Gleemax Terms of Use - Unacceptable

[Will]

Uh, who claimed people were using hate speech?

Try looking up the word 'hate' by itself. I find in common usage, if one person is calling another disgusting, unethical, and the first person refuses to interact with the second, this can fairly be approximated as 'hate.'

Sure, you might not actually wish doom and bloodshed on WotC, but I also don't literally wish death upon chicken wings when I say I hate them.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Try looking up the word 'hate' by itself. I find in common usage, if one person is calling another disgusting, unethical, and the first person refuses to interact with the second, this can fairly be approximated as 'hate.'

So you don't feel this depends on context, at all?

Just asking.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, pulling out the definition of "hate speech" is just plain wrong, and appears to be intellectually dishonest. The word "hate" was used, so we look to its common-use definition, which is certainly met here.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh. As D&D players, we've been long trained to recongize the old bait-n-switch. If we were in a game, and it was an NPC setting out the Gleemax terms, we'd all know not to accept them.

A while back, I had a contract with a security firm. There was a clause about extra costs for moving (and we were considering moving our store), but when we signed on we were told that the clause was just to protect the company, and that if we chose to move they wouldn't charge us. And, foolishly, we forgot our D&D training and didn't get it in writing.

The reason that we were moving is because we had problems with our landlord meeting contractual obligations. When we moved, the landlord tried to sue us. The property had been sold; the landlord we might have trusted had sold the building to a landlord we would not have. The case went in our favour because we had everything in writing, and recorded.

As the judge said at the time, we were wise not to trust people's motivations, and to trust instead what was on paper. I only wish I had learned that lesson well enough to have applied it to the security firm.

I certainly apply it to Gleemax. No matter what you think of the folks in charge of WotC today, someone else may be in charge tomorrow. Or Gleemax might be sold to a third party. All kinds of things might happen, and you don't get to change your mind about things you've already posted there if they do.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

So you don't feel this depends on context, at all?

Just asking.

Of course it depends on context. And given the context of this discussion, "hate" seems appropriate.

Please note that Hussar said "hate the Gleemax TOU". Not WotC, not even Gleemax itself, but specifically the Gleemax TOU.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Of course it depends on context. And given the context of this discussion, "hate" seems appropriate.

It doesn't seem appropriate to me. I'd describe my attitude as "dismissive", "rejecting" or even "contemptuous", but then I think WOTC's terms of use were served up with a healthy dollop of contempt for their customers.

I'm amazed their practice is being defended, though perhaps on reflection I shouldn't be.

 

[kenmarable]

These terms are unfortunately common out there, but that also doesn't make them right.

Google has (or at least had, haven't checked lately) something similar for their apps. It's the primary reason the university I work at has banned all staff from using Google apps for official work - even if it would save hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least) that we regularly pay Microsoft. And believe me, the university is looking for any savings it can!

So shared ownership of material might be a simple way to protect the site owner from liability, but at least in my case, it's egregious enough to prevent thousands of potential users from making use of it and instead pay enormous sums of money just to avoid those terms.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Uh, who claimed people were using hate speech?

Ethically disgusting?....I think there's more than enough hate going on. Granted, maybe I'm just a sensitive guy. But, when people feel strong enough to use this kind of language, I'm getting the sense that there's some personal outrage going on.

Is the original post

I did characterise Gleemax's terms of use as "ridiculous and more than a little pathetic" but that's a far cry from what I understand by hate-speech.

He clearly interpreted Hussar to mean hate-speech and as hate-speech is against the TOU for these boards I wanted to be proactive and clear about exactly what I had said.

Try looking up the word 'hate' by itself. I find in common usage, if one person is calling another disgusting, unethical, and the first person refuses to interact with the second, this can fairly be approximated as 'hate.'

All I can say is that a lot of people have a very limited scope if that's what they consider hate. I have nothing against WoTC I just won't post on their boards as I believe such TOU are not ethical. Hate requires a lot more, me I just think that they and nearly every other business out there behaves unethically to maximize their profits and would rather not subject myself to those sorts of one-way agreements.

 

[Will]

He clearly interpreted Hussar to mean hate-speech and as hate-speech is against the TOU for these boards I wanted to be proactive and clear about exactly what I had said.

Fair enough, and so direct my comment to Pays. That interpretation is, at best, absurd.

Hate has a lot of connotations, and side-tracking the conversation to act hurt at an extreme derivation of what someone said is ... well, devious.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Fair enough, and so direct my comment to Pays. That interpretation is, at best, absurd.

Hate has a lot of connotations, and side-tracking the conversation to act hurt at an extreme derivation of what someone said is ... well, devious.

... okay, so I'm an absurd devious side-tracking hater.

Think I'm done here.