This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Blizzard deleting account if people are from the wrong country?
Return to board index
Post by
321021
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
As you didn't seem to read:"Blizzard Entertainment is legally restricted from doing business in certain countries, including Iran and Syria. As a result, our Battle.net website and games do not permit connection from those countries. If you had a recurring subscription, it has been removed Blizzard is required to take these steps to comply with U.S Law. This also prevents us from providing any refunds, credits, transfers, or other service options to accounts in these countries"Really, more people need to read the Terms of Services that you agree to when you purchase the game....
Edit: Also, since technically, all we do is 'borrow' the game from Blizzard, they can delete our accounts whenever they feel like it and not a whole lot we can do.
Post by
Atik
As Adams said, if you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the US government, not Blizz.
Post by
Magician22773
As Adams said, if you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the US government, not Blizz.
Cause the US Government is the one that publicly declares that they "intend to wipe Israel off the map"...
Maybe blame the Iranian dictator instead? Blame the "governments" of these countries for allowing terrorists to fund and seek safe harbor on their soil? Maybe blame the government of Syria for slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent citizens of their own country that would like to not be controlled by a murderous radical group.
Nah...blame America.
Post by
321021
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It wasn't so long ago when the IRA were allowed to actively fund-raise on US soil.
So, even though the IRA was stopped from doing this in 2005, its not OK to sanction countries that are still actively doing it as we speak?
Since that was 7 years ago....(and BTW, it was not like the US Government was raising money for the IRA, they just had not included them in the list of terrorist organizations up to that point)...how long has to pass before we can condemn countries like Syria? Because by your logic, Germany has no right to condemn Iran for wanting to wipe out Israel. (yes, I just Godwin'd the thread...deal with it)
I do agree it sucks for the non-political citizens of these countries. I feel for them, the same as I feel for Cubans having to endure decades of living in the 1950's because of their government's poor choices.
Post by
Adamsm
Blizz EU is not an american company, the do not have to follow US laws and nowhere in the EU sanctions are they restricted to provide the gameservice we are talking about, this is just a policy it seems.
It just feels wrong to punish Syrian players this way cuz of politics and other crap. Im sure they have it a hard time as it is.
Um....Blizzard is a US company, with a headquarters in the EU; but they are still an 'American' company.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Unfortunately Blizzard really has no choice in the matter. Anymore than a corner store has a choice about following age restrictions for alcohol and tobacco sales, or selling fireworks in states where it is illegal. It's not really something you can put blame on them for.
I think that as a tool, economic sanctions DO have a place in global politics. After all, part of the reason Apartheid was abolished in South Africa was the economic sanctions that they were under. I think that it's a viable way to oppose another country's policies without violence, and without overstepping your bounds and directly interfering. It's basically the equivalent of a boycott, which is an established and pretty justifiable form of protest.
I don't think that the "glass houses" argument is necessarily the best one when it comes to law and policy, either. Do we want the law to be based on what should happen, or what the best that anyone who is around has managed so far? If most people break the speed limit, does that mean that they shouldn't be allowed to set one at all? If someone has a history of getting into fights when drunk, does he not have a right to call the cops when he witnesses his neighbor beating his wife? If someone cheated on their taxes, does that mean that they can't vote for a law that makes stealing illegal.
I think everyone has done things that aren't right, and they know it. I also think that setting law and policy based on what people have managed to do rather than what people generally agree is the moral thing to do is setting the bar pretty low. I would hate to think that nothing could ever be made illegal that a politician had done himself.
Post by
1047138
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
