STOP USING SIMPLEMINE - Page 3

MentalNomad · #21 07-05-2005, 12:24 PM

Excession:

1. Your argument doesn't address the fact that this section of the TOS is not about defining illicit software, it's about the player giving permission to Party to install THEIR software. Again, it's not about "Cheating Software" the player uses, it's about Party's "Anti-Cheating Software." They are getting permission to snoop.

2. Selective deletion yields different results. Try this one on for size:
"We are committed to detecting and preventing software programs. . .[clip]. . . or anything else that we deem enables you to have an unfair advantage over other players."

3. By stating that they are committed to stopping X, they are not saying that Y is allowed. If people come up with a new way to cheat, it does not mean everyone who signd up under the old TOS is grandfathered in.

4. In Computer Science, the simple truth is that player-profiling systems qualify as AI software, so the distinction is moot. Most laypeople assume "Strong AI" whenever they hear "AI." Strong AI refers to simulating complete human-like intelligence. Simple AI applies to any artificial system which automates a task which requires some intelligent behavior. If your system collects information about all players into a database and then later displays the correct data for particular players, in context, over your poker table, you have yourself a simple AI system. If you went to court about this, you, as a partner in a commercial lawfirm, would hire someone like me, a professional Computer Scientist with a bunch of degrees from engineering schools, to advise you on the technical issues or to be your expert witness.

5. I'm kidding in that last line; please don't take offense.

6. But I am available for hire if the pay is good.

MentalNomad · #22 07-05-2005, 12:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
LOL The fact that I've missed a 'r' of the end of 'Your' is irrelevant. What does a typo or two have to do with the point made?

Classic cheap shot I'm afraid.

Now if you can actually analyse the sentence in rebuttal then your comments might be worth the bandwidth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but his Avatar has video of Angelina Jolie, while we don't have Avatars at all, so he can get away with anything and still seem 1337 compared to us.

excession · #23 07-05-2005, 01:42 PM

I didn't say his avatar wasn't worth the bandwidth [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

excession · #24 07-05-2005, 02:07 PM

1. True it is about their 'spyware', but folks are trying to quote this to state that automated player profiling isn't allowed. My point is that this not what is says.

2. The point about selective deletion is a good one, but there are two other legal rules of construction which will apply in a common law country like Gibraltar to mean that the conjunction 'or' and what follows belongs to the subordinate clause and not as an alternative main clause. As the paragraph is punctuated they should have used a semi-colon before 'or' if they wanted to be able to argue your suggested construction. Secondly there is the contra preferentem rule mentioned above, which is applied against the author in the case of any ambiguity. Finally, even taking your construction, the mention of player profiling being a target for detection and prevention is still limited to when it's used to enable AI's to play the site.

4. Even if player-profiling outside of bots can be called 'AI software', it talks about enabling AI's to 'play' the site - not just to gather data from it.

5. I don't do contract litigation (not for 10 yrs anyway). I draft the things - I let the younger and more argumentative lawyers get paid to argue over them.. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

6. See 5 above..

MentalNomad · #25 07-05-2005, 03:39 PM

I'm not going to go on forever with this. . . it won't be decided here in the forums; if it will be decided, it will be in courts. Here's my last reply:

2. Regardless, the second line is, "You acknowledge that the Company will take measures to detect and prevent the use of such programs and AI software. . ." It is clear that you are agreeing that they will prevent use of such software, and such programs pretty clearly refers to all the types of programs mentioned previously.

"Finally, even taking your construction, the mention of player profiling being a target for detection and prevention is still limited to when it's used to enable AI's to play the site." Again, my point is that their mention of ANY software is strictly by way of providing a context for getting your permission to install their spyware. They do not detail all possible ways to cheat; they simply declare why they are asking you to agree to allow them to use spyware. From that perspective, arguing that any specific software is or is not allowed by this clause is pointless; it is intended to exhaustively lay out what is or is not allowed.

For example, I don't believe you can find any referenece to collusion not being allowed. Clearly, most of us consider collution to be cheating. So where is this covered? If anywhere, then here, in Clause 19: Fraudulent Activities and Prohibited Transactions. "The Company has a zero tolerance policy towards inappropriate play and fraudulent activity. If, in the Company's sole determination, you are found to have cheated or attempted to defraud the Company or any other user of any of the Games in any way including but not limited to game manipulation or payment fraud. . ."

Party has clearly stated in emails to players that they reserve the right to act against ANY software which they feel gives someone an advantage over other players. They consider that inappropriate play. They have been consistent on that point, and have taken care never to limit their wiggle room.

4. If you want to split hairs like that: they don't talk about software playing POKER, they talk about software playing on their services. The general definition of "play" would be accepted here; if it acts on and reacts to cues from their service (which automatic player profiling certainly entails), or if it uses their service (also an accepted definition of 'play'), then it can be construed as playing on their service.

MentalNomad · #26 07-07-2005, 11:39 AM

garion888, any luck trying to get your money back?

RedManPlus · #27 07-07-2005, 12:54 PM

Thanks for the law tutorial...
But it's all really just mental masturbation.

Back to reality:

(1) Is someone actually gonna sue Party...
In a place like Gibraltar?
Or India... where the software is?
Or maybe Indonesia where the server is?
Over a few $1000?
Even if one did... it will probably just get thrown out.

(2) The issue is not about fine TOS legal points...
But about much more complex technical computer issues.
The plaintif will be able to prove nothing...
Because Party will have or manufacture any evidence required...
And "lose" or destroy anything incriminating.

rm+

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

YoureToast · #28 07-07-2005, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the law tutorial...
But it's all really just mental masturbation.

Back to reality:

(1) Is someone actually gonna sue Party...
In a place like Gibraltar?
Or India... where the software is?
Or maybe Indonesia where the server is?
Over a few $1000?
Even if one did... it will probably just get thrown out.

(2) The issue is not about fine TOS legal points...
But about much more complex technical computer issues.
The plaintif will be able to prove nothing...
Because Party will have or manufacture any evidence required...
And "lose" or destroy anything incriminating.

rm+

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. If I filed suit against Party in, for example, London -- whether or not jurisdiction was proper there, there would be a HIGH probability that Party would settle the suit with me to avoid bad publicity. As a lawyer who has delved somewhat in international affairs, I can assure you there is a court that would hear the case, and there is almost nothing that would encourage Party NOT to settle it for at least as much money is being claimed.

If Party withheld any significant amount of money from me, I would 1) send a letter to their in house attorneys threatening to sue (preferably on the letterhead of a well known law firm), 2) call said attorneys to verbally let them know that I have no hesitation in filing a suit, and mentioning that I will keep all the message boards informed o f my progress, and 3) find cheap local counsel to file the suit in the appropriate jurisdiction. As long as I could prove to them I was serious, they'd reopen my account promptly and allow me to withdraw my funds. That is as sure a thing as just about anything.

MentalNomad · #29 07-07-2005, 05:20 PM

YoureToast, while I agree with you in general, I disagree in this case.

The problem is that this would NOT be bad publicity for Party, it would be good.

"Party Gaming sued by player whose funds were confiscated after being caught using player-profiling software. Player contends he broke no rules; Party contends they are protecting the fairness of their game."

It would be worth losing in court just to get the publicity.

MentalNomad · #30 07-07-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Back to reality:

(1) Is someone actually gonna sue Party...
In a place like Gibraltar?
Or India... where the software is?
Or maybe Indonesia where the server is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you want to get back to reality, how about London? After all, the company is listed on the London Stock Exchange (Gibraltar is part of the UK.)

PRTY PARTYGAMING GBX 138.00 -1.50 -1.08
Current PRTY quote

You can put your international jurisdictional conspiracy theory back in the box now.