{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/20/2015 6:34:37 AM
5
It's quite simple, really. The kid is the victim here, plain and simple. Whether you believe "he had it coming" or not, the fact remains that the troll is the bad guy.
Let's discuss a few principles, shall we? First let's assume that the kid is in fact in the wrong for seeking "hacks or exploits." While this is true it doesn't give a person the right to vigilante style justice. Furthermore, the punishment has to fit the crime. Is seeking a way to game the system cause to delete two of your character and some exotics? To me, it seems like that is a rather harsh punishment.
Likewise, saying that the "kid had it coming" is like saying that the people who get conned by the "Nigerian prince" scam emails had it coming, too. It's foolish, yes, but that doesn't give someone the right to victimize you. To a lesser degree, it's like saying that a victim of -blam!- had it coming because of the way the dress, the places they visit, or the life style the live. Opportunity or susceptibility does not excuse the behavior.
Bungie will definitely be banning this guy for what he did, violations of EULA. There could even be a civil lawsuit (trespass to chattels, for example).
English
-
Edited by The_Death_Skull_: 2/20/2015 8:52:05 AMHe didnt seek the hack (it was acutally a glitch) kermit initiated the conversation and led him into doing it we all know how easy it is to get a 10 year old to do something they want to do i.e. getting a character past base level 20
-
Comparing it to the Nigerian Prince scam emails is not a correct analogy. He was complicit in trying to do something against the rules for personal gain. The scam emails don't tell you to do something illegal and in return you receive vast wealth.
-
The example is meant to illustrate that being "dumb" doesn't excuse being victimized... How about this, then, a person is jaywalking across the street and as he does so a drunk driver hits him and seriously injures him. Only the minority of jurisdictions, those employing contributory negligence, would bar recovery for his damages. Sure, the person jaywalking is "at fault," but that doesn't excuse the fact the diver was drunk. Ergo, the majority approach (adopted by a vast majority of states) is comparative negligence. Say the driver is found to be 90% at fault and the pedestrian is 10%. If the pedestrian's total damages are $100,000, he can still recover $90,000 from the driver. (Unless it's a "modified" jurisdiction, and pedestrian was 50% or more at fault).
-
Edited by eVoLvE: 2/20/2015 7:20:13 AMI never said kirmit should be absolved for his part. I'm just pointing out that you made a poor analogy. Also, in your example of jaywalking and being hit by a drunk driver, you proved the point I was making in that both parties are punished for being in the wrong. He still owns a portion of the blame, in your example 10%. In the email scam, the person being scammed isn't at fault because they didn't commit a crime. Two different scenarios. Your jaywalking example was an excellent analogy for the situation.
-
Wow! That was pretty informative, I like the simpler approach, he was an 11 year old child who was taken advantage of by a grown man! Hey but that's just me.
