Steam has the same type of rules for that (see screenshot in the post above).
By all means, do challenge my assumptions if you have a sound argument. Worst case scenario would be to leave it as it is if you dont agree with it.
Anyway, whether a particular interpretation would be strategically sensible for Gaijin is simply a matter of logic. It does not answer what TOS they themselves wrote and bound by actually permit them to do.
Also, I would not assume that Gaijin can simply go as far as it wants until someone “kicks up a stink”. TOS are not just a list of pinky promises, they define the contractual framework under which Gaijin may restrict or terminate access to the service.
If the TOS do not actually give Gaijin the right to sanction a player for a particular external activity, then imposing such a sanction could potentially raise a contractual issue on Gaijin side as well.
Aight and did thecodmineman specify what exactly was “the trouble” he got himself into? If, for example, the video contained defamatory statements about Gaijin, Gaijin can take action against genuinely unlawful conduct and they do not need to have that in TOS, since it can already arise from applicable law regarding defamation.
And the fact that these creators participate in the Creator Program does not really solve that issue either. If the Creator Program contains additional contractual obligations, those obligations may of course provide an additional basis for action. But again, that would be an explicit contractual framework governing those creators, not evidence that the general player ToS implicitly regulates everything a random player says on third party platforms.
Creator Guidelines can make compliance with the EULA/ToS/CoC a condition of publishing creator content.
What I do not see, however, is how that automatically means that every provision of those documents acquires unlimited third party-platform scope merely because the video contains WT footage.
The provision you quoted says that the creator agrees not to publish content that violates the Guidelines, EULA, ToS, other Gaijin policies, or applicable law.
Sure.
But that still leaves the question of what conduct actually constitutes a violation of those documents and where those provisions apply.
For example, if the video contains WT footage and the creator uses it to promote an exploit, cheat, or some other conduct that is independently prohibited by the EULA/ToS, I have no issue with that being actionable. The contractual prohibition already exists; the Creator Guidelines simply make compliance with those rules a condition for creator.
The review bombing provision is different. If the argument is that a creator publishing a WT video on YouTube is subject to a prohibition on organising a boycott on YouTube, then that still requires to establish that the boycott provision itself applies to third party platforms.
Creator Guidelines explicitly say “on any platform”, while the boycott provision does not. So I do not think we can simply use the existence of the former to silently expand the scope of the latter. Because we would be, again, implicitly extending the scope of the rule when Gaijin demonstrated they do it explicitly when applicable.
Back to the example I used earlier, if we go with your interpretation, then a creator could theoretically make a two-hour video about an entirely unrelated subject such as Ghana politics, put WT gameplay in the background, and thereby make the entire two hours subject to every provision of Gaijins EULA/ToS/CoC. That would be an extremely broad consequence, and I fail see the quoted clause actually saying that. It establishes a requirement to comply with those documents but by itself it does not define the scope of every individual provision within them.
And there is an even more fundamental issue with that interpretation. What happens if the creator has never played War Thunder, never created a Gaijin account and therefore never agreed to the Gaijin ToS/EULA in the first place? If merely using WT footage were enough to make the entire video subject to all of those documents, would that mean that a person could become bound by Gaijin ToS simply by using publicly available WT footage in a video?
Praise be to Space King.
Never really understood why Gaijin is so fussy about a player using more than one account. I follow the rules and only use one account, but I think it is stupid from the company business point of view. Back in World of Tanks I created a second account just to have a fresh start, and bought a few premium tanks for it, so Wargaming earned some extra money from me, a missed revenue opportunity for Gaijin.
I fail to see how you don’t see the connection given the highlighted section of my previous screenshot.
To make it really short:
The beginning of the creator guidelines defines the scope to be all content creators that use WT content in their videos. It doesn’t limit in what way that content is used, it could technically be just a small screen in the background and still technically fall within that definition made at the start.
Later it states that the previously defined creator agrees to not post things that break the ToS, where the review bomb clause is present. So technically they imo could.
BUT:
I do think that enforcing it that way makes very little sense and i do agree with your last paragraph here (there would probably be exceptions due to copyright and trademarks covering some things anyway regardless of if someone agrees to the terms or not). I think the intent is to cover content creators that actively used WT content in their video and have their own accounts. The content creator document also limit the enforcement options to some degree and only explicitly state that they may request the removal of the content or that the creator obtains a licence (but also leaves options open).
So from this i don’t think they can action any game accounts due to violations of this kind and only the created content itself.
Edit:
But i’m no expert and i have no legal education, so this is just personal guesses and logic from reading the documents over and over x)
Entirely sufficient for forum debate.
Creator Guidelines establish that content creators using Gaijin materials on any platform must comply with certain rules, including the EULA/ToS/CoC.
I do not dispute that. Such connection is clear.
What I do dispute is the conclusion you draw from it, that because guidelines incorporate those documents by reference, every provision within them must therefore automatically apply to every piece of content on every platform in exactly the same way. Fact that Creator Guidelines say “on any platform” establishes the scope for Creator Guidelines. It does not necessarily rewrite the scope of every individual provision that the Guidelines happen to reference.
Put differently, “you must comply with the ToS” and “every provision of the ToS applies to everything you publish anywhere” are different claims.
This is why I keep repeating my point about boycot/revion bombing provision lacking explicit broadening of its scope when gaijin has explicitly did so elswhere. If gaijin intended that particular prohibition to apply to third party platforms, I would expect the provision itself to contain some indication of that scope, especially given that Gaijin uses wording such as “on any platform” when it wants to regulate conduct outside its own services.
See, I believe those additional provisions actually help the argument I am making.
Section 1.3 says that a violation is a breach of gaijins rights and then sets out what gaijin may do:
- contact the creator,
- other parties or platforms, -
- request that distribution of the content cease, or
- require the creator to obtain a licence.
3.2 is similar, gaijin may object to the use of its materials and request removal of the content.
But notice one thing: These provisions do not say that a violation of the Creator Guidelines automatically constitutes grounds for suspending or terminating the creator account.
Those provisions look primarily like mechanisms for dealing with the content itself and with Gaijin’s rights in its materials.
Sure, the provision 1.3 states that “the list of limitations provided here is not exhaustive” and such we cant say conclusively rule out suspeding or terminating someones account.
BUT, yet again, notice one thing: gaijin specifically describes enforcement against third party content, and the remedies that are spelled out are directed at the content and its distribution, not player account.
To put it differently, I believe these provisions describe what Gaijin means when it talks about regulating creator content on external platforms, that being mechanisms to object to the use of its materials and seek removal or licensing.
Quite different from establishing that a player can be muted, suspended or banned from War Thunder because of something they said while publishing that content, id say.
I will agree with you on onething: the intended scope is most naturally understood as regulating creators who actually use Gaijin Materials.
But I disagree that practical scope carries over every possible player sanction from the general ToS.
Back to my original point, when Gaijin actually describes how it intends to regulate and enforce its rules in relation to third party content, it uses specific and explicit language, as seen in the provisions you cited “on any platform”, may contact, may object, may request etc.
Seems like stronger basis to determine the scope of the rules, rather than implicitly deriving massively larger scope of rules from the words “personal content”.
And to close this off, as I mentioned to Caer, Gaijin themselves might have written those rules, but theyre not just pinky promises. They bound Gaijin too. Shall they terminate your account not in accordance to the rules they themselves put forth, they might risk a legal action.
If a youtuber posts a video saying dont play warthunder for whatever reason- they could be banned?
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Isn’t that what section 1.1.3 states though?
“The Creator agrees not to post, publish, share, promote, cite, or link to any information or content that: […] Violates these Guidelines, the End User License Agreement (EULA), the Terms of Service, any other Gaijin policies or agreements, or applicable law.”
They do yes, which is one of the reason i brought them up. I don’t want to cherry-pick to fit a narrative, i want to have an actual discussion :)
Correct, i haven’t claimed that it does. Though i can see how that could have been interpreted as implied. That wasn’t my intent if that’s the case.
This is also generally the case for things posted on the forum(etc), violations here don’t translate into in-game punishments nor vice versa (though i do think there are some exceptions explicitly stated, like attempted sale of an account for example).
As i understand the terms, no. Action can be taken against that specific video though and CC’s might have separate agreements with other rules that are not public and that might give other consequences.
1 Like
Never have been, there was no change there.
Old ToS:
New ToS:
1 Like
Arnt alt accounts permitted with express permission from gaijin? Or am I misremembering? (I kinda want an alt just so that I can look at stuff on the market because I am not allowed to even view it with my console account)
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Think dollar plays got permission to have that account iirc
Because i sadly do not have an answer to them :(
So does that mean that for Squadron Battles side of things owning alt accounts is still ““allowed”” even with
section 3.5 (Ban on Account Sharing). Taking an effect as long as they are only used by the owner of said account?
I’m not in a rush, i’ll wait for an answer as long as i need to.
Edit: Thank you for responses btw, don’t get me wrong i am not trying to be negative, i just need to know how things will work from now on for Squadron Battles side of things.
1 Like
So from what I am reading from this is nothing really new has been done to the ToS, just more junk no one will read nor follow and some bits reworded to be more cryptic like all ToS rewrites do. If anything can be taken from this is it just gives them more arbitrary reasons to ban you or penalize you with.
The stuff about review bombing, account sharing, and the use of Gaijin IP were all a good laugh.
The age verification junk and the anti cheats data harvesting is concerning though.
Age verification has been nothing but a failure since it’s massive implementation lately, I hope they don’t plan on walking down the same road as Twitch, Discord, and the UK did.
The data harvesting is a bit excessive, they be reaching deep in some areas. I can’t see why they would need data on your system files, memory, services, and drivers. Running processes and applications I can see are more related to sniffing out cheat programs but the rest of it seems more like just corporate data harvesting like what banks do. I suppose they will probably want our DNA next.
3 Likes
I do not disagree that it is not the ideal way to try and sort out an issue but when we as a community are stone walled for multiple years without any information on pressing issues for a game mode that contains some of the most active players and those who more importantly spend a lot of money on the game you can understand why review bombs tend to happen.
I’m not a massive fan of the “blame the players” mentality of the review bomb’s over the “lets look at ourself and see where we are going wrong” mentality that this company could be taking to actually better this game and the community within.
Please see attached thread for a prime example of why your players are left with no other option but to review bomb due to lack of communication.
1 Like
I also don’t understand why would anybody using more than one account? Do they really enjoy grinding the same vehicle for the second time?