D3 Go! CS Failures & Selective Alliance Harassment (Take 2)

morph3us

Terms of Service:

https://d3go.com/legals

User Content. The Game may invite or enable you and other users to create, submit, post display, transmit, perform, publish or distribute communications, content and materials by e-mail or through online forums, message boards, social media platforms, messaging services, blogs or other functionality of the Game or portions thereof. D3PA has no obligation to accept, display, review, maintain or otherwise exploit any user content. By posting user content to the Game, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, including under copyright, to do so, and that such content is not illegal, defamatory or pornographic. You agree that user content is not confidential. You further agree that user content will not be returned to you. You hereby grant to D3PA a worldwide irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense), to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast and otherwise exploit for any purpose user content via the Game or by any other means.

Presumably those are the relevant terms.

Linkster79

Defamatory could be rather subjective and can be taken out of context. Let's for example use the word Hoe. Being a simple country bumpkin to me it is a tool for tilling the land and getting it ready for seeding. I am sure that those who live in a more urban area the first thing they think of when hearing that word is of a more defamatory nature. Obviously there are rules to the exception.

Rather amusingly in my mind I did see this though

D3Publisher likes to hear from you. However, please bear in mind that D3Publisher does not accept or consider any unsolicited creative ideas or suggestions. Therefore, please do not make any such submissions, including, but not limited to, ideas, notes, drawings, scripts, story ideas, films, concepts or other information, to D3Publisher through the Site or otherwise. D3Publisher will not review any such submissions.

Seems they really don't want us telling them what we would like to see appear in game.

To the person who posted something about cucumbers, try to feel sorry for those who live in a northern English town called Scunthorpe.

Peej13

morph3us wrote:

Terms of Service:

https://d3go.com/legals

User Content. The Game may invite or enable you and other users to create, submit, post display, transmit, perform, publish or distribute communications, content and materials by e-mail or through online forums, message boards, social media platforms, messaging services, blogs or other functionality of the Game or portions thereof. D3PA has no obligation to accept, display, review, maintain or otherwise exploit any user content. By posting user content to the Game, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, including under copyright, to do so, and that such content is not illegal, defamatory or pornographic. You agree that user content is not confidential. You further agree that user content will not be returned to you. You hereby grant to D3PA a worldwide irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense), to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast and otherwise exploit for any purpose user content via the Game or by any other means.

Presumably those are the relevant terms.

Thanks, morph3us.

This is interesting:

Minor Users.  D3PA relies upon parents and guardians to determine if the Game is appropriate for the viewing, access or purchase by persons under the age of 18.  We do not intend the Game to be viewed or used by children under the age of 13. By using the Game, you represent and warrant that you are age 13 or older.  You agree to monitor use of your account by persons between the ages of 13 and 18, including responsibility for any use of your credit card or other payment instrument.

The F-word is allowed in PG-13 movies, as well as on broadcast television in countries other than the U.S. Since you have to be over 13 to play the game, that shouldn't be an issue.

By posting user content to the Game, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, including under copyright, to do so, and that such content is not illegal, defamatory or pornographic.

The legal definition of Defamation: "the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation." The f-word doesn't ruin anyone's reputation.
It's not illegal to say the f-word.
The f-word is certainly not pornographic: The representation in books, magazines, photographs, films, and other media of scenes of sexual behavior that are erotic or lewd and are designed to arouse sexual interest.


When all is said and done, they have the right to change whatever they want because they are the owners, and we are simply licensees, but this just furthers the inconsistent nature with which they decide to run this business of theirs. Also, it appears their attorney (or whoever wrote the T.O.S.) has not heard of an unconscionable adhesion contract, or any of the cases after AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.

Wolarsen

just some thoughts:

* I have not read game's rules of behaviour, but as far as I know most games have behaviour policy (most quite nebulose), and give themselves full powers to act against any user they think have bypassed it. Freedom of speech is surely a complicated issue, but by entering a game like this you enter someone's house, and put yourself in the hands of the owner; if you are not 100% agreeing with this, you should not enter or stay.

* I find weird that player or alliance name is so important in a superhero tile matching game. Do you really have to use edgy names to be confortable? (Even if you are a healthy group of medical people that provides therapy and all play this game, har har). Referred to aggressive or shady gaeplay, I play outside my alliance's shard because of ending times, so I play as fast as I can between hops, and I do not check names at all; of course, sometimes i get attention to some names and I do laugh at some creative ones; but if a see, for example, a name about engaging someone's mother, I make sure to report.

* I engage enough cursing along the day, and would prefer to not find more when I am playing at home; I also guess that some young kid may play the game, and that their parents would also rather not bumping into "profanity".

* The point I fully agree with you is feeling treated differently to other existing names. I can't know how much that is related to the amount of $$$ spent, i just hope everyone would be addressed the same way.

jobob

Peej13 wrote:

You make good points, are very rational about your explanation, and you only delve into the third grade once, by saying Mr. Narcisco is whining.

Shows what you know, I had to delve into 3rd grade a second time because the first time didn't take. I carn't reed or rite so good.

I have to disagree on two points:

1. Perhaps the alliance actually is a group of therapists. There was nothing to say they attempted to use the name ("TheRapists"), with the R capitalized. Thus, your argument that a word in the English language - a profession, in fact - is "much less clever," "much more obvious," and showing a lack of contrition, fails. Sure, subjectively, that looks bad, but without an opportunity to explain, d3 might be seen as stifiling free expression.

Look, I'm very sympathetic to Constitutionalists and Libertarians, and if you want to discuss free expression with regards to a protest or art or internet blogs... I am completely on your side on this. And you are right, there's no way to prove it was anything but sincere. I think if you are playing the odds, the chances that this alliance is a group of therapists who are so proud of their profession as to use it to name their alliance- But only AFTER going with the AQUU double entendre attempt to circumvent the naming policy- is far too small to take seriously. This isn't a courtroom (although, the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" almost applies here), so I'm willing to give circumstantial evidence and D3 a pass here.

2. I think the real concern is the lack of notice. D3 says that "offensive" names are a violation of the terms of service, but said terms are nowhere to be found. If you can help me find those, I'd really like to take a look.

Is that the real concern, though? If there was language that said "vulgar/offensive content is prohibited, including phonetic or l33tsp34k spellings," would you be any less frustrated? And, frankly, their statement that "D3PA has no obligation to accept, display, review, maintain or otherwise exploit any user content" pretty much means that you signed on to their catch-all policy of "we can change any alliance name, at any time."

Selective enforcement is afoot, just like the selective "one time only exceptions" given to some, but not all, people who call d3 on its inconsistencies. It is correct that pointing out that other people are speeding will not get you out of a speeding ticket, but showing that you were pulled over for a discriminatory purpose (enforced against one person, not all, in an arbitrary or capricious way) just may. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this in any way is like discriminatory traffic stops, but the way customer service tends to handle things is, at the very least, unfair at times.

Call me a whiner, or whatever, but when everyone is not being held to the same standard, or allowed to play on a level playing field, the folks in charge are not doing things right. At some level, even those of you who think this is a silly discussion have to be able to see the bigger picture, and realize that there is a point to be made here.

You are speaking the truth about selective treatment. I know it feels unfair at times, and I don't disagree... but let's step back and look at it another way. The speeding analogy isn't a good one, because all people are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and "whaling" an officer is I think called "bribery," which is a crime in and of itself.

But D3 isn't a government law enforcement agency. They are a company, established ultimately to accrue and maintain a customer base. Perhaps they do treat the biggest spenders with a slightly more benevolent touch... but then again, what companies don't? Vegas hotels aren't comping the guy at the nickel slots very often. If you have had a million dollars sitting in a bank for a decade, would you not expect to receive a little better treatment than a guy who has an overdrawn checking account? I am in sales, so I have an entertainment budget and credit card account. A customer who has shown he's not going to buy much or isn't particularly friendly... I'll buy him a cheeseburger. A VP who has helped me with millions of dollars worth of sales... I'm taking deep sea fishing. I don't want to get into a right vs wrong argument, so I'll just say that it is how the business world tends to work.

Peej13

jobob wrote:

You are speaking the truth about selective treatment. I know it feels unfair at times, and I don't disagree... but let's step back and look at it another way. The speeding analogy isn't a good one, because all people are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and "whaling" an officer is I think called "bribery," which is a crime in and of itself.

But D3 isn't a government law enforcement agency. They are a company, established ultimately to accrue and maintain a customer base. Perhaps they do treat the biggest spenders with a slightly more benevolent touch... but then again, what companies don't? Vegas hotels aren't comping the guy at the nickel slots very often. If you have had a million dollars sitting in a bank for a decade, would you not expect to receive a little better treatment than a guy who has an overdrawn checking account? I am in sales, so I have an entertainment budget and credit card account. A customer who has shown he's not going to buy much or isn't particularly friendly... I'll buy him a cheeseburger. A VP who has helped me with millions of dollars worth of sales... I'm taking deep sea fishing. I don't want to get into a right vs wrong argument, so I'll just say that it is how the business world tends to work.

You are correct about the analogy. I was trying to take something already used, and make it better. You're also correct about d3 not being a government entity. They are not, so the equal protection clause does not apply to them. In fact, let's entirely throw out any constitutional argument because you know as well as I do that the Constitution doesn't apply to private actors (except for a few things which are irrelevant here).

I understand business. I understand what's right and what's wrong (or at least I tell myself as much, and my mom agrees with me). That said, your Vegas analogy is also bad. I'm not just saying that to be petty. My feelings aren't hurt. I liked your whaling joke. The reason it's a bad analogy is you don't see commercials that say "Come to Vegas - everyone is treated the same." The house always wins, but the house doesn't make representations. In some respects, this game is very much like gambling at a casino. However, Vegas casinos (and businessfolk) simply imply the possibility of you being able to win it big. Everyone knows businesspeople and casinos are out to make a profit. The thing is: they don't tell us they are not going to favor some big spenders over not-so-big spenders. For those following along, you may be raising your hand - "but, Peej, d3 hasn't said it favors big spenders; in fact, it says everyone is treated the same." And, THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the issue. D3 says everything is random. It says people are treated the same, regardless of who they are or how much they have spent, but it sure as heck doesn't act consistently.

This means that our segue into constitutional law was just a pleasant vacation. It's material misrepresentation that I'm worried about. The real f-word that I object to isn't contained in a witting pun, or some cleverly crafted phonetic spelling. That word is fraud.

morph3us

Peej13 wrote:

Minor Users.  D3PA relies upon parents and guardians to determine if the Game is appropriate for the viewing, access or purchase by persons under the age of 18.  We do not intend the Game to be viewed or used by children under the age of 13. By using the Game, you represent and warrant that you are age 13 or older.  You agree to monitor use of your account by persons between the ages of 13 and 18, including responsibility for any use of your credit card or other payment instrument.

The F-word is allowed in PG-13 movies, as well as on broadcast television in countries other than the U.S. Since you have to be over 13 to play the game, that shouldn't be an issue.

Did a little bit of digging into this. The MPAA doesn't actually publish the specific criteria by which it defines PG-13. However, from the Wikipedia page on MPAA Movie Ratings:

Profanity may be present in PG rated films, and use of one of the harsher sexually-derived expletives will initially incur at least a PG-13 rating. Multiple occurrences will usually incur an R rating as will the usage of such an expletive in a sexual context. Nevertheless, the ratings board may still award a PG-13 rating passed by a two-thirds majority if they believe the language is justified by the context or by the manner in which the words are used.

I would expect, if we were to use this criteria, that you might just slip this past a PG-13 review board, although if you were to see such an alliance name frequently, that might fall into the "multiple occurrences" category. In the context of a Match 3 puzzle game, I would also suspect that the alliance name would not be seen as being in context for that game. In addition, the precedent set by the renaming of the Ph--gedditaboutit and 5DeadlyPh---s alliances, plus the renaming of Kick Azz to KA (which is far less offensive) justifies the renaming conventions here.

All that aside, I think using the MPAA ratings is not correct here, since we're dealing with a mobile app. So in this instance, we need to look at the iTunes and Google Play criteria. For an iTunes rated 12+ game, the following criteria applies:

12+ Applications in this category may also contain infrequent mild language, frequent or intense cartoon, fantasy or realistic violence, and mild or infrequent mature or suggestive themes, and simulated gambling which may not be suitable for children under the age of 12.

For a Google Play game in the Teen category (13+):

Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.

I would guess that in order to maintain an accessible iTunes store rating, the developers need to filter out "strong" offensive language, overt or covert.

jobob

Peej13 wrote:

I understand business. I understand what's right and what's wrong (or at least I tell myself as much, and my mom agrees with me).

Yeah, well your mom agreed with ME last night. "Yes, jobob! Yes, yes, by Odin's beard yes." We were having a Skype discussion about D3's policies.

Everyone knows businesspeople and casinos are out to make a profit. The thing is: they don't tell us they are not going to favor some big spenders over not-so-big spenders. For those following along, you may be raising your hand - "but, Peej, d3 hasn't said it favors big spenders; in fact, it says everyone is treated the same." And, THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the issue. D3 says everything is random. It says people are treated the same, regardless of who they are or how much they have spent, but it sure as heck doesn't act consistently.

This means that our segue into constitutional law was just a pleasant vacation. It's material misrepresentation that I'm worried about. The real f-word that I object to isn't contained in a witting pun, or some cleverly crafted phonetic spelling. That word is fraud.

[/quote][/quote]
Fraud? That is the most hyperbolous statement in the history of language in this universe, be it written, spoken, or otherwise implied.

Speaking seriously, though, by your definition, I'd wager that 99% of businesses are guilty of fraud.

No business in the world says "Come do business with us, where you will be treated differently depending on which person you deal with and how much you spend!"
Also, no business in their right mind treats someone who is unhappy after a $1 purchase the same way they treat someone who is unhappy after a $10 million dollar purchase.

It's like I tell my customers: "You guys are like my children. I love you all. Sure, Daddy loves some of you more than others, but I won't ever tell you which ones."

Listen, I don't like being in the position of defending D3, because I'm certainly no fanboy here. But when you start throwing around fraud accusations, I feel the need to offer a different perspective.

Peej13

jobob wrote:

Peej13 wrote:

I understand business. I understand what's right and what's wrong (or at least I tell myself as much, and my mom agrees with me).

Yeah, well your mom agreed with ME last night. "Yes, jobob! Yes, yes, by Odin's beard yes." We were having a Skype discussion about D3's policies.

Did you think I would miss this because it was inside of a quote? That just might count as defamation.

As for this:

Fraud? That is the most hyperbolous statement in the history of language in this universe, be it written, spoken, or otherwise implied.

[/quote][/quote]

Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud


And I think you're looking for "hyperbolic."

jobob

Peej13 wrote:

And I think you're looking for "hyperbolic."

Eh, it was a throwaway joke anyway.

Fraud

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Okay... that's the definition. So what's your point? That 99% of companies out there (especially the good ones) are guilty of fraud?

Stax the Foyer

Look,

can't we all agree that no matter what we all wrote:

the real problem that we as a community face is how to properly format

[ /quotes]

Peej13

jobob wrote:

Peej13 wrote:

And I think you're looking for "hyperbolic."

Eh, it was a throwaway joke anyway.

Fraud

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Okay... that's the definition. So what's your point? That 99% of companies out there (especially the good ones) are guilty of fraud?

Not if they aren't trying to get their customers to spend money based on misrepresentations.

David [Hi-Fi] Moore

Closing topic and moving to Feedback.

There are MANY false and misleading statements in this topic based purely on speculation.

Facts: We reserve the right to change player or Alliance names deemed offensive.

Players and Alliances affected by name changes are given the opportunity to submit suggestions for a name they would prefer in place of the offensive name. Support is willing to work with players. Additional offensive suggestions will not be accepted.

How much a player has spent is irrelevant.

Support staff were not, and never are, "rude" when dealing with players. All tickets are dealt with in a friendly, businesslike manner.

Thanks.