Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Numa Pompilius
In this particular case the EULA have no bearing, though, as the original poster wasn't banned for breach of the EULA, but because the person he bought the game from simply committed fraud: he bought the game on-line using credit card, and then stopped payment.
It's credit card fraud, a matter for the police, not for this forum.
|
This is generally one of the main reasons the non-transferrable rule was created for, or so I'd heard. And you know how reliable word of mouth is.
Selling/trading invalid account keys, or valid ones, and then using the 'file a hacking case' forms to reclaim their accounts at a later date (this technique is often used months after the sale, in order to get both the initial sale money, and the money they can gain from selling the developed characters). Between that, keyloggers, and social engineering, there are very few legit hack cases.
My point earlier being that even if he tried to establish himself as a different customer, they don't have to reactivate his account ever because he'd still violated the EULA.
And yes, I agree that credit card fraud is not a matter for this forum. Try taking that particular matter to ebay, or something. Not sure, I don't do the online auction scene. Too easily fraudulent with the whole partial/full anonymity thing the internet provides (I'd imagine that making new accounts by proxy and using fictitious addresses is fairly easy, to do shady business on, while your main account remains clean), and I wasn't thinking of credit cards at the time either.
Looking at it again, I'd say the only person who's screwing you over is the person who sold you the game. Anet is just protecting itself, and shouldn't be bashed for its actions in this specific case, going off the limited information available.
Also, since I'd forgotten in the other post;
I hope nobody takes any of what I've posted too personally. Except the not reading the EULA part, because I honestly think agreeing to something you haven't read is downright irresponsible. Otherwise, I'm just saying what is practical and objective, regardless of whether I agree or not.
[Edit; I'd inserted the paragraph above this one after the creation of this one. My opinion on Anet's handling of the case is solely an opinion, and is probably not objective, should that not be clear.]