By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - What Can We All Learn from the Xbox Live Banning of ‘Pound Her Stank’?

scottie on 21 May 2011
thismeintiel said:

I just don't understand MS positions on "offensive" people. 


"Don't create a gamertag ... that other users may be offended by. This includes, without limitation, anything related to or suggestive of: profane words/phrases, topics or content of a sexual nature

 

Not hard to understand.

 

Edit: Mods of this site - If one was to create an account with a name similar to the one in the OP, I assume you woulda permaban the account? Lets say that person then made another account with a similarly innapropriate name. How many times would they have to do such a thing before the account ban turned into an IP address ban?

 

This is not some innocent victim of overly harsh mods. This is someone who is willing to put a lot of time and effort into having a sexually explicit username.



Around the Network
thismeintiel on 21 May 2011
scottie said:
thismeintiel said:

I just don't understand MS positions on "offensive" people. 


"Don't create a gamertag ... that other users may be offended by. This includes, without limitation, anything related to or suggestive of: profane words/phrases, topics or content of a sexual nature

 

Not hard to understand.

 

Edit: Mods of this site - If one was to create an account with a name similar to the one in the OP, I assume you woulda permaban the account? Lets say that person then made another account with a similarly innapropriate name. How many times would they have to do such a thing before the account ban turned into an IP address ban?

 

This is not some innocent victim of overly harsh mods. This is someone who is willing to put a lot of time and effort into having a sexually explicit username.

Have you seen all of his other gamertags?  How do you know this to be the case?

Edit:  Also, are you offended by my VGC ID?  Or how about loves2splooge's?  Should we be banned?



 

miz1q2w3e on 21 May 2011
Pretendo said:

He had it coming then. I'd like to see what the other 34 names were though.

Me too :p



MonstaMack on 21 May 2011

lol I've played with this guy in a random COD match and laughed like crazy when his name appeared only because I couldn't believe MS didn't ban this guy...

... and apprently they did, a lot of times.



It's just that simple.

welshbloke on 21 May 2011

As for court action ... I am pretty sure they will be able to demonstrate they made all reasonable efforts to assist this person with changing his nick and complying and that they could not permit his nametags on its network for many obvious reasons.

 



W.L.B.B. Member, Portsmouth Branch.

(Welsh(Folk) Living Beyond Borders)

Winner of the 2010 VGC Holiday sales prediction thread with an Average 1.6% accuracy rating. I am indeed awesome.

Kinect as seen by PS3 owners ...if you can pick at it   ...post it ... Did I mention the 360 was black and Shinny? Keeping Sigs obscure since 2007, Passed by the Sig police 5July10.
Around the Network
Soleron on 21 May 2011
Tony_Stark said:
Soleron said:
MrBubbles said:
Soleron said:

I understand the ban, but can they really take games you've paid for away from you forever for mere TOS violations?


they arent deleting the games off his harddrive.  he can still play them. 


But he can't transfer or redownload them, even though it was advertised that he could when he bought them? Still looks actionable to me.

yes he can.

I don't understand how Live works then.



AussieGecko on 21 May 2011
Soleron said:


But he can't transfer or redownload them, even though it was advertised that he could when he bought them? Still looks actionable to me.


34 chances... that is laughable. Judge would through it out if it went to court. It doesnt make any sense



 

Bet with Conegamer and Doobie_wop 

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Soleron on 21 May 2011
AussieGecko said:
Soleron said:


But he can't transfer or redownload them, even though it was advertised that he could when he bought them? Still looks actionable to me.


34 chances... that is laughable. Judge would through it out if it went to court. It doesnt make any sense

The severity of the 'crime' (breaking a likely unenforceable TOS clause about 'decency'), no matter how many times it was repeated, would in no way justify removal of rights to paid-for products (if that is what the ban entails).



scottie on 21 May 2011
Soleron said:
AussieGecko said:
Soleron said:


34 chances... that is laughable. Judge would through it out if it went to court. It doesnt make any sense

The severity of the 'crime' (breaking a likely unenforceable TOS clause about 'decency'), no matter how many times it was repeated, would in no way justify removal of rights to paid-for products (if that is what the ban entails).


From what I understand on XBL, he can still play the offline component of his games? If so, the judge would not even accept the case.



Antabus on 21 May 2011
Soleron said:
AussieGecko said:
Soleron said:


But he can't transfer or redownload them, even though it was advertised that he could when he bought them? Still looks actionable to me.


34 chances... that is laughable. Judge would through it out if it went to court. It doesnt make any sense

The severity of the 'crime' (breaking a likely unenforceable TOS clause about 'decency'), no matter how many times it was repeated, would in no way justify removal of rights to paid-for products (if that is what the ban entails).

Is that a fact or just your opinion?