ED's terms and conditions

[Neophoenix]

Can someone call in any active moderator WITH BRAINS to clarify some phrase and clause from the terms and conditions section ?

Acceptable condition:
- “use” of EYE CASH means either purchasing virtual item or other digital good using EYE CASH or adding EYE CASH to your account."

(Is gold considered as a digital good?)

Bannable offense:
-"Intention and/or Action to trade gold for real cash without an in-game commodity"

(are cc codes/eye cash considered real cash? is RUDN service a game commodity?)


Before any moderator WITH BRAIN comments here, let me add some simeple facts to help them answer these.

*What is digital good -is a general phrase used to describe any goods that are stored, delivered and used in its electronic format.
*What is a commodity-a raw material or primary product/item that can be bought and sold

[Neophoenix]

reserved section

[Zengeroff]

It's clause, not claws...

[Neophoenix]

thanks, a lot has been on my mind when making this

[theredgumball]

aint it *phrases and clauses, not phrase and clause.

lol don't mind me

[NieLi]

I'm not a mod but I definitely know Eyedentity’s virtual currency, as known as EYE CASH. EYE CASH has no “real world” value therefore one could
say that EYE CASH is not real cash

[Neophoenix]

based on the points you have just given, trading my EYECash to gold is not agains't the rules or someone buying my EYECash with gold doesn't justify an offense since there were no "REAL CASH" involved?

[Skyros]

I the acceptable condition means the acceptable 'use' of Eye Cash is limited to adding Eye Cash to your ED account and purchasing virtual items only available to the Eye Cash shop. Meaning, EYEC is only meant to be 'Loaded to account->Purchase virtual good available in EYECash Shop' and any other direction aside from that subjects you to a bannable situation.

(Yes, gold is a digital good. However, EYEC-> Gold trading becomes a bannable action due to Gold not directly being sold/able to be purchased in the EYECash Shop)

For the second situation, it the statement explains itself really. It is on the GM's discretion on how would they identify this 'intention'.
Yes, a possible loophole to this is selling an item in TH (e.g. Spera) for a predetermined (agreed) amount of gold between the persons partaking in the act of RMT. However, here comes the 'intention' part, if the GM finds you questionable (by evidence like private chats threads, or selling the Spera way above the average/normal TH price), then the GM has the right/ability to ban you, putting in reason the 'intention clause'.

(EYET/EYEC is NOT real cash as it is a 'virtual currency' and has no real-world value e.g. I can't buy a Pizza in Domino's using EYET/EYEC; RUDN Service is a SERVICE and services do not produce a tangible commodity, so no RUDN Service is not a game commodity, the RUDNL Wraths are)

This is just a simple man's understanding. I could be wrong, I could be right. And I am not an Economics major to fully grasp what commodity/digital good is.

[Neophoenix]

"I the acceptable condition means the acceptable 'use' of Eye Cash is limited to adding Eye Cash to your ED account and purchasing virtual items only available to the Eye Cash shop. Meaning, EYEC is only meant to be 'Loaded to account->Purchase virtual good available in EYECash Shop' and any other direction aside from that subjects you to a bannable situation."
person A has gold
person B has EYEC
person buys the EYEC with gold, "Loaded to account>Purchase virtual good available in EYECash"
do you see any error in this based on what you have said?

"RUDN Service is a SERVICE and services do not produce a tangible commodity, so no RUDN Service is not a game commodity, the RUDNL Wraths are)"
Even if you put it like that, commodities are basically something that can be traded, can you trade Legend wraths then? As far as I know, scales have long been non tradable via direct trade/trading house. This is why I'm calling out any active moderators with the guts to answer these inquiries because I won't be satisfied unless it comes directly from them but then again, he must provide a proper explaination for this first to quench my thirst for clear answers. Well, not that I'm pointing out that such moderators doesn't exist in these forums.

[Skyros]

Yes, Gold is a virtual good. However, it is not directly sellable/obtainable via the EYECash Shop. Clearly, the EYECash Shop is the only proper medium unto which EYEC can be spent with and Gold is virtual good not available to that shop.
Even though EYEC is a virtual currency and Gold is an in-game commodity there is still the question of where is the use of purchasing via EYEC limited. The fact that you are purchasing Gold in which in itself isn't available in the EYECash Shop is somewhat a bannable offense.

(P.S. For me, the ruleset is very vague as ED did not specify unto in which medium/shops is EYEC limited to be used. It would be safe to assume that EYEC is only limited to the Cash Shop just as how Gold is limited to in-game goods and cannot purchase goods via the Cash Shop.)

For the second point, I kind of phased out there. I contradicted myself actually (lul). RUDN Svc is simply a mean to get RUDNL wraths (which is the raw material/good). Since RUDNL wraths are not directly tradeable/sellable, thus the selling of the Service is actually the main method of selling the Wraths. I'm pretty sure you are paying for the Wraths you get in the completion not for the 'experience/fun' of the Raid.

[Neophoenix]

until now, there aren't any signs of moderators with brains showing up

[launcelot]

Giving my free thought here. If I gave a team compensatory CC topups in exchange for a RuDN runs.

How is it different for me to give a friend, or anyone who I have close connection with to receive a gift from me and then we all do our usual runs together including RuDN?

And how is it different from someone who just topped up CC (and eventually EYET), and just performed RuDN with everyone with a few still gearing up?

Is the act seen as someone who paid someone for service?

As such, no one can tell any difference until a proof of selling such service in a form of a broadcast ad either by bluebird, fb post, or any form of public bulletin board.

The act of selling service starts by advertising the service itself. Not on the act or trading financial instruments - be it CC EYET or gold.

[theredgumball]

based on what i remember:

(economic) commodity - are goods OR services that are produced to satisfy the consumers needs and wants.
goods - tangible materials exchanged for a certain value.
services - intangible materials exchanged for an agreed value.

when we take it in virtual context, in-game/virtual commodity: both virtual goods and services in-game traded in virtual platforms that has no physical substance and no real intrinsic value.

as such:

A.) Gold and EyeCash

1.) Eye cash is the virtual currency with no real-life value and is not considered as real money/currency and is not regarded as any kind of real money from ED (Terms of Use Section 3.4)
2.) in-game gold is considered as virtual good (based from its economic definition) since it can be traded in-game and no real-life value as well (Terms of Use Section 3.5).
3.) From points 1 and 2, exchange of gold with eye-cash is not an offense in accordance to Abuse Policy DN-TRD-01 (Intention and/or Action to trade gold for real cash and vice-versa without an in-game commodity). Since both commodities are of no real-cash value and no direct real monetary transaction between the two players, then I can't classify this as illegal activity, unless otherwise explicitly stated by ED.

B.) In-game Service
1.) The RuDN-L wraths are still considered as in-game commodity because they are still produced in-game by the game provider (through the nests/raids) even if it's not tradeable, just like the costume synthesis device, etc.
2.) Now the RuDN HC Service on the other hand is still debatable if it is an in-game commodity since ED has actually no stand if this is considered as a LEGAL economic activity in-game. Though, there are specific instances where it will be not illegal (if the rudn hc service is considered as legal activity which is not yet defined by ED anyway) or illegal nonetheless:

a.) It is surely illegal if the "servicers" are accessing the account of the person directly in clearing the raid OR if there is real-monetary exchange involved, in accordance to Abuse Policy DN-TRD-03 (Offering monetary services to babysit, power level, or pilot game character/s THAT REQUIRES direct access to the recipient’s account/s).

b.) But, availing the said "service" is not deemed illegal if it will not involve direct access to the recipient's account AND no monetary transactions involved. Examples would be
i) receiving the RuDN HC SVC in exchange for 500 speras with the recipient actually using his/her own account. No monetary and direct recipient's account access involved; and
ii) receiving the RuDN HC SVC in exchange for in-game gold with the recipient actually using his/her own account. Gold is not considered monetary in any form (virtual or real life) and no direct access to recipient's account involved.

c.) it is however debatable if receiving RuDN HC SVC for EyeCash is illegal since it was only mentioned in the Abusy Policy that it will involve monetary services. It was not specified it it is real-life monetary transaction or virtual monetary transaction (EyeCash is the legal virtual currency in this game as defined in Terms of Use Section 3.4).

Open for discussion thanks

[Neophoenix]

point 1, maybe you are right by saying trading EYECash to gold and gold to EYECash is clearly not an offense if we dig facts from how you define gold as an ingame commodity and EYECash as not in any for REAL CASH. But nevertheless you can see moderators so strict in advertising trades between EYEC and gold.

point2, just from the definition of commodity alone your arguing statement isn't accepted already. Never was service a commodity nor was it a product. Here let me give you another definition of commodity since the way you define commodity was never in my vocabulary or even if I try to search from sources, none would give the same definition you did. "A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type" . If you say RUDN legend wraths is a basic tradable good, then I will have to agree with you.

[Neophoenix]

oh and btw, I gave your comment 1 like if possible a hundred not because I want to bribe your side with it but mainly because of your honest thoughts regarding how you see these points.

[theredgumball]

thanks for the reply neophoenix. here's my reply as well

1.) legally, here are the general rules for contract interpretations:

a.) Ordinary and Normal Meanings of Contract Language: Pursuant to this rule, contractual language is to be given its normal and ordinary usage unless circumstances exist to consider alternative meanings.

b.) Technical Meaning Governs Over Ordinary Meaning: While contractual language is to be given its normal and ordinary meaning, some words have both an ordinary and technical meaning. This rule holds that courts interpreting contracts that contain words that have both ordinary and technical meanings should utilize the technical meaning unless evidence suggests that the parties intended otherwise.

c.) Construing Ambiguities Against the Drafter: Many jurisdictions hold that contract ambiguities are construed against the drafter of the document, especially if the application of other rules of construction fails to resolve the issue.

Since ED did not specify the meaning of commodity, virtual goods, services, etc in its term of use, we can legally use its technical definition if any, or general definition as used commonly.

2.) in response to your first point, are they actually prohibiting it, because it is not legal? Or they are not sure too? since it's legally acceptable to use the common use of the terms in-game gold, virtual goods, etc., this is not actually illegal (ok i am not tolerating it btw, i am also against it but when it comes to legality, well it's not illegal) unless otherwise explicitly stated by ED/moderators in an official statement.

3.) for your 2nd point, thanks for the note as well so i edited my response by putting "if the rudn hc service is considered as legal activity which is not yet defined by ED anyway)".

the definition of commodity i included is what i remember from my econ class. but if we looked at one of the definitions of commodity in merriam webster, it is defined as "a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price" so it's in-line with the argument stating that commodity can be a good or service. moreover, the definition of service from the same source: "useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity". since it's legally acceptable to use these terms, the act of providing service with the legal grounds i mentioned above, it's not illegal per se.

i am actually against raid/nest services because i think it's detrimental to ones' game skill improvement, but it is of a totally different topic. however when we look if it's against the terms of use, these are my points.