Messing with a GM!!!

[Sucubich]

Take a screenshot. This looks entirely fake. The GM is entirely unprofessional with his grammar and wording and probably shouldn't be having these kind of discussions. I have a hard time believing it.

Also you're ridiculously incorrect on the law side of this chat.

Ask botanist if this happened or not. I was sharing screen with him!

 

[holynorth]

Ask botanist if this happened or not. I was sharing screen with him!

Then the GM needs to be fired for how unprofessional he is.

 

[Liferose]

I used to talk to GM's quite frequently for one reason or another. They don't tend to have a "professional" stance on issues unless you do something that sets them off. A while ago they used to spawn mobs and things freely, now they are purely invisible players with a very jolly temperament. I'm not saying a few are like this, out of maybe the last 10 I've talked to 9 of them immediately asked me if I wanted to hear a joke, and made a bunch of smiley faces. The other one I was reporting a graphical bug in Orgrimmar and it went from almost peeing itself happy to, "Ok. I'm going to look at it right now, one second." Spelling errors and humanistic conversation is expected, but the moment you mention legal action they're most likely obligated to do nothing else or risk liability. You fight lawyer with lawyer.

 

[bambam922]

Moved to general discussion.

 

[Baconadors]

I think we should take this with a grain of salt.

This convo is just plain text. Screenshots would have been better.
At the same time, the GMs on live chat are... people. Grammar/Spelling mistakes are incredibly common and just because this conversation has them, doesn't make it fake.

The end of this argument lies in written law. I'm just going to take a shot in the dark here and say that no one in this thread is a lawyer/lawyer that specializes in this area.
Regardless of what we think is correct, isn't necessarily so.

We should cool down before this thread turns into a flame-fest and the mods get pissed.

 

[Bewm]

What some people here don't seem to realize is that just because something is in an agreement doesn't make it legal. If I release a product and in the disclaimer that no one reads it says that I now own their firstborn child and can sell it into slavery does not make it legal to do that even if they accept it as higher laws prevent it. I'm Canadian but I'm sure its the same in the US, State/Provincial laws cannot override Federal laws, just the same as Blizzards EULA cannot override consumer protection laws that exist in certain countries.

Really? Because non-disclosure agreements are legal.... and thats signing away your childs freedom.

 

[Galaxy]

Call me a party pooper, but I doubt this is even legit. . . I've yet to see a GM with as poor grammar as the one you posted here.

 

[Botanist]

For those that keep saying the chat is fake, I will confirm that it is true and that I was viewing his screen via teamviewer assisting him with an HB issue as he was talking to support. For the record, I did not encourage or suggest this although, I did find it highly amusing.

 

[Job2k9]

I'm not sure what reciting your opinions on legal issues to some minimum wadge slave at Blizzard is going to accomplish. If your idea of having fun is wasting your time trolling to a guy who is getting paid and likely doesn't get bothered or care about you... you may need to get out a little more.

 

[Snazzyjdawg]

I took few law classes at my university last semester and learned of a few supreme court cases one of which involving a ski resort that had a an agreement similar to a contractual EULA. Basically everytime a customer bought a lift ticket they had to check a box on the back of the ticket that would exscuse the ski resort of ALL liability if one were to get hurt and that they were accountable for absolutely nothing. Well as it happens their ski lift shuddered one day causing one of their patrons to fall off of it, plummeting down to earth breaking both his legs. The person sued the ski resort who's lawyers then stated "well he checked the box that excuses us from anything" the lawyers for the guy who broke his legs argued that just because you inform a customer and basically "force" them to sign something after they've purchased a service or product from you that you can't just bend the rules into your favor. The case flew all the way upto the supreme court as both sides appealed numerous times. The supreme court ruled in favor of the lady who broke her legs.

WHile the cases are different they're similar in a few different ways. Just some food for thought.

*incase any of you are interested in more information about the case here ill provide the link*
Beasley Firm Wins Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case Involving Reckless Conduct at a Snow Tubing Ski Resort - Beasley Firm Injury and Malpractice Lawyers