I'm going to make a final statement and leave it at that because I'm going out to lunch. You can not ban people for this as you can not prove intent no matter what they say or do. It is that simple. You have scenario a and b.
Scenario A) Releasing footage to create upset. How do you prove this intent? How do you 100% definitively prove that a player had intent to upset others?
Scenario B) Releasing footage to gain notoriety. How do you define the intent to gain notoriety?
EVERYTHING that was said within this post has absolutely NO legal standing within a court of law and has arbitrary and vague definitions. This isn't just in this post either. It can be seen in the EULA as shown below:
"When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation."
This is left incredibly vague so that they can ban people for whatever reason they feel because they can interpret it any way they feel and would be entirely void in a court of law. They have protected their asses by creating a roundabout way of saying they can define harassment however they like but in the end it has no definitive meaning and is entirely meaningless in a legal context. If Frontier keeps pushing the boundaries they'll find that their moral ambiguity, while beneficial against a single player, will be their own downfall in a legal manifestation.
Scenario A) Same way you prove clearly defaming videos and pictures in any other situation?
Scenario B) You do not place a video for everyone to view without wanting everyone to view it, if you make a public video, you want the public to see it..if you wanted it only to be shown to a select amount of people there are plenty of options for that...
And I don't see how the EULA/TOS is vague, at least not in my book, it seems to be something I often hear stated by people that generally go. "Common sense is not common." which I suppose is a culture and upbringing thing, kinda like, don't punch beehives if you don't want to get stung? That is an example of common sense.
However if someone is not used to there being consequences to any of their actions, then yes, common sense can be a difficult thing to see, since such people wouldn't be used to there being consequences, and as such ground for common sense to grow.
However, what you think about frontier's EULA/TOS absolutely and utterly does not matter, if you ever ended up in court, and they said, "We clearly stated it here that that such and such is not allowed" which includes harassment, and if you then begin to argue the definition of harassment, yeah, that's not going to work, at best you will lose the case, at worst you will be hit with contempt of court and similar, which makes the situation much worse for you.
And no, they haven't made anything roundabout, their EULA/TOS is perfectly clear, at least to me and a lot of people I know.
You may not want to admit it, but you seem to be struggling to avoid even looking at the fact that you might be wrong, dismissing what others say because they clearly aren't right, you are? And while I know it is taboo for some to be wrong, there is absolutely and utterly no reason for it to be that, everyone makes mistakes, everyone is wrong at some point, admit it, move on. Create a big issue from it and you are just digging yourself down deeper and deeper.
