Account Banned for being Disabled?

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

All GGG have to do here get the people they already employ to unban accounts that have an accessibility reason to be using such software. There’s no vast new expenditure involved.

Lets say they do that, how do they determine if someone has an accessibility problem or is just making it up to use illegal macros?

OP says they can easily verify their disability; asking them instead of having Support end all communication would be a start.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

OP says they can easily verify their disability; asking them instead of having Support end all communication would be a start.

Who says OP won't simply hand over the PC to someone else who plays then?

And who says disabled people won’t give their parking permit to an abled friend, etc etc. We can’t ensure perfection. But it’s wrong to continually let disabled people be the ones that lose out because of that. Treating them like criminals is the opposite of helpful.

POE is run server-side; if the input starts looking dodgy they can follow up later on. But even if worst came to worst and the cost of including disabled folk ended up being a little lighter security (of, um, inputs in a videogame, let’s keep some perspective here) for everyone else, then that’s the cost, that’s okay. It shouldn’t be on disabled people to always just accept being left out.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

And who says disabled people won’t give their parking permit to an abled friend, etc etc. We can’t ensure perfection. But it’s wrong to continually let disabled people be the ones that lose out because of that. Treating them like criminals is the opposite of helpful.

Because in any sensible country the parking permit for disabled is bound to the number plate of the car while the car has to be owned by the disabled person. So if someone else is seen with the car parking on a disabled spot who isn't the owner, then they get fined for doing so without permit. And that's usually quite expensive.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

POE is run server-side; if the input starts looking dodgy they can follow up later on.

If a dodgy input is found the ban is immediate, that's the first thing the server does, for obvious reasons like keeping the integrity of the server-structure sound.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

But even if worst came to worst and the cost of including disabled folk ended up being a little lighter security (of, um, inputs in a videogame, let’s keep some perspective here) for everyone else, then that’s the cost, that’s okay.

The cost is a living person having to check manually if the person on the other side has been banned rightfully or wrongfully first of all. Then they got to make sure if the person is actually disabled and not faking it. That takes several hours of work-time. I don't think the company only pays 8$ to their employees in customer support.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

It shouldn’t be on disabled people to always just accept being left out.

Great! We're of the same mind then, it's an issue.
Now go and create a solution which is viable + cheap to use, then patent it and present it to GGG under a free license.

"

Kulze wrote:

Because in any sensible country the parking permit for disabled is bound to the number plate of the car while the car has to be owned by the disabled person. So if someone else is seen with the car parking on a disabled spot who isn't the owner, then they get fined for doing so without permit. And that's usually quite expensive.

Exactly, the car/permit owner is accountable for misuse of their car/permit, and the account owner is accountable for misuse of their account. Not trying to escape that.

"

Kulze wrote:

If a dodgy input is found the ban is immediate, that's the first thing the server does, for obvious reasons like keeping the integrity of the server-structure sound.

I know, that doesn’t change anything about what I said. As OP points out, their gameplay is hardly going to look like someone trying to cheat their way up a ladder.

"

Kulze wrote:

The cost is a living person having to check manually if the person on the other side has been banned rightfully or wrongfully first of all. Then they got to make sure if the person is actually disabled and not faking it. That takes several hours of work-time. I don't think the company only pays 8$ to their employees in customer support.

Yes, so their support employees offering support. That’s what they’re there for.

"

Kulze wrote:

Great! We're of the same mind then, it's an issue.
Now go and create a solution which is viable + cheap to use, then patent it and present it to GGG under a free license.

Oh please. This is the suggestions forum, not the “do free labour for a half-a-trillion-dollar company” forum. Every suggestion, by nature, involves proposing the company do work it wouldn’t do otherwise. If you post this “great, do the work yourself” stuff in every suggestion thread, I’d suggest you’re misunderstanding the forum, and if you’re only doing it in this one, I’d suggest reflecting on whether you really do think this is an issue, because singling it out like that would be weird behaviour for someone who is actually concerned about the OP’s situation.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

And who says disabled people won’t give their parking permit to an abled friend, etc etc. We can’t ensure perfection. But it’s wrong to continually let disabled people be the ones that lose out because of that. Treating them like criminals is the opposite of helpful.

POE is run server-side; if the input starts looking dodgy they can follow up later on. But even if worst came to worst and the cost of including disabled folk ended up being a little lighter security (of, um, inputs in a videogame, let’s keep some perspective here) for everyone else, then that’s the cost, that’s okay. It shouldn’t be on disabled people to always just accept being left out.

lolz @ equating having a simple/comprehensive policy with treating disabled people like criminals.

the virtue signaling in this thread...

"

robmafia wrote:

lolz @ equating having a simple/comprehensive policy with treating disabled people like criminals.

Uh, no, that statement wasn’t referring to the policy, it was referring to the tendency for people to reach for “disabled people cheating the system” narratives.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Exactly, the car/permit owner is accountable for misuse of their car/permit, and the account owner is accountable for misuse of their account. Not trying to escape that.

Exactly, and that's where the issue begins sadly. GGG never sees who is playing after all, the internet is a nice place for anonymity, hence to have a functioning system with as few people exploiting systems there need to be clear and proper lines.
Also, how far would the accommodation of disabled people go? Which ones are 'feasable' to integrate into a fast-paced ARPG which needs a good hand-eye-coordination? That's a good point of discussion and the baseline for what to do.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Yes, so their support employees offering support. That’s what they’re there for.

Yes, for in-game matters and the framework around it. Nobody of those has even a clue about disabled people I would guess, and if then only by luck. We could be glad if one knows how a barrier-free flat looks like remotely, not to speak of how to integrate someone like that into the game and have a good way to explain it to the other people not allowed to use similar systems.
As well as changing the framework of the server-security to allow it to ignore his computer doing 'weird' stuff. Which is a security-hole, and that's an issue.

There needs to be a way provided without any security issues present as those would be.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Oh please. This is the suggestions forum, not the “do free labour for a half-a-trillion-dollar company” forum. Every suggestion, by nature, involves proposing the company do work it wouldn’t do otherwise. If you post this “great, do the work yourself” stuff in every suggestion thread, I’d suggest you’re misunderstanding the forum, and if you’re only doing it in this one, I’d suggest reflecting on whether you really do think this is an issue, because singling it out like that would be weird behaviour for someone who is actually concerned about the OP’s situation.

Yes, that's also absolutely true about the work.
Though a company has only limited resources, GGG would make pioneer work in this sector - no other fast-paced multiplayer-game offers the option for those people, sad but reality - and gain nothing from it. While it's a very nice gesture it would only strain the company further. They're clearly overwhelmed with their own product by now, do you think getting into R&D to create such a framework from nothing is feasable for them at the moment? They can't even decently copy functioning systems from other games to give them their personal touch, that's definitely far over their heads.

Hence the exaggeration of doing it yourself. That's the more likely way it'll become reality actually.


While I agree with you fully that games (or general programs) should be more user-friendly towards disabled people I also know that no developer goes into a project with that in mind... simply because that's something rather an open-source project would do as there's enough manpower behind it then. Otherwise cost/benefit is just so ridiculous it's the literal last thing on their list.

GGG cheat detection probably looks at specific signatures to determine if it’s cheating software or some other software. Based on their blunt reply, I'd say they determined quickly that the player was cheating and not just trying to navigate the game via some other software.

I am sure they could whitelist software if a case was made to them. You have to be pretty specific in naming any and all software your used to have a chance at getting a pass on using disability software. I didn’t see the player make a strong case by listing specific software here or to GGG.

Show me a clip of a disabled player facerolling Atziri with voice commands and I'll believe that they have some sort advantage over a keyboard and mouse. Because my sense is that no matter what software they use they will technically be at a huge disadvantage is why I think GGG would have no problems accommodating a disabled player provided they offer some actual proof that they are disabled; not to mention the positive PR they could get from doing so.