Quote Originally Posted by gundato View Post
Horrifying behavior: Around the launch of Battlefield 3, people were banned from BF3 (was it Origin/all of EA, or just BF3?) for filling the forums with hatespeech and vitriol. Something similar happened with Mass Effect 3. Honestly, can any of you say that you want to play with the people who scream things like "I <forcefully had sex with> your mom you <derogatory term for a person of african descent>"? Seriously, can you, with a straight face, say that you want to play with those people in multiplayer games?
No, but all I want is to be able to click a button that says 'mute this player and never pair me up with him again'. If everyone does that, eventually those people just end up playing with each, which if they've paid for the game, they should be able to do.

The reason I feel that way is because I don't always know if my opinion is going to match the opinion of the people running the place on what constitutes offensive. Sure, right now it's just racism and hate speech, but what if the next game is run by a fundamentalist Christian and I get into an argument with someone over religion while playing the game, and he reports me and I get banned? Or the other way around?

Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
That's fine, but what I think some people like to point out is that there's still the potential for it to happen, and if it was any other company that would be enough to condemn them. Think about how people went batshit over the "Origin will spy on me!" thing when there was zero indication that it was doing anything malicious. Despite that it was enough for people to act like it was a real threat.

If we're going to pick about EULAs then we should be holding everyone to the same standard. You're absolutely right that just because something is in the EULA it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be enforced, but that doesn't always mean it should be disregarded.
I'm certainly no Steam apologist, I don't think either has a good enough EULA in terms of consumer rights. But Steam are moving in the correct direction, while EA are moving backwards. I'd also argue against the idea that they had no intention of using that clause. As has been mentioned, Origin (and Steam) already have a 'we can ban you any time' clause. So legally they are already covered for every case. So the only reason to add an extra specific case and say 'including this' is if they actually intend to do that. Otherwise it gets silly. It's like putting "EA will also ban you from Origin if you wear a top hat on a Thursday" in the EULA. And you go, "yeah but obviously they're not going to do that", so I have to ask "why say it then?".

The answer is to make it even easier for when they do ban people for that reason, beyond just the general 'we can ban you for anything' clause. If they never intended to use it, it shouldn't have been there in the first place. Putting it in pretty much demonstrates intent, as there's no other reason to have it there. The "one in a million" cases are covered by the general terms.