South Korean law to punish boosters passes in the National Assembly
dotesports.com
dotesports.com
Bragging rights as far as I can tell.
There are a few games where boosting helps (helped?) you gain higher tier items. In WoW TBC my team would sell spots on our teams. The buyer would stand around in a corner while my 2s/3s partner and I would play 2v3 win maybe 8-9 out of 10 games, and the buyer would then be rewarded with in-game currency used to buy items they wouldn't be able to get on their own. Eventually Blizzard patched the game and changed the rules so that it was not possible to boost without account sharing, so we stopped.
But, as far as I can tell that's usually an exceptional situation, and most of the time it's exactly what you describe - bragging rights that would quickly disappear if you tried to play on your own, because you'd tank your rating.
example, recent highest difficulty full carries, where your character basically just dies at the start of each encounter so you don't screw up the mechanics, was going for more than ten million gold. With blizzard tokens returning about 110k/200k US/EU in gold that adds up unless the player has amassed that. There are end runs on the in game gold with very scripted in game conversations and money exchanged outside of game.
usually the reward is better gear but many do it for the achievements; these have become a cancer in my opinion in the gaming world; to special items like mounts and titles only obtainable to those who can do the content and do it in a timely manner.
We couldn't pull anyone past top 5% or so 2v3, so mounts were infeasible.
I totally believe that a lot of people would be doing that for real money though.
"Boosting" is most common in team games, where some players believe they're being "held back" by their low-rank teams, and believe that having their account boosted will allow them to join the ranks of players that they belong in.
In practice, they're always wrong. All that a boosted account means is that the boosted player will ruin a bunch of games for other players until they drift back down to their true skill.
Many of the people in government right now were probably into competitive gaming back then, so it makes sense that relatively more interest would go into gaming-related legislation.
Isn't that the case of most countries, at least in the West? If you look at the median age of most public officials (ministers and all), they are usually more likely to be in their 50,60s and 70s in some cases.
Before that it was a Japanese colony, and before that it was a die-hard confucian kingdom that would out-Confucius contemporary China.
Old moralities die hard. (Think of how racism persists in the US, 150+ years after the Civil War.) It didn't help that we imported right-wing American Christian ideology wholesale after the Korean War. :/
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-main-differences-between-...
But actually they were quite compatible, come to think about it. Hard working will reward you, be obedient to your elders, your family and your country before you, men decide and women follow, yadda yadda.
Edit: Of course many American soldiers who fought weren't actually right-wing Christian evangelists, but we didn't know it then. Koreans didn't speak good English on 1953: our perception of America (and what it stood for) was warped by whoever was willing to learn Korean... and a lot of them did it to spread the gospel of Jesus, I guess.
There are plenty of other types of competitions where fraud carries legal penalties, after all.
Even stranger is how silent Western media is on such a dystopian law.
B) you make an almost impossible comparison to get to the resolution of
The freedom ideals in the US are part of a social contract that sometimes is reflected by judges to nullify laws that undermine that social contract, but the contract itself is part of a meme - like the pledge of allegiance - made for children in the 1940s to boost morale and national identity in a time where it made a real difference.
The nuances of the 55+ sovereign institutions in the US can never be simplified that easily.
weev was put in jail because he wittingly conspired with others to steal AT&T customer data via a vulnerability on their website. In his correspondence with journalists and IRC logs surrounding the event he went out of his way to make abundantly clear that he was fully aware that this access was unauthorized.
At the time, weev himself described his actions as "theft".
You could sum a SQL injection attack down to "accessed a public url structure in an unintended manner", but that'd just be terribly dishonest.
I agree there's a continuum from hitting URLs with predictable structures to blatant hostility like SQL injections, but the problem with the CFAA is that it doesn't draw a clear line on that continuum.
I'm not sure why the third circuit would be relevant at all in this conversation to be honest.
I don't see where the "stuff about freedom" comes in here.
Smurfing and boosting are kind of similar (boosting does twice as much damage: account goes up, then it falls down). Smurfing sometimes causes damage for fun, boosting causes damage for money.
"Damage for fun" is relative. Maybe it is a part of the game.
But "damage for money" means that it's an open system now, and some people have jobs to damage the matchmaking.
Meanwhile, this has given way to lots of “dialogues” where the dictatorship asks you to mark a check box for how you feel about being tracked, which is of course tracked. The deception being that even when you reply “NOT OK” there is no real effect. The pixels are there. The cookie is there. You are on camera, being recorded for QA purposes. This call will be reviewed for training purposes.
This differs from opting out of mailing lists, where they stop emailing you. Opting to respond with disdain for tracking does nothing to change whether you get watched.
But I am curious about what shows up in their log.
I'd love to send "fuck no", but have no clue how one might do that. And I'm guessing that "yes" is the only possible value.
More likely, duration of stay, IP and cookies cross-referenced from other sources are the only things they look at.
Instead of recording your response as to whether you enjoy getting kneecapped, they just let you scream into a sound-proofed vacuum. But hey, at least you're not bound and gagged.
I did look at the code, but over my head.
Let's say that you have accounts with two providers, VPNA and VPNB. So you always connect first to a VPNA server, and then through that to a VPNB server. Given that each provider likely has many servers, there are likely hundreds of possible chains. Not all of them will work well, for whatever reasons, but enough to be useful.
What action(s) is/are specifically outlawed?
Assuming there's direct evidence, how would this be legally-enforced?
What's the recourse for lower-ranked players who are kicked out based on this law but didn't do anything for gain, say a spouse who was invited to participate for social reasons but doesn't play very often?
Do we really need a law?