person checked? Is it worth the privacy backlash when it makes news as "Blizzard is stalking players"?

And if they don't, see that thing about expectations and goodwill too: I doubt that they want to get the reputation of that place where they might nuke your account just because some support guy didn't believe your name really is John Smith, or because your kid was smart enough to give someone a false RL name when asked in chat and it didn't match the billing information. They don't even need too many false positives there to build up a backlash.

ETA: And again see that thing about percentages. People being paranoid about their privacy isn't anywhere near a majority, but it's not one in a million either, especially among nerds. Especially after it turns out that anything a corporation knows about you, it might accidentally make public (see, the recent ESRB email screwup), or intentionally make public (see, AOL and the users' complete collection of search strings), or a disgruntled employee might sell to spammers (see, that AOL admin, or the idiot rent-a-coder who posted a zip of a child database when asking for help with formatting the addresses.) I very much doubt that any publisher really cares about real names more than about getting their money, and would cheerfully lose a few millions in income just to... make people even more paranoid.

I'm sorry, but if you think that that's one rule _any_ publisher ever enforced just because they put it in the TOS, I want a pair of those rose tinted glasses too ;)
Are you actually familiar with what Blizzard has been well known to ban people over? Are you familiar with their ToU? How about the reasons behind asking for real information, or enforcing the providing of such?

Blizzard has, and does, enforce the "real personal information" section of their ToU. They have, and continue to, suspend/ban accounts of people who they discover are providing incorrect information. There are several reasons why they do. 1) maintaining the enforcement precedent of their contract. 2) battling things like account selling/trading/gifting/sharing (which decrease the overall value of their product) 3) battling gold sellers/power levelers 4) battling account hackings/hijackings.

Those things have a very real effect on the value of their games, and their company, which is WHY they're in the ToU.

"just because they put them in their ToS"? Seriously? You think companies put all those clauses into contracts for the fun of it? You don't put anything into a contract unless you are fully prepared to enforce that clause. Period.

I have no idea what your ETA is about... It certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I'm talking about, at any rate.
 
It has to do with what started as some kind of weird objection that somehow it's any consolation or protection (or you tell me what) that someone who'd want to bypass Blizzard's proposed scheme could jolly well just give a false name but it would violate the TOS.

I'm not even sure how you think they'd enforce it, until you actually call about a hacked account, since I've never even heard of anyone being investigated about their RL name. And they certainly don't seem to bother so far about mom playing for the last couple of year on an account in my name.

So, really? They enforce it? How? Who got discovered by some Blizzard investigation so far?

As for companies putting stuff in their EULA and TOS even when it's not enforced or even unenforceable, congrats, welcome to the real world. There are clauses in EULAs over here that not only are setting a precedent for being unenforceable, but have been declared so in court, and they're still there. As far as anyone can tell, the answer is more along the lines of, "they hope at least some people would be gullible enough to believe it." :p
 
It has to do with what started as some kind of weird objection that somehow it's any consolation or protection (or you tell me what) that someone who'd want to bypass Blizzard's proposed scheme could jolly well just give a false name but it would violate the TOS.

I'm not even sure how you think they'd enforce it, until you actually call about a hacked account, since I've never even heard of anyone being investigated about their RL name. And they certainly don't seem to bother so far about mom playing for the last couple of year on an account in my name.

So, really? They enforce it? How? Who got discovered by some Blizzard investigation so far?

As for companies putting stuff in their EULA and TOS even when it's not enforced or even unenforceable, congrats, welcome to the real world. There are clauses in EULAs over here that not only are setting a precedent for being unenforceable, but have been declared so in court, and they're still there. As far as anyone can tell, the answer is more along the lines of, "they hope at least some people would be gullible enough to believe it." :p
So... You don't think it's being enforced at all because you've managed to get away with breaking that particular rule, and don't know anyone else who's gotten in trouble over it, and you can't think of any way that it could be enforced? Argument from incredulity much?

There have been quite a number of issues surrounding "false names" on WoW accounts. Some were discovered due to account hacks. Others were reported by other players. Others were discovered when the account in question was reported for other behavior issues. Some were discovered when someone had a billing issue.

You really should familiarize yourself with the legally binding contract that you agree to every time you patched the game. And your mother really shouldn't be accepting a legally binding contract for an account in the name of someone other than herself. You might also want to familiarize yourself (via the WoW customer service forums) with what sort of repercussions there are for breaking that contract (which you are).
 
Let me paraphrase that right back at you: so, you don't believe in dowsing just because you personally didn't see it happen? :p

I think we've already established that it's perfectly ok to not believe something in the utter absence of any proof that it happens. If being on several servers and in several guilds I never even heard of someone asked by a GM out of nowhere to confirm that their RL name was, say, John Smith, I think it's safe enough to take the skeptical approach that it didn't happen.

Plus, I think that just as the lack of "Psychic Wins Jackpot" headlines is taken as tentative confirmation of the lack of psychic power, lack of "Blizzard Banned My Accound Because Mom Was Playing On It" (or girlfriend, legally retarded cousin who can't sign a contract for himself, etc) debackles kinda works the same way. There have been even people claiming they've been banned for using a certain kind of keyboard (as opposed to the real reason: macroing unattended) or for being disabled. If Blizzard actually were routinely swinging the ban bat and taken people to court over something like that, I'd expect enough people to jump all over it, because it's something that would make Blizzard sound positively like a, you know:

picture.php


As for the other objections:

Some were discovered due to account hacks.

In fact this is the only way to get discovered, and which offers Blizzard a good excuse to lock you out without sounding like the picture above. Most of the hacks boiled down to keyloggers, though, so it's not as if it's a threat that hits everyone randomly. Run an anti-virus, activate data execution protection for _everything_ in Windows, and don't install anything off dodgy sites or emails, though, and you're basically as safe as houses.

Others were reported by other players.

Do you actually see a good reason for someone running around telling people "I'm called Jane Doe but opened this account under the name Jack Deer"? I mean, I'm perfectly aware that people routinely do tell friends their RL names and stuff, because, well, we're social animals. But telling them also what data one entered in an arbitrary form they'll never see anyway, especially when it boils down to a confession of breaking the TOS, seems to me like a case of simply too much data. And too little brain.

Others were discovered when the account in question was reported for other behavior issues.

I fail to see why Blizzard would need that information to ban someone for acting like a disruptive a-hole, or why they'd want to turn it from a clear cut case of banning disruptive behaviour into something that would make headlines as "Blizzard Bans Account Because Player's Mother Was Playing On It".

But you are getting close to a real issue, and why that clause is _actually_ there. Just so people wouldn't have the excuse "but there was someone else at the keyboard acting like a jerk while I was on the toilet for 6 hours." It's been a hare-brained excuse ever since MUD times, which is to say, for over 2 decades. Various clauses to the effect of (A) "you are responsible anyway", and (B) "that's a violation in itself, you berk", are there mostly because of that, rather than because someone genuinely plans to get into players' real lives and check that data.

Some were discovered when someone had a billing issue.

... which are pretty much guaranteed not to happen if you use a prepaid card. There is no bank to bounce those, nor an account that could be/get too far in the negatives.

You really should familiarize yourself with the legally binding contract that you agree to every time you patched the game. And your mother really shouldn't be accepting a legally binding contract for an account in the name of someone other than herself. You might also want to familiarize yourself (via the WoW customer service forums) with what sort of repercussions there are for breaking that contract (which you are).

She didn't create the account in my name, I did. I'm letting her play on it. And if Blizzard actually does want to make headline the guys who were that invasive as to ban an account for letting a family member play on it or for even investigating the private data of customers, I'd be most happy to help them sound like the picture above.

But at any rate, all I wrote above is really just fluff. The actual important part is: just like Bigfoot and dowsing, I'll believe that Blizzard actually investigates that kind of stuff when I see some evidence. And in fact, I'm genuinely interested to see such evidence, because I bet I wouldn't be the only one to cancel the account if it turns out they _are_ that invasive of everyone's privacy.
 
Last edited:
... I'll believe that Blizzard actually investigates that kind of stuff when I see some evidence.

The WoW customer service forum gets a fair amount of traffic from people whose accounts have been actioned. The back and forth between them and Blizzard is often quite informative.
 
Let me paraphrase that right back at you: so, you don't believe in dowsing just because you personally didn't see it happen? :p
That particular statement is just as flawed. I would never say I didn't believe something was possible simply because I haven't personally experienced it. Instead, I base my judgements about what's "true" and what's "false" on actual evidence.

I think we've already established that it's perfectly ok to not believe something in the utter absence of any proof that it happens. If being on several servers and in several guilds I never even heard of someone asked by a GM out of nowhere to confirm that their RL name was, say, John Smith, I think it's safe enough to take the skeptical approach that it didn't happen.
Flawed premise, and a strawman to boot. I never said that a GM asks someone out of nowhere to confirm their RL name. There's an entire process that Blizzard uses to confirm RL info, and it's fairly involved, consisting of things like faxing or mailing in notarized copies of identification. But you know, hey, you're incredulous, so it doesn't happen, right?

Plus, I think that just as the lack of "Psychic Wins Jackpot" headlines is taken as tentative confirmation of the lack of psychic power, lack of "Blizzard Banned My Accound Because Mom Was Playing On It" (or girlfriend, legally retarded cousin who can't sign a contract for himself, etc) debackles kinda works the same way. There have been even people claiming they've been banned for using a certain kind of keyboard (as opposed to the real reason: macroing unattended) or for being disabled. If Blizzard actually were routinely swinging the ban bat and taken people to court over something like that, I'd expect enough people to jump all over it, because it's something that would make Blizzard sound positively like a, you know:
So... More argument from incredulity. More strawman too. I never said Blizzard was taking people to court. And yes, people have been banned for sharing their accounts, even with family. And then there's the flawed premise that if Blizzard were banning people, then people would be jumping all over it. You're assuming something that is not in evidence.

As for the other objections:

In fact this is the only way to get discovered, and which offers Blizzard a good excuse to lock you out without sounding like the picture above. Most of the hacks boiled down to keyloggers, though, so it's not as if it's a threat that hits everyone randomly. Run an anti-virus, activate data execution protection for _everything_ in Windows, and don't install anything off dodgy sites or emails, though, and you're basically as safe as houses.
It is not the only way to get discovered. Sorry.

Do you actually see a good reason for someone running around telling people "I'm called Jane Doe but opened this account under the name Jack Deer"? I mean, I'm perfectly aware that people routinely do tell friends their RL names and stuff, because, well, we're social animals. But telling them also what data one entered in an arbitrary form they'll never see anyway, especially when it boils down to a confession of breaking the TOS, seems to me like a case of simply too much data. And too little brain.
More flawed assumptions. That's not the only way it happens.

I fail to see why Blizzard would need that information to ban someone for acting like a disruptive a-hole, or why they'd want to turn it from a clear cut case of banning disruptive behaviour into something that would make headlines as "Blizzard Bans Account Because Player's Mother Was Playing On It".
Account sharing IS a disruptive behavior. It's also against the rules. Blizzard DOES ban people for account sharing. Please, go visit the WoW customer service forums and ask a GM yourself if you don't believe me.

But you are getting close to a real issue, and why that clause is _actually_ there. Just so people wouldn't have the excuse "but there was someone else at the keyboard acting like a jerk while I was on the toilet for 6 hours." It's been a hare-brained excuse ever since MUD times, which is to say, for over 2 decades. Various clauses to the effect of (A) "you are responsible anyway", and (B) "that's a violation in itself, you berk", are there mostly because of that, rather than because someone genuinely plans to get into players' real lives and check that data.



... which are pretty much guaranteed not to happen if you use a prepaid card. There is no bank to bounce those, nor an account that could be/get too far in the negatives.



She didn't create the account in my name, I did. I'm letting her play on it. And if Blizzard actually does want to make headline the guys who were that invasive as to ban an account for letting a family member play on it or for even investigating the private data of customers, I'd be most happy to help them sound like the picture above.

But at any rate, all I wrote above is really just fluff. The actual important part is: just like Bigfoot and dowsing, I'll believe that Blizzard actually investigates that kind of stuff when I see some evidence. And in fact, I'm genuinely interested to see such evidence, because I bet I wouldn't be the only one to cancel the account if it turns out they _are_ that invasive of everyone's privacy.

You know... Screw this. Your entire argument is based upon nothing other than "i didn't see it, so it doesn't happen" and a bunch of other really stupidly flawed premises. Go learn some logic, read some WoW customer service forum threads, talk to some Blizzard employees, and then get back to us.
 
SkeptiChick, I would normally let this slide since it doesn't really matter all that much, but since you presume to tell me to go learn logic: that's not how the burden of proof works.

The bottom line is that if you want to make a positive claim, i.e., that something _does_ happen, _you_ get to support it. Calling it an argument from incredulity if I don't immediately believe everything you say, is... silly.

Being incredulous until the claim is adequately supported is exactly what I'm supposed to do. That's what "skeptic" actually means, since I see you have that in your name.

Now I've tried to meet you half way and say exactly what I find wrong with that claim and why, because it's a conversation, and because I think it's only basic courtesy to indicate exactly which part could use more support and in what way I'm not convinced. You know, helping by painting the targets large and clear for you and generally not making that burden any worse than it needs to be. But I'm sorry if it gave anyone the impression that it means I'm accepting the burden to prove a negative, I'm not.

Now if you can't be bothered to properly support the claim -- e.g., as I was saying, because it's not that important -- that's fine by me too. It's not like you owe me anything, in the end. I mean, geesh, I'm even willing to accept a couple of good anecdotes (but they better be entertaining;)) or a real good handwaving. But telling me to go learn logic when it's you doing the bare assertions, is plain ol' silly.

Again: I'm not proving a negative. I don't have to. Not believing something for lack of evidence is actually a very legitimate thing to do. It's not an argument from incredulity, since I'm not proving anything with it. I don't have to. I'm not the one claiming something happens.

And actually I'm sure you actually knew that already, so I'm not entirely sure what this was about.
 
Last edited:
More moving goal posts, more strawmen, more flawed premises...

You refuse to spend even 5 minutes on the resource posted to you, fine. In a 3 minute search on the WoW customer service forums:

Using an account registered to someone else (i.e. not your own name) results in banning: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=2518021522&sid=1

If that's not good enough for you, here's one specifically about someone using a fake name: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=5286571404&postId=52353703346&sid=1#11

There are hundreds upon hundreds of examples to be found there. I'm not linking them all.
 
Nobody asked you to quote every single one of them. A claim to the effect "X exists" only needs one, which is one reason for not asking someone to prove the negative. Hence, you could have done that all along, as opposed to trying to redefine who should do the research to prove your claim.

And honestly, no matter how much you prove your misunderstanding basic logic one more time, doesn't make it true. The idea that you're right until I prove a negative or until I do the research in your stead is just as BS on this domain as it is for any other, religion and CTs included. I don't owe you that I should be doing the research for you any more than I owe it to PDoug or Kathy.

That said, the first link is a second hand story which is lacking details as to how did Blizzard get to find that out. Exactly what did that little cousin do? For all we know he could have been flaming someone on the trade channel or really whatever. It's also a bit irrelevant, since it's about account sharing as opposed to what we were talking about: false contact info.

The second one, ok, does make a point. I'll have to add "being retarded" to the list of ways one can be discovered by Blizzard. Calling Blizzard to have a character transferred from an account not in her name, so she can power-level it, is almost worthy of being in The Onion. If someone actually wanted to give a support worker all the signs that an account may have been hacked, that would be one of the best ways to do so.

Both still don't convince me that there is any active danger as long as one isn't completely retarded or actually allowing someone they can't control on that account. I don't know what kind of protection you were hoping for when you came up with that "but it's against the TOS" objection, but it seems to me like if someone wanted to make an account for trolling under a false name, it still wouldn't be in that much of a danger.

Well, ok, except if they're completely retarded _and_ lack the $4 to make another trolling account. Ok, ok, weeding those out still sounds like something, you win ;)

ETA: Still, fair is fair. If by "if Blizz figures out you lied, your account gets cancelled" you meant "if you're retarded enough to call Blizz and tell them you're breaking the TOS", then yes, you've now made the case more than adequately that one can get their account locked that way. Still doesn't sound like much of a reason not to, but nevertheless, turns out that technically they can use that to lock an account.
 
Last edited:
I would have, even, if it hadn't been for the part where I got told to go learned some logic, and accused of a fine assortment of fallacies, as well as told off for not doing the research for someone else's claim. Even in that last message I was answering to. Sorry, that part is not "fair enough." The links are indeed, though.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom