Check out the patch notes for the Dungeon Guide System update: https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/63107/dungeon-guide-system-patch-notes-november-12th-2020
[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

Terms of service update on 10/01/2020?

VimaVima
Mabinogi Rep: 425
Posts: 17
Member
edited October 7 in General Chat
They used to make a post on the main site whenever they did this, but I am concerned and confused as to why they haven't. Also, can anyone point out what the changes/additions were compared to before? Thank you to the un-named individual who pointed this out to me.

Comments

  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,045
    Posts: 7,775
    Member
    How many people actually care about terms and conditions? :)
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,400
    Posts: 63
    Member
    edited October 9
    How many people actually care about terms and conditions? :)

    Obviously not the ones that pretend to know them and go around policing the community.
    /thread
    Kensamaofmari
  • HabimaruHabimaru
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,895
    Posts: 661
    Member
    edited October 9
    Not only that, but, the format & wordings of these «Terms of Service» (and EULAs [End-User License-Agreements]) and «Terms of Use» along with various other forms of what are essentially «Legal-Contracts» are pretty much worded the same or very similar world-wide in every language and for every country...which are not actually countries but are corporations (part of this is because of an inter-national «Legal-Franchise» system). For those who actually READ the whole thing, the term «your character» and/or «your account» is not actually «your» character nor «your» account, but literally belongs to the corporation/company in a form of THEIR «intellectual property» and is thus therefore more like you have a sort of «lease-agreement» rather than the «ownership» of what is often mis-termed & mis-nomered as «your» accounts/characters/pets/items/etc actually being your own, according to Legalese-language.

    Much as I would like the world to really know & comprehend what is really going on with how such a system actually operates, knowledge of its «truth» requires the literal learning of Legalese, but to «simplify» things I am just going to say that the wording/format is not «coincidental» across the entire world in every language and in every country (which are not actually countries but are corporations) but really quite deliberate as such «ideas» for as to why such «rules» are put in place come from somewhere, and I cannot deny the fact that it has sometimes forced me to «question» the «logic» behind why certain things are put in place as some of them can come across to me as being rather a little over-board or even paranoid. Ultimately, the «jurisdiction» that has to be respected is the one that applies to every universe, and that particular «jurisdiction» largely revolves around whether we are being «reasonable» or not.

    With that mentioned, and given the topic itself, I will take this opportunity to use it to mention something else that does in fact, bother me a lot. The forced collection of «taxes» from on-line transactions, and the fact that there still seems to be a lot of people who really believe that «taxation» is some-how a «legitimate» activity, even when the very «institutions» demanding these «tax» payments are actually operating outside of their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, because the «system» has literally become a world-controlling «religion» ever since long ago, some people are still going to employ its version of «apologetics» to defend and even demand for the enslavement that is called taxation, even to the point of calling it «constitutional» (also of which it is actually not).

    Rather than putting details about «constitutionality/unconstitutionality» here in the main body of this message I'll just leave the rest in spoiler...
    Let's make it perfectly clear that there is not ONE constitution but several (see details within next/following inner-spoiler)...
    1. The actual Federal Constitution is called:

    The Constitution for the united States of America,

    adopted in 1787. All members of the “States of America” organization are Federal States of States, also called “Confederate States” which have been mothballed since 1868.

     

    2. The Territorial Constitution is called:

    “The Constitution of the United States of America”

    adopted in 1789 — notice the small “the”. This version of “United States of America” is a British commercial corporation operated as a “Territorial Democracy” — which has been running the Federal District Government in the “absence” of our own Federal States of States — not be confused with our American Federation of States doing business as The United States of America.

     

    3. The Municipal Constitution is called:

    “The Constitution of the United States” adopted in 1790.

    Notice that there is no reference to “of America” involved. Notice also the small “the” as part of “the United States” — this municipal commercial corporation is not to be confused with The United States representing our republican states.
    Additionally, each «state» is also literally more along the lines of their own «country» (corporation), and is why they each have their own «constitutions» (not like any of those public-officials really bother to uphold them anyway, even though their Oaths-of-Office requires them to, but on ANOTHER «caveat» ...when digging deeper, they are actually only upholding a «Constitution» that protects the rights of CORPORATIONS and not the «rights» of any actual men & women, although this is also a FRAUD due to the lack-of-disclosure over the cause-and-nature of any ACTIONS they take if/when they stop/pull you over for reasons that have nothing to do with any emergency, amongst various other massive violations of law that I could quote up the wazoo but I'll just limit that to quoting a few Maxims of Law & related court-case-decisions in the next two inner-spoilers for now).
    «Once a fraud, always a fraud.» 13 Vin. Abr. 539.

    «Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act.»
    Trayner, Max. 482. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1862.

    «A thing void in the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time.»
    1 S.&R. 58. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1866.

    «Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin.»
    Dig. 50, 17, 29; Broom, max. 178, Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862.

    «fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.»
    Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856.

    «Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78.»
    Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856.

    «Fraus et jus nunquam ochabitant. Fraud and justice never dwell together.»
    Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1832.

    «Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vei fraudem petatur, malum injustum efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust. 3. Co. 78.» Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856.
    «When enforcing mere statutes, judges of all courts do not act judicially» (and are thus not protected by «qualified» or «limited immunity,» - SEE : Owen v. City, 445 U.S. 662; Bothke v. Terry, 713 F.2d 1404) --

    «Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, for they are deemed to know the law.» Owens v Independence 100 S.C.T. 1398.

    «An officer who acts in violation of the Constitution ceases to represent the government.» Brookfield Const. Co. v. Stewart, 284 F.Supp 94.

    «Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all in a sworn officer of the law.» In re McCowan (1917), 177 C. 93, 170 P. 1100.

    «As in the case of illegal arrests, the officer is bound to know these fundamental rights and privileges, and must keep within the law at his peril.» Thiede v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 231, 14 N.W.2d 400 (1944).

    «Failure to obey the command of a police officer constitutes a traditional form of breach of the peace. Obviously, however, one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if the command itself is violative of the constitution.» Wright v. Georgia, 373 U.S. 284.

    «Judge loses his absolute immunity from damage actions only when he acts in clear absence of all jurisdiction or performance of an act which is not judicial in nature.» Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202.

    «...where any state proceeds against a private individual in a judicial forum it is well settled that the state, county, municipality, etc., waives any immunity to counters, cross claims and complaints, by direct or collateral means regarding the matters involved.» Luckenback v. The Thekla, 295 F. 1020, 226 U.S. 328; Lyders v. Lund, 32 F.2d 308.

    (Related reference to Oath & Executive-Order in next following inner-inner-spoiler)
    constitution-15.jpg
    Anyway, even IF a clearly «legalising criminal-activity» line of text/legislation exists as being a so-called «constitutional» action/rule/decision/etc., keep in mind that «constitutions» were written by war-mongers who subjugated whole entire populations, and by their «logic» they decided that they suddenly own the whole entire continent, SOLELY due to the «ACT» of sticking a pole into the ground that had a rag tied to the end of it (they tend to like to call those things «flags» and the whole entire world that uses ANY form of «currency» that is related to or «exchanges» Federal-Reserve Notes actually operates under a «jurisdiction» known as the «Law-Merchant» but most of this is actually, believe it or not, beyond what most lawyers/attorneys know, even whole ENTIRE freaking legal-departments, unfortunately).

    «At least 90% of all lawyers and attorneys are either incompetent or dishonest, if not both...» -Former Supreme-Court Chief-Justice Earl Warren

    «The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.» -Thomas Jefferson (and no, Monticello, Politifact, Snopes, FactCheck and other such so-called «fact-checking» sources are NOT credible, so don't even bother trying to play the «debunker» role when «Quo Warranto» points to obvious bias, not to mention the lack-of-transparency in their funding sources [re-open my above spoiler pointing to how to CONCEAL a FRAUD is yet ANOTHER FRAUD])

    This is all I am going to say about this topic for now.
    How many people actually care about terms and conditions? :)

    Obviously not the ones that pretend to know them and go around policing the community.
    /thread
    Edit/Addendum : Forgot to quote something relevant to Constitution & Tax (putting it into the next below-spoiler). Yes, I realise that my «disagreement» with the «tax» getting added into on-line purchases technically makes it so that I «may not use» Nexon services, but, like I mentioned before, the superior «jurisdiction» in operation, applicable to this and every universe in existence, largely revolves around what is reasonable.
    Read #1 & #2 over and over until you get it!

    FRC v. General Electric Co., 281 U.S. 464 (1930)
    Opinions
    Syllabus Case
    U.S. Supreme Court

    Syllabus
    1. This Court is a constitutional, as distinguished from a legislative, Court, and can have no jurisdiction other than of cases and controversies falling within the classes enumerated in the judiciary article of the Constitution; it cannot give decisions which are merely advisory, nor can it exercise or participate in the exercise of functions which are essentially legislative or administrative. P. 281 U. S. 469.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/281/464/

    ———————————————
    Keller v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923)
    Opinions
    Syllabus Case
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Keller v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923)
    Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Company
    No. 260
    Argued February 26, 27, 1923
    Decided April 9, 1923
    261 U.S. 428

    Syllabus

    2. This is legislative, as distinguished from judicial, power. Id.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/261/428/

    federal tax trials are not a judicial or even a lawful proceeding. In fact, based on several Freedom of Information Act Requests (FOIA) about the status of numerous federal district court “judges” we have, who hear such tax cases, most of the judges do not have a valid appointment document, never took any oath as required by positive law, and aren’t even listed as “judges” in the records of the government!

    Don’t believe us? Send in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request yourself and find out! Throughout the remainder of this section, we will refer to these imposters simply as “pseudo judges”. Therefore, our “United States District Courts” have simply become the equivalent of administrative federal office buildings that are part of the Executive, and not Judicial, branch of the government. A truly sovereign and independent Article III Judicial Branch can’t even be mentioned in any federal statute, because of the separation of powers doctrine, and yet we have a whole Title of the U.S. Code, Title 28, which defines and prescribes what pseudo judges in these bogus “courts” can and can’t do.

    The Supreme Court says the existence of such laws proves that such “courts” aren’t really judicial tribunals. Notice the statement “the ONLY judicial power vested in Congress” below:

    “As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution."

    [O'Donohue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 53 S.Ct. 740 (1933)]

    Title 28 not only “creates” all the district and circuit courts of the United States, but it in fact even defines what the “judges” CANNOT rule on. See 28 U.S.C. §2201(a), which plainly states that federal judges CANNOT rule on rights in the context of income taxes. Excuse our language here, but what the HELL is a judge for if he can’t defend or rule on our 18 rights(!)? We’ll give you a hint: The only “rights” he is there to protect are the governments “right” to STEAL your money and use it to subsidize socialism.

    The only type of court over which the Congress could have such absolute legislative power over judges is in an Article IV (of the Constitution), territorial court, and this in fact exactly describes our present District and Circuit federal court systems. Our present federal District and Circuit courts were created to rule ONLY over issues relating to federal territory and property under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. They are all “legislative” rather than “constitutional” or “judicial” courts. They are part of the Executive Branch of the government, and which have no authority to even address Constitutional rights. They are NOT part of the “judicial branch”, and this is a deception.

    The entire Judicial Branch, in fact, is composed exclusively of the seven justices of the Supreme Court. A very exclusive club, we might add! “The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction as Congress confers [by legislation].” 28 [Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin, 191 F.Supp. 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]

    If the pseudo judges who hear tax trials aren’t even part of the Judicial branch, were never appointed, and are simply “employees” of the Executive Branch, then what exactly are they? They are simply imposters who are there to create the illusion that there is even a remote possibility of equity and justice in the courtroom relating to an income tax issue. To preserve some semblance of civil order and prevent a massive civil revolt, the government has to maintain some kind of façade so that the people don’t lose faith in a government that in fact has already become totally corrupted in the area of money and commerce.

    You get that?

    If the pseudo judges who hear tax trials aren’t even part of the Judicial branch, were never appointed, and are simply “employees” of the Executive Branch, then what exactly are they? They are simply imposters who are there to create the illusion that there is even a remote possibility of equity and justice in the courtroom

    No wonder they are ruling against the constitution.......
  • CrimsọnCrimsọn
    Mabinogi Rep: 61,350
    Posts: 7,907
    Member
    No one reads that.
    Radiant Dawn
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,670
    Posts: 3,719
    Member
    For reference: here 'tis. Section: XI: "Miscellaneous", subsection: "Entire Agreement", makes it clear that upon entering into the contract one agrees that the most recent ToSEULA supersedes earlier ones and so one de facto agrees to abide by the new text every time it changes. Therefore any claims of advantage due to differences arising between the current document and the one, at the time one enters into the agreement, are moot. One may consider seeking satisfaction, if the section pertaining to the dispute meets the situation described in Section XI, subsection "Severability", by making use of said section.
  • WolfsingerWolfsinger
    Mabinogi Rep: 5,080
    Posts: 1,212
    Member
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    No one reads that.

    I think Helsa does :P
    Radiant Dawn
  • CrimsọnCrimsọn
    Mabinogi Rep: 61,350
    Posts: 7,907
    Member
    Helsa wrote: »
    For reference: here 'tis. Section: XI: "Miscellaneous", subsection: "Entire Agreement", makes it clear that upon entering into the contract one agrees that the most recent ToSEULA supersedes earlier ones and so one de facto agrees to abide by the new text every time it changes. Therefore any claims of advantage due to differences arising between the current document and the one, at the time one enters into the agreement, are moot. One may consider seeking satisfaction, if the section pertaining to the dispute meets the situation described in Section XI, subsection "Severability", by making use of said section.

    Nerd! :D
    Radiant DawnKensamaofmari
  • VimaVima
    Mabinogi Rep: 425
    Posts: 17
    Member
    edited October 12
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    Edit: Thank you Helsa for your insight on the matter even though it does not directly answer my question.
  • FluoretteFluorette
    Mabinogi Rep: 3,980
    Posts: 567
    Member
    Vima wrote: »
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    What.

    "No one" is going to tell you because they haven't thoroughly read/inspected both versions of the ToS to know what changes were made. It's not a matter of "FUD", per se, but rather, carelessness.

    I'm not particularly sure why you reached out to the forum community for this in the first place. There's only a very small sample of players that post in these forums. Try asking somebody who works in Nexon's customer service.
  • HelsaHelsa
    Mabinogi Rep: 18,670
    Posts: 3,719
    Member
    Wolfsinger wrote: »
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    No one reads that.

    I think Helsa does :P

    Nah, I just play someone who does on TV.
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    Helsa wrote: »
    For reference: here 'tis. Section: XI: "Miscellaneous", subsection: "Entire Agreement", makes it clear that upon entering into the contract one agrees that the most recent ToSEULA supersedes earlier ones and so one de facto agrees to abide by the new text every time it changes. Therefore any claims of advantage due to differences arising between the current document and the one, at the time one enters into the agreement, are moot. One may consider seeking satisfaction, if the section pertaining to the dispute meets the situation described in Section XI, subsection "Severability", by making use of said section.

    Nerd! :D

    You're dating yourself dear; nerds are cool now.
    Vima wrote: »
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    Edit: Thank you Helsa for your insight on the matter even though it does not directly answer my question.

    Glad to be of some service. I suppose there is a small chance you /might/ find what you need via the Way-back Machine. Other than that, you'd have to contact Nexon directly, I'd suppose, for what you want.

    Wolfsinger
  • CrimsọnCrimsọn
    Mabinogi Rep: 61,350
    Posts: 7,907
    Member
    Fluorette wrote: »
    Vima wrote: »
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    What.

    "No one" is going to tell you because they haven't thoroughly read/inspected both versions of the ToS to know what changes were made. It's not a matter of "FUD", per se, but rather, carelessness.

    I'm not particularly sure why you reached out to the forum community for this in the first place. There's only a very small sample of players that post in these forums. Try asking somebody who works in Nexon's customer service.

    She's right you know, none of us are lawyers or attorneys. If you were looking for a response from a staff member in these forums I'm sorry to inform you but Kyrios is done baby sitting us.

    oof. XD
  • KensamaofmariKensamaofmari
    Mabinogi Rep: 34,045
    Posts: 7,775
    Member
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    Fluorette wrote: »
    Vima wrote: »
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    What.

    "No one" is going to tell you because they haven't thoroughly read/inspected both versions of the ToS to know what changes were made. It's not a matter of "FUD", per se, but rather, carelessness.

    I'm not particularly sure why you reached out to the forum community for this in the first place. There's only a very small sample of players that post in these forums. Try asking somebody who works in Nexon's customer service.

    She's right you know, none of us are lawyers or attorneys. If you were looking for a response from a staff member in these forums I'm sorry to inform you but Kyrios is done baby sitting us.

    oof. XD

    Patiently waits for the one random lawyer/attorney that plays the game to show up.
  • CrimsọnCrimsọn
    Mabinogi Rep: 61,350
    Posts: 7,907
    Member
    edited October 13
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    Fluorette wrote: »
    Vima wrote: »
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    What.

    "No one" is going to tell you because they haven't thoroughly read/inspected both versions of the ToS to know what changes were made. It's not a matter of "FUD", per se, but rather, carelessness.

    I'm not particularly sure why you reached out to the forum community for this in the first place. There's only a very small sample of players that post in these forums. Try asking somebody who works in Nexon's customer service.

    She's right you know, none of us are lawyers or attorneys. If you were looking for a response from a staff member in these forums I'm sorry to inform you but Kyrios is done baby sitting us.

    oof. XD

    Patiently waits for the one random lawyer/attorney that plays the game to show up.

    But Habi is here.

    ...and just as confusing as ever.

    I mean seriously, I'm not going to read the ToS. I am certainly not going to read all that either. XD
    Kensamaofmari
  • XCalibieXCalibie
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,200
    Posts: 106
    Member
    edited October 14
    It happens a bit too often that people prefer to rant on about things like their own opinions or stuff they'd rather talk about instead of answering someone's question.

    As for changes, this was added under "IV. VIRTUAL CURRENCY AND VIRTUAL ITEMS"
    FOR RESIDENTS OF THE EEA OR OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ONLY: YOU AGREE TO IMMEDIATELY RECEIVE THE DIGITAL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING VIRTUAL CURRENCY, DIGITAL IN-GAME ITEMS AND ANY OTHER VIRTUAL CONTENTS, AND TO WAIVE YOUR CANCELLATION AND REFUND RIGHT ONCE THE DOWNLOAD OR STREAMING OF THE DIGITAL PRODUCT HAS BEGUN.

    Aside from this, the majority of their contact information has been trimmed down to just an address, instead urging you to contact them through their Support System rather than attempting to make a phone call or send an e-mail, in case you need contact them for any reason whatsoever.

    PS: Do note that I only had the (STEAM) version from May 2018 to compare with.
    If the information under section IV was already changed prior, I couldn't tell. And if it is different simply because it is hosted on different platforms, there likely isn't much of a difference to begin with aside from a few typo fixes and spacing adjustments.
    KensamaofmariVima
  • CrimsọnCrimsọn
    Mabinogi Rep: 61,350
    Posts: 7,907
    Member
    edited October 14
    Boy these micro aggressions. Yuiko has made me aware of them. :D
  • Momma_SophieMomma_Sophie
    Mabinogi Rep: 1,400
    Posts: 63
    Member
    edited October 15
    Vima wrote: »
    So, no one is going to tell me what the actual changes are because people say it doesn't matter.. There's fear of FUD for you.

    Edit: Thank you Helsa for your insight on the matter even though it does not directly answer my question.

    I used the archive link Helsa suggested to take a look into to history to find any changes, but I didn't get anything other than a blank page, save for the login/account creation buttons. My guess is there is a script involved that keeps us from using past iterations of the contract against them in legal situations regarding financial issues occurring in the past by making it difficult for us to grab it (if you're a low-effort internet-user).
    Crimsọn wrote: »

    She's right you know, none of us are lawyers or attorneys. If you were looking for a response from a staff member in these forums I'm sorry to inform you but Kyrios is done baby sitting us.

    oof. XD

    You don't have to be a lawyer to be able to read documents. If you don't have to be a lawyer to agree to the ToS, you don't have to be a lawyer to scrutinize it. Else, we could pursue some "cause" against Nexon for allowing 14-year children to be able to agree to legal documents carrying serious legal consequences.

    And if you think Nexon is purposefully going to explain the changes made to their ToS in present day era where the slightest error can cost you everything and people don't trust corporations, you're mistaken. They're not going to give you an edge against them, should you ever consider pursuing legal confrontation. But, this assumes even Customer Service pays attention enough to know the changes. As someone that's worked in that role: I can assure you they don't.
    Crimsọn wrote: »
    Boy these micro aggressions. Yuiko has made me aware of them. :D

    Please, don't provoke these types of people. The community is polluted enough with them, ready to finger-vomit their opinions all over their keyboard. Let them stay in their "Containment Units."
  • HabimaruHabimaru
    Mabinogi Rep: 2,895
    Posts: 661
    Member
    edited October 15
    Lawyers are highly unlikely to be here, although there was once a neuro-surgeon student in the past, and I did interact once with someone who claimed to be a para-legal, but, for the most part, the vast majority of the population seem to be mostly those who are still in school anywhere from middle-school to college-students. I suspect that those who end up graduating from college tend to stop being active, and of those graduates who still stick around, I find that they tend to be a lot less active than before.

    Even if someone happened to be a lawyer/attorney here, law-school literally doesn't actually teach law, but, instead, only really pumps out a bunch of BAR-association members who naïvely get into the profession thinking that they're going to make any sort of change for the better. I was at a «legal-department» some time ago discussing these matters with one of their department-members, and she was telling me how she thought that the «system» was about justice when she first got into the profession, but admitted to me that she was quite dis-illusioned once she witnessed what typically and actually happens in the court-rooms.

    Spoiler-Content : Why the U.S. is a Corporation (not solely because of Title 28 U.S. Code 3002[15][a]), things that lawyers/attorneys see/witness in the court-rooms that may cause them to become dis-illusioned, the fact that every «court» is really just a show-trial kangaroo-court (mostly in the USA which has over 50% of the entire world's lawyers but also happens a lot internationally), and a hint as to why anybody claiming to be a U.S. citizen is so heavily taxed on everything.
    Prosecutorial-Misconduct ? Common ! False Charges ? Common ! Police-Corruption ? Common ! Biased so-called judges ? Common ! Although most people don't really know how to reserve nor exercise any of their rights so most people aren't going to Recuse such so-called judges who need to be Recused... most people also, how-ever, choose to « waive » their rights, even in the complete absence of any corpus delecti or mens rea when they've been falsely accused or intimidated into false guilt (the vast majority of «cases» are literally under the category of breach-of-contract and most people are clueless about the fact that they're being charged by a CORPORATION if the Plaintiff is listed as «STATE OF [which-ever-so-called-state-in-all-caps» or even «CITY OF [which-ever-so-called-city-name-in-all-caps]»).

    I will hold off on bothering to explain why U.S. registered corporations/companies are all subject to all of the Title 18 U.S. Codes and Title 28 U.S. Codes but, for now, I am just going to remind everyone as to why being a subject of the U.S. Code makes one liable to all sorts of taxation, because the «status» itself is a debt-status, evidenced by the following information coming out of a significant Congressional-record...:

    The Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419, Congress chartered a Federal Company entitled “United States,” a/k/a “US Inc.,” a “Commercial Agency” originally designated as “Washington, D.C.,” in accordance with the 14th Amendment which the record indicates was never ratified (see Utah Supreme Court Cases, Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P.2d 266, 267; State v. Phillips, (1975) 540 P.2d 936; as well as Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S.Ct. 972; 28 Tulane Law Review, 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, June 13, 1967, pp. 1564-15646). A “citizen of the United States” is a civilly dead entity operating as a co-trustee and co-beneficiary of the PCT [Private Charitable Trust], the private constructive, cestui que trust of US Inc. under the 14th Amendment, which upholds the debt of the USA and US Inc. in Section 4.

    All of this ties in to locating the «United States» literally within the «District of Columbia» (within the document that you can read for yourself at https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/41st-congress/session-3/c41s3ch62.pdf it is literally worded : «CHAP. LXII. - An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia.» ...have any of you ever tried to find the «District of Columbia» on a world-map ? Does that place look like it contains the whole of the entire United States to you ? The word «jurisdiction» is very relevant and important here but is far too involved of a topic for me to be willing to go over it in detail at this time without some serious compensation for my time & research-efforts in putting together such study material for which most people would be too lazy to read & study anyway).
    Momma_Sophie
  • VimaVima
    Mabinogi Rep: 425
    Posts: 17
    Member
    XCalibie wrote: »
    It happens a bit too often that people prefer to rant on about things like their own opinions or stuff they'd rather talk about instead of answering someone's question.

    As for changes, this was added under "IV. VIRTUAL CURRENCY AND VIRTUAL ITEMS"
    FOR RESIDENTS OF THE EEA OR OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ONLY: YOU AGREE TO IMMEDIATELY RECEIVE THE DIGITAL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING VIRTUAL CURRENCY, DIGITAL IN-GAME ITEMS AND ANY OTHER VIRTUAL CONTENTS, AND TO WAIVE YOUR CANCELLATION AND REFUND RIGHT ONCE THE DOWNLOAD OR STREAMING OF THE DIGITAL PRODUCT HAS BEGUN.

    Aside from this, the majority of their contact information has been trimmed down to just an address, instead urging you to contact them through their Support System rather than attempting to make a phone call or send an e-mail, in case you need contact them for any reason whatsoever.

    PS: Do note that I only had the (STEAM) version from May 2018 to compare with.
    If the information under section IV was already changed prior, I couldn't tell. And if it is different simply because it is hosted on different platforms, there likely isn't much of a difference to begin with aside from a few typo fixes and spacing adjustments.

    Thank you for your answer, this helps me alot!