Topic

Terms of Service - changing without letting us know. Please change it?

About the Terms of Service:
"- It is your responsibility to regularly check the Site to determine if there have been changes to these Terms of Service and to review such changes"

I would really really really really want TS to change this, to make us agree again when it changes.
Could you pretty please? The way it is now is very.. very... don't know the word for it, but I don't like it. :( It makes me feel tricked, makes me feel uneasy.
It's like signing a contract, and then the other company can change it without you knowing it or approving of it again. If a contract is changed, all who signed it should be informed that it is changed, and asked if they want to sign again.
I don´t consider it an agreement anymore if the original text is changed, the agreement is then nullified imo. How can I agree with something I haven't read? And which I haven't read because I didn't know it was changed? It's very unfriendly to be actually forcing/asking us to check the ToS each time we log in.
(Obviously, I didn't read it very well when I signed up here, else I would have gotten it out of it. But I just glanced through it as it is such a wall of text. Not the worst I've seen with legal terms all over it, but also not the best readable I've seen.)

It saddens me to see that TS chose this form of ToS, and really hope you will change it so that players have to agree anew each time the ToS has changed, even if it is because a sentence was rewritten. A small message when we log in that the ToS has changed and that we can read it here and should agree again to it is all I'm asking.

Please, change it?

Posted 18 months ago by Miriamele Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

Previous 1 2
  • I agree.  It takes little effort to inform us of changes, and is the friendly thing to do.
    Posted 18 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • A very common way is provide notification through some method - email, at log in, etc that the T's and C's have changed along with a link and then state that by continuing to use the site, service, etc, you agree to the new version of the terms and conditions. I don't think that the above precludes that type of notification, but it doesn't state any specific path to notification of the changes.
    Posted 18 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Does any other website that you have an account with notify you of changes?

    I don't know of any that do, but perhaps your experience is different.

    Forcing every person with an account to agree to the TOS over and over again strikes me as a way to generate a lot of heat and anger. 
    Posted 18 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • hear hear!

    eta: to Miriamele et al, not WindBorn's comment above.  I was surprised to read in another thread that a TOS even existed, probably because they weren't around when I first signed up or because it's been so long since then that I don't remember this.  In the long term, the TOS will presumably be settled and not changing that frequently, so a notice shouldn't be a bother.  In the short term, while changes *are* being made, it would be good to have a heads-up that this is happening. 
    Posted 18 months ago by katlazam Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I belong to sites that dont make you "agree" over and over per se, but they DO post small notes visible upon login with a link to the updated info. There isn't any agreeing, there isn't anyone checking that you read it or you didnt, the point that you are still held to the terms whether you read it or not are still the same, its just a small notification so if you give a darn, you can be aware. If you don't care, you just go back to playing. :)
    Posted 18 months ago by Dagnabbit Rabbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @windborn plents of mmos do this after patches or changes of ToS.  At login it pops up and you have to re agree.  Not uncommon at all
    Posted 18 months ago by Veksar Subscriber! | Permalink
  • plenty*
    Posted 18 months ago by Veksar Subscriber! | Permalink
  • That's actually pretty standard language for a TOS, you'll find that phrase in the fine print of almost every video game you purchase in addition to most online terms. It gives the company protection in cases where they need to make immediate changes and have them be enforce (I've seen it happen only in cases where a massive loophole got exploited)... as well as to fix any type-o's or add explanations without having to get the user to sign off on it a second time.

    Having spent time working with/negotiating software licenses professionally, the TOS is fair, reasonable, and well crafted. It's a protective measure outlining extreme worst case scenarios, and detailing the bare minimums. Tiny Speck can (and does) make the choice to act in a manner over and above the minimum, so I wouldn't get stressed until I started seeing huge changes without announcements. I mean geez, they've started announcing new clothing... so at least give them the chance to communicate (big) TOS changes before we go assuming the standard language is the standard behavior. 

    Honestly, I highly doubt there will be big changes to the TOS until there are big changes to the products and services being offered by TS (but I'm struggling to find an example).
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @WindBorn - it depends on the type of site. However, the *right* way to do it may not be how it is done commonly on other sites. 

    I wouldn't want intercepts and other types of intrusive notifications or to have to re-accept the terms and conditions when they change. A simple one time notification when you log in and/or via the email address sent to the address on file covers it. 

    As an aside, I believe that Douglas v Talk America that addressed the need to consider notifications of changes to TOS, T's and C's, etc.  In most cases, the result is that the business must provide notifications of changes to allow the consumer to make a choice. It is essentially a new contract. You can't change the terms of a contract without both parties agreeing. It doesn't mandate active agreement -- passive agreement through continuation of use of the service is sufficient. I believe this is how the 9th Circuit viewed it, at any rate.
    Posted 18 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well all I got after reading that was a headache,I say keep it simplesss:)
    Posted 18 months ago by lycan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Travinara -- when there is money involved - and we have that here with subscriptions - I think that makes it a more valid case.

    Agree totally that massive changes in TOS are not normal. But in today's litigious world, and from a user experience perspective, providing a notification when changes occur is likely the best path.
    Posted 18 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I completely agree with Miriamele.

    Otherwise we walk the dangerous path that Facebook and Zuckerberg have taken in essentially throwing all of their clients to the sharks.
    Posted 18 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Cerulean My cynical jaded self is right there with you. My hopeful self that believes that all that is Glitch is good and Good is Glitch also wants to see it protected from people who want to try to make a mess of things.
    Posted 18 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd rather re-agree if things change.   Most if not all the MMO(whatevers) i've played do this.

    I'd hate to agree to something and then end up a HUMANCENTiPAD!
    Posted 18 months ago by Vicereine Linnæa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Travinara and Veksar are right. I play a lot of more mature/violent MMOs where people spend upwards of several hundred $$ per month. Its very common, and thank you for reminding me, that it is usually due to patches to correct a huge exploit that was found and abused by users, as we continue to find in another game I play where real money is involved, large amounts of it, and people get pretty upset when an exploit happens. The main part of the TOS doesn't change that often. I would still like to see a small notification.
    Posted 18 months ago by Dagnabbit Rabbit Subscriber! | Permalink
  • OMG!! I just read through the ToS.  It says last revised May 17.  But what was revised?  I agree that we shouldn't have to be constantly checking the ToS.  I also think that there should be some way to know WHAT was revised.
    Posted 18 months ago by Marla Subscriber! | Permalink
  • My reading of Douglas v Talk America is that the end result is still very grey on what order things must take place in, as well as the notice period, or what constitutes 'offer' and 'acceptance'... rather the case provides a clearer need for consideration of these elements when writing a TOS or any contract for that matter. In the case of Glitch, you'd need to be able to prove real-world costs and damages for Douglas v Talk to even begin to apply (it's not like Glitch is adding a hidden fee or surcharge - if they tried it you'd have a case)

    I actually cited Douglas v Talk in a negotiation with Oracle... they'd updated their TOS and it would have cost my client several million to become compliant - however, the previous year I'd added (and they'd agreed to) a clause in the contract that was no more than 'the end users shall be bound to the terms and conditions in attachment XYZ'. We also got them on the notice period/acceptance provisions I'd written in, so Oracle relented and brought my client into compliance of their new TOS for free - in exchange my client agreed to an addendum referencing the new document XYZ2 (after the lawyers got the 'without notice' removed from the new TOS terms).
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I play at least one MMO (City of Heroes/Villains) that has a ToS pop up on the sign-in screen that appears when you log in with active credentials. You must click and "Agree" button to continue and play the game.  As a programmer I know the coding for this is relatively trivial. I'd happily render such a thing for Tiny Speck gratis. I'll try to play some with it this week.
    Posted 18 months ago by Fokian Fool Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree Cerulean I bought top (half price) they have given more than taken away,im totaly happy with glitch.
    Posted 18 months ago by lycan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Travinara -- when there is money involved - and we have that here with subscriptions


    @g33kurrl - you're getting your agreements confused. The terms associated with purchasing and subscritions are covered by the Billing / Refund policies. They are an agreement independent of, and in addition to the TOS.
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I don't want to go too far down the legal discussion path. I understand it is grey. But no one can guarantee us as users that changes in the TOS would never materially impact us. Things as simple as what happens with our PII/NPI data, email address, etc. Think Epsilon. Think Sony. There's other information related to privacy that is material. Changes in those items can have material impacts. 

    Usage of Facebook's API resulted in breaches as well. That's where there could be concern. Unless you're a programmer working with the API, you don't know what information is exposed about users and their account information. Today it may be nothing. In 2 years? Who knows.

    ETA -- @Travinara -- In reading the TOS, it seems like those are inclusive by reference, although they are separate. Same thing with the privacy policy. There is also a specific section in the TOS about credits and payments.
    Posted 18 months ago by g33kgurrl Subscriber! | Permalink
  • www.theregister.co.uk/2009/...
    Posted 18 months ago by dopiaza Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In the last four days I've agreed to 9 different companies' TOS. I've never been troubled by seeing them. The majority of U.S. companies do notify their customers when there is a substantial change in their TOS via email.

    It is certainly disturbing when a company makes the choice not to notify their customers of changes and to be honest I rarely am willing to have anything to do, financially, with companies who do so.

    I am also troubled by the date on that TOS : Date of Last Revision: May 17, 2011

    On the 1st of June I requested a link to this type of page and was told clearly by Stoot that one did not exist yet. (http://beta.glitch.com/forum/general/3772/#reply-28009)

    I sincerely hope whomever is making the legal decisions for Tiny Speck is reading these forums and taking note of how often their beta testers are bothered by those decisions.

    As we have no NDA I'd hate for these kinds of things to get out about the company and hinder its ability to build the game we are all looking forward to playing. It has such potential to be a wonderful and unique environment!
    Posted 18 months ago by Dandilion Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, would like a TOS has changed, please re-accept before playing button when I log into the game.  It's one more click, and only when there is a change...easy breezy....

    Hmmm, so anyone going to bring up that the TOS states that no one under 14 can play, yet folks have posted in the forums that they are 13 or younger?  Then again, that probably is another thread...
    Posted 18 months ago by b3achy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @dopiaza - the Harris v Blockbuster case applied to the specific provision of requiring arbitration, not the enforce-ability of the language as a whole. The final line in that judgement reads:
    "For these reasons, the Court concludes that the arbitration provision of the Blockbuster 
    contract is illusory and unenforceable, and accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration is denied.
    "

    Contract law is an exceptional snarl of exceptions and legal diversity. The ruling provides a basis for further rulings, but as with the Douglas v Talk America doesn't take an express stance on the umbrella language.
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Seems to me it very unrealistic of TS to expect we're gonna read the TOS to be sure we're catching any material changes.

    A brief email notification, a notice on the Glitch splash screen or a TOS-thread here on the Forums, etc. would work just fine.
    Posted 18 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There's nothing saying TS won't notify us of changes (I expect they'll send a batch e-mail if there was a massive change)... it just says they are not obligated to notify you of every change, or get your acceptance of said changes.

    If you read to the very, very end of the TOS... it does talk about notification methods (mostly in the context of a dispute, but it also gets your acceptance to receiving 'notices' via these methods).
    Notices to you may be made via either email or regular mail. The Service may also provide notices to you of changes to these Terms of Service or other matters by displaying notices or links to notices generally on the Service.
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm happy to see a ToS and a Privacy Policy, thanks Tiny Speck!

    Now, can haz Community Guidelines, please?  I see some of them are rolled into the ToS, like this one, "You agree not to create a username that: (i) impersonates someone else, including another user, (ii) is illegal or is protected by trademark or other proprietary rights laws, or may cause confusion, (iii) is or may be considered vulgar, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise offensive, and/or (iv) is otherwise inappropriate."


    But it never hurts to have a shorter page for peeps to read regarding how to act in-game and on the Forums. :)
    Posted 18 months ago by zeeberk Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Travinara   So ture, so true...  :)
    Posted 18 months ago by MeherMan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Zeeberk - I think that might be under Pepper's new job description - so hang tight on that :)

    As far as the ToS goes, LiveJournal does monthly email notices including changes to the ToS, updates to the site, etc.  This has been a fairly recent development, after fandom went apeshit because the ToS wasn't crystal clear on something and some religious right group tried to go after them for what was essentially NC-17 fanfic and yaoi art.  The old system wasn't great - the users were expected to (but rarely did) check the ToS for updates, and continue to ahere regardless.  How often do people actually read the ToS the first time, much less routinely check for updates?

    Yes, Tiny Speck is going to be far better off implementing a notice change, merely if they want to keep the community calm in case of a ToS crisis.  Not saying it's likely to happen here, but it would be a good idea merely to help keep the peace.  

    I'll be honest, though, I don't want to be forced to agree to a ToS every time I try to log in to play.
    Posted 18 months ago by Leimailu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Dear Tiny Speck,

    Please do not bother me every time you slightly change your TOS.

    That would be annoying, and we all know that the changes would repeatedly be blown out of proportion.

    Sincerely,

    Striatic
    Posted 18 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Please sign my name to that note, Striatic. I totally agree!
    Posted 18 months ago by Eureka Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    Posted 18 months ago by lycan Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 striatic
    Posted 18 months ago by 2020smoke Subscriber! | Permalink
  • plus if you are really super concerned about this stuff you can set up http://www.changedetection.com/ or one of any other bazillion tools that detect and report page changes.

    yes, you heard me correctly .."bazillion".
    Posted 18 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    Posted 18 months ago by Joni Mitchell Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Douglas v Talk America and the whole notification of ToS changes thing always reminds me of this clip from Hitch Hikers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNmIQX_ImgM

    "The plans HAVE been available in the planning office for the last nine months..." :-)
    Posted 18 months ago by Snazzlefrazz Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Great discussion here!  We spent a lot of time making sure the terms of service were fair and in line with general good practice.  The revision date (May 17th) is our own internal revision date as we went through several versions of language simplification with our very patient lawyers. It probably shouldn't be there.  But, if we edit that, the last thing we'd want to do is to force everyone to click through to accept that change.  
    However, if there are material changes to the ToS, it is good practice to notify users, and we certainly plan to do that.  Good call on requesting Comunity Guidelines, zeeberk, and they are coming soon! 
    Posted 18 months ago by kakul Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The impersonating-someone-else thing has either changed recently or is a bit nonsensical, because I remember hearing that there are already multiple players named "Cupcake," for example, and I think stoot said quite a while back that there were no plans to stop players from using the same nicknames as each other.  So which is it?  A new player choosing a common nickname would not be intentionally impersonating anyone else, but it would have the same effect.
    Posted 18 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • glum, it's one of those grey areas. Knowingly creating a character called stoot in order to 'be stoot' or harass stoot is against the TOS (and would be met with by sound splankings). Someone calling their character stoot and playing their own game (while confusing) is not. That clause creates wiggle room for the devs to veto names for a variety of reasons, but is not intended to limit naming conventions based on uniqueness. 
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Glum - that piece is likely there to prevent people from setting up a lookalike name, then trying to pass themselves off as some highly influential player, in order to scam, con, or otherwise harass players.  I read it as generally standard ToS stuff for MMOs.
    Posted 18 months ago by Leimailu Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Bit of a side note, but definitely related to TOS issues: 
    I have to admit to wondering about this part of the username bit: "...is or may be considered vulgar, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise offensive, and/or (iv) is otherwise inappropriate" just because, well, a lot of stuff in the game walks a big old sexual innuendo line (well, some is really just plain old obvious and not even double entendre, too) and people kinda expect it in Glitch. I refer here to "vulgar, obscene and inappropriate" (I do not see Glitch being in any way defamatory/hateful/racially/ethnically insensitive) because there are a lot of very suggestive player names that I am sure some folks would/do object to but some probably find pretty funny. Who decides what is over the line? What action is/might be taken? Just curious... And please understand, that game stuff I refer to cracks me up; I love it, wouldn't want to change it. So I wouldn't WANT to see moral police come and sanitize things, but at same time I'd hate to see a player's username really upsetting a lot of people. So...just wondering...how/who decides what is vulgar/obscene/inappropriate round here? The community? Pepper_Rose? Just my nighttime rambling thoughts:)
    Posted 18 months ago by RM Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The case that we are trying to guard against is users *impersonating* other players or real-life people, and our use of that word is very specific to someone assuming the character or appearance of someone else, rather than just sharing a common name or nickname.   We have been requiring unique player names (for new users and renames) for some time now.  While there are a handful of duplicates names from before we started doing that, they will be de-duplicated before launch.
    Posted 18 months ago by kakul Subscriber! | Permalink
  • RM -- it is a fine line, and also a fine question. :) Our community, along with Pepper_Rose as a representative of that community, should certainly help guide what the boundaries of safe or comfortable are, but ultimately the decision (as well as the responsibility to make Glitch a good and fun place to be) will rest with us at Tiny Speck.
    Posted 18 months ago by kakul Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @kakul, well, yes of course it rests with you guys. I was mainly thinking aloud there...honestly because I LOVE the sexy humor and wouldn't wanna see it yanked away :D But I love keeping people from being offended, too ;) HUGS!
    Posted 18 months ago by RM Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I dont think its that big of a deal, I mean, it is no more serious than an online game. I cant even think of anything remotely bad that could happen due to the ToS changing without me knowing.. (coming from the guy who may not have actually read the ToS)
    Posted 18 months ago by Taylor Swift Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Zachariah - the umbrella language actually creates room for companies to try doing silly things. TS is not one of those companies, but others have tried it. The good news is, most of the 'silly things' are protected under other portions of law, making portions of the umbrella language inherently unenforcable. Those exceptions have no relevance to the application of the language to the non-protected portions of the TOS. As it stands, there's nothing in the TOS that falls into the category of 'protected' or 'silly things'... the discussion is purely theoretical.
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Again, I'd have to propose a compromise. It seems to be split about whether or not we should be notified every time there is a change to the ToS. Maybe the default should be that, yes, we are notified every single time there is a change to the ToS... but that any user can opt our of receiving these notifications.

    The reason a TOS issue concerns me is because I feel that, as a subscribing member and someone who is paying for certain aspects of the game, a ToS serves as part of a contract/legal agreement, and any changes during the use of the product could create a legally difficult situation in some cases. Or not. Tiny Speck could choose to not notify paying users, make a change to the game that a paying user finds unsavory and believes to be contradictory to the ToS agreed to upon purchase, and deal with the lawsuit that follows and waster time, energy and money in the process. Or they could just take some preventative action here (and protect their butts) and notify those of us that want to be notified and not notify those that opt out of it.
    Posted 18 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Not that a lawsuit like that would likely to be "big" (if anything, it would end up in small claims court and could be handled rather easily). But you never know. There's always potential for some more radical claims, such as "emotional distress," etc.
    Posted 18 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Or they could just take some preventative action here (and protect their butts) 

    You have a point... but I believe their stance is they operate under a 'do no evil' basis and need not protect their butts because they never intend to make changes (other than coma placements) without an announcement. 
    They'd just like the ability to, if forced into a corner.

    The very last section, under General details methods of notice. It's a bigger piece to copy/paste contextually, but I've done my best above. I think people are missing it, because that part is where you agree to receive notice and how.

    Point is... the lobbying and opinions may solidify the Best Practice approach TS takes, but it's unlikely to change the language in the TOS.
    Posted 18 months ago by Travinara Subscriber! | Permalink
Previous 1 2