Updates to Legal Jibber Jabber

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Vulking

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomar View Post
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean if you use some sort of masker or other tool that enables complete anonymity, will you be banned? No. Of course not.
I'm pretty sure he mean the typical "Do you want to send data to Riot Games Inc. to blah blah blah Yes [] No [X]"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Tenmar

Senior Member

10-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulking View Post
I'm pretty sure he mean the typical "Do you want to send data to Riot Games Inc. to blah blah blah Yes [] No [X]"
I think that's pretty much what people want from all the changes in the TOS. A simple opt out or simple turn on or turn off option.

The thing is that Riot isn't facebook. Players should be able to have the option to have their privacy respected and also decide how legally they wish to resolve any potential disputes. Making such sweeping changes ESPECIALLY in such a minuscule time frame(Less than SIX days and what would only equal to that of TWO business days) only demonstrates how much you distrust players and would rather sweep the TOS under the player's noses and don't think they can make their own personal choices.

There are better ways than making sweeping TOS changes to not only find out how we found out about leagueoflegends.com but also how exactly we wish to resolve potential legal disputes be it through public or private institutions.

A simple opt out would empower players to make the right choice for them to either decide to help riot or have their privacy respected.

EDIT: To note both EA and SONY empowered players to opt out. Can you please do the same Riot?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Vidious One

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Junior Member

10-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomar View Post

Privacy Policy
  • In the event of a dispute, you and Riot agree to binding, individual [url2="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Binding+arbitration"]arbitration[/url2] of your claims (except for in certain, limited circumstances).

Iíll check out the comments section and try to answer any burning questions.
Is it possible to continue to play league of legends and opt out of agreeing to binding arbitration? No offense, but when a successful company gains legal control over itself **** goes bad. Playstation Network added that line to their EULA and I was able to send snail mail to request to opt out of it. Can I do something similar with Riot?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Digitality

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-03-2012

I appreciate this a hell of a lot.

In 15 years of online gaming one of the things I've come to despise the most is when a company sneaks changes into their policies in secret without any notice to the player base.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Grushdeva

Junior Member

10-03-2012

I appreciate how you made the information clear and concise to the vast majority of us who don't read the whole article even as we press accept >.< Thank you for doing so.

On the other hand, I STRONGLY dislike 3rd party cookies and tracking pixels, and usually disable them if I can. Will this affect any ability to navigate the site? If so, will we be forced to enable them in order to use the website?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Reynmaker

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-03-2012

Are these third party cookies and tracking pixels use on the Site, game client, or both ?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Magma Armor0

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vulking View Post
I'm pretty sure he mean the typical "Do you want to send data to Riot Games Inc. to blah blah blah Yes [] No [X]"
To note: if you do this, Riot. I will not opt out, just so you know. You are one of the few game companies that I trust


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Super Explosion

Senior Member

10-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomar View Post
Or let's put this a different way. There are undoubtedly provisions in our ToU, and in the ToU of pretty much every game or online service company, that strike you as unfair. It's not the whole document, but there's a thing here, and a thing there. If Lochner were still good law... it would be considerably worse. :P
To clarify:

A "Terms of Use" agreement ostensibly provides the issuing company with a set of options they can choose to employ should the need arise.

It basically gives freedom in extreme circumstances to avoid being tied down in court--

A popular example is a consumer Internet Service Provider agreement: it basically says they can terminate your service for fun, at no penalty to them.

Why do they put that there? Well, if you're committing a crime using their service, they need to be able disengage it immediately, and not be held liable pending the outcome of a criminal trial.

"Service Level Agreements" between companies are worded differently, as a termination of internet access without cause would cause profit loss.

That's probably still pretty vague, but hopefully it gives a rough idea of why user agreements are usually worded as "we can do anything", even if they company wouldn't normally choose to do those things (so as to preserve customer faith in the company).

As for contracts being immune to judiciary oversight, that is completely incorrect-- contracts are not made in a vacuum, one person's "good" might result in a third party's "bad". It is the charge of the court to weigh the total effects, as well as the intent, and seek an optimum for all parties affected.

(Which is the charge of an arbiter as well.)

The law that Lochner ruled unconstitutional was actually in function suboptimal for bakers (and the general population) partly because it was a time limitation on an activity not hardlocked to time-dependence.
(As a very very brief explanation: "The law doesn't really, in essence, do what the makers want it to do.")

It is the effort of the courts to apply the law in a way consistent with its intent, and as well consider overarching and perhaps previously unforeseen effects.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Avenger K

Junior Member

10-03-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by xBombeRx View Post
Thanks for the heads up, but I'm sure I would've caught the update anyways as I read through these every patch.
If this is true, you sir, deserve a medal, as appreciation to your dedication to being the only person alive to read the Terms of Use every time it patches. (or at least reading the changes)


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Lezak

Junior Member

10-03-2012

Dear Forums,
Hello, I am a first time poster. I just have two questions, that if anyone could answer, I would really appreciate it.
1) This "tracking pixels" thing, is it always going to be running or will only be running while League is up? Will this take up some CPU room?
2) In what occasion would an arbitrator be needed? My question isn't so much based in why you need it/want to use as much as curiosity of a need for it being put in. What caused this to happen? Is this just a pre-emptive good planning situation? I can't imagine a type of dispute, with an online video game, where this would be needed.

Thanks - Landon