Dear Frogboy » Forum Post by dragoaskani

Quoting ,

I know people have been ragging over stupid things lately. I understand your annoyance and frustration with their petty comments. I just wanted to create a small thread to thank you for your work and I am excited to hold my copy of Elemental in my hands in a few short weeks.

here here

Successfully updated karma reason!

I trust Brad more than I trust most people. He tries to do the right thing more often than not.

But . . has he refunded someone their money and banned them from buying from Stardock? I'd bet on it.

Was it for good cause? I'd bet on that too.

Sure, but you can't say "If someone has power they'll eventually abuse it.. except Brad, who has power but won't abuse it"

My point of contention with Luckmann's original statement was warning people to not buy their games if they wanted to participate on the forums, which is grossly misrepresenting their forum admins. People who don't try to start trouble never have to worry, just like everywhere else.

I do think it's harsh and unreasonable to ban game accounts for forum behavior, but it's also unreasonable to discourage people from buying their games if they have no interest in trying to push their luck with the admins.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 27

I trust Brad more than I trust most people. He tries to do the right thing more often than not.

But . . has he refunded someone their money and banned them from buying from Stardock? I'd bet on it.

Was it for good cause? I'd bet on that too.

Sure, but you can't say "If someone has power they'll eventually abuse it.. except Brad, who has power but won't abuse it"

My point of contention with Luckmann's original statement was warning people to not buy their games if they wanted to participate on the forums, which is grossly misrepresenting their forum admins. People who don't try to start trouble never have to worry, just like everywhere else.

Oh that's nonsense. Valve banned a bunch of people from their games, 15,000 I believe over a mistake in their own program. It took place over a period of 2 weeks. How much you want to bet these people, who did absolutely nothing wrong by Valve's own account, got nothing but the cold shoulder when they called or sent an e-mail saying they did nothing wrong. . I know Bioware banned one person for claiming that an update to Securom messed up a lot of games, something they refused to admit and then later, admitted that was exactly the problem. They update the DRM, which doesn't happen often by the way, and broke the game on a lot of systems. Did they unban the person who knew they did exactly that after finally admitting they did... no.

Company's should err on the side of caution and not be ban happy to their paying customers. Yes we're talking about the people who pay for their games here since a pirate being banned from anything doesn't mean anything to them. And let's not forget a lot of games are played by kids. Kids need to learn, yes, but I don't expect a 13 year old to behave like some middle-age man. I've told my 15 year old cousin I don't want to hear him talk like "that" when he is playing games with me. He might talk smack with other people, but he doesn't do it with me anymore. For these kids, a couple, few weeks should suffice as opposed to perma bans.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 27

Sure, but you can't say "If someone has power they'll eventually abuse it.. except Brad, who has power but won't abuse it"

Perhaps "likely to" is better than "will" and perhaps "some company" would work better than "someone" because things tend to work better when one person is responsible.

The point remains, I think, that a poster's definition of posting something ban-able and an admin's definition can vary. "Not being an ass" to avoid being banned is pretty vague and *is* the slippery slope.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 27

Sure, but you can't say "If someone has power they'll eventually abuse it.. except Brad, who has power but won't abuse it"

My point of contention with Luckmann's original statement was warning people to not buy their games if they wanted to participate on the forums, which is grossly misrepresenting their forum admins. People who don't try to start trouble never have to worry, just like everywhere else.

I do think it's harsh and unreasonable to ban game accounts for forum behavior, but it's also unreasonable to discourage people from buying their games if they have no interest in trying to push their luck with the admins.

Well that's just not true. First of all, whilst I'm the kind of person that is confrontational and by-the-letter to the point of stupidity, I do make a point to follow rules; all I usually ask is that moderators and such also follow their own rules without pulling despot shenanigans. Be an asshat and I may take a swing at you regardless, but as long as everything is kept civil, I love to argue - perhaps too much - but the point still stands.

On the forums, I got a warning, a temporary ban (which did not affect my purchases), after which I received several small temporary bans in a row, without warning, which did affect my purchases, after which I received a permanent ban, again without warning, which came to affect my purchases.

I also want to stress that I'm not saying that this will or do happen to everyone - it is quite obvious that if I were a spineless cockgobbler, I wouldn't have had my account suspended. On the other hand, then I wouldn't be the kind of person that spends time in a jail cell for arguing against policemen doing unlawful arrests or straight-out thievery, either. The end off is that I don't play nice in the face of adversity. Bullying me is hard; I'm not exactly a willow in the wind.

So as I said earlier, I'm not saying that "It could happen to you" (even though it could). I'm saying that because it is wrong and because it does happen to others, I discourage people from supporting the corporation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Valve banned a bunch of people from their games, 15,000 I believe over a mistake in their own program.

Er, that had nothing to do with forum posting. Stay on topic, perhaps? Those were automated bans with no human input, not a decision of forum admins.

The point remains, I think, that a poster's definition of posting something ban-able and an admin's definition can vary. "Not being an ass" to avoid being banned is pretty vague and *is* the slippery slope.

Not so much. Normal forum discourse is not a slippery slope and is most certainly not a bannable offense. All forum TOS text generally has something about remaining civil. As long as you do, you never have anything to worry about. There's no "slippery slope". There are other terms of course that can come into effect even if you are civil (posting warez links is another common one). It all comes down to knowing the rules of the forum. Notice Luckmann *knew* he was pushing his luck in a flame fest against BioWare. That's not a slippery slope, since the TOS were already broken. They usually lay out pretty clearly what you're allowed and what you aren't.

For example, EA's terms of service from the Dragon Age Forums:

EA may also terminate your Account(s) (and access to all related entitlements) for violation of this Terms of Service

10. Rules of Conduct.

You may violate the Terms of Service if you:
- Post, transmit, promote, or distribute Content that is illegal.
- Harass, threaten, embarrass, or do anything else to another player that is unwanted, such as repeatedly sending unwanted messages or making personal attacks or statements about race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.
- Transmit or facilitate distribution of Content that is harmful, abusive, racially or ethnically offensive, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, or in a reasonable person's view, objectionable. Hate speech is not tolerated.
- Disrupt the flow of chat in chat rooms with vulgar language, abusiveness, hitting the return key repeatedly or inputting large images so the screen goes by too fast to read, use of excessive shouting [all caps] in an attempt to disturb other users, "spamming" or flooding [posting repetitive text].
- Impersonate another person (including celebrities), indicate falsely that you are an EA employee or a representative of EA, or attempt to mislead users by indicating that you represent EA or any of EA's partners or affiliates.
- Attempt to get a password, account information, or other private information from anyone else on EA Services.
- Upload any software or Content that you do not own or have permission to freely distribute.
- Promote or encourage any illegal activity including hacking, cracking or distribution of counterfeit software.
- Upload files that contain a virus or corrupted data.
- Post messages for any purpose other than personal communication, including advertising or promotional messaging, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or other commercial activities.
- Improperly use in-game support or complaint buttons or make false reports to EA staff.
- Use or distribute "auto" software programs, "macro" software programs or other "cheat utility" software program or applications.
- Modify any part of the EA Service that EA does not specifically authorize you to modify.
- Post or communicate any player’s real-world personal information using an EA Service.
- Attempt to interfere with, hack into or decipher any transmissions to or from the servers for an EA Service.
- Use and communicate exploits to gain unfair advantage in a game
- Attempt to use EA Software on or through any service that is not controlled or authorized by Electronic Arts.
- Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing an EA Service or take actions that interfere with or materially increase the cost to provide an EA Service for the enjoyment of all its users.

Specific EA Services may also post additional rules that apply to your conduct on those services.

There's no slippery slope here. Under these rules, insulting a forum admin or BioWare/EA rep in any way can be considered violation of the TOS and they can ban you. Doesn't mean they will, but you can't call it a slipery slope between calling the guy an "ass" and a "****wad" when clearly both are wrong and you can get banned for either.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm saying that because it is wrong and because it does happen to others, I discourage people from supporting the corporation.

It's not "wrong". It's in their rules which you agree to follow when you post on the boards. As I said, I believe it's a harsh and unreasonable form of punishment, but it's not "wrong". It's spelled out in the TOS.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 32

It's not "wrong". It's in their rules which you agree to follow when you post on the boards. As I said, I believe it's a harsh and unreasonable form of punishment, but it's not "wrong". It's spelled out in the TOS.

You are confusing "wrong" in a moral sense, and "wrong" in a legal sense.

And even then, it is still legally dubious to withhold, or threaten to withhold, legally purchased items on such a shaky foundation as "When we damn well please". If nothing else, such a policy alone is reason to discourage purchases.

As damn near all boycotts (or calls for such), it is a question of right and wrong not in a legal sense, but a moral. "Right" and "Wrong", rather than "Legal" or "Illegal".

Nemagon was a perfectly legal pesticide in Nicaragua, but it doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to endorse Dole.

Also, I can't help but react to this.

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 27

[...]

I do think it's harsh and unreasonable to ban game accounts for forum behavior, [...]

I can only interpret "harsh and unreasonable", with an emphasis on "unreasonable", as "wrong". Either you find the policy and the "harsh" and "unreasonable", therefore reprehensible in some fashion, ergo wrong. Or you don't find it wrong at all.

Again, just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's not a morally dubious and questionable practice. And even then, again, I sincerely doubt that it's actually legal.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 28

Quoting Annatar11, reply 27
I trust Brad more than I trust most people. He tries to do the right thing more often than not.

But . . has he refunded someone their money and banned them from buying from Stardock? I'd bet on it.

Was it for good cause? I'd bet on that too.

Sure, but you can't say "If someone has power they'll eventually abuse it.. except Brad, who has power but won't abuse it"

My point of contention with Luckmann's original statement was warning people to not buy their games if they wanted to participate on the forums, which is grossly misrepresenting their forum admins. People who don't try to start trouble never have to worry, just like everywhere else.

Oh that's nonsense. Valve banned a bunch of people from their games, 15,000 I believe over a mistake in their own program. It took place over a period of 2 weeks. How much you want to bet these people, who did absolutely nothing wrong by Valve's own account, got nothing but the cold shoulder when they called or sent an e-mail saying they did nothing wrong. . I know Bioware banned one person for claiming that an update to Securom messed up a lot of games, something they refused to admit and then later, admitted that was exactly the problem. They update the DRM, which doesn't happen often by the way, and broke the game on a lot of systems. Did they unban the person who knew they did exactly that after finally admitting they did... no.

Firstly, Valve didn't ban anyone from any games. The VAC system for MW2 detected certain legit file changes as hacks and they got VAC banned, which only prevents them from using VAC servers online, nothing else. Of course Valve recognized this error eventually after about a week or two, and gave everyone afflicted up to 2 free copies of L4D2, and unbanned them.

You used a pretty bad example of abuse mate.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 8

Quoting Frogboy, reply 5Oh I ban people from the forums but banning from the game? That seems pretty harsh. You sure about that?

I've heard the same thing about Bioware/EA, but nothing really verified. I know one of the gentlemen from Reclaim Your Game got himself banned from all EA forums but not the games I think.

Yea, I'm a bit skeptical. Banning someone from the forums is one thing. But eliminating a customer's ability to play the game because of forum behavior? It's none of a publisher's business. I don't see how they have the right to do that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 31

Valve banned a bunch of people from their games, 15,000 I believe over a mistake in their own program.

Er, that had nothing to do with forum posting. Stay on topic, perhaps? Those were automated bans with no human input, not a decision of forum admins

Quoting SpaghettiMon,

reply 34

Firstly, Valve didn't ban anyone from any games. The VAC system for MW2 detected certain legit file changes as hacks and they got VAC banned, which only prevents them from using VAC servers online, nothing else. Of course Valve recognized this error eventually after about a week or two, and gave everyone afflicted up to 2 free copies of L4D2, and unbanned them.

You used a pretty bad example of abuse mate.

Alright, you two, right here; you're both missing the point.

The point isn't that it was an automated function or that it was abused. The point is that people were in fact banned, with no recourse and no accountability.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alright, you two, right here; you're both missing the point.

The point isn't that it was an automated function or that it was abused. The point is that people were in fact banned, with no recourse and no accountability.

No, you're changing the point. VAC is an anti-cheat system, it glitched and wrongfully banned a bunch of people and the bans were reversed. They even got 2 free copies of L4D2 for the trouble. This is entirely different from mouthing off to forum admins and getting banned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

I know people have been ragging over stupid things lately. I understand your annoyance and frustration with their petty comments.

Cheers Bud!

Petty comments? why don't you just add trolling as well? There have been alot of negative comments lately for a reason, the people who participated in the beta were paying customers, we have a ligitimate right to do so as consumers. If this offends some people too bad.

I'm sure the game will get better over time, but if this is whats to be expected of the 'finished product' then i guess i will be very dissapointed.

Trolling is just a bad a gushing or fanboyism.

One other thing, after reading some of frogs comments i was actually shocked to see a developer get this defensive over people simply trying to point this game obivious flaws. Maybe Brad next time you just leave beta 'in-house'.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 35

Yea, I'm a bit skeptical. Banning someone from the forums is one thing. But eliminating a customer's ability to play the game because of forum behavior? It's none of a publisher's business. I don't see how they have the right to do that.

I can send you all my account information if you're like to see for yourself. Dragon Age even has a little message informing you that your account is banned (I never checked Mass Effect 2).

It doesn't just include all the things that were bought, but also the things that came with the game, which I'd obviously use if I could. Anything you want to see, I can throw at you. I don't lie. I even have the Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 Collector's Edition cases lying around here somewhere, with the codes that were registered to the account (which is obviously defunct). I can still play Dragon Age and ME2, but I can't patch it or apply any sort of DLC whatsoever.

Since the games have already been registered on my original account, I can't even re-register the products on a new one. Fun times.

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 37

Alright, you two, right here; you're both missing the point.

The point isn't that it was an automated function or that it was abused. The point is that people were in fact banned, with no recourse and no accountability.
No, you're changing the point. VAC is an anti-cheat system, it glitched and wrongfully banned a bunch of people and the bans were reversed. They even got 2 free copies of L4D2 for the trouble. This is entirely different from mouthing off to forum admins and getting banned.

I'm not changing the point. I'm clarifying what I interpreted as Nesrie's point. I also brought up the issue of accountability and control at the end of Pg. 1.

The fact that it was reversed is all well and good - but I also don't discourage people from buying Steam/Valve products (at least not on that premise). I'd say that giving away L4D2 (2 copies, no less) is more than generous compensation (although I'm not sure I'd agree if I weren't an objective observer).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 31

Valve banned a bunch of people from their games, 15,000 I believe over a mistake in their own program.

Er, that had nothing to do with forum posting. Stay on topic, perhaps? Those were automated bans with no human input, not a decision of forum admins.

The topic was actually thanking Frogboy.

Quoting SpaghettiMon,

reply 34

Firstly, Valve didn't ban anyone from any games. The VAC system for MW2 detected certain legit file changes as hacks and they got VAC banned, which only prevents them from using VAC servers online, nothing else. Of course Valve recognized this error eventually after about a week or two, and gave everyone afflicted up to 2 free copies of L4D2, and unbanned them.

You used a pretty bad example of abuse mate.

They were banned at no fault of their own. I stand by my example. We've seen plenty of accusations of cheats around here, especially on the Demigod forums. Stardock doesn't go around banning people for suspected cheating. Valve does. Also, that was one of my examples, not all of them. Valve didn't put those customers in a position to be able to do anything about their situation. They were left at the mercy of someone finding out there mistake AND giving a shit that they made a mistake. It's not a good position to put your paying cutsomers in.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

The topic was actually thanking Frogboy.

Cute, but no. The topic was the discussion that you came into. You can do better with your arguments than word play about topic as in OP or topic as in what we were discussing.

They were banned at no fault of their own. I stand by my example.

Through no fault of their own, yes, but not by overzealous forum admins which was Luckmann's and Zubaz' main arguing point. Therefore, your example is invalid - you can stand by it, but it simply does not apply.

Stardock doesn't go around banning people for suspected cheating. Valve does.

"Valve" doesn't. Valve's anti-cheat program does. Stardock does not have one. The two aren't comparable. Stardock can't ban from forum posts because there's no actual proof. In VAC's case, the "proof" was due to a software bug, which while unfortunate, sometimes happens. It's an unfortunate reality that complex software sometimes has bugs.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 40

The topic was actually thanking Frogboy.

Which we should do every day.

Our Frog who art at Stardock,
We give thanks for the pleasure
Of gathering together for this occasion.
We give thanks for these games
Prepared by loving hands.
We give thanks for betas,
The freedom to enjoy it all
And all other blessings.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 41

They were banned at no fault of their own. I stand by my example.

Through no fault of their own, yes, but not by overzealous forum admins which was Luckmann's and Zubaz' main arguing point. Therefore, your example is invalid - you can stand by it, but it simply does not apply.

The system was put in place by people with an overzealous position, company policy.

Stardock doesn't go around banning people for suspected cheating. Valve does.

"Valve" doesn't. Valve's anti-cheat program does. Stardock does not have one. The two aren't comparable. Stardock can't ban from forum posts because there's no actual proof. In VAC's case, the "proof" was due to a software bug, which while unfortunate, sometimes happens. It's an unfortunate reality that complex software sometimes has bugs.

Oh I love this. People don't ban people; computers do. Excellent, just excellent. Let me guess, you think guns kill people right, not people too?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The system was put in place by people with an overzealous position, company policy.

So, trying to prevent cheaters from ruining the experience of gamers is an "overzealous position"?

Oh I love this. People don't ban people; computers do. Excellent, just excellent. Let me guess, you think guns kill people right, not people too?

What does this have to do with anything? If you want me to spell it out for you: yes, VAC the "computer" bans people. It requires no human input. Guns don't kill people, they require a human to pull the trigger. Humans made both, but one functions on its own and the other does not. Again, they're not comparable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 41

Through no fault of their own, yes, but not by overzealous forum admins which was Luckmann's and Zubaz' main arguing point. Therefore, your example is invalid - you can stand by it, but it simply does not apply.

It does apply. The issue in my case may be overzealous administrators (Codename: Asshats) but the larger issue, as I see is, is one of accountability and control.

Like the automated anti-cheat-hammer of Steam (Codename: ANTIBOT), the Asshats is a symptom of a system malfunction. Something in the system is broken, when administrators even can ban others at will and withhold purchased products. It is much easier to reprogram ANTIBOT, though.

I'm not sure which is the worse case. On one hand, ANTIBOT was fixed and the customers reimbursed, but automated systems also have the lowest accountability - the control is entirely beyond the customers. At least with a moderator or Admin, you can often argue a bit before you're banned. You tend to at least have a nickname which to report. On the other hand, in my case, it's so low-key that I never expect it to be 'fixed', nor are they apologetic about it.

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 44

What does this have to do with anything? If you want me to spell it out for you: yes, VAC the "computer" bans people. It requires no human input. Guns don't kill people, they require a human to pull the trigger. Humans made both, but one functions on its own and the other does not. Again, they're not comparable.

Somehow, the fact that it's a completely automated system actually makes me feel violated even more.

Annatar, the fact that it's an automated system with even less of a recourse doesn't make things better. It makes it worse and even less reliable.

Also, much like a gun, ANTIBOT requires someone to direct it. Someone programmed it. Gave it parameters. It didn't just appear. I can build a robot that auto-aims and auto-fires at any living (well, moving) thing. Am I suddenly blameless? Is the computer suddenly to blame, but "it's ok, because it's automated"?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 40

Quoting Annatar11, reply 31
Valve banned a bunch of people from their games, 15,000 I believe over a mistake in their own program.

Er, that had nothing to do with forum posting. Stay on topic, perhaps? Those were automated bans with no human input, not a decision of forum admins.

The topic was actually thanking Frogboy actually.

Quoting SpaghettiMon, reply 34

Firstly, Valve didn't ban anyone from any games. The VAC system for MW2 detected certain legit file changes as hacks and they got VAC banned, which only prevents them from using VAC servers online, nothing else. Of course Valve recognized this error eventually after about a week or two, and gave everyone afflicted up to 2 free copies of L4D2, and unbanned them.

You used a pretty bad example of abuse mate.

They were banned at no fault of their own. I stand by my example. We've seen plenty of accusations of cheats around here, especially on the Demigod forums. Stardock doesn't go around banning people for suspected cheating. Valve does. Also, that was one of my examples, not all of them. Valve didn't put those customers in a position to be able to do anything about their situation. They were left at the mercy of someone finding out there mistake AND giving a shit that they made a mistake. It's not a good position to put your paying cutsomers in.

Valve has a huge multiplayer network, Stardock doesn't. 99.999999999999999999999% of the time VAC bans are justified, and honestly it does a pretty damn good job at keeping most games cheater free. Valve doesn't go around banning people suspected of cheating either. They have VAC which is an automated service, which will report users who have been flagged for changing important game files other than maps and mods. VAC didn't mess up here either, there was a situation where a certain file that was on the retail disk was setting off VAC flags when it was patched. Valve quickly realized that VAC must have been triggering a file that didn't need to be and fixed the situation by unbanning everyone and giving them 2 free copies of L4D2. VAC didn't make a mistake(it did exactly what it was designed to do), VALVE didn't make a mistake.

Something like VAC is necessary for serious multiplayer gaming, and VAC is probably the best one out there. It's time for you to to realize that any service you use online, hell any time you use any service provided by anyone but yourself, you are going to be left at the whims of the people running that service. It's just a matter of who's behind that service. Valve is one of the better ones, and so is Stardock.

I don't get why people feel entitled when on the internet. If you don't act like a douche, and follow the rules, you're going to be fine most of the time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

VAC didn't mess up here either, there was a situation where a certain file that was on the retail disk was setting off VAC flags when it was patched. Valve quickly realized that VAC must have been triggering a file that didn't need to be and fixed the situation by unbanning everyone and giving them 2 free copies of L4D2. VAC didn't make a mistake(it did exactly what it was designed to do), VALVE didn't make a mistake.

I thought they said that the issue wasn't specific to any game? Made it sound like it was a VAC goof-up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 35

Quoting Nesrie, reply 8
Quoting Frogboy, reply 5Oh I ban people from the forums but banning from the game? That seems pretty harsh. You sure about that?

I've heard the same thing about Bioware/EA, but nothing really verified. I know one of the gentlemen from Reclaim Your Game got himself banned from all EA forums but not the games I think.
Yea, I'm a bit skeptical. Banning someone from the forums is one thing. But eliminating a customer's ability to play the game because of forum behavior? It's none of a publisher's business. I don't see how they have the right to do that.

As far as I know it's not to punish customers but is because some games (like Dragon Age) are linked to a Bioware account - the same account people use to login to the forums. So banning one bans the other.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 47

VAC didn't mess up here either, there was a situation where a certain file that was on the retail disk was setting off VAC flags when it was patched. Valve quickly realized that VAC must have been triggering a file that didn't need to be and fixed the situation by unbanning everyone and giving them 2 free copies of L4D2. VAC didn't make a mistake(it did exactly what it was designed to do), VALVE didn't make a mistake.

I thought they said that the issue wasn't specific to any game? Made it sound like it was a VAC goof-up.

You're right, after re-reading the email from Gabe, it does appear that he says it wasn't game specific (even though it really only affected people playing MW2). I guess he also admitted to making a mistake. It was a bug caused during updating of certain DLL files. The point is though, instead of being an over-zealous dictator, Valve reconciled their mistake by reversing the ban, AND giving them $100 in free games. I'd say that's the exact opposite of over-zealous. You might even call it humble and graceful compared to almost any other company out there.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting SpaghettiMon,

reply 49

You're right, after re-reading the email from Gabe, it does appear that he says it wasn't game specific (even though it really only affected people playing MW2). I guess he also admitted to making a mistake. It was a bug caused during updating of certain DLL files. The point is though, instead of being an over-zealous dictator, Valve reconciled their mistake by reversing the ban, AND giving them $100 in free games. I'd say that's the exact opposite of over-zealous. You might even call it humble and graceful compared to almost any other company out there.

Yeah. I find the fact that it was an automated bot that did it all worse, but the fact that they managed to solve it and then went the extra mile awesome. As you said, I'd call it humble and graceful, rather than AAAAH MOTHERLAND.

Not being a huge fan of Steam (or Valve games) this means a lot.

Successfully updated karma reason!