2013-02-25, 06:52 AM
SaptaZapta Wrote:I'm not sure I understand this. The company "reserves the right" to make the evidence public? Doesn't that mean they can choose whether to do so or not? Just as they do today?
Where's the bit that says they must release the evidence to the owner of the banned account, on request?
Also, "its representative", not "it's representative".
The term change suggested is a way of letting their consumers know that Nexon DOES reserve the right to publish evidence materials. The contrary would be NOT reserving it, which in turn would make it questionable if Nexon has the right to publish it (as it is now). Therefore this term isn't necessary unless someone decides to sue Nexon for publishing evidence of hacking. But even then it would <likely> (cba to make a "paper" on it) be superfluous in the contract.
OT: I really love the initiative! Signing it after this. The only thing I want to nitpick about is the phrase where you claim the current process is "un-American". That's a completely ridiculous remark which only serves as a nationalistic emotional argument. The worst thing is, it's completely USA-an to conceal evidence and transparency is typically un-"American" (actually, not ideologically). One of the reasons I can accept the way Nexon handles their bans is because they are situated in the US.
On the other hand, what do I know. I didn't study US administrative law.