By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
Shinobi-san said:

Its a different case in that the actions taken by the owner/developer was different. Making a security exploit public can have a major impact. Its an act with purposeful malicious intent.

Both of them breaking the rules is the same yes. And im not saying MS was wrong to do this, but they could have dealt with it better. Companies need to be a bit flexible when it comes to situations like this.

I personally do not believe you deal with breaking the NDA any better.  The person decided either through ignorance or because they did not care go against an agreement they signed.  After that point, they forced MS to have to respond by doing exactly what is stated in the agreement.  It sends a statement that do not go against the agreement or you will be banned.  If someone is getting riled up that MS had to ban this person for violation of the terms of contract those those people really need to grow up.

Companies should not be flexible on such things as this because it opens up a lot of gray area.  Playing in the gray foster this belief that you can violate a contract and there are no penalty.  Its this very thinking that cause corporation nighmares because when you play in the gray anything is up for interpretation.  Once you let that cat out of the bag then someone else will push a little further until you reach the same situation as now.  If you want to be part of the beta then do not go against its policy, it really should be that cut and dry.

Yep i understand your view point i guess we will agree to disagree on this topic as i think they can incorporate some sort of flexibility into their policies. They might have avoided the PR backlash that way.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|