| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Hedek
Head Merchant
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 50
Location: France |
Seriously you guys you don't understand ! The 13yo boy commited suicide but he thought he was going to respawn as a ghost in his kitchen and all he would need to do is walk back to his computer "Revive" himself...
Sorry under normal circumstances I would feel this is a tragedy but because the parents are sueing Blizzard this story lost its sadness/seriousness in my eyes. Now it's just pathetic.
What next ? Parents sueing Nirvana because a girl got raped after listening to "Rape me" ?
_________________
Retired Editor @ RPGDot
Ex Guru @ HK's Torment (dead Planescape Torment fansite) |
Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:59 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I just say that wow now has parental controls limiting the number of hours you can set for the game to be accessible.
I wonder if this will lead to different pay models. Like if you only wanted your kid to play for 2 hours a week, would you get a reduced price subscription?
Paremts would probably rather see that maybe? 8 hours a month accesabl;e for $5? 20 hours for $10? Full accessable for $15?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:13 pm |
|
|
.Twinfalls
Guest
|
What in the bajeezus are you lot babbling about? Let me explain how a legal system works. In a democracy, a civil legal system allows citizens to have a cause of action voiced in the courts. So someone wants to sue Blizzard. SO WHAT? If there's a duty of care, causation, and a breach, then that's for the court to find. Nothing's been decided yet, the mother has simply exercised her right as a citizen. We do not know the full facts of the matter.
Someone simply takes a court action and you lot are all "OH NOEZ TEH SKY FALLING DOWN!"
And in the does this have to do with not being allowed to smack your child or make a 'racist' comment? If you live in a stupid state with stupid racial villification laws (Which I oppose) or even worse, religious villification laws (which are truly undemocratic and idiotic), then that's your stupid State's fault, not this mother of a dead child in China for godssakes.
Besides, there's always the internet for you to mouth off - where you can still call a Mulatto Wop-Monkey a Mulatto Wop-Monkey, for example.  |
|
Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:27 am |
|
|
Hedek
Head Merchant
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 50
Location: France |
Well Twinfalls, you're probably right for the country you live in. Let me inform you though that it differs from one country to another and in certain country, when someone wants to take a case to the court there's a preliminary debate whether the request is acceptable before it's even debated whether the plaintiff is right or not.
In that case, the request of the plaintiff has been considered acceptable which is in itself what I consider ridiculous : the possibility that a "legally released and authorized game which usage is bound by a 'Terms of conduct' (which in essence are contracts that reduce or exclude the responsability of the service provider) may be the cause of what happened" be even discussed.
_________________
Retired Editor @ RPGDot
Ex Guru @ HK's Torment (dead Planescape Torment fansite) |
|
Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:51 pm |
|
|
roqua1
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by .Twinfalls
What in the bajeezus are you lot babbling about? Let me explain how a legal system works. In a democracy, a civil legal system allows citizens to have a cause of action voiced in the courts. So someone wants to sue Blizzard. SO WHAT? If there's a duty of care, causation, and a breach, then that's for the court to find. Nothing's been decided yet, the mother has simply exercised her right as a citizen. We do not know the full facts of the matter.
Someone simply takes a court action and you lot are all "OH NOEZ TEH SKY FALLING DOWN!"
And in the does this have to do with not being allowed to smack your child or make a 'racist' comment? If you live in a stupid state with stupid racial villification laws (Which I oppose) or even worse, religious villification laws (which are truly undemocratic and idiotic), then that's your stupid State's fault, not this mother of a dead child in China for godssakes.
Besides, there's always the internet for you to mouth off - where you can still call a Mulatto Wop-Monkey a Mulatto Wop-Monkey, for example.
You're pretty sharp there Noble Savage. China's a democracy? Lets say it was, and an international lawsuit was brought agianst a NA company that contracted its game service out to a Chinese company, who provided a service to a Chinese kid, who paid a cyber cafe to play a game, who killed himself like a little pansy treehugging sissy, and whose mother saw dollar signs flash in front of her, and she brought suite, where would what you see contracts come into play? Since one of your criteria is a breach.
Contracts contain an offer and consideration. The two given facts of a contract. What did blizzard offer? Nothing. What was blizzard's consideration? Nothing. They made a contract with a service provider that provides the service through cyber cafe's.
So there is no contract, no democracy, and no brains in the head of the noble savage.
Now lets explore your other response to your retarded take on this comment, "constantly make racial comments to each other and others..."
You somehow read a lot into this off-hand comment I made on my friends attitudes and come up with, "or make a 'racist' comment? If you live in a stupid state with stupid racial villification laws (Which I oppose) or even worse, religious villification laws (which are truly undemocratic and idiotic), then that's your stupid State's fault, not this mother of a dead child in China for godssakes.
Besides, there's always the internet for you to mouth off - where you can still call a Mulatto Wop-Monkey a Mulatto Wop-Monkey, for example. "
Pure genius.
Now lets break down your comments further. "religious villification laws (which are truly undemocratic and idiotic)." If the people vote into law religious villification laws, wouldn't that be democratic?
You, sir, are one of today's great internet thinkers. Your logic is rock solid and cohesive. Your mind is like a razor. |
|
Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:13 am |
|
|
Twinfalls
Village Dweller
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 4
|
Yes. Yes it is.
Go away and learn about negligence, product liability and causation, I can't be bothered to teach the wilfully stupid. Nor am I here to argue the merits of this case. This action is not founded on contract law. There are causes of action outside contract. How do you think cigarette companies have been sued?
One can rant 'China is not a democracy therefore we don't want to actually learn something about how a legal system operates.' That'll make the Mulatto-Wop-Monkeys feel a whole lot better (Cape V's not big on basic education, is it? they sure make good hay-balers but)
China has courts. It has a legal system. And guess what? If you think the US of A is the high water-mark of countries posessing democratic institutions, then I can only smile grimly at your pitiful naivety.
Oh yes, and laws can be undemocratic - both in operation (eg if they unreasonably restrict free speech against power structures) and even in enactment (eg when set down by governments who are in power within systems which are not perfectly democratic - which would be most all nations on this planet).
But don't worry fellas, you'll all still be able to play on-line GTA and be 48 year-old pretend-ganstas, so there's still reason for you to live, even if this EVIL Chinese mother-of-a-dead-child has her WICKED way in getting a case before a court. |
|
Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:30 am |
|
|
Hedek
Head Merchant
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 50
Location: France |
quote:
Originally posted by Twinfalls
Yes. Yes it is.
Go away and learn about negligence, product liability and causation, I can't be bothered to teach the wilfully stupid. Nor am I here to argue the merits of this case. This action is not founded on contract law. There are causes of action outside contract. How do you think cigarette companies have been sued?
One can rant 'China is not a democracy therefore we don't want to actually learn something about how a legal system operates.' That'll make the Mulatto-Wop-Monkeys feel a whole lot better (Cape V's not big on basic education, is it? they sure make good hay-balers but)
China has courts. It has a legal system. And guess what? If you think the US of A is the high water-mark of countries posessing democratic institutions, then I can only smile grimly at your pitiful naivety.
Oh yes, and laws can be undemocratic - both in operation (eg if they unreasonably restrict free speech against power structures) and even in enactment (eg when set down by governments who are in power within systems which are not perfectly democratic - which would be most all nations on this planet).
But don't worry fellas, you'll all still be able to play on-line GTA and be 48 year-old pretend-ganstas, so there's still reason for you to live, even if this EVIL Chinese mother-of-a-dead-child has her WICKED way in getting a case before a court.
I totally agree with you there, I'm myself studying law (so my knowledge there is still quite limited yet) but not american law (I live in France). I was just pointing out the fact the case was considered "acceptable" by the court and therefore would lead to further examination and debate by that court means they are giving it credibility to start with, which I disagree with.
My point of law was that there are 2 types of countries when it comes to taking a case to Court :
- In certain countries all cases are acceptable and is worth debating and every case will have a judge to judge it.
- In other countries there's a preliminary study that "filters" the cases and decides whether the case will go to court or not. China is like that. And in that case the preliminary study decided the request is acceptable. This is what I point out as "ridiculous". It is *my* point of view and I do not expect everyone to agree with or follow it. I'm stating *my* point of view as a comment to this discussion in hope that other people will read it and question their own point of view and that people with different opinions than me will post as well so that I question my own point of view by reading things I haven't thought of before (because every brain works differently).
_________________
Retired Editor @ RPGDot
Ex Guru @ HK's Torment (dead Planescape Torment fansite) |
|
Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:57 pm |
|
|
Twinfalls
Village Dweller
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 4
|
That's a fair point of view, Hedek. My reply was to Roqua, not to your previous comment. |
|
Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:04 pm |
|
|
doctor_kaz
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 108
Location: West Virginia, USA |
I have been saying for a while now that the biggest threat to the video game industry comes not from lawmakers, but from the court system. China seems to be mirroring America in that the enemies of the industry, unable to accomplish anything meaningful through democratic means, resort to a court system which is often totally unaccountable to its people. You can accomplish in the courts what could never be accomplished with laws.
Any lawsuit costs a lot of money to defend. That's why if you get sued, you automatically lose, even when you win. That's why companies are such cowards when it comes to defending themselves. Many will just settle out of court, even if they are not guilty of any wrongdoing.
This has already happened in America. Sony got sued when some loser Everquest player committed suicide.
The story doesn't always have a happy ending. The Big Tobacco settlement proves that personal responsibility means nothing. Unfortunately, the mindset for a jury often is: big corporation has money = big corporation is responsible. |
|
Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:41 pm |
|
|
Ugly_Prayer
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 38
Location: Sinking Fast |
In reading some of the comments within this thread... I have discovered that suicides are a bunch of: "weak-pathetic-pansy-losers..." and each such death constitutes a win for - "Darwinism."
Thanks for the education. Silly me! I bow before your vast knowledge of the -life and -death of so many countless: INDIVIDUALS.
Easier to forget Individuality... it has a way of complicating things.
Btw... Darwinism sends you guys a big wink - and a hearty: Sieg Heil.
Sorry for the cheap shit... but I had three friends go by suicide. I can assure you that none of them were: WEAK-PATHETIC-PANSY-LOSERS!
Pissed mode: OFF/
_________________
What I am I am, and say not. Being is the great explainer.
-Thoreau |
|
Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:00 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Twinfalls
Yes. Yes it is.
Go away and learn about negligence, product liability and causation, I can't be bothered to teach the wilfully stupid. Nor am I here to argue the merits of this case. This action is not founded on contract law. There are causes of action outside contract. How do you think cigarette companies have been sued?
One can rant 'China is not a democracy therefore we don't want to actually learn something about how a legal system operates.' That'll make the Mulatto-Wop-Monkeys feel a whole lot better (Cape V's not big on basic education, is it? they sure make good hay-balers but)
China has courts. It has a legal system. And guess what? If you think the US of A is the high water-mark of countries posessing democratic institutions, then I can only smile grimly at your pitiful naivety.
Oh yes, and laws can be undemocratic - both in operation (eg if they unreasonably restrict free speech against power structures) and even in enactment (eg when set down by governments who are in power within systems which are not perfectly democratic - which would be most all nations on this planet).
But don't worry fellas, you'll all still be able to play on-line GTA and be 48 year-old pretend-ganstas, so there's still reason for you to live, even if this EVIL Chinese mother-of-a-dead-child has her WICKED way in getting a case before a court.
Yes, of course. Of course your original post showing your legal insights didn't contain the requirment "and a breach." I guess thats not a quote of yours. I guess being stupid makes history not happen or change. Or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about. What esle could blizzard have breached? The peace? Have you ever had a coherent thought?
Ungly_Prayer,
I appologize. Suicide is awesome dude!!! I love it. Your friends were like totally strong and full of grit, gumption, and intestinal fortitude. I can like totally see how suicide isn't being a total pansy and giving up on our easy lives and our easily improvable situations. I mean, they would like have to try or something. We have it infinitely harder than the cavemen. It really is all coming together. Your witty post full of wisdom has totally changed my perspective on the subject. I had a friend that commited suicide and I now respect his decision to be a pansy ass quiter. He wasn't weak at all.
Or maybe your friends were weak and pathetic pansies, unless their fuedal lord commanded them to commit sepiku to save their honor.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:28 am |
|
|
Hedek
Head Merchant
Joined: 06 Jul 2001
Posts: 50
Location: France |
quote:
Originally posted by Ugly_Prayer
In reading some of the comments within this thread... I have discovered that suicides are a bunch of: "weak-pathetic-pansy-losers..." and each such death constitutes a win for - "Darwinism."
Thanks for the education. Silly me! I bow before your vast knowledge of the -life and -death of so many countless: INDIVIDUALS.
Easier to forget Individuality... it has a way of complicating things.
Btw... Darwinism sends you guys a big wink - and a hearty: Sieg Heil.
Sorry for the cheap shit... but I had three friends go by suicide. I can assure you that none of them were: WEAK-PATHETIC-PANSY-LOSERS!
Pissed mode: OFF/
Are you referring to me ?
The fact that poor boy commited suicide is a true tragedy and a very sad thing, especially if the reason was indeed WoW.
What I consider "pathetic" is the fact his parents are blaming the mmorpg for that. Do people blame their car manufacturer every time they have a car accident ? Do people blame the movie maker when they watch a sad movie that makes em cry ?
I would like to warn the legal systems in the world to lead to a situation where creators would be responsible for any consequences the usage of their product would cause (past a few security and hygene basic rules of course). That would totally kill creatitivity and the only goods that would be available on the market for any age would be harm tested Playschool 3yo plastic toys...
As doctor_kaz said "Unfortunately, the mindset for a jury often is: big corporation has money = big corporation is responsible." Just because a company is successful or has money that that should be a reason to blame it for everything. This is jealousy or an attempt to avoid looking where the problem really is : how a human being comes to the point killing himself for a.... virtual game. The only explanation I can find to this is a deep misunderstanding or abilty to distinguish what's fictional from what's real, and such problems are usually part of larger psychological and educational problems.
_________________
Retired Editor @ RPGDot
Ex Guru @ HK's Torment (dead Planescape Torment fansite) |
|
Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:00 am |
|
|
Twinfalls
Village Dweller
Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 4
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Yes, of course. Of course your original post showing your legal insights didn't contain the requirment "and a breach." I guess thats not a quote of yours. I guess being stupid makes history not happen or change. Or maybe you have no idea what you are talking about. What esle could blizzard have breached? The peace? Have you ever had a coherent thought?
Breach of a duty of care. Which is what the law of negligence requires. Not a breach of any contractual term. There are laws other than contract which entail breaches. Go and read my posts again. Duty of care, breach of that duty, causation. It's not that hard.
Well Roqua, you've demonstrated how wilfully stupid you are to the rpgdot world. Care to go away and do some reading now, and actually learn something for a change? |
|
Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:53 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Okay,when I'm wrong I'll admit it. But you miss elements and use the wrong terms. The four elements of negligence are duty, breach of duty, actual and proximate cause, and injury to another. With the reasonable person standard applied.
So blizzard would have to owe some sort of legal obligation to the injured party, and then fail to meet it. Then that would have to result in a direct and foreseeable injury.
I can't paste it together. The silliest cases I could find can be pasted together, such as Covert v. South Florida Stadiums and McGee v. Aramark. Where stadium goers claim that the stadium has an obligation to keep them safe, serving alcohol makes a violent environment, and any violence that results is the direct and foreseeable fault of the stadium.
How would this work for the blizzard case? Video games are fun, and blizzard made a fun game that resulted in the jumping suicide of a chinese boy because of the direct and foreseeable funness and suicide provoking subliminal minipulation.
Run us through how this works or isnt rediculous. How could this fall into negligence, unless its parental negligence? Should blizzard sue the parents for disparagement?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:18 pm |
|
|
.Twinfalls
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Okay,when I'm wrong I'll admit it. But you miss elements and use the wrong terms. The four elements of negligence are duty, breach of duty, actual and proximate cause, and injury to another. With the reasonable person standard applied.
Well congratulations, you've googled up the law of negligence. My little Mulatto's learned himself something! I'm proud of ya.
Only you'll note, if you concentrate and apply that little mulatto-brain of yours to this discussion, that I haven't 'used the wrong terms'. Duty of care, breach and causation. Those are the three requirements you have listed, as termed in English common law. The fourth - injury, well gee duh! No shit, Shylock, we take that as assumed for our little lesson when it's a dead child.
As for the rest of your comment, I'll refer you to my earlier statement: I am not here to argue the merits of the case.
The merits of the action are not what's in contention here.
What's at issue is you losers assuming she should have no right to even bring this matter to court.
But keep up the study, who knows, one day there might be a job for you doing photocopying in one of them shiny law firms! Your people will have really moved up in the world!! |
|
Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:34 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
