Talk:EULA

Update 20080130
Ping! Could somebody with permission update the mirror here? 124.171.168.215 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status
1) Whether EULA's are legally binding has yet to be decided by the courts; putting that statement here is a bit misleading.

2) What changed in today's EULA update? It's not on the wiki for whatever reason so we can't look at diffs. --72.211.155.160 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And again today, what were the changes? 75.143.108.214 04:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the Aug.23rd update, see here: (diff) The Aug29th update should be up soon. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything to report yet? I'm unsure of how to check new revisions myself. 75.143.108.214 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been no changes to the EULA on the official site, so there's no revisions diff we can show you. I just compared the current EULA there with the backed up copy here, and they're still exactly the same. I have no idea why they forced everyone to re-accept the EULA during the last update. Or maybe they just haven't gotten around to update their site yet? No clue. --Dirigible 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why was my correction concerning the legal status of EULAs reverted? It is correct -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA#Enforceability. Your edit comment says that discussion of the legal standing of EULA's doesn't belong on the EULA page, but the page currently makes an incorrect claim in that regard. How is correcting errors of fact not a relevant edit? --72.211.155.160 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should read "legal" instead of "legally-binding." There is no question that what you are clicking-through is in fact an agreement with some legal weight.  Whether or not a court of law would give the EULA full contractual weight, some, or none is very debatable...therefore "legally-binding" may be misleading. --Ravious 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, hence the edit that I made and Aiiane reverted (something to the effect of "the exact legal standing of EULA's has not been agreed upon by the courts"). Since it is debatable, we shouldn't state a particular position in that debate, even if it's the one preferred by ANet's lawyers, as fact. Shouldn't NPOV apply here? --72.211.155.160 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that a user has agreed to it makes it legally binding unless a court strikes it down as such, and they have yet to in the case of the Guild Wars EULA. Thus, stating that courts have not decided on whether or not EULAs are legally binding is not a fully informative statement, and is just as misleading. A better note (and a notes section would be the appropriate place for it) would be that there is a history of legal disputes regarding certain other games' EULAs as to what is enforcible and truly binding. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you have it backwards...at least for U.S. law. I pity a country's law where all agreements are "legally-binding" unless struck down by the court (stinks of guilty until proven innocent).  Thankfully under U.S. law, a plaintiff who wants to use a legal document against the defendant must first prove that the agreement is legally binding (a small hurdle for some types, and an unpassed one for others).  Is the EULA "legal?"  Heck yes.  Is it "binding?"  We can't say.  We cannot say whether this particular EULA is binding, and we cannot say whether click-through licenses in general are binding. --Ravious 03:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A document is only legally binding if, were that document challenged, a court would uphold it. Saying that something is legally binding involves an assumption of enforceability. Such an assumption is probably valid in the case of paper documents (if you sign something, you should assume that you're bound by its terms until and unless a court strikes them down), but that's only because paper contracts have a history of being enforced unless something is wrong with them. There's no long history of click-through EULA's being valid unless specifically flawed, so the assumption of validity required to say "the GW EULA is legally binding until and unless a court strikes it down" isn't present. --72.211.155.160 03:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was that unless one intends to challenge the document, one should obey it, rather than the other way around, since one agreed to it, and the company in question will undoubtedly take action in accordance with it unless taken to court over it. That is, in the sense that the actions set out in such a document would most likely require the involvement of the legal system to counteract and thus are in effect legally binding unless otherwise struck down - law or otherwise. This being due to the fact that the company effectively holds all of the cards unless otherwise ordered by the courts. Giving the impression that one could violate the EULA carelessly because its status isn't finalized is at least as bad as implying that it's fully determined as binding. In addition, the very source you've linked also notes that in a number of courts EULAs are considered legally binding, and thus in some cases their status has been determined. A truly NPOV comment would mention more that the enforcibility can vary depending on location, and not that the status was undetermined (on a side note, however, we don't have a NPOV policy here, even though it might be a somewhat guiding principle for most edits). [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording slightly and added a more detailed note - does the page as it reads now work for you? [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

EULA Changes
May I suggest that when you change the EULA (thus requiring us to re-accept again) you list these changes on the main website? The EULA is a massive wall of text to read 4 or five times, and THEN pick out what you changed in it to see if we actually agree this time. I just find it annoying that there is no quick way to see what was changed. Counciler 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ‽-(eronth) I gi  ve up  01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the simplest way to do that would be to make a copy of the Eula on the wiki. When the Eula gets updated, replace that copy with the newer one. The wiki itself already has a feature that allows us to compare two large blocks of text showing exactly what has been changed. Erasculio 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice idea, Erasculio. EULA/User Agreement‎ now has the three last User Agreements in the article history, so they can be used for any diff purposes (changes of this last update). --Dirigible 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * that page should be protected - FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.png]] 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I requested "tracked changes" on a page off of the UA more than a year ago. :( I'm sorry that that has not happened yet, and every time you sign a new one, you're a little unsure what you've signed, even though we post up the entire document immediately on the website.
 * After PAX, I will see if I can retrieve a copy of the old UA and the new UA and do a diff for you guys. --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be a need for that, I think, as the Wayback Machine had archived copies of the old UAs, which we are now using at EULA/User Agreement‎. --Dirigible 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dang, that's great. Where's Peabody!? --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 04:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lolz, i miss the old site, but i like the new one better ;) ~ Kurd [[Image:User Kurd sig.png]] 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-accepting the EULA
Gaile, why is the EULA being reset with quite a few of the updates? Honestly it's a bit annoying. If there are changes to it 99.9% of the people will have no idea what they are because they want to play the game instead of re-reading it every few days. If there are indeed change to it please post them somewhere (such as the Game Updates page here on the Wiki) so that people will know what has changed. If nothing has changed...Why do we have to re-accept it? An explanation would be appreciated.--Thor79••Talk 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The EULA covers ANet on a very broad legal basis. It's very important that you agree to every revision. :D - [[Image:Drago-sig.gif]]  Drago 
 * Try this page Thor: EULA/User Agreement, on it you can see the changes. Just a typo fix this time.  --Rainith 02:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, a simple one-letter typo this time. I have asked that we post a "tracked changes" version as a link from the UA, but I understand that's not necessary because of various sites that archive each version. If you think that we should do so, I will mention it again.
 * Incidentally, we apologize for asking you to sign more than one revised UA, and we'll try to cut the number down next time. --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha.... "INTERECTIVE" Counciler 06:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm going to muzzle myself from commenting on that one. ;) --Gaile [[Image:User gaile_2.png| ]] 07:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah...thank you for that link Rainith...didn't realise there was a wiki page for it...makes perfect sense to do that so people can track changes. As far as I'm concerned as long as you guys keep the Wiki page updated with the current EULA (Which I assume is done by someone at Anet?) I have no problems with the EULA resets. Now that I can track the changes I have no problem. :) --Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 09:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of Agreement
Hey, guys. I just noticed that this page is for an End User's License Agreement, and Guild Wars does not have a EULA, but simply a User Agreement, as you can see here. This is not a temporary thing, or a name change that was chosen lightly. All Guild Wars player or user agreements now and in the future will be called User Agreements, as far as I know.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for this page to be called User Agreement, with a redirect from EULA, rather than the opposite? For what we have here is a page that references something that doesn't exist in Guild Wars. Just a thought. -- Gaile 20:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason the redirect went the other way is because this is somewhat of a meta-page - it's discusses all of the UA, the RoC, and the CBaOs documents; thus having the page named "User Agreement" might cause confusion when someone is looking for the rules of conduct and gets redirected here as well. At the same time, however, I can see how "EULA" wouldn't really be much better. Anyone have a suggestion for a better "meta-name" for this page? [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * EULA is just what these types of things are called in the online gaming community. Even if thats not its offical name, I believe it should stay EULA simply because thats going to (most likely) be the first thing that a person searches for when looking for this page.  User agreement already redirects here, so I really dont see any need to change it.--Ryudo 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bots and Macros
The user agreement states that u can't use any bots that play the game for you, without any human interaction. Also any programs or scripts are forbidden, but what about macros ? As I see it, they are not allowed. But then I see people using either way scripts or keyboards with build-in macros to make tasks like 'cancel, switch weapon set, use skill ' easier or faster. I get the point that running scripts can look like a bot and is not allowed, but then its unfair to players with those keyboards. And if they are forbidden too, what with the special gamer pads that must be used with scripts? They can write the command to use skill 1 and connect it to a key, but they can yust as easy inscript a whole line of tasks, all in one press on one key. They are used, I saw them, I hear people talking that they have them, but what if I use them myself ? Do all of these people get banned for something this small? I sure hope not. Warned then ? And then forced to get some fingertraining and practise do do it yourself? Yust a question. 81.165.175.245 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a page with quotes from Gaile Grey, the support liaison for Guild Wars. My advice in such dabbling of the grey zone is to steer clear of that which you are unsure. Admittedly, I tend to err on the side of caution in most cases. G R E E N E R  05:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One reason I think people wonder about what is allowed is that program, script, bot, and macro are poorly defined terms that overlap with each other. So, I think the easier thing to keep in mind is Gaile's question: (I paraphrase)


 * Guild Wars doesn't directly support alternative keypads/keyboard/mice, but one can't imagine that ANet would have a problem mapping commands for those devices to GW. That does use third party software and might require the use of macros. GW also doesn't allow people to combine obvious key strokes, e.g. you can select nearest foe or nearest item, but not nearest ally. Combining nearest foe with target next ally would have the same effect. Again, it's difficult to imagine why that would be an issue.


 * What about using a macro to reduce the tedium of SoS farming? Set up five spirits, switch to bow, target and attack the nearest foe, backup, draw spirits, wait, backup again, draw spirits. That sounds more like letting a macro play the game. How about using a macro to make it easier to spam tonics? Double-click tonic, switch to guild hall, double-click tonic, exit GH, repeat. Again, that sounds like the macro is doing all/most of the work while the player visits the loo.


 * So, use your best judgment: if it sounds like cheating, smells like cheating, or does virtually everything for you, stay clear of it. If it's mostly about using the game in a way that you think ANet might have originally intended (but never got around to implementing), it's probably okay. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That made things clear, thanks. My primary purpose was to use them in PvP though, wich is strictly forbidden. Might be fair to all, but then again I can't see how that warrior yust dshotted my WoH while he was attacking our ele with a sword. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.165.175.245 (talk).
 * If you suspect people of using cheats and not playing that much or just using cheats in pvp... Report them. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As per Kaisha, if you suspect people of benefitting from third party "assistance," your best bet is to report them and let support take a look. As an aside though, it's not impossible for a good player to switch to a bow from auto-attacking and hit a 3/4 cast spell with d-shot. He may have been waiting for that exact opportunity. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 01:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)