I was very excited for this game.
The last time I had any real excitement for FFXI was about 15 months ago, on the night of VanaFest 2010 in Japan.
And now, the BluGartr folks are taking over the Official Forums they openly slam as a joke.
I said it on Tuesday, and it goes double now. I have prepared remarks, unfit for the Forums, for Square-Enix.
I do have to question, though, whether Square-Enix actually gives enough of a rat's ass not to be sued. I've said, quite often, here that I would openly consider suing Square-Enix for fraud, if I had standing to do so.
A 2010 Federal case (Mayer vs. Belichick, New England Patriots, & NFL), if applied to contracts like the Terms of Service, would indicate that not only does Square-Enix have no obligation to uphold fair play, but they can actually abrogate their own Terms of Service at any elective point they choose.
(Thank you, by the way, to Brian Tuohy's The Fix is In website.)
I assume you are all aware of the Spygate scandal surrounding the NFL and the New England Patriots' (fraudulent) dynasty of the last decade. Mr. Mayer is a New York Jets season ticket holder and a lawyer. He sued after learning of the illegal tapings of Jets practices, which led to revelations that similar actions had been done before the Super Bowl win of the Patriots over the St. Louis Rams (only one of the most suspicious events ever held in the history of American sport!).
He sued on behalf of all New York Jets season ticket holders.
Page 4 of the ruling (go to the section of the linked page on the Spygate scandal and he has a link to the PDF ruling) covers a fact I've long been looking for sports fans to sue about with respect to many major sports. In fact, I directly made reference to this with respect to Major League Baseball's steroid scandal.
"3. Plaintiffs contend that in purchasing tickets to the New York Jets that, as a matter of contract, the tickets imply that each game will be played in accordance with NFL rules and regulations, as well as all applicable state and Federal laws."
How simple is that not to understand? The claim is that, by purchasing a ticket, there's an expectation that the game be adjudicated according to the rules of the game and the laws of the land. Simple, right?
Well, I assert that, by paying my $12.95 that, as a matter of contract, acceptance of that payment implies that Final Fantasy XI will be played in accordance to the Terms of Service and relevant rules and regulations, as well as all applicable state and Federal laws.
Just as simple, right?
So where do we go wrong?
The NFL dismissed the claim, and so did the original District Court, effectively that the person did not have neither standing nor:
"a claim on which relief may be granted. (Page 11)"
Basically, the District Court ruled that the fan had no standing nor claim against the NFL, even that the claims of illegal taping, etc. are admitted true!
Again, from Cornell Law through Karl Denninger through USLegal.com:
"Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading."
So if the Court then decides that the fan has no standing nor claim to sue, what they are then saying is that the league can allow the Cheat-riots to cheat like Hell and that, even with that knowledge, the fan then has no expectation that the game is to be played even within the boundaries of Federal and State law?
That's exactly what the appellate court ruled!
Even with the known admissions and the penalties from the league, the Court ruled that the lawyer had no standing to sue, because he had no claim, because he -- even with the admissions, to restate! -- did not satisfy that "the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." (Page 11, right at the bottom)
Page 12 goes on to say that he did not suffer an "actionable injury (or, in other words, a legally protected right or interest)", and that "we ultimately conclude that Mayer failed to set forth a legally cognizable right, interest, or injury here", and on that basis, his claim was denied.
In fact, the only recourse the Court leaves them is to speak out against the league and the Patriots and to boycott the NFL. (Directly stated on the second-to-last page)
As I've said: For over two years, I've considered filing a small-claims legal action against Square-Enix. This case appears to be precedent which would indicate that Square-Enix has no legal obligation whatsoever to uphold the Terms of Service -- of any kind!!!
If that's the case, then, similarly, the only recourse left would be to boycott and speak out against the company!
If that's the case, then Square-Enix needs to remove me from FFXI, tout suite.