« The Politics of Sports | Main | Trust Me, Baby »

Aug 12, 2005

Comments

1.

The problem is that most merchant accounts put the burden of proof on the merchant. If you charge a customer and they contest the charge then you have to prove the charge was legitimate. If you cannot, then you lose the money and are charged a "chargeback fee", which is usually about US$15-20 in my experiences.

I don't think you could even word the EULA properly to get around this. Credit card charges are assumed to be authorized by the card holder; this is why you have to sign the receipt, to indicate that you accept the charge. The signing requirement has been eased for internet charges, but the core assumption remains. I don't think any player is going to "authorize" a penalty charge.

Further, I think this would be worthless. The people you would most want to charge are also the most likely to have invalid credit card information. Also, if banning does not work (which is essentially taking away what a player has accumulated while paying the subscription -- in other words, something that has a value), then I doubt penalties would work.

My thoughts,

2.

Speaking of restrictive EULA's there's a minor furor going on in the World of Warcraft forums right now. It looks like the WoW client scans instant messenger chat logs, temporary internet files, cookies, and browser history and presumably reports back to Blizzard. Apparently the relevant clause in the EULA reads:

"C. Blizzard Entertainment has the right to obtain "non-personal" data from your connection to World of Warcraft in order to make certain demographic assumptions regarding the users of World of Warcraft without any further notice to you."

Why is "non-personal" in quotes I wonder? Sure sounds to me like a data mining operation.

3.

If your angle is punishing the misfits by charging them extra then this could effectively be achieved by reducing the subscription time. Say when banned for a week a misfit would also lose one week from his subscription, losing two weeks of play in total. Chronic misfits would then have to extend their subscription earlier, raising the cost (revanue) per calendar month.

4.

You may also make the subscription rate slide based on "citizenship points" - better behavior (fewer administrative admonishments), better rate. Key diff = implicit to pricing structure, not an explicit charge.

5.

I'm no lawyer but I'll assume that your EULA would have to be pretty explicit about charging people extra for violations.
The first person to actually read through the whole EULA is going to notice this , post it on a forum somewhere and start such a sh*tstorm of controversy that you'll remove that clause within a day.
That's my prediction.

6.

This kind of fine is of very questionable ethics.

Service businesses (which subscription-based virtual world developers are) have the right to refuse customers service. If you are obnoxious in a restaurant or in a game you can be forced out or banned.

However, usually governments are the only ones who can impose punative fines. And rightly so, since you need impartial (or as impartial as possible) third parties to prevent abuse.

Can Disneyland fine you for cutting in line at Space Mountain? No, but they can take you out of the park -- which not only negates the damage done, it prevents future damage, and is even an appropriate size of punishment. Adding an additional fine to that blows the punishment out of proportion. Those invovled as a wronged party shouldn't be the ones deciding on punative measures.

7.

For some, a fine validates the behavior you don't want to see. If you could somehow charge a fine of $10, $20, or even $50 for being undesirable behavior, some people not only wouldn't care ($2000 this month? so what!), they would take from this a sense of entitlement for pursuing such behavior in the future. Since you extracted your punishment from them, the slate is clean and they can go on doing this as long as they don't mind the fees -- which the worst ones won't. (The very worst will be using stolen credit cards as others have said, or will simply dispute the charges after racking them up.)

Better, I think, to set up a system using carrots rather than sticks whenever possible: people who are known to help out are given higher priority for service issus, while those with a long history of complaints fall to a lower priority in a response queue for example. Or alternatively, if this is about extracting more money from a subscriber rather than simply being punitive, provide different levels of service. Ultra Platinum Dragon Supreme members (who pay a hefty extra monthly fee) might have their own service line to call, are given top priority for in-game calls, and are invited to exclusive events. Things like this could be a serious money-maker for game operators.

8.

While I agree that the EULA would have to be rather bulletproof to get this by, isn't a similar thing applied to the hotel industry. Even when paying cash, most hotels require a credit card to which they can add services (pay TV, long distance) or damages.

Now, I've never tested the limits of this to see how it would work, but it seems like, if I were a jerk enough to commit significant enough damages to the room, I'd be jerk enough to refuse to "authorize" payment, so there must be a tried and tested legal mechanic that would allow this to work. The "Agreement" I sign when getting my room key isn't too large, so it shouldn't need to be cumbersome.

In an online world, a player committing a "bannable offense" would have likely acted in a way that could be construed as "damaging" the service. Perhaps the conduct exposed potential minors to content beyond the ESRB rating and therefore damaged the credibility of the company. Perhaps the prohibited conduct risked damaging the economy, or significantly affected the experience of other players.

- If the EULA clearly defined the offenses that would lead to banning.
- If it was clearly recorded that the user (or adult guardian) consented to the EULA
- If the records show a clear violation of the EULA.
- Then this would probably be significant to enforce a charge to the card.

-----
HOWEVER: Public Relations may quash any attempt at this. Already, banned players will often be vocal on supporting forums, often painting a very different picture than what was recorded. Privacy policies generally prohibit a response from the developer, so many people believe the banned person. Could you imagine the hysteria when CHARGES were included with the banning?

9.


As to whether to charge extra penalty, or reduce subscription time, I think the obvious reason is because the subcription is generally paid for in advance, and shortening sub time potentially reduces your return as opposed to extra penalties that add new revenue.

In any case, if the problematic persons are committing credit card fraud, thats a federal offense and I'm quite sure there is a whole slew of experts on the recovery/prosecution of CC frauders.

10.

I don't like where this is headed - this is more like law enforcement, rather than rules enforcement. Not only that, but law enforcement in a justice system run entirely by unelected officials - very easily exploited by authoritarians, and with companies always needing more CSRs, the odds of finding one who will want to exploit the system may be significant. The fallout from some bad GMs fining the maximum for minor infractions would be devastating. People already resent the sometimes job and rat-race like elements of RMTs - I can't imagine they would appreciate the video game equivalent of a speeding ticket, costing them real cash. Now, suspensions and temp bans are acceptable to an extent, but charging fines crosses a line in my book.

11.

Why not making it a facultative action instead of a punishment? That would eliminate the "chargeback fee" and problems with the EULA. At this stage there is only the possibility to ban or suspend an account. This is a double loss because of the time/resources spent to identify and handle TOS violations and the missing subscription fee. What you could do in case of minor violations is to suspend the account. The account reactivation would be subjected to a voluntary payment of a relative fine. That allows you to have a proof about the transaction, reduces the loss associated to minor TOS violations and it is also a fair punishment.

12.

I don't think it would be hard to construct a EULA that would allow you to "levy" the fines, but I suspect it would be a waste of time since you would have essentially no practical ability to *collect* the fines.

At best, you would be entitled to suspend service to the person for non-payment of fines. But since you could have suspended them anyway, why bother with the artifice of "fines?"

If you really, really wanted to collect the money, you could demand an up-front deposit to be paid (to be returned upon cancellation of the account and expressly held as a deposit against your good behavior). But that would substanitally increase the "buy-in" for the game and would, I suspect be unpopular.

I further suspect whatever modest financial gain you might realize from those foolish/desparate enough to actually pay you would be offset by the enormous outpouring of ill will this would engender.

13.

Legal and ethical restrictions are moot, IMHO. The reason you wouldn't do this is the remainder of your subscribers would immediately evacuate your service, putting you out of a job. Big business conspiracy theory notwithstanding, you don't need the law to protect you from common sense.

Now the REALLY fascinating question is this: what if you gave your subscribers the ability to form communities, where other players could voluntarily agree to abide by the rules of the community, and gave THEM the power to enforce these agreements by fining violators in in-game assets?

14.

Psychochild>The people you would most want to charge are also the most likely to have invalid credit card information

So most of the accounts that are closed down (for reasons other than non-payment of subscription) are from people who weren't going to pay their subscription that month anyway?

Mike Sellers>For some, a fine validates the behavior you don't want to see.

I agree that some people have this attitude, eg. they regard parking fines as parking fees, but if you were going to ban someone for their behaviour then it doesn't seem unreasonable to charge them an administrative fee for doing so. So what if it validates their activities? They're not coming back anyway - you just closed their account.

Chas York>most hotels require a credit card to which they can add services (pay TV, long distance) or damages.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I meant. The credit card is acting a bit like a deposit, except it's only charged when there's actually something broken.

>Could you imagine the hysteria when CHARGES were included with the banning?

Perversely, the involvement of money gives the developers a put up or shut up response. "If you really think we treated you unfairly, take us to court and let's see who wins". One or two people might do that, but most are just going to be hot air.

Tim Keating>The reason you wouldn't do this is the remainder of your subscribers would immediately evacuate your service, putting you out of a job.

People would quit because they expect that at some stage they'd have their account shut down for rules violations?

OK, well perhaps if the situations in which it would be used were narrowed down, eg. we'll only charge the fee for people who are losing their accounts for farming (on the basis that they can afford it)?

Richard

15.

Richard: "If you really think we treated you unfairly, take us to court and let's see who wins". One or two people might do that, but most are just going to be hot air.

You grossly underestimate the litigiousness of many gamers (at least in the US). Lawsuits are horrendously expensive for game companies, and a surprising number of people apparently have little more to do with their time than file suits that legally require an affirmative defense. One lawsuit like this in the US can cost upwards of $250,000 just to get to mediation. If you want to go to arbitration (including discovery, etc.), double that minimum figure. If you want to go to court, double it again.

OTOH, suing someone is the easiest thing in the world. Sure a big company's lawyers can try to intimidate the plaintiff or bury them in paper, but there is always some lawyer (who may well be an aggreived player too) out there willing to take on a big evil company "for the little guy" (uh, and a 30% contingeny fee) no matter how spurious the case.

If you charged a "fine" of $20 per incident, if more than about one player in 10,000 (banned or not) sued as a result, you'd be at risk of losing significant money. Those aren't just bad odds, they're stupid odds.

16.

Mike has hit on a potentially serious problem with the strategy of charging players for various terms of service violations.

But the hospitality industry does exactley this right now. Hotels charge you if you leave with the hotel bathrobe or towels, and they fine your credit card when you smoke in smoking banned places. The hospitality industry has a nearly unique problem with customers causing them damages, I say nearly unique because the companies running virtual worlds have this problem too.

If you could prove damage (as the hotel can when you vandalize it or steal from it) to the game company then you might be able to hit back on the players credit card. I suspect a company would want the threshold to be pretty high, but it could make sense for Sony to hit someone exploiting a duping bug for damages after they put a team on tracking that person down, or for the cost of CSR time for people who are causing serious in-game disruption.

If I were hired to investigate the possibility of doing this I would look hard at how other industries recoup damages done by thier customers. And how they defend themselves when the customer sues.

My gut tells me that this would be a useful tool when behavoir was really damaging. One of the problems with applying it to existing EULAs is that they are written very broadly which would make players worried about fines. Fining on a narrow basis could be well recieved by the market place. Personally if I am staying at a hotel I like the idea of fining the nitwit who was vandalizing his room at 3am and keeping me awake.

17.

As for the fear of chargebacks... How long will this remain a problem?

I've noticed Visa pushing their "Verified by Visa" program which apparently moves the burden of proof to the consumer.

You could also restructure things by taking an explicit deposit when people sign in. This sort of already happens with MMORPGs - we pay the box price up front. If a $20 portion of this were refunded on a "normal" quit, you have your fine ready-built.

18.

I find this discussion very distrubing. Disturbing for what it lacks, namely any sense of ethics beyond a self-centered sense of entitlement on the part of developers.

First off, there's an ENORMOUS difference between a hotel charging your card for goods you consume knowing they are for sale (minibar)or for taking furnishings that are not for sale and a MMO developer levying fines. Fines are punitive fees, not reimbursements, and there's a big difference, both ethically and legally. (BTW the notion of fines to cover 'administrative' costs is just a euphemistic way of saying that your customers should personally foot the bill for your own cost of doing business, even after you've already denied those customers service. Very slim that. =P)

Second, you as the developer have a simple means of preventing behavior you don't want in your game--just code that behavior out. Don't like people cursing at others? Then either develop a better profanity filter, hire more GMs, disable chat, or only allow players to communicate via a linguistic system of your own construction. The point is that you don't have the right (ethically at least; I'm not a lawyer) to fine people just because you don't like their behavior. There's a reason that, generally speaking, only governments get to do that. As a developer you are accepting the possibility of profane language when you design a game space where profanity is possible. It is simply unreasonable to expect otherwise. And because that expectation is unreasonable, it is unreasonable to charge their credit cards involuntarily. You can ban them all you like, but you can't fine them.

Third, it is absolutely unethical to abuse the trust that your customers have placed in you when they submitted their credit card information. This trust is abused when you start levying fines against people you've banned--you have already refused them service, you don't get to pick their pockets on the way out the door. This trust is similarly abused when you start using their credit card information to try and accumlate information about their credit or other personal information, what kinds of transactions they engage in, etc.

It is also unethical to charge people for things without giving them any recourse to dispute those charges. And what protection is there for the consumer when the MMO operator starts paying GMs comissions on fines levied for behavioral 'infractions'? Many of the kinds of behavior that you find undesirable in your clientele cannot be caught by looking at logs and whatnot. That's because, using the example of speech, they may have pragmatic components. Context matters when I use the word 'rape' or 'gay', for example. Fortunately, I suspect that the costs of providing sufficient mechanisms for appeal are likely going to end up costing you more in the long run than any recuperation of 'administrative' costs you gain from the fines themselves.

The idea that whatever is legal and/or can be gotten away with is ethically 'a-okay' or even ethically neutral is itself morally bankrupt. It's shocking that designers display this attitude toward their customers. If that's how one feels, maybe you should consider another line of work. Then again, those companies that try to pull this sort of nonsense will likely do that for you. People are not going to give you a credit card knowing that you are going to charge 'fines' against them at your sole discretion, even upon refusing them access to you service.

When people give you personal information like credit card data, there is an implicit understanding that you will use that information responsibly and reasonably. To do otherwise is simply wrong, legal or not.


19.

Mike Sellars>You grossly underestimate the litigiousness of many gamers (at least in the US).

How many cases have gone to court so far? If people have their accounts deleted and they lose (what they see as) thousands of dollars of inventory, how come they haven't sued? Yet if the same thing happened and they had to pay $50 for administration, they would sue?

Compared with the UK, the US is indeed a litigator's heaven. However, just as it's possible to under-estimate the amount of litigation that goes on, it's possible to over-estimate it too.

>If you charged a "fine" of $20 per incident, if >more than about one player in 10,000 (banned or >not) sued as a result, you'd be at risk of >losing significant money. Those aren't just bad >odds, they're stupid odds.

OK, so why don't they sue for being banned anyway? Why would the $20 or whatever make a difference?

Richard

20.

monkeysan>Disturbing for what it lacks, namely any sense of ethics beyond a self-centered sense of entitlement on the part of developers.

I did mention in the opening post that we might want to look at the ethical restrictions on this kind of thing.

>the notion of fines to cover 'administrative' costs is just a euphemistic way of saying that your customers should personally foot the bill for your own cost of doing business

They do anyway. Someone has to pay the cost of those customer service reps. As it stands at the moment, the costs are spread across all players whether they're troublemakers or not. Wouldn't it be more ethical for that cost to be borne more proportionately?

>Second, you as the developer have a simple means of preventing behavior you don't want in your game--just code that behavior out.

Since when has that been simple? If you can't specify the behaviour then you can't code it out without coding something else out, too. I can "code out" having male players hitting on female players by removing either all communication or all players, but I can't get much more surgically precise than that.

>Don't like people cursing at others?

No, I don't like people cursing at strangers. I don't people cursing at their friends.

>Then either develop a better profanity filter, hire more GMs

Hiring GMs isn't "coding it out" any more than fining people for swearing is.

>The point is that you don't have the right (ethically at least; I'm not a lawyer) to fine people just because you don't like their behavior.

I can throw them out of my game if I don't like their behaviour, and they could lose lots of money as a result (in virtual inventory). Why can't I also charge them for the time and effort it took to get rid of them?

>There's a reason that, generally speaking, only governments get to do that.

"Generally speaking" does allow for exceptions, though. For example, it's a very widespread activity in the UK for professional sports teams to fine their players if they misbehave, eg. don't turn up to training, punch an opponent on the field of play, foment dressing-room unrest by bad-mouthing the club in a newspaper. Some soccer clubs will routinely fine players a week's wages if they get sent off, for example.

>As a developer you are accepting the possibility of profane language when you design a game space where profanity is possible. It is simply unreasonable to expect otherwise. And because that expectation is unreasonable, it is unreasonable to charge their credit cards involuntarily.

Profanity is possible in a court of law, yet if I stood up and started swearing I'd be done for contempt. No "if you didn't want me to swear you should have made me wear a gag" argument is going to save me.

It's unreasonable to expect that the people who moderate a space are not allowed to impose sanctions on those who act immoderately.

>You can ban them all you like, but you can't fine them.

Why not, if they agreed when they visited the space that I could do this?

>Third, it is absolutely unethical to abuse the trust that your customers have placed in you when they submitted their credit card information.

OK, so how about if you always give a warning before you fine people? They've signed the EULA, they know you CAN fine them, but they also know that you won't fine them when they ban your account for a week, just when you've already been banned for a week and then you do something else that would have got you banned for a week. Would that work? After all, if you don't want to be fined you can always quit during that first period of banning.

>This trust is abused when you start levying fines against people you've banned--you have already refused them service, you don't get to pick their pockets on the way out the door.

What trust is being abused? They were trusting that they could damage your virtual world and get away with it?

>This trust is similarly abused when you start using their credit card information to try and accumlate information about their credit or other personal information, what kinds of transactions they engage in, etc.

Yes, I agree. This is moving into the territory of Jessica's new post, of course.

>It is also unethical to charge people for things without giving them any recourse to dispute those charges.

They do have such recourse - the courts. If they think the terms of the EULA don't cover what they were fined for, they can sue (just as they can if they think the EULA doesn't cover what they were banned for).

>And what protection is there for the consumer when the MMO operator starts paying GMs comissions on fines levied for behavioral 'infractions'?

What protection is there now from GMs who are paid for the number of RMTers they find and ban?

>If that's how one feels, maybe you should consider another line of work.

I didn't say this is how I felt - I'm pretty well playing devil's advocate here. That's not to say that some developer wouldn't decide to implement such charges, though.

>People are not going to give you a credit card knowing that you are going to charge 'fines' against them at your sole discretion, even upon refusing them access to you service.

Well, the ones who like to sail close to the wind might not, yes. For others, there are plenty of people who think "if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear". That's how so much anti-terror legislation has been passed in recent years, for example.

Richard

21.

I have to agree with Richard that people would be less likely to sue than some here assume.
-The money in question is less than the cost of a filing.
-The MMO need only show that the person
-accepted the agreement, which listed the "administrative fees"
and actions that would cause them
-that one of these actions was made by a person on that account
(note: log files )

Personally, I've seen alot of banned people blowing ALOT of hot air in forums, but most bluster with confidence only because they know that the privacy policy usually bars the developer from speaking about the actual event and decision making process.

Is it unethical? There are service fees charged all the time for "termination of service" orders that don't require anything more than flipping a switch. Hotels charge for damages. Private country clubs often have rules of conduct and violations of these rules can incur ejection or (in some cases) financial fees to retain good standing. Too many people assume that just because something isn't currently being done, the accepted norm is "ethical" and the other is "unethical."

>It is also unethical to charge people for things without giving them any recourse to dispute those charges.

They do. If they disagree, they can call their card company and dispute the charges. The developer could then show the card company the consent form, the activity log, and the card issuer would determine whether the agreed upon contract met their terms of use. If it did, and the charges went in, the person could then appeal to courts.

>Third, it is absolutely unethical to abuse the trust that your customers have placed in you when they submitted their credit card information.

Where's the abuse of trust. When you submitted the card for payment, you were informed on what conduct would result in administrative punishment and charges for damages.

Coding out the behavior doesn't work- just look at the limits of "child protection" software. You protect kids from Porn but now someone can't do a paper on breast cancer or a company that makes 'chemical strippers' is blocked. Content filters can be bypassed. Animations that COULD have merit to the game can be applied differently.

A developer is within his rights to decide that a certain feature is beneficial to the game, include it, but, knowing it can be misused, prohibit the misuse of the power. They can say, " PvP is good. Serial stalking is prohibited."

----
I don't think there are any ethical or legal issues to this. I think it's more of a market consideration. How will the market respond to this? Are the terms explicitly defined enough, or will people become less expressive and creative out of fear of unexpected fees? (or quit in protest)

I don't like the idea of fees, but I've also come to believe that many MMO players behave... well..., like sociopaths... because they don't have any real-world consequences for their actions. Fines likely aren't the answer, but if virtual communities are to develop to be more than a virtual "lord of the flies" we might need a more tangible real-world deterrent.

22.

Back in the real world, if you pursued this strategy for (what? revenue? deterrernce?) you would need several full-time employees to interface with the credit card companies and fight chargeback claims. I don't care if you can prevail in a court of law -- the transaction cost of dealing with a chargeback is higher than the any of the fees being contemplated here. I worked in customer service back in the day and know management viewed a fifteen minute chat between me and the customer as costing them about $12 (partly my salary, partly expense accounting for the infrastructure supporting me). Dealing with a single chargeback can take hours of time spread over several days of an investigatory process -- and, as compared to a lawsuit, the barrier to a chargeback is a single telephone call ("Hello, Mastercard? I just got the notice that this video game company billed me $50. No, I don't know why it happened -- I used to have a subscription with them for $13 a month but cancelled it two weeks ago. I'd like to dispute the charge. Thanks.") Additionally, high rates of chargebacks will get you in trouble with the merchant bank which you're contracted with (this is a vewwwwy vewwwy bad thing). Supposing, for example, your GMs (who are semi-trained monkeys who understand, at best, the GMing policies only, not the firm's overall picture) very enthusiastically enforce the bannings in the wake of a major exploit or farming cleanup campaign. You ban 1000 players, generating 500 chargebacks. Your merchant bank is going to IMMEDIATELY start asking questions, and likely hit *you* with a financial penalty (such as increasing the cut they take out of every $13 -- you DON'T WANT THAT).

23.

>Hotels charge for damages. Private country clubs often have rules of conduct and violations of these rules can incur ejection or (in some cases) financial fees to retain good standing. Too many people assume that just because something isn't currently being done, the accepted norm is "ethical" and the other is "unethical."

Hotel damages are not analogous to the charges under discussion so they don't stand as a counterexample.

Private country clubs are just that, private. MMOs are public. Big difference, both legally and ethically. Also, the charters of private clubs like country clubs are typically VERY explicit not only in proscribed behavior but have built-in appeal mechanisms WITHIN the country club system. They do not adopt the attitude that Richard's hypothetical exhibits--namely, 'If you don't like the fine, sue me.'

>It is also unethical to charge people for things without giving them any recourse to dispute those charges.

>>They do. If they disagree, they can call their card company and dispute the charges.

That's not offering a mechanism for recourse. That's forcing customers to seek recourse elsewhere. Big difference ethically speaking.

>Where's the abuse of trust. When you submitted the card for payment, you were informed on what conduct would result in administrative punishment and charges for damages.

Not in Richard's hypothetical. Perhaps you are assuming that any such system employed by an MMO provider would supply such information. I don't think we can make that assumption, especially given the way EULAs are handled currently, for example.

>Coding out the behavior doesn't work-

Well, coding out chat altogether sure would stop profanity. The point is that the developer enables their game space. Therefore the burden is on them to design that space so that legal but undesirable use of that space (using profanity in chat for example) is not possible. In other words, I don't think that MMOs have the right to enable chat communication and then set themselves up as police for what speech is acceptable. Harassment of others via speech is different, of course. That's harassment. Any proprietor can refuse service to people who are clearly and directly harassing the proprietor's patrons. If the problem is harassment, then by all means hire more GMs, whatever.

>A developer is within his rights to decide that a certain feature is beneficial to the game, include it, but, knowing it can be misused, prohibit the misuse of the power. They can say, " PvP is good. Serial stalking is prohibited."

I agree. But implementation, reasonableness and responsibility are what's at issue here, not the right of MMOs to make rules about behavior. If, for example, the game developer knows the feature can be misused and there exists a reasonably simple means of preventing the misuse, the onus is on the dev to deploy it--by, for example, putting counters on character kills. If a character gets killed by the same assasin more than a certain number of times in a given period, that character becomes immune to PvP from that assasin.

Simply denying that there are ethical dimensions to running a public space like an MMO is not only bad argument, but it runs counter to the history of commercial public spaces and the ethical obligations of their proprietors (in the U.S).

24.

Like most other commenters, I doubt the "fine" use of an on-hand credit card would work without serious side effects.

I'm more inclined toward the ideas suggested by Nate Combs and Mike Sellers.

In the EULA, tell subscribers that rates will be based on a sliding scale, then offer a short but not complete list of the kinds of things that can affect the rate. Things that can increase a rate would fall into one of two categories:

1. Enhanced services (higher support level, goodies, etc.). These would only be applied if explicitly activated by the customer.

2. Increased work (Customer Support warnings, or more than, say, 10 CS support actions within a month). These rate increases could be applied by the operators at their discretion.

If the customer wants enhanced support or special features, let them have them... and let them pay more for those things. As long as the increase is reasonable (i.e., not your primary profit center), this is supportable.

And if the customer's in-game actions cause extra work for your CS staff on a regular basis (say, three warnings within any month, or even one if you want to be tough), bump the monthly rate by 20%, effective as of the next charge cycle. Again, this is entirely supportable -- if a customer is increasing your costs, there's nothing unreasonable about asking that customer to help defray some or all of those costs.

(One possible problem with increasing a rate for more than N in-game calls to customer support is that you might cause your best unpaid game testers to stop using the CS system to alert you to problems. OTOH, if you have an in-game bug reporting system, then that's probably what people should be using, anyway.)

Finally, I note that some credit card companies themselves have a similar policy -- every time you're late making a payment, the monthly minimum payment goes up a little. So this kind of automatic rate increase is not unprecedented.

I think these approaches would be accepted, but casting a charge as a "fine" would not. Like the others, I suspect that would just lead to howls of outrage.

--Bart

25.

You can't take money from a credit card when it's done over the net.

Instant chargebacks and you lose your merchant account.

I suppose you could have someone send in copies of their passport/ drivers license and sign their life away.. and then you might be able to.

Good luck with that!

26.

Verified by visa only works when you have proof of physical delivery.

When you can't prove a service has been delivered (and boy oh boy, no service has been delivered above, that's for sure!) the ability to get a chargeback is trivial.

No one does this simply because the CC companies will not let you. They operate on far to thin a margin to allow for these shennagins and the CSR hell they create, not to mention the fear it would strike into consumers hearts about handing over their CC number.

27.

Richard wrote:

> So most of the accounts that are closed down (for reasons other than non-payment of subscription) are from people who weren't going to pay their subscription that month anyway?

A significant portion of M59 players who are regular troublemakers also have some credit card fraud. I suspect this is because we ban by credit card information, so if you want to sign up with a new account you need new credit card information. Therefore, many people resort to fake/stolen information, particularly younger customers who do not have their own credit card.

I suspect that you'd see this happen in a system where you penalized the credit card for bad behavior. Repeat offenders, the people you really want to stop with these measures, would just resort to using false information.

I think the best chance you have of implementing this, as mentioned above, is to use account shutdowns liberally then charge a fee for re-activating the account. That way the customer has to approve the charge. You might still have troubles with credit card fraud, but you have a bit more defense in the case of a chargeback.

My thoughts,

28.

Hah, the benefit of TN:

Upon learning about Chris Allen's article on the Dunbar Number to his recent post on Dunbar, Altruistic Punishment, and Meta-Moderation, the solution to Richard's situation.

Perhaps allow players the punish other, but at some cost to themselves.

The article:
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2005/03/dunbar_altruist.html

29.

Oh and the ability to punish those who does not participate in self-policing....

Hmm, the article is better than I in explaining the theory.

The comments to this entry are closed.