For reference, the Terms of Use for MtGPQ are visible in several locations in addition to those mentioned thus far:
-
In-game under “Settings”:
(a) via the eponymous “Terms of Use” button (this has already been identified, but I’m including it on the list for completeness)
(b) “Privacy Policy” → Game terms of use → MtGPQ
(c) “Help Center (FAQ)” → Privacy → Terms of Use
-
https://d3go.com/legals/
-
https://forums.505go.com/discussion/1/terms-of-use
-
As of this post, the Helpshift site (which leads to the link in the OP) is the 5th Google search result under “MtGPQ terms of service” and the 4th under “MtGPQ terms of use”; the Zendesk links are potentially misleading among the search results, but the order of results may not be strictly within the control of D3Go to alter.
Regarding the underlying point about the applicability of the EULA in order to justify action against users for the Legacy exploit, the premise of the initial post (namely that lack of mention of a specific type of exploit implies lack of actionability against users who take advantage of that exploit) seems to misconstrue the nature and purpose of an EULA in a situation like this. The Terms of Use delineate (and in many cases limit) the rights of users who wish to access the services provided by D3Go and the liabilities of D3Go where those users are concerned; they are unlikely to be intended (except where explicitly indicated) to limit the right of D3Go to act in its discretion beyond the scope of explicitly identified prohibited behavior in order to promote both the letter and the spirit of the Terms of Use where they deem it warranted.
In other words, the Terms of Use don’t affirmatively justify actions against users who extensively took advantage of the Legacy exploit specifically; instead, what they do is remove the need for D3Go to provide any affirmative justification for its actions concerning specific users, up to and including bans for any reason (in cases where a user believes the actions D3Go takes are illegal, uninstalling the game and/or pursuing legal counsel would probably be the most immediate recourses; a forum debate isn’t an appropriate venue for redress if the user is correct). The question at issue with regard to the forum topics discussing the exploit over the last few days is whether or not a reasonable user should have been able to infer from the Terms of Use that the Legacy exploit would constitute a punishable offense; opinions on this understandably seem to differ, but either way the answer doesn’t remove the right of D3Go to handle the situation in whatever way it believes will best suit the interests of the game and its community.
Excerpts of the Terms have already been posted on this and other threads, but these are a few passages (including redundant ones for completeness) that may be relevant to addressing the Legacy exploit (edited omissions are for brevity and clarity, not for the sake of altering material content):
“Prohibited Conduct. You agree not to engage in any of the following conduct through or in connection with the Game: … (b) … circumvent …any feature that restricts or enforces limitations on use of or access to the Game; … (i) cheat …”
The interpretation of the scope of this provision may be arguable (considering specific exploits as cheating is often a controversial subject generally, and whether or not the inability to use certain cards in Standard represents “a feature that enforces limitations on use of the Game” in the context of exploits may also be debatable); however, what isn’t arguable is the disclaimer appended to the end of this section:
“D3PA reserves the right to determine what conduct violates these restrictions or is otherwise outside the intentions of this EULA or the Game and to take action as a result, which may include termination of your account and exclusion from further participation in the Game.”
This fairly clearly delineates the inclusive rather than exclusive nature of the Prohibited Conduct as it relates to D3Go; the prohibited behaviors are examples of actionable offenses, not an exhaustive list.
“Changes, Suspension or Termination of the Game. … D3PA reserves the right to refuse to keep accounts for or provide access to the game to anyone.”
The simplest analogy for this clause would be to a card counter in a casino; the card counter’s behavior is entirely legal by most applicable laws, but casinos generally forbid it under penalty of expulsion from the premises and are within their rights to do so. Likewise, the developers of MtGPQ have discretion regarding their own game and its code of conduct (both explicit and implicit) even in cases where end users have acted in ways that might not be treated identically in another game or another context.
“Delay in Enforcement. No delay or failure to take action under this EULA shall constitute any waiver by us of any provision of this EULA.”
While the frustration with any inconsistency in enforcement may be understandable, this provision nevertheless explicitly disclaims any obligation to abdicate future enforcement should D3Go fail to enforce the agreement in one or more instances at its discretion, thereby answering the question raised repeatedly in other threads of “if they didn’t punish users for ____ which also might arguably have been considered an exploit, then why do they have the right to punish users for the Legacy exploit?”
Ultimately, like it or not, these are the terms every user accedes to in order to play the game; if you believe the terms to be unenforceable, then uninstalling the game and challenging the dispute via binding arbitration may be warranted, but short of one or both of those measures, the burden of proof doesn’t lie on D3Go to demonstrate that its definition of an exploit is actionable, it lies on users who disagree with their decision to convince D3Go that either the actions taken contravene the best interests of the game or that an error occurred in enforcement (e.g. if 2 UIDs were hypothetically mixed up).
