Microsoft labels autisitic child a cheater on Xbox live.

Post Reply New Topic

@MrLooney, This hasn't set any precedent. This has always been the case and the child deserves to be labelled a cheater and have the account reset just like anybody else would. You unlock the Recon armour by completing all the VidMaster achievements on Halo 3 and Halo ODST (well, that's the easiest way) and undoubtedly he gave his account details so that the other person could Mark them as complete (I don't know how this is done but I've heard of it quite a bit before where somebody has earned many online achievements offline) and therefore get Recon. I'm also quite sure that this is said in the Xbox Terms of Service you agree to when you join Xbox live. As for people stating he didn't know that it would be against the terms of service, does that mean that if I pirate lots of movies and get caught that me stating that I didn't know it was illegal is perfectly fine?

Honestly, I don't see why this should be treated any differently than any other person caught cheating. He cheated and was labelled as a cheater, I don't see why him being autustic makes any difference.

This is the main point for me. His getting special treatment for breaking the rules implies that we need special rules because we are too damaged or stupid to comply with the ones that the rest of the world abides by. I find this insulting and degrading. I would never use my child's ASD status in an attempt to get him a free pass at flouting the law.

This is difficult for me to understand. For me, a video game is still "West of House. There is a mailbox here."

I have questions:

1. Did the boy really break the rules of play?

2. Can he be held accountable for breaking the rules of play (ie. does he have the mental capacity to understand the rules of play)?

3. Should his mother be held accountable for not monitoring her son's activities and understanding the rules of play for him if he is incapable?

4. Why does MS use a Scarlet Letter approach to labeling people who violate the rules of play? Why don't they suspend them from playing?

5. Can MS be held accountable for damages suffered from loss of socialization and the stigmatizing because of this Scarlet Letter branding if the boy cannot be held accountable for cheating or if he was not cheating?

6. Why are minors allowed to play these things anyway? He's only 11!

7. Shouldn't MS have a special age-appropriate section to its Live whatever thing for minors so they can only communicate and compete among peers?

8. Wouldn't this boy be better served in a Chess Club?

There's so much of this that I'm missing here.

Indeed.

The Terms of Service for the use of XBox Live and Halo multiplayer are pretty clear, and you have to certify that you've read them (whether you've actually read them is another question, but it's hardly Microsoft's fault if you don't bother to learn the rules). Use of an XBox Live gamertag requires that you know the login info for the account, and the email address and password used when the account was set up, in order to transfer the gamertag to your machine. Use of "bots" to play the game for you, manipulation of internet connectivity to grant one an advantage (say, being host for the game, and simulating lag so that you can move while everyone else is frozen), use of private servers for hosting, and offline data manipulation are all specifically forbidden in the rules. So yes, this young man knew exactly what he was doing, he knew what his friend had planned, they both knew it was against the rules, and it was not an accident.

Banning occurs because cheaters don't change - they never think that what they did was really wrong. They often fail to understand that everyone playing is paying for the privilege, and that their activities are spoiling others' entertainment. Unless forced to stop by locking out the account (or, in extreme cases, the machine or IP address), they will keep at it. (Yes, I've known a couple. I thought I was going to have to get violent with one to keep him from installing a lag switch on my XBox.)

Minors are "allowed to play" because there isn't really any very effective way to keep them out - my five-year-old can do everything needed to access the game except putting the disk in (as the XBox is on a shelf), and that's not much of a limitation if one of the Halo disks is in at the time. (Admittedly, he's not very good at it, but he entertains himself, and the other players get a lot of free kills...) We're really into the "free speech" thing here in the States. Now, perhaps his mother should be held accountable as well, but since she doesn't have an account, there's not a lot they can do to her.

In the new (and final) Halo game, Reach, it is possible for a player to set their preferences so they only get matched with certain player profiles (I have mine set for "mature, quiet, team player"), but if one elects not to set preferences, one can be matched with anybody, and of course that isn't part of the code on the earlier installations.

What I'm missing from this (and people seem to keep assuming is one way):

1. Did he know what was required to get the recon armor?

2. Did he know what the other guy was going to do to get it for him?

The assumption people are making is yes on both counts.

Thanks DeaconBlues for answering some of my questions.

No, I think what the rest of us who are members of the Microsoft XBox Live community are saying is that ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. It doesn't work for traffic law, state and federal statute or civil proceedings and it should not work here. It's a minor offense and was punished appropriately, I take offense at the people who assume he couldn't possibly know better because he is autistic. So am I.

Well you're about 25 years behind lady, only a tiny minority still plays Zork.

Was that really called for?

Er... personally I happen to think that yes the rules apply even if you don't know them, having played other games online that could be wrecked by cheaters.

But.

The part about not knowing better because he's autistic? Totally possible. Just because you would have known better doesn't mean he would have. I wouldn't have at his age. What I find bizarre is that you think that just because you or your kids would have known better, that he would know better, just because you happen to share a label.

As a kid my comprehension (including language comprehension and many more complex forms of comprehension) lagged far behind my apparent abilities. So far behind that as far as I was concerned, I was just like... a bubble, floating through space, bouncing around, barely understanding what was going on, only that certain things were required and that I must do those certain things (which produced a surface appearance that to some people didn't suggest how far behind my brain was lagging). I would have been much older before I'd have figured out anything that complex. And I bet that there are things I knew at a certain age that you didn't know either. That's why all autistic people are not identical in what our abilities and understanding of the world is. And it's really not insulting to you to say that I or some other autistic person might not have understood the things you would understand at that age.

I assume he missed the subtle irony in my statement. It's okay. It doesn't hurt anything if he actually thinks that I really think Zork is the height of video game technology and that he must inform me otherwise. I even got a kick out of the eye roll and the use of "lady".

Hey, I got to render some people speechless in a chat room last night. We'd been discussing ages, and one of them said, "Deacon's so old he played Pac-Man."

I responded, "Pac-Man? I'm so old, I remember Pong in the arcades!"

Someone had to dig up a picture of Nolan Bushnell posing next to one of the machines before they'd believe there actually was a Pong arcade game...

Yes, it was meant as a joke. Now I shall redeem myself by answering your questions:

1. Did the boy really break the rules of play?
Technically the person he let use his account broke the rules, but it was his account. Still, the rules were broken, and his account was punished accordingly.

2. Can he be held accountable for breaking the rules of play (ie. does he have the mental capacity to understand the rules of play)?
That is a good question, and it is possible that he didn't properly understand them. On one side, he (indirectly) broke specific rules, and was punished for "his" actions. On the other hand, many people feel sorry for the boy because of his autism, and think he shouldn't be punished. So either Microsoft sticks by their rules like a heartless corporation, or break the rules to make a little boy happy, and there are pros and cons of each in this case.

3. Should his mother be held accountable for not monitoring her son's activities and understanding the rules of play for him if he is incapable?
If the boy were to be found unaccountable for breaking the rules, then yes she should, and it should be decided that it is not the boy's fault that he was labelled a cheater. If he indeed does understand the rules and there being consequences, then the kid himself should be held accountable, and he should remain being labelled a cheater.

4. Why does MS use a Scarlet Letter approach to labeling people who violate the rules of play? Why don't they suspend them from playing?
No idea what a "Scarlet Letter approach" is, nor could I find anything about it on Google, but they do ban some people, for more serious offenses, like modding ones Xbox. That means that they have voided the warranty, broken the EULA or whatever it's called, and are illegally downloading and playing games. In those cases they are banned from playing any game online I believe.

5. Can MS be held accountable for damages suffered from loss of socialization and the stigmatizing because of this Scarlet Letter branding if the boy cannot be held accountable for cheating or if he was not cheating?
They should not be held accountable for the boy cheating in a game, but it is however up to them if they want to be kind and make it up to the boy (which they have in some way, by giving him a free month of the service), but they aren't obligated to.

6. Why are minors allowed to play these things anyway? He's only 11!
Because it's not against the law. It is against the law to sell a mature or adults-only game to a minor, but neither is a minor buying one (like on the internet) nor playing one against the law.

8. Wouldn't this boy be better served in a Chess Club?
Possibly, but playing chess isn't much more productive than playing video games, it's just a game too. You may even be more likely to make money off of gaming than chess nowadays.

It's a bit sad how little current gamers know about past video games. I'm sure very few could tell you that the first real video game was Tennis for Two on the oscilloscope.

I'm referencing The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It's a book about a woman in the 17th century who has an affair and a baby. She refuses to name the father so as punishment for her sin, she must wear the scarlet red letter "A" on her chest. This way everyone knew of her sin and she could receive public shame for it.

The boy is labeled a cheater for all to see.

Hence, a Scarlet Letter approach.



It ought to be in the TOS, I think. But that's just me. I don't think kids should be able to play games that are not rated for them.