Quoting braben
We also have the concept of a shadow ban. A shadow ban will allow an player to continue playing Elite: Dangerous but will put them on a separate server that won’t affect any of our honest players; or the galaxy simulation. A player can be shadow banned for a day, a week or permanently depending on severity of the action and if the player repeatedly performs prohibited actions.
There is also the option for a permanent ban, this would only usually apply to account trading, severe harassment or abusive players.
Asking for you knowledge or opinion on a subject isn't invalid when we've read the same material and came to different conclusion.
I didn't put the onus soley on you, but the group of dissenters that have the gentleman who inferred he had a legal back ground.
I've been pretty open about my ideas and been wrong a few times. What I was curious about is the shadowban and now the perma ban they plan to execute. Y'all have been giving point that my knowledge is invalid, but not really presented some positive knowledge related to the subject you feel you understandig is superior of.
The key word there is "Conclusion" - you have come to one, the rest of us have not.
The part you are adamant on ignoring, is the EULA may be written in black and white - but it is not black and white. It has more plot holes than 50 shades of grey and about 20 more shades of grey to it.
As for what part of the EULA FD are going to use as the excuse for placing someone into shadowban, I have no idea - I know what I would use if I were in their situation (3c + 4.4) - but I cannot speak for them.
If someone were to try and get a permanent shadowban overturned, depending on why they were put there in the first place (and that is the key issue) you can argue a specific offence and the consequential break of the EULA has not been committed.
Say blocking P2P connections was the excuse, there is not a single line that states that you "must leave uPnP and P2P connections available" - it only says it is an "Online" game, well I can be "Online" without any other ED player ever seeing me in Open, so technically I've fulfilled the onus to be "Online" - therefore blocking P2P is not a breach of the EULA (in the current form).
Also, in the British legal system, Mens Rea cannot be proven or disproven either way in a lot of cases - I and I alone know my intent when I go into my firewall settings, if I were to block a hacker but the settings had the side effect of blocking P2P from coming in - I have done nothing wrong and any sort of ban cannot be upheld, as it was not my intent to be dishonest.
There are tons of ways to argue for and against enforcement of an EULA (why I said it was pointless), FD know this. So while in your opinion blocking P2P is an exploit, FD know full and well to enforce that opinion should they share it will be a nightmare and a lot of bad press as well.
This is also why, apart from some promotional things (Race to Elite and the recent nVidia card giveaway) - normal game content will be offered in all modes, as people are only going to bypass restrictions anyway.
- - - Updated - - -
....
Can someone you don't see interfere any more than another open player in another instance? or mode?, I don't think so. "or any Online Feature", the game is 100% online, solo, groups & open are all online, unless solo & groups are also considered interfering with someone in open in the EULA then it doesn't make sense to me in your context.
Eta in your context.
The worst part is, I know what he/she is getting at - this is just a new angle on an old argument in this very thread.
Must admit though, I'm enjoying the distraction and new ways of phrasing the old points
