Class Action Suit

Shox · **Joined:** Jul 2006 **Posts:** 307 **Location:**

do it.

kick joymax's asses. pls.

Ivanhaus · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 241 **Location:**

Eukanuba wrote:

I'd like to start off by saying if you are not an adult who has had to work a job, earn a paycheck, and pay bills, you probably do not have anything valid to offer to this discussion. I'm not saying this to put anyone down, nor am I trying to imply that I am the only adult on this thread, because everyone, at some point in their life, was a kid. The fact is, however, too many people are shooting from the hip because they are full of passion, but lack life experience. This needs to stop. Believe me when I say you cannot take the world on if you are filled with nothing but piss and vinegar.

With that being said:

Quote:

Article 9 (Silk Use Restrictions, Effective Period)

1. In reference to the Silkroad User Agreement, service use may be restricted.

2. In the event of a service restriction through reference to the User Agreement, there will be no Silk compensation, no purchase cancellation and refund, service restart and Silk reuse may be possible.

3. Charged Silk has an effective period of 1 year and if there is no added Silk charged or Silk usage within 1 year, the remaining Silk will cease to exist.

Article 10 (Refund Policy)

1. All Fees and Charges are non-refundable.

In short, Article 9.2 of the Item Mall User Agreement states that if you buy silk and are unable to log in to the game, too bad for you.

Article 10.1 Says no refunds. Also too bad for you.

Furthermore, no one has addressed what I brought up earlier: The EULA only applies to the individual player. It is a document that JoyMax put together to cover their own asses. It's a one way street, folks. You (the player) have no legal entitlements under the EULA, only limitations. In fact, JoyMax, like any service providing company who wishes to protect themselves, has the almighty "We can change anything in the agreement to anything we want at any time" clause. In the immortal words of Willy Wonka, You get NOTHING. You LOSE. Good DAY, sir!

The player is the one who has self-imposed limitations placed upon him/herself. JoyMax did not agree to give you anything at all.

Assuming you could even establish a case against them, do you know what would happen? JoyMax would evaluate the situation and decide if it's more economical to settle, close up shop in whatever county they are being sued, or fight it in court. It won't change anything as far as customer service. It can, however, affect your own access to the game.

To the person who said:

Quote:

If everyone who played SRO played for free there wouldn't be a SRO to play

That is the whole point, although not quite what you were hoping for. Boycotting silk is the most effective thing you can do. If this is their main source of revenue, they'll realize they're losing it and should do something about it. If the game goes under, so be it. If you (and when I say "you", I mean it in as a general term for whomever is reading this) can't get past that idea, then you are truly pitiable.

That's capitalism, folks. Buyer beware. Laissez-faire FTW.

Well, upon seeing the information here I have to agree it would probably be a losing battle. A good thought but with the way JM has covered there butts the odds of a positive out come are slim to none. As for boycotting silk, I highly doubt you could get enough people to do it to make them change anything. It's nice to dream of a better SRO but it aint gonna happen. The game is fun to play as is but we all know it could be better. I would be willing to boycott silk if I knew it would change something but it would have to be a large scale effort and i'm affraid most people wouldn't follow through.

JaJa · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 235 **Location:**

EULA's are known for having clauses that would be rendered invalid in a court of law. Just because something is in a EULA does not make it contractually valid. Maybe I missed it but I have yet to hear of the legality of a EULA as a contract being tested in court.

Just because they put it in their EULA does not make it a valid, binding contractual term, nor does it alleviate them of liability to consumer protection laws.

Ivanhaus · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 241 **Location:**

JaJa wrote:

EULA's are known for having clauses that would be rendered invalid in a court of law. Just because something is in a EULA does not make it contractually valid. Maybe I missed it but I have yet to hear of the legality of a EULA as a contract being tested in court.

Just because they put it in their EULA does not make it a valid, binding contractual term, nor does it alleviate them of liability to consumer protection laws.

My knowledge on current laws is very limited. so what your saying is, is that there might be some kind of liability by JM even though they have a EULA (which I believe stands for end user license agreement). So they may be held accountable by the consumer protection laws? this would be good news if someone did look into a lawsuit. But like Eukanuba said, would it inprove anything or would they just shut down service to the country that filed the suit.

bygeorge2512 · **Joined:** Apr 2006 **Posts:** 153 **Location:**

Quyxz wrote:

munchyy wrote:

..

If they will get accused in Korea, there punishment will be they get tortured!

That would be North Korea. Joymax is based in South Korea.

mcclane1 · **Joined:** Nov 2006 **Posts:** 211 **Location:**

if you do go through with the class action suit then JM would probably just closed down SRO and get rid of all the problems that way, and you would ruin the game for the rest of us so dont

cin · **Posted:** Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:31 pm

Panties wrote:

You gotta remember Yama, this game and these forums are MOSTLY filled with 14 year old kids...

If you want my opinion Id say if you can contact a lawyer and have him look over the agreements and whatnot and if he says you might have a case... go for it. But chances are someone down the line already thought of this and looked into it but it didn't go anywhere because there was no case. If you do try and actually succeed, all these kids will be forever kissing your ass, lol.

-first of all i am not trying to flame you since i did read you said MOSTLY 14yo kids and you are giving your opinion

but ehh lol i think its -mostly- the 14 year old kids that start crying over bugs in a game while the adults know they can just go play something else.

i think the case against a company like JM will not be impossible, but probably really hard.. most of the game producing companies make sure they put a lot or money in making the ToS because there is companies being sued everywhere and ppl getting tons of money for it. I have a feeling that JM is kindof prepared for such law cases.

I wouldnt stop anybody from doing it, really, give it a try! If JM will behave better afterwards and put some more efford into the game *the international version that is* it would be great. but watch out that IF someone succeeds to do this, JM might go bankrupt or something.. then we have no game and no kids to be kissin the ass

oh and btw im 21 and this is my opinion

cin · **Posted:** Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:33 pm

bygeorge2512 wrote:

Quyxz wrote:

munchyy wrote:

..

If they will get accused in Korea, there punishment will be they get tortured!

That would be North Korea. Joymax is based in South Korea.

good so they dont have nukes

StealMySoda · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 5245 **Location:**

mcclane1 wrote:

if you do go through with the class action suit then JM would probably just closed down SRO and get rid of all the problems that way, and you would ruin the game for the rest of us so dont

Or the guys that are at the top would realize the current GMs are incompetent and we would get GMs that can do something.

Either that or the people at the top will realize they actually need to do something about the botters. Who knows >_>

achmalach · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 986 **Location:**

The most important thing in this case is the negative propaganda JoyMax would receive. If this would result in a bigger popularity or not is out of our hands.
The fact is that if this case can and does make court and media picks it up then the possible outcome can be bigger then just a possible refund of whatever is demanded.

In short i think the law is clear in most countries:
If you pay for a service or an item you are entitled to use the product at full capacity and the seller must do everything in his power to make that possible. In my country this is called Customer Protection. This is a basic foundation and i don't think any EULA or even any signed contract can overrule this.

But then again i could be wrong.

Btw i'm really surprised about this topic and the fact there are this much positive contributions, i consider to take this case to my lawyer (first consultations are free in my country --> hehe)

IguanaRampage · **Joined:** Jul 2006 **Posts:** 2483 **Location:** Changing

Fly wrote:

im so excited. i cant belive the day has come that my fellow nerds will rise up and fight the power that oppressed us all in our imaginary world of silkroad.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!

Rofl!!!! We must rise up friends!

Eukanuba · **Joined:** Dec 2006 **Posts:** 171

achmalach wrote:

The most important thing in this case is the negative propaganda JoyMax would receive.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. To a small percentage of people, yeah, maybe. But to the majority of the population, this will make anyone who tries to push this look like a complete idiot. This is the sort of thing you'll hear Leno, Letterman, Conan, and Colbert making fun of. And that's assuming it ever gets off the ground. As it stands down, you'll need a miracle to just get it out of the hangar and onto a runway.

This will make you look far worse than JoyMax. Just drop it. Seriously.

Rev · **Joined:** Aug 2006 **Posts:** 52 **Location:**

Eukanuba wrote:

This will make you look far worse than JoyMax. Just drop it. Seriously.

"look[ing] far worse than Joymax" or be made fun of on television is hardly a reason not to do it.

And the reasoning of let's not do it because it's too hard, is not a viable reason either.

If past discoveries, medical advances, and revolutions weren't made by those who isn't afraid of what other think or it being a difficult task, we wouldn't be where we are today.

People aren't taking the internet serious enough. In this day and age, it's part of our lives. Virtual products are just as real as the Steak you paid for, or the furniture you have recently purchased.

Nave47 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:41 am

Fly wrote:

im so excited. i cant belive the day has come that my fellow nerds will rise up and fight the power that oppressed us all in our imaginary world of silkroad.

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a nerd.

CrazyAztec · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 419 **Location:**

dont get cocky to it..joymax banded some goldfarmers in bunwangs well..tot they didnt do a shit but..at least cant see them around.

HBblade · **Posted:** Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:13 am

so...wat's teh point? lose money in court & lose, good thing to do i guess

i think joymax will win, cuz u may say breach of contract, but they're still banning ppl, just not enough or the right kind in some instances, but they're still doing what their policy says, even if they're a little lazy on the job, they're still doing the job

good luck to whoever finds enough time & money to sue joymax

shoto · **Joined:** Oct 2006 **Posts:** 1459 **Location:**

yamataka wrote:

Quote:

5. System Abuse Policy

5.1 If a user is found abusing a bug or system glitch, the user may have his account restricted or erased. Listed below are similar instances in which similar action may be taken.
– If a user is found to be inducing or encouraging particular behavior with the intent of placing undue stress on systems.
– If a user discovers a bug and, instead of reporting it directly to a GM or Customer Support, tells other users
– If a user knowingly benefits indirectly from exploitation of a bug.

5.2 Users found to be using or distributing illegal programs may be subject to restrictions of their account or have their account deleted. In particular cases, the user may be subject to investigation by the proper authorities.

6. Unwholesome Behavior Policy

6.1 Unwholesome behavior will be defined as any behavior that violates Operation Policy and similar standards, prevents others from normal usage of the game, or encourages the focused persecution of an individual.

The first bolded section is why botting is illegal. The second bolded section is why globals like the ones that nightbloom was complaining about are illegal and also perhaps makes gold bots illegal because they jam up the servers so that people can't play the game.

There is a a table with punishments that is at the end ... advertising commercial sites has a punishment listed for it which would make all those globals for buying gold illegal.

Oh and I do just play for the most part. But sometimes when grinding I just think and wonder about stuff is all.

well you can't sue them. Mostly because they didnot break their contract. They are continually trying to block bots. That's what they say anyway and the truth is you can't prove otherwise. what are you goona sue them for...not trying hard enough...

Eukanuba · **Joined:** Dec 2006 **Posts:** 171

Rev wrote:

"look[ing] far worse than Joymax" or be made fun of on television is hardly a reason not to do it.

And the reasoning of let's not do it because it's too hard, is not a viable reason either.

If past discoveries, medical advances, and revolutions weren't made by those who isn't afraid of what other think or it being a difficult task, we wouldn't be where we are today.

People aren't taking the internet serious enough. In this day and age, it's part of our lives. Virtual products are just as real as the Steak you paid for, or the furniture you have recently purchased.

Looking worse than JoyMax was my response to the guy who claimed it would make JoyMax look bad.

This is not a matter of improving society and civilization. Half of this is about spoiled kids whining about their free game not being good for them, and the other half is about people wanted to look like some sort of internet hero. As I said before, piss and vinegar. That is all there is to it. If you think the legality of the internet is not being taken seriously enough, tell that to all the child molesters who were caught in internet sting operations and are rightfully rotting in prison.

I never once said it would be hard to win a lawsuit. What tried to convey is that you will not win, and that this is a stupid thing to even want to bring to court. Those two things are mutually exclusive; even if it were not stupid, you would still lose, and even if you could win, it is still stupid. There is no point. If you talk to a decent lawyer, you will not even have the opportunity to lose. Something like this will never be seriously considered by any competent legal professional in any civilized nation.

If you want to take this ridiculousness to court, you will need to show these two things:
- Proof of an agreement that JoyMax made to you (The EULA applies only to the user)
- Proof that JoyMax violated their end of the agreement (which they didn't, because they never promised you anything)

Do not try to legitimize this silliness by comparing it to products that you purchase, because there is not a single one of you who has paid a cent to JoyMax for the opportunity to play SRO. If anyone tries to counter that statement by saying anything about the Item Mall, he/she needs to go back to the third grade and work on reading comprehension.

JaJa · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 235 **Location:**

Eukanuba wrote:

Do not try to legitimize this silliness by comparing it to products that you purchase, because there is not a single one of you who has paid a cent to JoyMax for the opportunity to play SRO. If anyone tries to counter that statement by saying anything about the Item Mall, he/she needs to go back to the third grade and work on reading comprehension.

If you are going to fling such insults, it would be nice if you explained just what you were talking about. Money is exchanged in the item mall for virtual goods. Are you insinuating that this is a donation? Because if you are, you are flat wrong. Joymax is NOT a company registered as a Not-for-profit or Non-profit group, which is the ONLY way you can ask for money as "donations" and be protected in doing so.

I'm no spoiled kid, now or ever in the past, nor do I want to be any sort of hero. I actually don't have any complaint in regards to the items I've purchased in the Item Mall, and I would not apply for a class action. HOWEVER, there are some here complaining that as consumers they have been ripped off, with their silk purchases. That is actually completely normal. Consumer protection laws are there for a reason, to enforce trust in a consumer that when they pay money for something it will be usable as it was advertised. Those that bought 4-week GTs and other time-limited items but can't get into the servers are being reasonably wronged.

So don't be so quick to fling insults, as if you are better than everyone else. Those here talking about this are doing their part as good consumers to ensure the protections afforded to them by law are being enforced. If no one did, the protections are useless.

achmalach · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 986 **Location:**

Eukanuba wrote:

achmalach wrote:

The most important thing in this case is the negative propaganda JoyMax would receive.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. To a small percentage of people, yeah, maybe. But to the majority of the population, this will make anyone who tries to push this look like a complete idiot. This is the sort of thing you'll hear Leno, Letterman, Conan, and Colbert making fun of. And that's assuming it ever gets off the ground. As it stands down, you'll need a miracle to just get it out of the hangar and onto a runway.

This will make you look far worse than JoyMax. Just drop it. Seriously.

I must disagree. Negative publicity (if any) can be very bad for a company. If there would be no item-mall this is indeed a lost case, if it is not now. Possible Investors are not interested anymore, there is a possible downfall in new registrations etc.
If there would be no item-mall this is indeed a lost case, if it is not now. But still it is worth the thought process: i continue to think that if you purchase something you are protected and they have to deliver...
And again, i think this discussion has come bigger then simply suing Joymax. It's more about what kinda service you can/should expect/receive if you pay for something virtual on the internet.

alwinp · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 149 **Location:** Belgium

yamataka wrote:

Gees people ... don't you ever wonder about anything besides this game?

Laws and contracts are pretty interesting stuff ... and it might be a better way to get changes to be made instead of all the "stop buying silk" ideas.

BTW lawyers sometimes work for free if they think they can get enough money later from the settlement. Anyone know how much Joymax is worth as a company?

Internet law is a hot topic right now ... consider the case of YouTube being sued for one billion.

If you really think lawyers will sue for free, then you can be 100% garuanteed he'll fail.

Nothing's free.
And Joymax will probably sue you back.

making your life end up underneath the bridge

StealMySoda · **Joined:** Sep 2006 **Posts:** 5245 **Location:**

Why don't we take them on judge judy? lol

Spanktastik · **Joined:** Feb 2007 **Posts:** 689 **Location:**

cin wrote:

Panties wrote:

You gotta remember Yama, this game and these forums are MOSTLY filled with 14 year old kids...

If you want my opinion Id say if you can contact a lawyer and have him look over the agreements and whatnot and if he says you might have a case... go for it. But chances are someone down the line already thought of this and looked into it but it didn't go anywhere because there was no case. If you do try and actually succeed, all these kids will be forever kissing your ass, lol.

-first of all i am not trying to flame you since i did read you said MOSTLY 14yo kids and you are giving your opinion

but ehh lol i think its -mostly- the 14 year old kids that start crying over bugs in a game while the adults know they can just go play something else.

Thats a good point also... because Ive tried it. I went looking for a new game with good GM support and all that good stuff. I found a couple decent games and a lot of bad ones (RuneScape, Last Chaos, WoW, RYL, to name a few) but nothing that had the gameplay, graphics, and neat-o skills like SRO. Thats what got me sucked back in XD (that and my friends). So sometimes its not that easy, unfortunately. :cry:

Besides, I believe this game will improve.... eventually....

ps. lol @ Judge Judy... that woman is pure evil.

Vandango · **Joined:** Jun 2006 **Posts:** 4143 **Location:**

Most of the EULA's and policys are almost completely impossible to get around unless u had an expert lawyer with knowledge of korean law and computing law

Mage Pker · **Joined:** Mar 2007 **Posts:** 1102 **Location:**

*takes out picket fences*

down with joymax, down with joymax

*throws his silk out the window*

Eukanuba · **Joined:** Dec 2006 **Posts:** 171

JaJa wrote:

If you are going to fling such insults, it would be nice if you explained just what you were talking about. Money is exchanged in the item mall for virtual goods. Are you insinuating that this is a donation? Because if you are, you are flat wrong. Joymax is NOT a company registered as a Not-for-profit or Non-profit group, which is the ONLY way you can ask for money as "donations" and be protected in doing so.

Allow me to direct your attention to what I just said:

Eukanuba wrote:

Do not try to legitimize this silliness by comparing it to products that you purchase, because there is not a single one of you who has paid a cent to JoyMax for the opportunity to play SRO. If anyone tries to counter that statement by saying anything about the Item Mall, he/she needs to go back to the third grade and work on reading comprehension.

Did you, or anyone, pay JoyMax for access to the game? Hell no. That is a fact. The game is free. If you gave them money for Item Mall goods, you are paying for whatever item you purchased, and NOT access to the game itself. I've already pointed out in the Item Mall User Agreement that JoyMax has made no guarantee that you will be able to actually login and make use of your purchases, which you means you are at their mercy.

JaJa wrote:

HOWEVER, there are some here complaining that as consumers they have been ripped off, with their silk purchases. That is actually completely normal. Consumer protection laws are there for a reason, to enforce trust in a consumer that when they pay money for something it will be usable as it was advertised. Those that bought 4-week GTs and other time-limited items but can't get into the servers are being reasonably wronged.

Let me make it clear that I am not supporting JoyMax in their practices. Yes, I do believe that people are being ripped off. Yes, I do believe that JoyMax has provided sub par customer service. Yes, I believe this is morally wrong. However, morally wrong and legally wrong are often two different matters, and in this situation there is absolutely no legal course of action that you can take against them. They have protected themselves with their EULA and IMUA, which is actually the purpose of those types of agreements. The best course of action that dissatisfied players can take is to boycott silk. Will it work? Hell if I know, but there is little more that can be done.

JaJa wrote:

So don't be so quick to fling insults, as if you are better than everyone else. Those here talking about this are doing their part as good consumers to ensure the protections afforded to them by law are being enforced. If no one did, the protections are useless.

Grow a thicker skin. Consumers in this scenario have no protection under law. The law is on JoyMax's side. It works on a free market system, people.

JaJa · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 235 **Location:**

My skin is plenty thick, thank you.

I believe you are very mistaken about the law being on Joymax's side, and your absolute faith in the legality and binding of an EULA. They are not true contracts, which is the reason there was a push a few years back to get legislation to make them legally binding. The act of pressing a button on a screen is NOT valid as a signature for anything legal, least not as far as I am aware of. It also is not a true contract.

In regards to your statement of free access to the game, that isn't what is being debated here. If you exchange real money for an item that is only usable via a service, they are under obligation to ensure you are able to use the service to use the item you purchased. Otherwise they are obligated to refund the item in return for the item.

As far as legally right or wrong, the legal system is a total crapshoot honestly, and you cannot sit there and state this would lose. We've seen dumber things win, and we've seen better things lose. There is certainly a chance of it happening and those who have a grievance with their item mall purchases should contact a lawyer to determine the feasiblity. Some lawyers won't take it on, but some will. If you find one that will, then go state your case in court and we will be watching it.

Unless you are a lawyer, Eukanuba, you cannot state whether this will fail or not. I am not a lawyer either (have some in the family, but not me) so I have refrained from saying whether it would win or not. I would encourage anyone who was wronged to at least make an attempt to protect their consumer rights, though. Hiding behind the EULA is not going to get you anywhere, even some contracts that can be construed as unfair or unlawful can be invalidated by a judge, and EULA aren't even real valid contracts.

BTW, the USA is NOT a free-market system. That went out in the early 1900's when we saw just what happens in those situations (7 day workweek, for less than min wage, kids losing arms in machinery, and all of the other horrors of sweatshops). Companies do not have free rein to do anything they wish, buyer-beware. We have a hybrid system with consumer protections built in.

Eukanuba · **Joined:** Dec 2006 **Posts:** 171

JaJa wrote:

I believe you are very mistaken about the law being on Joymax's side, and your absolute faith in the legality and binding of an EULA. They are not true contracts, which is the reason there was a push a few years back to get legislation to make them legally binding. The act of pressing a button on a screen is NOT valid as a signature for anything legal, least not as far as I am aware of. It also is not a true contract.

You are still operating under the assumption that the EULA affects JoyMax. It doesn't. It was written to affect the USER. Period. By your own statement, an EULA is not a true contract. That's doesn't give the consumer any leverage because either way you look at it, JoyMax has made no guarantees of the quality of service.

JaJa wrote:

In regards to your statement of free access to the game, that isn't what is being debated here. If you exchange real money for an item that is only usable via a service, they are under obligation to ensure you are able to use the service to use the item you purchased. Otherwise they are obligated to refund the item in return for the item.

Orly? Then what is this for?

JaJa wrote:

Eukanuba wrote:

Do not try to legitimize this silliness by comparing it to products that you purchase, because there is not a single one of you who has paid a cent to JoyMax for the opportunity to play SRO. If anyone tries to counter that statement by saying anything about the Item Mall, he/she needs to go back to the third grade and work on reading comprehension.

If you are going to fling such insults, it would be nice if you explained just what you were talking about. Money is exchanged in the item mall for virtual goods. Are you insinuating that this is a donation? Because if you are, you are flat wrong. Joymax is NOT a company registered as a Not-for-profit or Non-profit group, which is the ONLY way you can ask for money as "donations" and be protected in doing so.

JaJa wrote:

As far as legally right or wrong, the legal system is a total crapshoot honestly, and you cannot sit there and state this would lose. We've seen dumber things win, and we've seen better things lose. There is certainly a chance of it happening and those who have a grievance with their item mall purchases should contact a lawyer to determine the feasiblity. Some lawyers won't take it on, but some will. If you find one that will, then go state your case in court and we will be watching it.

I've already made the distinction that this lawsuit is stupid and un-winnable, and that those two qualities are mutually exclusive. It is un-winnable because there are no grounds for a case. It is stupid because it will most likely not result in positive change for the player who wishes to continue to play SRO, win or lose.

JaJa wrote:

Unless you are a lawyer, Eukanuba, you cannot state whether this will fail or not. I am not a lawyer either (have some in the family, but not me) so I have refrained from saying whether it would win or not. I would encourage anyone who was wronged to at least make an attempt to protect their consumer rights, though. Hiding behind the EULA is not going to get you anywhere, even some contracts that can be construed as unfair or unlawful can be invalidated by a judge, and EULA aren't even real valid contracts.

There was no legal jargon in any of JoyMax's agreements. It is black and white, clear as crystal, correct? If you agree with that, then continue reading. If not, we need to work on coming up with a mutually agreeable interpretation.

-If the Operation Policy, EULA and IMUA are clearly understandable, no lawyer is needed.
- If the Operation Policy, EULA and IMUA are legally binding, then the case is over before it began because 1) the Operation Policy and EULA make no promises that JoyMax will enforce the conditions; It only says they reserve the right to do so if they please, and 2) The IMUA states that JoyMax makes no guarantees that you will be able to access the game to make use of the items you purchased (article 9.2). Further more, it goes on to say there will be no refunds(article 10.1)

- If the Operation Policy, EULA and IMUA are not legally binding, there still is no case at all. JoyMax still owes the player nothing. Take a look at the following situations:

Scenario 1:
JoyMax invites JaJa and ADFDFDF over to his house, and asks that they both behave nicely, or he might kick you out. While there, ADFDFDF knocks all the books off the shelf, steals from a money jar, and puts his muddy feet on the sofa. JaJa is a model guest. At some point during the visit, JoyMax wants to sell his guests a box of Girl Scout Cookies for his daughter. They both agree, JaJa pays cash and ADFDFDF uses counterfeit currency.

In this scenario, does JaJa have the right to sue JoyMax for not kicking ADFDFDF out of the house?

Scenario 2:
JoyMax claims his new house is awesome, spacious, and has all the modern amenities you can think of. He invites JaJa over to stay the night for free. When JaJa gets there, he sees that JoyMax's house is run down, has holes in the walls, and is infested with rats and cockroaches. Joymax also says that JaJa will have to sleep on the floor, unless he'd be willing to buy a cot to sleep on. JaJa agrees, and JoyMax sells him a roll-away cot. Unfortunately, before JaJa goes to sleep, the cockroaches and rats get to the cot and leave dirt and droppings.

Can JaJa sue JoyMax over this?

Scenario 3:
JoyMax boasts that his new house is awesome, spacious, and clean. He invites JaJa to stay over. JaJa arrives, the house is immaculate, large, and everything JoyMax said it would be. Unfortunately, the only furnitre JoyMax has is his own bed (since it's his new place, right?), so JoyMax informs JaJa that he will have to sleep on the floor, unless he wants to pay JoyMax to use the bed. JaJa agrees. After this, JoyMax ignores JaJa for the rest of his stay. No service, no hospitality. JaJa is on his own in this large, new environment. When night time comes, JaJa finds that the house is so cold, he can't sleep. He can't even find JoyMax (the house is that big) to ask him to turn the thermostat down.

Does JaJa have the right to sue JoyMax since he paid to use the bed, but was unable to sleep?

JaJa wrote:

BTW, the USA is NOT a free-market system. That went out in the early 1900's when we saw just what happens in those situations (7 day workweek, for less than min wage, kids losing arms in machinery, and all of the other horrors of sweatshops). Companies do not have free rein to do anything they wish, buyer-beware. We have a hybrid system with consumer protections built in.

This is a straw man argument. I never said the US has a free-market system. What I did say was that consumers need to be aware of what they are purchasing. In this situation (Item Mall), if the consumer had been more responsible, this would never be an issue. Besides, you are trying to imply that child labor laws, health and sanitation codes, and minimum wages are the same thing as a cash back guarantee. They aren't. The former group protects the EMPLOYEE, not the consumer.

If anyone wants to try this, I certainly won't be able to stop you. If anyone has the cajones to front money for such a ridiculous scheme, then I can at least commend you on that alone. If you (not directed at JaJa; I'm using it as a general term for anyone reading this) manage to win, I will put up one final post on SRF admitting that I was wrong and that I am the biggest idiot who ever came to the forum.

cin · **Posted:** Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:33 pm

Panties wrote:

cin wrote:

Panties wrote:

You gotta remember Yama, this game and these forums are MOSTLY filled with 14 year old kids...

If you want my opinion Id say if you can contact a lawyer and have him look over the agreements and whatnot and if he says you might have a case... go for it. But chances are someone down the line already thought of this and looked into it but it didn't go anywhere because there was no case. If you do try and actually succeed, all these kids will be forever kissing your ass, lol.

-first of all i am not trying to flame you since i did read you said MOSTLY 14yo kids and you are giving your opinion

but ehh lol i think its -mostly- the 14 year old kids that start crying over bugs in a game while the adults know they can just go play something else.

Thats a good point also... because Ive tried it. I went looking for a new game with good GM support and all that good stuff. I found a couple decent games and a lot of bad ones (RuneScape, Last Chaos, WoW, RYL, to name a few) but nothing that had the gameplay, graphics, and neat-o skills like SRO. Thats what got me sucked back in XD (that and my friends). So sometimes its not that easy, unfortunately. :cry:

lol those other games i tried aswell

and i also have the feeling that sro will be better after a while.. we just have to be patient. i mean, i played sro about a year ago as well, as a try-out, but didnt really like it cause it was all laggy and had some bugs in it. it has definatly improved since then

the thing i actually hated about games like LastChaos and Knight Online was the community; the chatboxes sucked! i play these games to have fun along with others and in some games it seems you play it by yourself.. might aswell play a single person game than huh

i dont think anybody stands a GOOD chance on this "case" against JM so id say just drop it and wait till we finally get those patches

JaJa · **Joined:** Jan 2007 **Posts:** 235 **Location:**

A lot of ground to cover here. This is all re: Eukanuba's last post in this thread.

First point. I never stated that the EULA is why anyone would have reason to sue Joymax. What I was referring to is USA state and federal consumer protection laws that they may have violated. You would be surprised how much protection we all have but we rarely use unless you go digging for it. These protections are default obligations any seller must recognize and adhere to when selling ANY product or service. These vary from state to state, and even nation to nation, so I have no way of giving ANY example of what exact laws have been violated. But I am pretty certain most nations provide protections or insurance of refund and/or grievance compensation when they have paid for a product.

Second point. I was not implicating that we pay for our access to SRO with Item Mall purchases. Again, the only thing I was pointing out was those that purchased Silk and obtained items that they were not able to use have some ground to potentially file suit. Selling an item they cannot use because they are blocked from accessing the service by JM (Server is full messages are technically speaking Joymax limiting your access to the service) and NOT providing a refund for the unused portion MAY violate state and/or federal law where the customer resides. In the portion you quoted I was unsure of exactly what you were stating, so I made an assumption, and even asked if that was what you were implying. I also took that opportunity to dispel the false notion I saw in this thread that your Silk purchases are donations, which is false (at least in the USA).

Third point. I will reiterate that you nor I nor anyone else state if such a suit would be winnable or not. I thought the bnetd case would never succeed, but they took measures to make sure it did. I didn't think OJ would ever get acquitted, but he did. I never thought SCO vs IBM would ever get anywhere, let alone last as long as it has, but it did. The legal system is even more complex and unpredictable than the weather patterns on Mars.

Fourth point. I will again state that the EULA is irrelevant to this discussion.

Fourth sub-point: The EULA you must agree to when creating a new account actually invalidates itself, within the first few lines. I was looking at it last night and noticed the hole. I won't go any further into this, but take a closer look at the ToS and EULA on their site when signing up, put your brain into technicality mode, and examine carefully. It is a huge glaring hole. Technically NO ONE has actually agreed to any TOS for iSRO. And technicalities really do matter in these sorts of agreements.

Fifth point. I was not trying to compare cash-back protection to the equal to child-labor and other such things mentioned in your response. What I said was that we do not have a free-market system that is buyer-beware, because of how it has been and continues to be abused. The consumer protections are one of the end results of that.

EDIT: Now that I've had time to consider your scenarios, this is my response to those.

What you describe is a hotel. If a hotel advertises a clean, spacious rooms, and so you show up, pay for 28 days of stay time, and then find out that it is not clean, not spacious, and 7 out of the 28 days you cannot get into your room because they have changed the lock and rented your room to someone else, then YES, you as a customer have every right to sue them for the time you paid for and didn't receive, and if this happened often enough the state attorney general would most likely file suit against them on behalf of the state for deceptive advertising and fraud. This type of action DOES sometimes happen, although it is rare because 95% of businesses in the USA abide by the consumer protection laws in fear of being sued.

Silkroad Online Forums

Class Action Suit

Who is online